→Category:Current Big 12 football stadiums: question for alansohn |
→Category:Current Big 12 football stadiums: reply to Postdlf |
||
Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
*****Is there a "superfluous for navigation" anywhere in policy as a justification for deletion? Or is this just an admin pushing a complete BS excuse for deletion? [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 18:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
*****Is there a "superfluous for navigation" anywhere in policy as a justification for deletion? Or is this just an admin pushing a complete BS excuse for deletion? [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 18:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
******I really don't care about the outcome in this CFD (sports is not my forte) so I'm not offering any judgment on the deletion rationale offered, but I'm curious about the premise from which it seems you're operating here: do you think Wikipedia participants in an XFD discussion are prohibited from arriving at a consensus to delete any kind of content, on the sole basis that the consensus is based on a deletion reason not previously codified in a policy or guideline? And if so, why? '''[[User:Postdlf|postdlf]]''' (''[[User talk:Postdlf|talk]]'') 18:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
******I really don't care about the outcome in this CFD (sports is not my forte) so I'm not offering any judgment on the deletion rationale offered, but I'm curious about the premise from which it seems you're operating here: do you think Wikipedia participants in an XFD discussion are prohibited from arriving at a consensus to delete any kind of content, on the sole basis that the consensus is based on a deletion reason not previously codified in a policy or guideline? And if so, why? '''[[User:Postdlf|postdlf]]''' (''[[User talk:Postdlf|talk]]'') 18:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
*******I'll feed the troll here: First off, the sole proposed reason -- "superfluous for navigation" -- is in direct conflict with Wikipedia guidelines on the subject. Not even the newest noob should be offering this as a reasoned judgment here (or anywhere else) as a justification for deletion, let alone someone who has been entrusted with the responsibilities of serving the community as an admin. If Wikipedia decisions are not even based on any shred of guidelines or policies, all we're left with is [[WP:IHATEIT]], and a blatant acknowledgment that CfD is just a joke of a popularity contest. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 19:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''' per nom and long consensus not to categorize by "current". Thanks to Levineps, we already ridiculously overcategorize U.S. college football venues by team; no need to group it further into larger categories by conference, unless we undo everything Levineps has done and start from scratch. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 21:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' per nom and long consensus not to categorize by "current". Thanks to Levineps, we already ridiculously overcategorize U.S. college football venues by team; no need to group it further into larger categories by conference, unless we undo everything Levineps has done and start from scratch. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 21:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
**Is the characteristic defining? Is this an aid to navigation? [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 00:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
**Is the characteristic defining? Is this an aid to navigation? [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 00:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:47, 12 January 2010
January 11
Category:-gate
Category:Classic psychology books
- Suggest merging Category:Classic psychology books to Category:Psychology books
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent (or other appropriate subcategory), POV and reliant on OR. The category does not present a clear definition of what would constitute a "classic" psychology book, nor is there one evident. It includes 19th century works as well as more contemporary ones, so it isn't just based on age, which would be more objectively categorized with express dates anyway. It also includes both academic texts and works for popular audiences. On top of the lack of definition, the label "classic" in this context also implies praise (i.e., important, formative of the field, worthy of remembrance and study), which is likely to be controversial rather than factual and objective (I found it while reading The Bell Curve article of all things). postdlf (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support merge as there appears to be no way to distinguish which books are classics, although I would support several in this category for a reading list on the subject. Alansohn (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support I've read a few of these, and wouldn't really disagree with the label of classic- but that's irrelevant. It's POV, and we usually don't do subjective/POV in categories. No exception here. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Merge per nom and per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. In any given field, I'm sure that anyone who knows the subject could draft a list of "classic" titles; the problem is that most of them would come up with a different list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:African Nations Cup
- Propose renaming Category:African Nations Cup to Category:Africa Cup of Nations
- Propose renaming Category:African Nations Cup qualification to Category:Africa Cup of Nations qualification
- Propose renaming Category:African Nations Cup squads to Category:Africa Cup of Nations squads
- Propose renaming Category:2006 African Nations Cup squad templates to Category:2006 Africa Cup of Nations squad templates
