< May 29	May 31 >

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. Courcelles (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional United States Representatives to Category:Fictional members of the United States House of Representatives

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose matching name format to parent Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:34, 30 May 2010 (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.

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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete or Rename Problematic category creator User:Nopetro has created a new ID for himself as User:Nudecline and also created this opaquely named category for the Traffic Message Channel technology. At present, there are just three articles: the parent and two on multinational corporations that happen to manufacture these systems, among other things. In the parent article, I do not see internal links to articles on individual Traffic Message Channel systems. If they can be found, rename this category to Category:Traffic Message Channel systems or some such. If they do not exist, delete until such time as they do. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I believe User:Nopetro/User:Nudecline has tipped his hand that he is banned User:Mac and I have made a SOCK report accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The creator has added other technology manufacturing companies and makes of cars that can receive traffic message channel info -- but other than that, my rationale stands. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I have announce in my page that I use my right to change my name to Nudecline. Of course this is not sock of any class, as the mentioned Mac, that is also closed. This is your bad faith. On the other hand, you make RFD for all category I create without reason. If in a moment there are few article, Wikipedia is a living beeing that changes and expands. So, if there are a lot of article that are not included in a determinated moment, this does not means that all them cannot be include later (this would be a short vision). In any case, the name of the category is right and there is not need to change to other one (in the future, if needed, one can create more subcategories; but by now, it is not necessary).--Nudecline (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, Rename to Category:Traffic Message Channel or Category:Traffic Message Channel systems based on the contents when this closes. If kept, the parent categories probably need to be reduced and cleaned up. However I'm leaning towards Delete after looking at the included articles. If seems that inclusion here is based on any mention of the main topic. So if a company has a few products that support this, the company is included here. My guess is that if the contents were cleaned up more most of the articles would be removed from the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vegaswikian. Doesn't seem to be that important for the articles included. Kind of an undue weight issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:16, 9 June 2010 (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.

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: Category was not tagged for deletion, so this will be

Relisted at 2010 JUN 21 CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Women and psychology

Nominator's rationale: There is no category Men and psychology. Having this category gives the impression that men are standard-humans, and women are exception-humans. Lova Falk talk 17:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I expanded it from 5 to 18 articles. The topic exists because of historical bias in psychology and especially psychoanalysis. Standard-human vs exception-human is not a bad description. The category covers mainstream feminine psychology and a critical perspective feminist psychology. See WP:Cat/gender. (See also male sexuality) --Pnm (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Where is the category "Men and psychology" so we can put male sexuality in it??? Lova Falk talk 08:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Category:Male sexuality would be useful since most of the male psych articles are completely about sexuality. (I think masculine psychology and testosterone poisoning are the only ones that aren't.) Subcategories would be Category:Male prostitution and Category:Male homosexuality --Pnm (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2010 (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.

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; the distinction can be re-created if necessary in the future. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Medical fiction to Category:Medicine and health in fiction

Nominator's rationale: I've just created and populated Category:Medicine and health in fiction, and I've just found this almost empty and abandoned category, which really falls into the same area. Fences&Windows 19:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say fiction about health is distinct from medical thrillers, etc. Medical experimentation, medical lawsuits, angels of mercy, etc have little to do with health (other than dying); while immortality, TB, AIDS fiction have less to do with medical than health. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's practically empty, and is subsumed into the new category. What's the point of keeping it? Your distinction between medical fiction and health fiction is not as good as distinction as you suggest. Fences&Windows 20:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it is rather distinct, and as for not being populated, that's because it needs populating. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 20:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I really don't see the point of keeping these separate. You could come up with a lot of different distinctions but if we divide it too much the underpopulated categories won't be that useful. What if we delete for now and then re-separate them back out if the overall cat gets too big? delldot ∇. 01:32, 9 June 2010 (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.

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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Seems redundant to other categories like Category:Health, Category:Exercise, etc. Seems to only exist for the purposes of a portal, but it's not being used and isn't necessary - probably as it's so vague what the category is meant for. Fences&Windows 18:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's a WP:WikiProject Health and fitness... 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't stop the category being vague and worthy of deletion, does it? Fences&Windows 20:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 20:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is redundant, we should put the categories most relevant to the pages in this category. e.g. the diet articles should be put in diet-related categories; it's kind of arbitrary what's in this category at the moment. delldot ∇. 01:35, 9 June 2010 (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.

