< October 15	October 17 >

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: no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Christian popular culture to Category:Christianity in popular culture

Nominator's rationale: The main article for the nominated category is the essay-like Christian pop culture, tagged as unreferenced since 2008, and quite poorly written, imo. There is nothing in the nominated category that would not fit comfortably in the target cat, which is part of the well established Foo in popular culture tree. Nor does the category description (or putative main article) make a clear case for why we need this split. It certainly doesn't help navigation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although this might be an in-practice delete because the content doesn't exist, I would oppose merge on the basis that there are viable articles to write about two separate topics here: one is Christianity as discussed and portrayed in mass media and another could be about a kind of American (specifically, Evangelical) parallel pop culture that creates its own analogues of mainstream media as well as original works. So, e.g. the media franchise that is Left Behind is a type of the latter--it's not mainstream media commenting on Christianity, but it's a subset of Christians (in the States) who have developed their own young adult novels and films for consumption amongst themselves. See also (e.g.) Petra (band) and Larry Norman for pop music. Does this distinction make sense to anyone else? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:17, 17 October 2011 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: A recreation, under a different name, of Category:Bonesmen, which was deleted per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_2#Category:Bonesmen. The list is much more comprehensive than it was back in 2008, and if precedent still calls for the deletion of categories related to student society membership, then I cannot see why we should not have the same result here, and delete, again. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and per WP:OC#TRIVIA.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not defining. Occuli (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as re-created material, unless a decisive change of consensus is indicated by this discussion, which is unlikely. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:56, 21 October 2011 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Adobe Photoshop staff to Category:Adobe Photoshop

Nominator's rationale: Has only one article. Fleet Command (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2011 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category, to the extent it has any usefulness, requires an editor to determine whether a particular show declined "in quality that is beyond recovery." See Jumping the shark. Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Saying a show jumped the shark is a person's opinion not a fact; category has no usefulness. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Flagrantly WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subjective, and nonsensically-named. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The category is now empty. Lugnuts (talk) 07:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Entirely subjective. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:17, 17 October 2011 (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: keep. Rcsprinter (articulate) 20:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal - Category:German-American history to Category:German American history

Nominator's rationale: This category should be re-named in accordance with the main article German American and the main category Category:German American. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – German-American is an adjective and German American is a noun, so everything here is just as it should be. Occuli (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
do not rename per Occuli. This is an adjective, so it needs to be hyphenated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:35, 27 October 2011 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCTrivial (should we also have theorems starting with a vowel?) Also, there are only 3 items in the category, so deleting it should not cause any major damage. Sasha (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator as a trivial intersection of mathematical theorems and things with German names. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. While German mathematicians made important contributions, it seems rather random whether one of their theorems got stuck with the German name or gained an English one. Huon (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I created the category) – as nominator says, this is pretty clearly OCTrivial, even if interesting name-wise. I’ve placed a manual list at Satz (disambiguation), which seems appropriate (list is unlikely to grow), so really no damage if category is deleted. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm not sure I agree that this is clearly an example of WP:OCTrivial. For example, how many theorems are there that have names from any other (non-English) language? Any? I can't think of any right now, so this leads me to believe that there is an interesting reason for German-language theorem names (unlike the examples listed in WP:OCTrivial). I mean there should at the very least be French-language theorem names, right? Also, just to be clear, there are not just three items that belong in that category: there's the Spiegelungssatz and Krull's Hauptidealsatz, off the top of my head. RobHar (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the added examples! Interestingly, while I can think of many mathematical terms with French names, I can’t think of any theorems. Maybe due to the extensive historical borrowing from French into English and common Latinate vocabulary, names just get translated into the closely corresponding terms?

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latin may be the clue here: there are theorems with Latin names, such as Gauss's Theorema Egregium. I can at least give a half-example of a theorem with a French name: GAGA. Geometry guy 18:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – this is by a corollary to WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. A name is merely a name. Occuli (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no reason to distinguish mathematical theorems with german names.Curb Chain (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. As noted above, this intersection is less trivial and more interesting than the nomination and some delete rationales may suggest. However I'm not convinced it is sufficiently interesting to be category-worthy! Geometry guy 18:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Semantics not well-defined. Actually probably much more Theorems have German names, just that most English speaking people don't know them. So why include reflection theorem but not Spectral theorem ("Spektralsatz"), why not Principal component analysis ("Hauptkomponentenanalyse"), why not the formula for the nth partial sum (see triangular numbers and 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + …) ("Gaußsche Summenformel", from Carl Friedrich Gauss)? I fear this categorys contents will be rather arbitrary. If the category is to be kept, it should be made clear what will be contained and what not. --Chire (talk) 07:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change the name Maybe one should delete this category and create another that, instead of being limited to theorems, would be on German mathematical terminology used in English. The word Ansatz (often written with a lower-case initial letter when used in English) could be included, and even "eigenvalue" and "eigenvector" although "value" and "vector" are not from German. There doesn't seem to be any language besides German from which we import terminology without or nearly without any changes. One odd item: before about the middle of the 20th century, mathematicians writing in English often used the German word "Faltung" for what we now call convolution. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"There doesn't seem to be any language besides German from which we import terminology without or nearly without any changes." What about Dessin d'enfant, Carré du champ, et cet? Sasha (talk) 02:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. The type of name is not terribly defining for a theorem, I don't think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:57, 21 October 2011 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:History books about the Dominion of Canada to Category:History books about Canada