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. The competition has been known as the Africa Cup of Nations since 2006; therefore, the category relating to the competition and all its subcategories should be renamed to reflect the correct name of the tournament. – PeeJay 20:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Support rename per nom. It makes little sence to have the main article under the current name for the competition and the categories under a different, out-dated name. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Outdated name, change the category name. We ought to consider making this a speedy criteria. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:Recipient of the Order of St. George
Suggest renaming this to Category:Recipients of the Order of St. George (plural form) and merging Category:Order of St. George recipients into the renamed category.DonaldDuck (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support rename to standardize wording and use larger category on an ongoing basis. Alansohn (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support rename per most siblings in Category:Recipients of Russian military awards and decorations. NB Both categories need tagging. Occuli (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support- the rename is textbook, and the merger is also in accordance with established practice. Further, I ask that
Category:Order of Merit for the Fatherland recipients
Category:Order of St. Alexander Nevsky recipients
and Category:Order of St. Vladimir recipients be added to the nomination to be renamed. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:Stalinist propaganda films
- Delete: Category:Stalinist propaganda films nominated for deletion as unproved WP:POV. The category title includes American films in which Stalin played no role in writing or directing or producing. Would The Song of Bernadette qualify as Vaticanist propaganda? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agree, population is really bad or not carefully filtered. Sadads (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- How about renaming to Category:Soviet propaganda films of the Stalin era. The problem is that which films are propanganda films may be a POV issue. If that is a problem merge to an apporporate category of Soviet films. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Soviet propaganda films. It's POV-enough to label some films as propaganda, but that's outside the scope of this nomination. Let's not compound the error by trying to decide which are Stalinist and which aren't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment BHG would be right, had the films here been Soviet propaganda films. But three of the four of them are Hollywood productions, sponsored by the US government in order to support the Soviet Union's participation in WW II, They are films of pro-soviet propaganda, not soviet propaganda. North Star and Star of Russia are quite general, not specifically Stalinist. Mission to Moscow is the only one that could be called pro-Stalin propaganda and is based on a book by the US Ambassador to Russia, an American corporate lawyer of remarkably peculiar views. The fourth, Bezhin Meadow, was banned by Stalin. It seems to have been an attempt to write ostensibly Stalinist propaganda in such as way as to give the opposite effect. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The category contains four films. Only one (Bezhin Meadow) could be considered as Stalinist but was never shown during Stalin's lifetime. The other three films are US productions during WWII, which are already in the category Films about Stalinism, of which this category is a sub-category. --Dodo19 (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:Ships of Patrick O'Brian
- Category:Ships of Patrick O'Brian - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. All except HMS Polychrest are real ships, so should not be categorized in Category:Fictional ships. Further, real ships should not be categorized into the categories about fiction written about them. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I follow your first point, but not your second. I looked at one and the O'Brian book is mentioned, so why not just remove this category from Category:Fictional ships and just leave it in Category:Novels by Patrick O'Brian. The real ships would be in two categories, a fictional and a real one. I support keep. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- WP:OC trivial nature - a real ship being used in an O'Brian novel is trivial to the ship itself, and is a non-defining characteristic; O'Brian's novels were written a long time after these ships were broken up. I wouldn't think that Category:Battles of Bernard Cornwell (Richard Sharpe) or Category:Ships of Alexander Kent (Richard Bolitho) or Category:Cars of James Bond should exist, so I don't think that O'Brian's should either. At most, a list could be created. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- The ships included are the one's commanded by Jack Aubrey and are altered considerably in their history. They become fictional ships when they are integrated into the plot of the series, though the inspiration for the ships themselves has some historical value. The category is a defining characteristic because the Patrick O'Brian books are perhaps some of the most important English literature in the late 20th century, setting the standard for historical fiction, as Tolkien's Lord of the Rings did for Fantasy, or Asimov's writings did for Science Fiction. The category is significant in defining the cluster of articles related to the Aubrey-Maturin series and Patrick O'Brian's literature. I suppose it could be renamed Commands of Jack Aubrey, however I left it broad so that the categories would not have to be duplicated for some of his lesser works. The argument about the exclusion based on the non-existence of other categories is not exactly true, check out Category:James Bond gadgets and firearms. (The other suggested categories are not made, because there hasn't been much in the way of work on that cluster of articles.) Sadads (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think the category has some value Surprise for example continues to be used in the novels long after the real ship was sold out of the service. Sophie was based on Speedy, and is entirely