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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Syndicalist women to Category:Syndicalists

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Syndicalists per WP:OC#ARBITRARY. While I'm generally in favour of occupations by women categories where relevant, being a syndicalist is not an "occupation." Furthermore, an inspection of sibling categories in the parent Category:People by political orientation reveals that in much larger category trees for Communists, Fascists, Socialists, etc., no women categories exist. I can't see a reason to make an exception for this tiny category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd expected when looking at the category to find the likes of Milly Witkop or perhaps Federica Montseny, but the sole article in the category, Nicole Notat, doesn't appear to be a syndicalist in the sense of Category:Syndicalists and the Syndicalism article - just another trade union leader now a CEO? So moving her out the category seems reasonable, and can leave it null and void. AllyD (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, one can change the personalities. Notat is not only a CEO, is an institucional politician. And a similar category exists in the French Wikipedia. In any case, it is important know there are also females in this fields. So, I am going to outcategorinzing Notat and include the proposed by you. In which category include the trade union female leaders?. Regards --Nopetro (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 20:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with merging. Of course there are also syndicalist women. There is nothing specific for all women syndicalists that makes them different from all men syndicalists, apart from their gender, which is irrelevant for syndicalism. Lova Falk talk 15:40, 31 May 2010 (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.

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: do not rename. There seems to be a consensus that these categories are intended to categorize soundtracks for films that are FOOian, not soundtracks by FOOian artists. A rename proposal that would clarify the categories' meanings may be appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Canadian film soundtracks to Category:Film soundtracks by Canadian artists

Propose renaming Category:New Zealand film soundtracks to Category:Film soundtracks by New Zealand artists

Propose renaming Category:Indian film soundtracks to Category:Film soundtracks by Indian artists

Propose renaming Category:American film soundtracks to Category:Film soundtracks by American artists

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_15#Albums_by_artist Alternate proposal: Delete and merge Cut out the "film" part and merge them to Category:Soundtracks_by_artist_nationality. Otherwise, we can create Category:Television soundtracks by American artists, Category:Video game soundtracks by American artists, etc. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is the nationality that of the artists or of the film. A soundtrack where an English actor who appears in a Hollywood-made film is surely still American. So the target should be Category:Soundtracks of American films, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the actors should matter at all. It should be best organised by the composer I think. Otherwise, I'm not really bothered about the move. ~~Considering the precendence of the way the previous nomination went, I'd err on the side of Support.~~ Munci (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unless someone with a detective talent re-categorizes each OST for each nation represented by its creators. Which would be a huge waste of time. But don't just simply equate "Made in Canada" to "Canadian artists". East of Borschov (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response Is it a waste of time to categorize albums by artist nationality? Either way, this scheme is going to exist, so I don't see why you're opposed to renaming it to conform with the larger scheme. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Imagine the effort necessary to verify citizenship of all members in an orchestra (of a certain setup on a certain recording date, which itself is seldom known). One of many represented in a ST. What's the point of listing the umpteen citizenships employed by, say, Vienna Philharmonic? Whether the scheme is going to exist or not, it's useless. East of Borschov (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There are Fooian films and there are soundtrack albums to those films. These categories appear to be the intersection of the categories Fooian films and Soundtracks (or more correctly Soundtrack albums). I don't entirely object to the creation of the other categories, although I'd prefer the more general Category:Soundtrack albums by Fooian artists. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. While I oppose this change, I believe the proper nomination is already taking place at this CFR: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 23#Soundtracks by artist nationality. What belongs in Category:Canadian film soundtracks is different from what would go in Category:Soundtracks by Canadian artists. For example, Xanadu (film) is an American film with a soundtrack by non-American artists, so it seems it would be appropriate to place the soundtrack album under Category:American film soundtracks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I hadn't seen this before. That answers my confusion. Renaming this would make it redundant with the other category. This should stay the way it is, so we have two distinct methods of categorizing soundtracks: by the nationality of the film itself, and the nationality or nationalities of the artist(s). Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 03:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentative~~ opppose The name of the categories now sounds as though they're stating the country the film was produced, rather than the nationality of any musicians. This seems to be a redefinition of the categories. Or perhaps they were misnamed form the beginning? Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 18:47, 1 June 2010 (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.

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 as nominated. 23:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities to Category:Universities and colleges accredited by the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities

Nominator's rationale: The current category title is unclear, this rename would clarify it. TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 00:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while correct, this is a horrid mouthful. How about Category:Institutions accredited by the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities? The commission can presumably only accredit "Colleges and Universities" so that there is no ambiguity. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Universities and colleges" would follow the already-existing naming hierarchy. (I am not commenting in favor of one or the other, just pointing this out.) --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 04:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the surface I'd Support Category:Institutions accredited by the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities. However I'd like to point out that we have larger problems with the parent and the included categories. Category:Universities and colleges in the United States by accreditation association makes it clear to me that this is for post secondary schools. However if you look into the subcategories, we have secondary schools included. That may not affect this category, but says there is the need for some cleanup. So I could see why Category:Universities and colleges accredited by the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities is the safer name. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2010 (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.

May 30

Category:Fictional United States Representatives

Category:TMC

Category:Women and psychology

Category:Medical fiction

Category:Health and fitness

Category:Syndicalist women

Film soundtracks by artist nationality

Category:Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities