< August 10 August 12 >

August 11

Category:Four Star Television

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Four Star Television to Category:Television series by Four Star Productions and Purge. --Xdamrtalk 20:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Four Star Television to Category:Television series by Four Star Productions
Nominator's rationale: The current category is simultaneously serving as both a "television series by studio" category — which is valid, but needs to be named for consistency with other such categories — and a category for actors who starred in those series — which violates WP:OCAT as "performer by performance". I thus propose that we rename the category, keeping the television series in it, but remove the actors. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American television series based on non-American television series

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. --Xdamrtalk 16:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American television series based on non-American television series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OCAT by "things that are both X and Y". Note also several specific-country-of-origin subcategories. Do we really need any of these? Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Books made into films

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Books made into films to Category:Books adapted into films. --Xdamrtalk 20:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Books made into films to Category:Books adapted into films
Nominator's rationale: Rename. More professional phrasing. Also, for consistency with its subcat Category:Novels adapted into films. Cybercobra (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notice See also previous CfDs on July 25 and earlier today (below on this same page). --Cybercobra (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Since this rejiggering is kind of my fault, I've notified the users who commented in the debate of the same name today but have not yet commented in this one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have likewise notified the remaining commenters from the original CfD. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Delete/Merge?[edit]
  • That a book is re-released in conjunction with a film adaptation is nothing more than marketing. Otto4711 (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither Occuli nor I !voted to keep the novels category. I !voted to delete it and we both opposed merging the novels category to this one. Not the same thing as a straight keep !vote. Otto4711 (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the delete vote, but whatever. It is not the same thing as your position here either, not that it matters much. Why this should go and novels stay has not been addressed here. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the July 25 CFD for Category:Novels made into films, the proposal was made to merge the novels category to the books category. My first comment, timestamped 10:17 25 July, was in opposition to the merge based on how "novel" and "book" are used in categorization but expressed misgivings over the definingness of being adapted into a film. My second comment, immediately below the first and timestamped 20:44 29 July was a !vote to delete the category. My position there, as here, has consistently been that neither category should exist but if they do exist then novels and books should be categorized separately. Otto4711 (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The film, based on the book by..." is an enormous enhancement of media coverage and popularity? Otto4711 (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see your point. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that frequently, if not generally, the media coverage of a book in relation to the film based on it is the phrase "based on the novel by..." in the reviews. This hardly represents a groundswell of media coverage for the book. And again, without evidence comments about the impact being made into a film has on a book's popularity or sales is speculation. Otto4711 (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speculation about the supposed impact of being made into a film is just that, speculation. Otto4711 (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not speculation. This is invariably the case. And very much so. Debresser (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to bite. "Sez who?" Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are easily dismissed at CfD, but hot off the presses (and the screen) comes "'Julia' cleans up 'Julie' among readers" "Publisher Alfred A. Knopf has ordered an additional 75,000 copies of 'Mastering,' which on Monday was sold out on Amazon." Apparently the defining connection between the Mastering the Art of French Cooking and a film that celebrates it does seem have a connection after all. I'd supply further sources if there was any evidence that they would dissuade the naysayers. Chew well. Alansohn (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Julie and Julia is not based on Mastering the Art of French Cooking. It is based on memoirs by Julia Child and Julie Powell. Are we now going to start Category:Books celebrated in films? Otto4711 (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't doubting that it could be true in certain cases—no doubt it is. I was asking about the "invariably" part. I don't think we have any evidence that this has happened in every single case or that it's some sort of natural law that it will always happen. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The standard is not to prove that anything happens in all cases, and this arbitrary standard is one that can never be met. I had pulled a page out of my local paper to work on an article and there was an ad for The Time Traveler's Wife, based on the 2003 novel of the same name, with the ad proudly noting that the movie is "from the acclaimed bestseller - now #1 on The New York Times Best Seller List". Apparently, reliable sources as well as readers believe the connection to be defining, but a simple "is not" is sufficient to delete the category. Is there any standard to establish definingness, or is this just an arbitrary game? Alansohn (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising copy hardly rises to the level of an independent reliable source, given that it is generated by people directly involved with the book, the film or both. Otto4711 (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd prefer to hear from the person who made the sweeping claim that "invariably" a film being based on a book has an impact on the book's level of sales. Feel free to go on your tangent, Alansohn, but it's not really addressing my initial question. Note that I didn't "set" this arbitrary standard, but it's one that Debresser claimed existed. If he or you can't back up the statement, then that answers my question. (Note that I haven't voted to delete and don't intend to, so my question was not an attempt to justify deletion, as you may have have interpreted it—not everyone views CfD discussions in a stark, confrontational, either/or fashion. I just wanted clarification on an extraordinarily broad claim.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Kept, Rename?[edit]