distinct from the real HMS Sophie, did Leopard actually sail to Suatrlaia with convicts aboard and nearly get wrecked in teh Antarctic after sinking a Dutch ship of the line?. The key is that it's a way that reader's are conceivably going to be looking for the ships. David Underdown (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment -- a couple of the articles that I checked had got a section on the fictional ship. However this raises the question of how far the ship described in the novels is actually the real ship. I suspect that the real answer may be for all the sections on the fictional ships to be merged into a single article. This in turn probably ought to be merged with the article on the series of books. Alternatively, perhaps H.M.S. Sophie (fictional) should be a redirect to the novel featuring it. If a ship features in two novels, the redirect should be to the article on the series. Perhaps the list of novels in that article should be converted into a table, giving the names of the ships which Aubrey commanded. The subject needs work, but this should probably end in delete - but perhaps not yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The novels are based (and sometimes even named) after the ships, and are the defining characteristics. The introductions explain the differences with actual ships. since we are going to cover important fiction like this is considerable detail (though of course not the level of a fansite), this is within scope and appropriate. It's just the exact opposite of what the nominator thinks: real ships should indeed be placed into categories for notable fiction based on them. That's the sort of thing people come to Wikipedia to find. The principle for exclusion here seems to be: if it's the sort of thing people would come to the web to find information on, it doesn't belong here, since we intend to copy the expectations for an old-fashioned school encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 14:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - If Category:James Bond gadgets and firearms is of value then this certainly is. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:Governorates of the Grand Duchy of Finland
- Category:Governorates of the Grand Duchy of Finland - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Category appears to have been the subject of a dispute at Talk:Provinces of the Grand Duchy of Finland, and was blanked and emptied out-of-process, but now one article has been added to it again. It should either be deleted or re-populated, but at this stage I have no preference between the two. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: It was agreed that the provinces do not need different articles for different time periods, e.g. pre-Finnish indpendence and after. Therefore, the category is not needed. See Talk:Provinces of the Grand Duchy of Finland for the consensus on the merges. --Pudeo' 13:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:International sports programs
- Category:International sports programs - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Vague category with the potential to grow uhelpfully huge, because its inclusion criteria will inevitable fail either WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE or WP:OC#ARBITRARY. Does it include programmes broadcast in more than one nation? Programmes showing sports from more than one country? Programs produced by a collaboration between broadcasters from different countries? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete -- to vague to be useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:Current Big 12 football stadiums
- Category:Current Big 12 football stadiums - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. We don't categorise by former-and-current. There is already a list of these stadiums at Big 12 Conference#Conference_facilities, and template {{Big 12 Football Venues}} helps navigation between the articles. We could just rename it to Category:Big 12 conference football stadiums, but since it's superfluous for navigation I see no point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Big 12 Conference football stadiums This is a clear aid to navigation using the category system. No individual who believes that "superfluous for navigation" is a valid argument for deletion should be participating at CfD, given that it is in direct conflict with Wikipedia guidelines on the subject. Alansohn (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- As with the other documents he refers to, it would be helpful if Alansohn would actually read WP:CLS, which I presume is the guideline he is referring to. WP:CLS says that categories, lists and serial boxes can coexist, not that they have to ... and it would be patently absurd to create a corresponding category for every navbox or vice-versa. Furthermore, WP:CLS is a guideline: as such it describes current practice, rather than enforcing a particular approach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- A simple reading WP:CLN encourages the coexistence of lists AND categories. Put up or shut up: Is there a "superfluous for navigation" anywhere in policy as a justification for deletion? Alansohn (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please do be civil, Alansohn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Is there a "superfluous for navigation" anywhere in policy as a justification for deletion? Or is this just an admin pushing a complete BS excuse for deletion? Alansohn (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- I really don't care about the outcome in this CFD (sports is not my forte) so I'm not offering any judgment on the deletion rationale offered, but I'm curious about the premise from which it seems you're operating here: do you think Wikipedia participants in an XFD discussion are prohibited from arriving at a consensus to delete any kind of content, on the sole basis that the consensus is based on a deletion reason not previously codified in a policy or guideline? And if so, why? postdlf (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'll feed the troll here: First off, the sole proposed reason -- "superfluous for