Category:Idi Amin in popular culture
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was merge
Category:Idi Amin in popular culture into
Category:Idi Amin.
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
11:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Idi Amin in popular culture to
Category:Idi Amin
- Merge - there is no justification for maintaining a separate category for popular culture appearances of Amin. They are all suitably categorized in the eponymous category.
Otto4711
23:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- All of the articles in the nominated category are extensively interlinked with
Idi Amin, each other or both. As has been noted in a number of recent
deletions of eponymous categories, this sort of interlinking for navigation amongst a small number of articles is sufficient reason to justify deletion of the eponymous category. It's more than sufficient to justify deleting a pop culture sub-cat.
Otto4711
13:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Notable firsts in Major League Baseball
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete.
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
12:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Notable firsts in Major League Baseball (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Listify and Delete, This category is too vague; when it is viewed it is just a list of articles with no reference. It would exist better as a list with additional/accompanying reference information. (Also, this is aside from the guidance to not have "notable" categories.)
After Midnight
0001
22:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lists of people by wealth
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was keep.
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
11:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Lists of people by wealth (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete, This category is bloated with mainly copies of copyrighted material from Forbes magazine. Remaining information is generally outdated, lacks citations, or from other copyrighted sources.
209.22.88.24
20:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, but delete all copyright-infringing list articles. Note that not all the members of the cat are copyright infringements, and even if they were, the problem is with the individual articles, not with the categorization itself. A batch AFD is the way to go here. (And while I would support such a move, I'll tell you right now that the majority will want to keep the infringing lists anyway, and the AFD will fail.) --
Quuxplusone
08:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep; a highly useful categorisation of various wealth-related list articles. Also, which individual articles are supposed to be copyvios? They're not cut/pastes and they cite their sources. I'm going to go through the pages removing the prod templates. --
DeLarge
10:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - quality of articles within is not a reason to delete a category. Discuss the articles first. --
Vossanova
o<
19:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - per above.
Patrick1982
23:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as there are articles which belong in this category.
LukeHoC
11:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
People from Czechoslovakia
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename all.
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
22:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Czechoslovakian people to
Category:Czechoslovak people
-
Category:People from Czechoslovakia to
Category:Czechoslovak people (previously a speedy merge to
Category:Czechoslovakian people)
-
Category:Czechoslovakian politicians to
Category:Czechoslovak politicians
-
Category:Czechoslovakian sportspeople to
Category:Czechoslovak sportspeople
-
Category:Czechoslovakian athletes to
Category:Czechoslovak athletes
-
Category:Czechoslovakian motorcycle racers to
Category:Czechoslovak motorcycle racers
-
Category:Czechoslovakian footballers to
Category:Czechoslovak footballers ([speedy nomination by]
Darwinek
18:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC))
reply
-
Category:Czechoslovakian football managers to
Category:Czechoslovak football managers ([speedy nomination by]
Darwinek
18:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC))
reply
-
Category:Czechoslovakian films to
Category:Czechoslovak films
-
Category:Czechoslovakian society to
Category:Czechoslovak society
- Neutral. After opposing the two speedy noms by Darwinek on the grounds that 'Czechoslovakian' was the term used by the categories regarding people from Czechoslovakia, Jan.Kamenicek supported the original suggestion:
Support [the two speedy nominations by Darwinek] as Google gives more hits for 'Czechoslovak'. The adjective derived from 'Slovakia' is 'Slovak', so the preferred adjective derived from 'Czechoslovakia' (now 'Czech Rep.' and 'Slovakia') should be 'Czechoslovak').
Jan.Kamenicek 08:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- and commented on the speedy merge of Category:People from Czechoslovakia:
I suggest to move it [Category:People from Czechoslovakia] to
Category:Czechoslovak people as Google gives more hits for 'Czechoslovak'. The adjective derived from 'Slovakia' is 'Slovak', so the preferred adjective derived from 'Czechoslovakia' (now 'Czech Rep.' and 'Slovakia') should be 'Czechoslovak').
Jan.Kamenicek 08:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Following those, and the line at
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#How to name a nationality which I believe does not make the original speedy noms by Darwinek valid, I have therefore made this full nomination so that all the categories are consistent whatever the result is.
mattbr30
19:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete all except the stub cat.
the wub
"?!"
22:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Singers by instrument (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Singer-bassists (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Singer-drummers (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Singer-guitarists (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:American singer-guitarists (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:American blues singer-guitarists (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:English singer-guitarists (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:British singer-guitarists (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Polish singer-guitarists (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Singer-guitarist stubs (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Singer-keyboardists (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:American singer-keyboardists (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
The vast majority of people who both sing and play an instrument are found in sensible separate categories like
category:American pop singers and
category:English heavy metal bass guitarists. But these much less frequently applied intersection categories are very strange (
Sheryl Crow, for example, shows up in
category:Singer-bassists, but
Paul McCartney doesn't). I think the lot is a confusing and unnecessary extra layer of categorization, and should be deleted.--
Mike Selinker
18:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete These categories are basically redundant. You will find people listed in them are also in the separate categories, so these provide no additional information or search usefulness. --
Blainster
18:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - These singer-instrument categories lead to category clutter while not adding much benefit to navigation. How many people are going to look for these cross sections, anyway? Also, I believe that many instrument players in bands do either back-up vocals or occasionally perform lead vocals on songs, making this a less-than-interesting characteristic.
Dr. Submillimeter
20:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I disagree. Specifically, drummers who are also lead vocalists are not the norm. I think you underestimate the amount of skill and coordination required for such multitasking, and would probably get a laugh out of
this. I put hours of research into populating that particular category. Rather than deleting these categories because some people find them uninteresting and/or incomplete, I'd prefer that we work on completing them. —
CharlotteWebb
00:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- If you think "singer-drummer" is an interesting grouping, then I'd suggest it become a list. "Singer-guitarist" and "singer-keyboardist" are so common as to be meaningless, and "singer-bass guitarist" doesn't seem particularly meaningful either. But for some reason "singer-drummer" does sound mildly interesting, so I'd suggest that be turned into a list. But they're all bad intersection categories.--
Mike Selinker
05:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. —
CharlotteWebb
00:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- A definite keep to the stub one (why was
WP:SFD not informed as per the instructions at the top of the page???). You should specifically not find singer-guitarist stubs marked with both singer-stub and guitarist-stub, and anyone who knows how stub-sorting works should realise that this stub type was created to reduce such double-stubbing. A weaker keep to the others, though I can understand if those are deleted.
Grutness...
wha?
04:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Incidentally, why shouldn't you find singer-guitarist stubs marked as both "singer stub" and "guitarist stub"? I can't find any rule or guideline to that effect anywhere, and I can point to a hundred articles that are in two or more stub categories at once. Or did you simply mean that given the existence of an intersection category, no article should be in both supercats simultaneously? If that's all you meant, then you're
begging the question: This discussion is about whether the intersection category should exist. --
Quuxplusone
08:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Where intersection stub categories exist, they should be used to reduce the number of templates on the face of the article. The hundreds of articles in two or more (officially, up to four, but occasionally on more than that) stub categories are thus because no such intersection exists. A stub on a river on the French-Belgian border would not be in
Category:French-Belgian stubs because no such category exists. Similarly, because a minimum number of stubs are reuqired before new stub categories are considered, such categories are unlikely ever to exist. Stub categories do not entirely follow the same rules as standard categories, since they are designed for a different purpose. They are not classification of articles for the benefit of readers, in order to aid navigation, but are classification of articles to aid editors in their search for articles which they have enough knowledge to be able to expand. Thus, although there is a high degree of coorrelation nbetween the two types of category, there is not an exact one-to-one mapping of them. In the case of the specific stub intersection category, it was deliberately created aftyer discussion at
WP:WSS/P as part of the process of reducing the number of double-stubbed templates, given that there were more than enough singer-guitarists to warrant such a stub type. To remove such a category - one that has been proposed and debated prior to creation - would reduce the effectiveness of the stubbing of these articles. As such, the category definitely should exist. And, as pointed out above, this category should have been mentioned at
WP:SFD, as is stated in the instructions at the top of this page.
Grutness...
wha?
00:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Yea, it needs to be mentioned at
WP:SFD. If you look, you will see that the template involved puts the articles in the category being discussed here as well as
Category:Singer stubs and
Category:Guitarist stubs so losing the intersection cat should not be an issue, especially if all of the other categories are deleted. The stub template can remain and be updated to not use the deleted cat or a bot could go through and replace the template with the other two. What needs to be done will wait till after the decision on the other cats.
