< March 20 March 22 >

March 21

Category:Fitna of al-Andalus

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 the first, merge' the second to it. – Fayenatic London 21:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article each. No merge needed, both articles are sufficiently categorized already. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's true, but if indeed "Fitna of al-Andalus" is the proper name of the conflict, then I don't see a problem with its naming and with having categories for it. Constantine ✍ 08:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's pretty pointless to have two categories for two articles, that doesn't help navigation at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2016 (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:Non-laugh track sitcoms

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; a list has now been created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic of ANY of these shows. Additionally, are shows filmed in front of an audience "non-laugh track"? What if the live laughter is "enhanced"? Are cartoons "sitcoms"? SummerPhDv2.0 13:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are more sitcoms that have a laugh tracks than sitcoms than don't, in spite of the recent trend of non-laugh track comedies. For that reason, I believe it is relevant enough to be a category.
In defining the absence of laughter in a sitcom, there might be the need to use other concept. I see how the "non-laugh track" label leaves aside the sitcoms that are recorded with the laughter of an audience. The article for the topic does't provide a concept for that either. Maybe the category should be named Non-laugh track or audience laughter sitcoms or Sitcoms without embedded audience reaction or laugh track or something like that?
The "cartoons" in this category are better defined as "animated sitcoms", because they have all the characteristics of a sitcom, but are an animated show. Again, there's a considerable amount of this kind of shows that have laugh tracks, so the shows that don't are distinctive.
Gonzalogallard (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem to be a Wikipedia:Defining characteristic of these shows. Describing Futurama to someone, I can't imagine calling it a "non-laugh track sitcom". I'd probably say it's a cartoon about a guy who gets sent to the future, by the guy who did the Simpsons. Further, to weed out all of the bulk of the cartoons, we need to decide which ones are sitcoms and which ones aren't. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify: This is definitely encyclopedic; some people seek out non-LT sitcoms, and having this be a DVD/Blu-ray audio option is a selling point they use in the marketing materials (M*A*S*H without the LT is amazingly better!). However, because there are no clear inclusion criteria, and coming up with a complicated one would be required – one that people would ignore if it were on the category – this will work much better as a stand-alone list article. The list consensus discussion will probably come to the conclusion to put animated shows in a different list, I would think, but I'm not psychic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SMcCandlish ☺. Making the whole thing a list seems like the best idea for now, seeing that we don't have much information right now. Maybe in the future TV experts will theorize about this and come up with a concept. Gonzalogallard (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2016 (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:BDSers

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. At closure, it had already been speedily deleted as a re-creation of Category:People who boycott Israel. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:BDSers to whatever BDSers is an abbreviation of.
Nominator's rationale: There is no explanation of the meaning of "BDSers", not on the category page nor in any of the articles listed in it. The abbreviation must either be explained somewhere or the category should be renamed to the unabbreviated form. There might even be a need for an article about it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, it is not at all clear what this category is for, something to do with Zionism or anti-Zionism? Wayne Jayes (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding the meaning Wayne Jayes. So we should rename the category to Category:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, and we do already have a ((catmain)) article at Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions too. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Category:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, per the sleuthing above (or something more specific if we need both a category for the movement and a subcat for people involved in it, which seems like excessive hairsplitting to me, unless the main category overflows with bio articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:35, 21 March 2016 (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:Explosive ROF

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. – Fayenatic London 21:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a set category, so it should be plural, I'm not sure what the proper plural would be. The article is Explosive ROF. Is "Explosive ROFs" the correct plural? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Yes, this the standard way to pluralize initialisms.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:32, 21 March 2016 (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:Ring of Fire companies

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. – Fayenatic London 21:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category has nothing to do with the Ring of Fire, or with any other meaning listed in Ring of Fire (disambiguation). Supposedly it's a U.S. ATF designation for these companies, but the phrase "ring of fire" is not found in Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, so I'm not sure that this is particularly defining. It is mentioned in some of the articles that are in the category. If this is a significant thing that is just not well covered in Wikipedia and someone wants to suggest a rename rather than deletion, I could be game. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, absent compelling reason to keep, or a good move suggestion. Seems to be law enforcement/national security jargon or slang; not useful as a category name here, and possibly PoV pushing, like categorizing countries here as "Axis of Evil nations" just because Dubya called them that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not POV pushing or a hoax, but a well-known United States ATF designation for these companies, as discussed extensively by reliable, high-quality sources [1], [2], [3], . I'm not sure why our article on the ATF does not contain the phrase, but that's not a compelling reason to me to delete it. It IS mentioned in all of the related articles, as well as in the Saturday night special article (which is a broader term for junk guns, whereas Ring of Fire specifies a specific few companies that were responsible for producing the greatest quantity of such guns). The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Master: hi, just a question. Would this be a designation that the companies involved would be proud of, or would they not want it publicized? In other words, is the designation intended by ATF to be some sort of badge of shame? If it's positive or neutral, I could see there might be more of a case for keeping it. But if it carries a negative stigma, it's more iffy. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you have (probably) guessed the term carries a negative connotation. However, I believe that a category carrying a negative connotation in itself isn't really a reason to delete it so long as it is verifiable as well as categorically definitive. We do have other categories that could be considered negative by the subjects, but so long as the category is a defining characteristic it is encyclopedic. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I agree with you that that alone is not determinative, but I think it's something to consider. If negative, I think it focuses the mind more to ensure that the characteristic is defining. I honestly don't know enough about this designation to say one way or the other. My initial sense was that it probably is not, but I'm no expert in the subject. If kept, I think we should have some sort of disambiguation perhaps, like Category:Ring of Fire (ATF) companies, just so it's clear these are not companies that are somehow connected to the Ring of Fire. Even Category:Ring of Fire firearms companies might be enough. Thanks for your comments and response. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a rename would be good and I see the confusion potential with the actual Ring of Fire. I guess I won't cry too much if it's just deleted though. :) The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 13:00, 22 March 2016 (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:Optical devices

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Article optical device redirects to optical instrument. fgnievinski (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Optical devices is the broader category. Not all optical devices are instruments. The categories are correct as they are. There is no need for an article on optical devices in general. The redirect to optical instrument isn't really appropriate, but I can't think of a better target offhand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srleffler (talk • contribs)
    Comment I think Optics is probably a better target for the redirect. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:24, 21 March 2016 (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