navigation" -- is in direct conflict with Wikipedia guidelines on the subject. Not even the newest noob should be offering this as a reasoned judgment here (or anywhere else) as a justification for deletion, let alone someone who has been entrusted with the responsibilities of serving the community as an admin. If Wikipedia decisions are not even based on any shred of guidelines or policies, all we're left with is WP:IHATEIT, and a blatant acknowledgment that CfD is just a joke of a popularity contest. Alansohn (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- I really don't care about the outcome in this CFD (sports is not my forte) so I'm not offering any judgment on the deletion rationale offered, but I'm curious about the premise from which it seems you're operating here: do you think Wikipedia participants in an XFD discussion are prohibited from arriving at a consensus to delete any kind of content, on the sole basis that the consensus is based on a deletion reason not previously codified in a policy or guideline? And if so, why? postdlf (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Is there a "superfluous for navigation" anywhere in policy as a justification for deletion? Or is this just an admin pushing a complete BS excuse for deletion? Alansohn (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please do be civil, Alansohn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- A simple reading WP:CLN encourages the coexistence of lists AND categories. Put up or shut up: Is there a "superfluous for navigation" anywhere in policy as a justification for deletion? Alansohn (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- As with the other documents he refers to, it would be helpful if Alansohn would actually read WP:CLS, which I presume is the guideline he is referring to. WP:CLS says that categories, lists and serial boxes can coexist, not that they have to ... and it would be patently absurd to create a corresponding category for every navbox or vice-versa. Furthermore, WP:CLS is a guideline: as such it describes current practice, rather than enforcing a particular approach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and long consensus not to categorize by "current". Thanks to Levineps, we already ridiculously overcategorize U.S. college football venues by team; no need to group it further into larger categories by conference, unless we undo everything Levineps has done and start from scratch. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Is the characteristic defining? Is this an aid to navigation? Alansohn (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- In its current state, no and not really. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- "In its current state, no and not really"?!?!? A "problem" that can be resolved by a simple name change for what is a blindingly obvious feature of these stadiums ought best be fixed by a rename not deletion. This is typical CfD game disruption at its worst. Alansohn (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- In its current state, no and not really. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Is the characteristic defining? Is this an aid to navigation? Alansohn (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Big 12 Conference football stadiums. I've looked at several of the articles and being a 'Big 12' venue is mentioned prominently in each. So it is a defining characteristic and so there should be a category. Occuli (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:Coaches of the 1932 Olympics
- Category:Coaches of the 1932 Olympics - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: I found this single-article category in the list of uncategorised categories, and added parents to it. However I can't find any other categories of olympic-coaches-by-year, and I'm not sure it's a good idea. Unless massively sub-categorised, it will be lumping in Canadian equestrian coaches with Kenyan athletics coaches and Japanese sailing coaches. Those people don't have much in common, so I suggest an upmerge to Category:Olympic coaches. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- The whole system of categorising coaches at the Olympics looks undeveloped, judging by the 17 articles so categorised- off of the top of my head I can think of a dozen or so more that belong. We categorise Olympians by which Olympics they competed at (though we sub-cat by sport), so the same system could be developed for coaches. Right now, it's not- it's just a one article category that should be much, much better. I could justify keeping this and deleting it... so, no real opinion, but a lot of words! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Supreme Court cases by year
Category:Gian Lorenzo Bernini
- Category:Gian Lorenzo Bernini - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unless populated, only creates an extra level of categorization before Category:Works by Gian Lorenzo Bernini is reached. Either populate with non-works articles or delete. I'm not sure what it could be populated with, otherwise I would do it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The category works by Bernini just exist.User:Lucifero4
- Weak keep per my argument in a previous discussion, that "I can not disagree with Good Ol’factory's argument, but it does make sense to keep a category for the author and another one for his works. Just for proper categorising." Debresser (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Why though? What does the eponymous category contribute? Not every author or artist has an eponymous category—only where they are "necessary"—so why is deleting an unnecessary one a problem? It's not like it will create a hole in the category tree, because there are thousands of artists and authors who don't have them. ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep this, but upmerge Category:Works by Gian Lorenzo Bernini, which is the level of categorisation that is unnecessary. I suppose that needs a fresh nomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- You'll have to explain that one a bit more. There is a well-developed tree for "works by..." by author and artist, but no well-developed tree for eponymous categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete – there is the sole parent Category:Categories named after artists. This (with 1 subcat and no other articles) is clearly in breach of OCAT:EPON or whatever the shorthand might be. ('Works by' is beyond reproach.) Although I don't see that it creates 'an extra level': extra between where and where? It does create an extra way of finding 'Works by' via Category:Categories named after artists. Occuli (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- An extra level at the "top". Most "works by ..." categories don't have a parent eponymous category that only contains the "works by..." category and the main article. More than anything, it just creates confusion as to why this artist has an eponymous category in Category:Categories named after artists but all the others don't. (The guideline is at WP:OC#EPONYMOUS.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep as a parent for works by the author. Alansohn (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Uh, that's a good description of what the category is, but it doesn't really provide any rationale for either keeping or deleting it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- AS I said above (though differntly expressed). This category is useless, but its subcategory "works by ..." must be reparented, perhaps by giving it the parent of that underdiscussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Why would it need to be re-parented? It's already in Category:Works by artist, which is where it should be. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:Cuban-Americans
- Propose renaming Category:Cuban-Americans to Category:Cuban Americans
- Nominator's rationale: "Cuban-American" is an adjective. "Cuban American" (as demonstrated by the article) is a noun. This is a list of nouns, not adjectives. — the Man in Question (in question) 08:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- rename per nom. When it is a noun it should not be hyphenated. When it is an adjective it should be. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Also my eye is caught by Category:South African-Americans which suffers from several problems. Occuli (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I should have added Category:Fictional Cuban-Americans and Category:Cuban American writers to this nomination as well. — the Man in Question (in question) 15:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Rename to use proper form of term. Alansohn (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Rename and merge both to Category:Americans of Cuban descent: this is the form used for all other countries as a result of a lot of work by one editor a year or so back. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, that would mean having to change all the hundred or so others, like Category:Mexican Americans. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- rename per nom to match its sibling categories in Category:American people by ethnic or national origin Hmains (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:People with Celiac Disease
- Category:People with Celiac Disease to Category:People with celiac disease Kalervo (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose – don't know if this is considered a valid reason, but even though I'm a fan of U.S. spelling conventions, I'd prefer the rename be consistent with the underlying article, i.e. Category:People with coeliac disease Fat&Happy (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Personally, I don't even see why this category exists. Having coeliac disease is not a defining characteristic of these people. I mean, it's not like anyone goes, "Oh, Cedric Benson... he's that guy with coeliac disease, right?" Of course not; people know Cedric Benson because he's an awesome football player. This is like having a category for people with dyslexia. It's ridiculous. – PeeJay 00:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Moved from speedy rename section at this point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Categorising people by every ailment is a recipe for category clutter. AFAICS, the only one of the five people for whom this disease is remotely defining is Elisabeth Hasselbeck, who wrote a book on the subject. But even in that case, it's fairly tangential; she is primarily known for her TV work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete or Rename Category:People with coeliac disease. It should be consistent with the article, at least. — the Man in Question (in question) 08:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete (preferably) or Rename to Category:People with coeliac disease (and consider the creation of Category:21st century males with coeliac disease etc). Occuli (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- (Holds head in hands, sobbing ...) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Come again? Either delete it or consider creating more in the same vein? I'm scratching my head at this one. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Discussion - Many of the reasons posted supporting deletion seem, to me, to actually support my reason for creating it (people don't know what it is; they don't associate particular people with it). It's a little known but very widespread condition; there are only five people in the category so far because that's all I've added so far. I created the category in an effort to increase awareness, but if that isn't in line with Wikipedia standards, I would certainly support deletion. My mistake. (FYI, I don't associate people's year of birth, religion, or ethnic heritage as "defining" of the people, but those seem to be valid categories. I thought this fit as something comparable to those.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankie08 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Filipino to Philippine
- Propose renaming
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a follow-up nomination to this nomination. The Philippines Manual of Style states:
- Philippine is generally used with inanimate objects. Example, Philippine National Anthem or Philippine Senate.