The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Symptoms of bipolar disorder

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. --Xdamrtalk 16:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Symptoms of bipolar disorder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a follow-up to the deletion discussion for Cat:Symptoms of obsessive–compulsive disorder. This category has the same problems. It includes many specific symptoms, like Insomnia and Melancholia, which may or may not be a symptom of bipolar disorder in any given patient. It is the cumulative nature of individual symptoms that allows for a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, and because of this categorization of symptom by disease doesn't really "work". The issue is covered, as it should be, in the article Current diagnostic criteria for bipolar disorder. This is essentially just a conglomeration of articles about symptoms that link from that article. There is also Template:Bipolar_disorder, which lists symptoms. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:IATA-indexed railway stations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. --Xdamrtalk 20:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:IATA-indexed railway stations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The contents are in no way indexed by IATA code. In this case, the list is sufficient. If kept, rename to Category:Railway stations that have an IATA code. The lead article, List of IATA-indexed railway stations, probably needs a rename also. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Railway stations linked to airports by bus

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. --Xdamrtalk 16:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Railway stations linked to airports by bus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Following the deletion of Railway stations by served venue, I would argue that this is an even more blatant example of a non-defining relationship between a train station and an airport. Created by an admin, too, no less – who should be forced to forfeit part of his enormous admin's salary as punishment, I would also argue. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not exactly a defining characteristic for a railway station. I'll be expecting my part of the cash shortly after this one is closed. Jafeluv (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jafeluv, nothing defining about this trivial connection. oknazevad (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I think the proximity issue -- and plain old common sense -- is so important. Here in Montreal we have a similar situation to Penn Station with our Central Station, which also has a $9 bus link to the airport, about 15 miles away. (BTW, pretty sure there's buses that leave from the downtown side of Grand Central to LaGuardia and JFK, too.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:UFL Las Vegas players

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. --Xdamrtalk 16:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:UFL Las Vegas players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Team has been named the Las Vegas Locomotives and the category already exists for them at Category:Las Vegas Locomotives players. ►Chris NelsonHolla! 18:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:UFL San Francisco players

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. --Xdamrtalk 16:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UFL San Francisco players to Category:California Redwoods players
Nominator's rationale: Team name has been announced, as seen here. ►Chris NelsonHolla! 18:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fritzl case

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fritzl case (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only one article categorized, nominated for deletion; few other articles would fit, so it's a poor category to have. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two articles categorized for the time being, and I can think of several articles that would fit in, this is an extremely major and complex case. (Also note that Commons has a Category:Fritzl case) Bob Cooper III (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:State libraries and archives of the United States

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: split. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:State libraries and archives of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete and split into Category:State libraries of the United States and Category:State archives of the United States. I created this category about a year ago, and now I think it would be a good idea to split it, because libraries and archives are two very different types of institutions. (Note that some of the institutions in the current category would fit into both of the proposed new categories.) Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 18:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Railway stations serving airports