Vegaswikian
01:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Um, it only puts the stubs in those two categories inasmuch as the category under discussion is a child of both of them. It actually removes the stubs from the base categories, which, as you know VW, is a basic aim of stubsorting: to keep the stub categories at a manageable level for editors. Deletion of this category will make the size of both of those categories blow out to a significantly larger size. That was the reason the category was created in the first place, and is a good reason why the category shouldn't be deleted.
Grutness...
wha?
22:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete useless intersections per Blainster. Indeed, most musicians are also "singers" in some sense or other, at some time or other. "Singer-guitarist" is not appreciably different from "guitarist", in a rock-band context, although there are probably some classical guitarists who have never recorded vocals. --
Quuxplusone
08:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as redundant. To list ssomeone in
Category:Singers and
Category:Keyboardists is enough -- why include them in
Category:Singer-keyboardists as well?
Coemgenus
14:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Castles in Perthshire
Category:Mayors of Places in the Palestinian territories
Category:Fauna of Europe subcategories
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was no consensus
Tim!
19:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Fauna of Albania (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Austria (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of the Baltic States (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Belarus (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Belgium (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Bosnia & Herzegovina (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Bulgaria (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Croatia (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Estonia (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of England (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Scotland (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Finland (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of France (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Germany (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Greece (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Hungary (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Italy (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Lithuania (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Lombardy (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Norway (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Poland (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Portugal (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of the Republic of Macedonia (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Romania (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Scandinavia (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Serbia & Montenegro (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Slovakia (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Slovenia (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Spain (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Sweden (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Switzerland (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of the United Kingdom (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Ukraine (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Fauna of Wales (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Merge to
Category:Fauna of Europe - The distribution of animals across Europe has nothing to do with these political boundaries, and European animals are generally not restricted to one or two countries. Moreover, categorizing European animals by country is infeasible, as some animals may be found in multiple countries (see, for example
Eurasian lynx). Including a category for each country in which every animal is found would lead to category lists within articles that are not readable. Given that the political boundaries have little to do with the distribution of the animals and that the categorization would not work well, I recommend merging these categories to
Category:Fauna of Europe. (Also note related discussions at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 12, where similar categories for European country categories were merged into Europe categories.)
Dr. Submillimeter
15:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Note to administrator -
Category:Fauna of Scotland and
Category:Fauna of Spain appear to be comprehensive lists and should be listified. The other categories are incomplete and should be deleted.
Dr. Submillimeter
15:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment we should have categories for
Endemic (ecology) species. Some if the animals listed are endemic to small areas, like the
Saimaa Ringed Seal. We should also have categories for local breeds domesticated animals like
Finnsheep. (Now we do not even have
Category:Agricultire of Finland.) --
Petri Krohn
16:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - I agree with creating categories for endemic animals. However, these categories are being used for any animal that lives within the countries, not just the endemic ones. Also, note that
Category:Domesticated animals by country exists for domesticated animals sorted by country. The categories for domesticated animals should certainly be kept, as animals breeds are often developed within specific national boundaries.
Dr. Submillimeter
19:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: this is recurrent topic (see
Category talk:Biota by country).
Pavel Vozenilek
18:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - The distribution of animals by country has certain political aspects, due to the conservation of nature etc. If I write an article called List of protected animals in Slovenia, I could put it in
Category:Fauna of Slovenia. Alternatively, I could also put it in
Category:Conservation in Slovenia. --
Eleassar
my talk
19:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Cars that only sold one generation
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. --
RobertG ♬
talk
10:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Cars that only sold one generation (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete, "Xs that Y" is generally avoided in categories, as "Y" is usually arbitrary, and in this case, one generation is not necessarily a remarkable or valuable trait. --
Vossanova
o<
14:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- A category is probably inappropriate if the answer to the following questions is "no":
- Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it?
- If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?
- Also does not seem "well-defined" to me; from one of category creator's first edits,
"Limited production/exotic vehicles...do not qualify for this list."
Who says?
Why not? And that being the rule, why was the exotic (and heavily facelifted in 1987)
Lotus Esprit
included? --
DeLarge
17:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
Otto4711. These cars have nothing in common, other than they were all discontinued sooner than some other cars.