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Dominion of Canada is merely a redirect to Canada, so I don't see the need for this off-shoot category. Category:History of Canada by period has no sub-category for a "dominion" period, and until such time as that happens, or we have a distinct main article for Dominion of Canada, upmerge. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dominion period would be fuzzy, is it until the Balfour Agreement, or until repatriation? 70.24.251.158 (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The Dominion period is indeed fuzzy. No official name change to Dominion of Canada or back to just Canada can be pinpointed (see Name of Canada). Therefore, this category is just a redundant duplication. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:31, 20 October 2011 (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: keep. Rcsprinter (articulate) 19:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Too enormous to be useful, and articles in the category have nothing encyclopedic in common. Northernhenge (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom - too broad and useless.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – maintenance category of talk pages, populated by template ((British English)), part of Category:Articles by national variety of English. Occuli (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep talk page category, not article category, and a maintenance category. 70.24.251.158 (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough. Should it be flagged somehow as a maintenance category? --Northernhenge (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be good. There's supposed to be a template for that. They should be prepended with "Wikipedia" (also since we have articles on Articles, some of which are written in British English...) 70.24.251.158 (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Potentially useful for semi-automatic maintenance. Pichpich (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2011 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:British Mixed-Race actors/actresses to Category:British mixed-race actors

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure whether such a category is necessary at all (there seems to be no equivalent for US actors), but it should conform to standard capitalization and the standard actor category style. Huon (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – there is no other category including the phrase 'mixed race'; mixed race and British Mixed-Race are redirects. Occuli (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – ethnic origin in the UK is normally self-declared (on census forms, employee surveys etc) so this category only makes sense if it is confined to people who have for some reason made a public statement on the subject. We could have a new category "British actors/actresses declaring themselves to be mixed-race" but I'm not about to suggest a Rename. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial intersectionCurb Chain (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete highly problematic given that 'race' is an arbitrary construct in the British context (it is everywhere, but in some places it has a legal significance) - as Northernhenge states, self-categorisation would be the only possible justification for inclusion - and even that could prove contentious. Of no real utility in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per numerous consensus decisions in the past that we are not going to categorize people for being of "mixed race" or ethnicity. See here for some of the previous discussions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:49, 20 October 2011 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: All pages in category are redirects to List of Waterloo Road characters, and most tagged are extremely minor characters that are not mentioned on that page See recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Fisher. U-Mos (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, likely a relic of a collection of non-notable articles that were turned into redirects. No need to categorize the redirects. Huon (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2011 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Data mining software to Category:Data mining and machine learning software

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Most software does both, machine learning and knowledge discovery (data mining). (Actually a lot that is in this category right now does mostly machine learning.) For usability, it makes IMHO a lot of sense to have one category for both instead of having to list most in two categories, with many users not differentiating between machine learning and knowledge discovery. 93.104.79.59 (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - surely better to have single-purpose categories. If an article needs to be in two categories, put it in both. At the risk of over-complicating the categories, both categories could themselves be categorised as suggested. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support The former distinctions are becoming increasingly blurred. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Makes sense, many in there are actually "more" machine learning than knowledge discovery, and this is next to impossible to distinguish except "is more often published on conferences that have the term "ML" in their name vs. have "KDD" in their name. Separating these two is almost original research, merging them is easy and useful. --Chire (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2011 (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 to Category:Science (TV channel) shows. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal - Category:Science Channel shows to ~~Category: Science (channel) shows~~ Category:Science (TV channel) shows

Nominator's rationale: The name "Science Channel" is no longer used. Its new name is "Science". However, renaming the category "Science shows" could lead to confusion, so I think it should be renamed "Science (channel) shows". Chris (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment no particular view on the proposal but the parent article is at Science (TV channel) so it more correctly could be Category:Science (TV channel) shows.

Yes, my mistake. The new category name should be Category:Science (TV channel) shows, like you said. Chris (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom --Northernhenge (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2011 (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.

October 16

Category:Christian popular culture

Category:Skull and Bones members

Category:Adobe Photoshop staff

Category:Television shows that jumped the shark

Category:German-American history

Category:Mathematical theorems with German names

Category:History books about the Dominion of Canada

Category:Articles which use British English

Category:British Mixed-Race actors/actresses

Category:Waterloo Road characters

Category:Data mining software

Category:Science Channel shows