- Filipino may be used with either inanimate objects or people, though preference swings towards the latter. It is also the name of the national language.
- Accordingly, I have nominated the inanimate object categories that use "Filipino" for a change to the preferred "Philippine". Although using "Philippine" is not a required hard-and-fast rule, I think it would be beneficial to use the most common adjective in these cases. Some categories that use "Philippine" as an adjective already exist; they are not listed here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- NOTE: I'm a bit unsure if Category:Filipino deities and Category:Filipino goddesses should be included in this nomination. I've included them because the parent Category:Filipino mythology was nominated, but they could be excluded if thought appropriate. I'd like a second opinion on those at least. Also happy to accept corrections on any of the others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Most are pretty much textbook MOS issues, so support all but those three. The other three seem like they could go either way; but since we tend to talk about gods as if they were people in English, I tend to say leave those three alone. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:Climate change organisations based in Australia
- Suggest merging Category:Climate change organisations based in Australia to Category:Climate change in Australia
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Climate change in Australia. Over categorisation. Not likely to be highly populated and there are no equivalent cats for other countries. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support merge for all the reasons given by nominator. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment – there is Category:Climate change organizations (with a substantial US subcat) to which this should at least be upmerged. Occuli (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:Walls of Recognized Content
- Category:Walls of Recognized Content - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Special prize for anyone who can explain in English what this category is for. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy keep: This category's purpose is detailed here. It is meant to host all "Walls of Recognized Content", such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Recognized content. If it ends up not being used, I'll send to speedy myself. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- OK, some people thought it was useful. That does not mean it is a good idea. I'm still confused about what this is about. Apparently it has something to do with a listing of a project's recognized content. But why does this need to be a category? Vegaswikian (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I see that there is a list of articles with a project's scope. But where does the wall come into it, and what does the "recognised content" mean? I can guess, but it would be much better if the category creator could point to a coherent explanation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not really sure what could be said here that isn't explained by a quick glance at the example I gave earlier (Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Recognized content). It's a list of recognized content (FAs, FLs, As, GAs, DYKs, ...), generated by JL-Bot, using this template. Like a wall of fame (How in the world is this a red link??).
Does this explain or is it still unclear? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- OK, that's what I guessed, but it's not spelt out. It's a list, so why not call it a list? And since it's a maintenance category, I suggest a rename to Category:Wikipedia lists of recognised content. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- 'cause these pages were introduced to people as Walls of Recognized Content? It's not broken, so lets leave good-enough alone. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is broken, because the category name does not make its contents clear. I don't who these pages were introduced to as "Walls of Recognized Content", but that's not how they are titled. Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Recognized content doesn't use the word "wall": it looks like a list, and it is a list, so why not call it by the simplest and most obvious term?
- Not really sure what could be said here that isn't explained by a quick glance at the example I gave earlier (Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Recognized content). It's a list of recognized content (FAs, FLs, As, GAs, DYKs, ...), generated by JL-Bot, using this template. Like a wall of fame (How in the world is this a red link??).
- Rename to Category:Wikipedia lists of recognized content to clarify content of category, which apparently does have an English-language definition after all. Alansohn (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unless some one can provide it with a main article (which will probably be a list). If kept, rename per Alansohn . Peterkingiron (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)