Coemgenus
14:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Strong delete. An initially "simple" and "obvious" category, this one falls apart on closer examination. Not a defining characteristic, because in most cases, these vehicles are replaced by another model which fills the same market niche: e.g. the successor to the
Jaguar S-Type will not be called an S-Type, but that is a marketing decision about the labelling of the successor model rather than about the model being categorised.
Another example woud be the
Peugeot 205: it was replaced by the
206, which was in turn replaced by the
207; but its rival, the
Renault Clio has retained the same name for three vehicles with a new chassis each time. Boh manufactuters continued to produced vehicles competing against each other in the same market segment; the only difference is the marketing logic.
The category is also hard to define, because model names are also inconsistent in different markets (see for example the the
VW Bora/Jetta/Vento); current usage of the category appears to be focused on the names used in the US market. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
10:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was keep.
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
22:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:E-Science to
Category:Cyberinfrastructure
- Merge, Both categories contain the exact same set of articles. Honestly, both might even be merged into a higher category. --
Vossanova
o<
14:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep', They might have the same content, but they serve two different constituencies, that are not talking about the same fundamental object. E-science and cyberinfrastructure are not synonymous, though they are related. If there is a higher category that could encapsulate both, that is a possibility, but none is proposed above, so it is a moot option. This is one of those... too early to tell in the development of wikipedia content to see whether they will eventually merge or not, if they do in two or three years that is fine, but I suspect that because of their inherent differences, they will grow apart. To merge them now, without considering their differences seems a bit hasty and judgemental in ways that are not justifiable. --
Buridan
17:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep What if someone used cyberinfrastructure for a purpose totally unrelated to science? Then it would fit into the latter category but not the former. We need to specify to prepare for that possibility. That's why articles like "fictional immortals" have the word "fictional" in them.
Cosmetor
22:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Delete, they are all empty.
Prove It
(talk)
16:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Anti-communist political parties
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. --
RobertG ♬
talk
10:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Anti-communist political parties (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
See the
category's talk, It should be deleted for two reasons: 1) It is an arbitrary issue stance of a party, why not create a category for parties that favour the separation of church and state and the use of nuclear energy? 2) Anti communism isn't a defining features of those parties. They are defined by they identify themselves as liberal or conservative.
C mon
12:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as per nom. If it was populated by specifically anti-communist parties that's fine, but the GOP's in there, and while I'm sure there's not many pro-Communist Republicans in the world, it's definitely not the defining characteristic of the party. You could argue that any political party which isn't explicitly pro-communist could be categorised here. --
DeLarge
11:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - The label "anti-communist" is applied too broadly to be useful.
Dr. Submillimeter
12:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Includes most parties, I would think, depending on the POV. Too subjective, or too broad, or both.
Coemgenus
14:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: absurd (e.g. for
Popular Front of Latvia), undefined, expecting the label to stick with a party forever.
Pavel Vozenilek
18:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per all the above mentioned reasons.
Jan.Kamenicek
20:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete (even though I made the article)
Josh
03:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. --
RobertG ♬
talk
10:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Autodidacts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:American autodidacts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Austrian autodidacts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:British autodidacts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Canadian autodidacts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Danish autodidacts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Dutch Autodidacts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:English autodidacts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:French autodidacts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:German autodidacts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Hungarian autodidacts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Icelandic autodidacts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Indian autodidacts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Irish autodidacts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Israeli autodidacts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Italian autodidacts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Japanese autodidacts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Polish autodidacts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Romanian autodidacts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Scottish autodidacts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Serbian autodidacts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Welsh autodidacts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Delete - These are categories for people who have educated themselves (at least in a specific field) rather than receiving a formal education. This is a fairly common activity for people, especially before the twentieth century, so categorizing people this way means little. However, this category tree does contribute to category clutter, rendering the categories more difficult to read within individual articles; see
Alexander Graham Bell and
Benjamin Franklin, for example. Moreover, given that other education-related categories have been nominated for deletion
here (with most people voting to delete), it does not seem appropriate to keep these categories related to education levels. Therefore, this category tree should be deleted.
Dr. Submillimeter
10:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all per nom.
Craig.Scott
12:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep This is a significant accomplishment and/or uniqueness tell users of wikipedia useful information about those so categorized, making it easy to navigate between such articles, etc. Thanks.
Pastorwayne
13:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all - I've been bothered by these categories for awhile, but never enough to bring them up for discussion. Everyone who knows anything has taught themself to some degree, whether they had a formal education or not, so it seems the categories must be a little
WP:POV to decide who goes in. Anyway, they don't seem like useful navigational tools at all.
Lesnail
16:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Categories are good unless redundant, misconstructed, or socially unacceptable. Whether someone can be shoehorned into a category "to some degree" is irrelevant to whether a category should exist. If you don't think someone should belong there, edit them out, don't delete the category. A category that is not useful to you may be useful to someone else. --
Blainster
18:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete I have come across these categories quite often, and in my opinion a high proportion of the entries are dubious. Due to the potential aggregate size of this set, I do not think adequate maintenance is possible.
Sumahoy
01:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all "Autodidact" is hard to define consistently.
Greg Grahame
13:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all. How much formal schooling need someone have before he is no longer self-taught? Walt Disney and Abraham Lincoln are both on this list, yet both went to school at some point. Frederick Douglass is listed. He had no formal schooling, but someone taught him to read - it's just too difficult to define.
Coemgenus
14:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all per
Coemgenus.
LukeHoC
11:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep useful cats especially in relation to all the cats regarding university educated persons.
Pastorwayne
00:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was merge
Category:The Beatles EPs into
Category:The Beatles albums.
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
23:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Merge
Category:The Beatles EPs to
Category:The Beatles albums
Last year we eliminated all non-Beatles EPs categories, merging them into their respective albums categories. I said then that I'd nominate the Fab Four category for similar merging, but never did it. So here it is. As dominant as the Beatles were, I don't think a special categorization scheme is necessary for them. EPs fall under the definition of
album here: According to the rules of the UK Charts, a recording counts as an "album" if either it has at least four tracks or lasts more than 20 minutes. Sometimes shorter albums are referred to as EPs, an abbreviation of extended play. So I suggest a belated merge.--
Mike Selinker
05:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Doom production crew (game)
Category:Mayors of Norfolk County, Ontario
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was keep as one of many subcats of
Category:Mayors of places in Ontario; the list has been deleted, it seems. --
RobertG ♬
talk
10:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Mayors of Norfolk County, Ontario (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
A category for mayors of a small county in Southwest Ontario (for those curious, it borders Lake Erie). There is already
a list, so I fail to see why a category is needed.
Scorpion
03:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. A category for 2 individuals? I don't know... I'm not going to vote either way, but to any who might: I have proposed the list (
List of mayors of Norfolk County, Ontario) for deletion and will add relevant information to the main
Norfolk County, Ontario article from sources I'll dig up. After all, it's a list of 2 people. --
Black Falcon
04:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I thought that some record should exist on Wikipedia, which is why I wasn't sure if I should go after the list, but yeah, it could probably be merged with the county page. --
Scorpion
04:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep
Category:Mayors of places in Ontario has 29 subcategories. It's better to have them than to have hundreds of articles in that category.
Craig.Scott
12:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Part of a series under
Category:Mayors of places in Ontario.
Vegaswikian
20:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was speedy closed, nom withdrawn and submission in wrong XFD.
64.178.98.57
22:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Chinese names (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
This template (not the category) is unnecessary and duplicates information that is obvious.
Niohe
01:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Axis powers of World War II
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete (it's covered at
Axis Powers of World War II). --
RobertG ♬
talk
10:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Axis powers of World War II (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete in favour of the list/articles that already exist. This is not a useful way to define the likes of Bulgaria and Thailand (it is one of a handful of categories on the main categories of those and other countries which are much better known for other things). The majority of the articles indirectly placed in this category have absolutely nothing to do with World War II. Thankfully there is no matching category for the Allies.
LukeHoC
01:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. I agree. There is no need to place country articles or country categories in this category. The article
Axis Powers of World War II more than sufficiently covers the subject. I think this qualifies as a category based on a "Non-defining or trivial characteristic" per
WP:OCAT. Really, how many people think of "WWII Axis power" at the mention of Romania or Hungary? --
Black Falcon
03:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment Who considers Romania and Hungary to have been Axis powers? Quite a few people actually—it's just a question of being knowledgeable and informed. If WP has any purpose then surely this is it, to inform people? --
Xdamr
talk
11:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment But you didn't vote.