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename per nom. --Xdamrtalk 00:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Railway stations serving airports to Category:Airport railway stations
Category:Railway stations serving airports in Australia to Airport railway stations in Australia
Category:Railway stations serving airports in Canada to Airport railway stations in Canada
Category:Railway stations serving airports in France to Airport railway stations in France
Category:Railway stations serving airports in Japan to Airport railway stations in Japan
Category:Railway stations serving airports in Norway to Airport railway stations in Norway
Category:Railway stations serving airports in Russia to Airport railway stations in Russia
Category:Railway stations serving airports in South Korea to Airport railway stations in South Korea
Category:Railway stations serving airports in the United Kingdom to Airport railway stations in the United Kingdom
Category:Railway stations serving airports in the United States to Airport railway stations in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename following the deletion of Railway stations by served venue, suggest we simplify the name. The rename will fit better into the mastercats Category:Airport rail links and the just-added Category:Railway stations, the latter of which tends to use "FOO railway stations" for its subcategories. I think it might also help avoid the still-lingering vagueness about how distant stations might be said to "serve" airports, making it clearer that there needs to be a physical connection of some kind. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Books made into films

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Administrative close. The same proposal was just made and was closed as "no consensus", and this discussion is essentially going down the identical path. Please re-read the close for a suggestion on how to best approach this in a new nomination. There are two separate questions that users care about, each of which needs to be addressed. The first questions is "keep vs. delete?". The second question is "if kept, do we rename?". We can't limit a CfD to one question or the other, so as I suggested before it may be helpful to have a discussion with two separate sections where each question can be addressed individually. If we do that, we should be able to easily identify a separate consensus (or lack thereof) respecting each of the two questions, instead of the mish-mash-type discussion we've had up to this point in both discussions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SEE IMMEDIATE RENOMINATION HERE
Propose renaming Category:Books made into films to Category:Books adapted into films
Nominator's rationale: Since kept in deletion, proposing renaming to a more appropriate name; same as has been proposed with the novel subcategory -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lesbian and bisexual Playboy Playmates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. --Xdamrtalk 16:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lesbian and bisexual Playboy Playmates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category has a single entry. No reason to categorize just one item. Dismas|(talk) 10:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The category did have two more entries. Stephanie Adams was removed because the subject no longer identifies as lesbian and the other, Kymberly Herrin was removed by me because the source was a MySpace page which claims to belong to Herrin but we have no WP:RS that it's actually her page. Dismas|(talk) 10:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Humorous songs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge Category:Humorous songs to Category:Comedy songs. --Xdamrtalk 00:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Humorous songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Comedy songs, only more POVish. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why then are there separate categories Category:Humor and Category:Comedy then? There are also separate articles for Humour and Comedy. Yes comedy is humorous, but humour is not necessarily the same as comedy, for instance the Noel Coward songs referred to above. Comedy categories are always given as a subcategory of humurous categories, so I do not see a problem having the separate categories. If there is a merger it should be Category:Comedy songs to Category:Humorous songs, as the latter category is more inclusive. Cjc13 (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends on how you are defining "comedy songs". I am tempted to say that comedy songs are songs that make you laugh and humorous songs are songs that make you smile. It is noticeable that some articles use the description of a song as humorous and others use the term comedy song, which seems to indicate a difference. It would seem reasonable to use the appropriate category according to what term is used in the article concerned. I would suggest comedy songs are songs with broad humour whereas humourous songs are more witty than comic. Cjc13 (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Evansville Aces soccer players

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Evansville Aces soccer players to Category:Evansville Purple Aces men's soccer players. --Xdamrtalk 16:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Evansville Aces soccer players to Category:Evansville Purple Aces men's soccer players
Nominator's rationale: Rename because of the following:
  • The correct school nickname is "Purple Aces", not just "Aces". Although the school does use "Aces" as a short form, it more commonly uses "Purple Aces"; its official athletics site reflects this — gopurpleaces.com. See also Category:Evansville Purple Aces basketball and its subcats.
  • All of the players in this category are men. The school has a women's team as well.
Thanks... — Dale Arnett (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More