Pastorwayne
13:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- No, I'm not disputing the fact (and I am well aware) that they were Axis powers and contributed hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the Axis war effort. However, it is no longer a defining characteristic of those countries (of course it was during the War). I see no use in classifying countries by categories as "Countries which participated in the 2003 invasion of Iraq". --
Black Falcon
19:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Wouldn't a list be better for that purpose? I see categories mostly as navigation tools, not as ways to compare things, since no other info is available through the category, while a list can add e.g. the military force, number of casualties, ...
Fram
15:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Categorizing countries by their alliances over the course of history would be too cumbersome and impractical. Moreover, since such categories only describe relatively brief periods in these countries' histories, the category says little about the countries in general.
Dr. Submillimeter
15:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, the existing list is far better suited to this purpose, the category is just clogging articles.
Christopher Parham
(talk)
21:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Countries should only be categorised on the basis of attributes that are permanent, or at least both long-term and current, because otherwise where do we stop? Countries have thousands of characteristics, and it is much harder (and more politically sensitive) to say what are the key characteristics of a country than to make the same call about a person.
Sumahoy
01:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. An article with explanation, not just a list, is appropriate.
Doczilla
08:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete I initially inclined towards keeping this, but, on reflection, which side a nation took in WW2, WW1, and almost any other war does not really constitute a defining characteristic. This, of course, should be dealt with in the appropriate articles, but it isn't a proper basis for categorisation.
-
Xdamr
talk
17:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fictional characters who have committed treason
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was no consensus
Tim!
19:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Fictional characters who have committed treason (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete. This is a category based on a horribly strong POV on a character's actions.
'
00:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete I concur with Apostrophe. --
Ozgod
01:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep I disagree, in some cases it is a defining trait of a character, such as
Sosuke Aizen, though the exact criteria for inclusion may need to be fine-tuned.
Katsuhagi
01:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- And who determines whether that "betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy" is a defining trait of characters? You? I believe that
Sōsuke Aizen's defining traits are that he is a Shinigami and leader of the Arrancar. Not that he is a traitor. Whose interpretation is right? Mine or yours?
'
02:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Under the technical definition of traitor (A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy) he definately fits under that, since he worked with and eventually joined a faction that is pretty explicitly the enemy of his former affiliation. I don't really see much ambiguity there.
Katsuhagi
01:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Weak keep under the
enough is
enough theory. This has been up twice in the last two months and consensus was to keep the first time and rename the second. Maybe we can see how this works for a while?
Otto4711
02:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Weak keep Less than 2 weeks seems like an awful short time to think that there has been a massive shift in consensus. I also agree that, in practice, links to CfDs that result in a "Keep", "Merge", or "Rename" should be linked to the relevant Category Talk pages by the closing Admin. This is a lot like an AfD. Editors should have a link available to make them aware that the cat has been reviewed and kept by consensus. —
J Greb
03:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Weak keep per Otto4711. The last CFD was only 3 weeks ago (and the other one was 2 months before). It is unlikely consensus has changed. --
Black Falcon
04:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment It would be a good idea for the nom of this CfD stop depopulating the cat until this closes. The editor has already remove 29 articles since placing the nom. —
J Greb
04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Because there is an evident difference between betrayal and treason, as shown in the
treason article? It's clear that nobody else actually wishes to work on this category and set some actual standard.
'
04:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Unless this category is trimmed down to include only characters who are explicitly and specifically tried and convicted of acts of treason within the context of their fiction, this category inclined toward the editor's (sometimes arbitrary) interpretation of the characters' actions.
~CS
04:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Perhaps -- my point is simply that this is being applied to broad to be a helpful category. When a reader clicks on a link to this, it's reasonable to expect a list of characters featured in fiction about the act of treason. When they get a list populated by the likes of
Captain Qwark,
A Teen Titans character and
Ursula from the Little Mermaid the category is no longer presenting them with anything of encyclopediac value.
~CS
06:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I can see a possible problem with that since the cat was changed from "Fictional traitors". All it would require is an in-story statement from another character calling the subject "traitor", "betrayer", or similar. That can become a sticking point since it can be leveled by countrymen, teammates, family, or just about anyone. That's with out the POV question of "In who's eyes?" This may be a non-fiction example but, the Continental Congress was considered traitors to the British Crown for there actions, but in the light of American history they are seen as patriots. Similar things are a staple in fiction, look at how often characters are put in a position of choosing "friends or family", "country or religion", "this team or that", and so on. —
J Greb
06:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I see your point. However, I still think requiring "tried and convicted" from fictional works may be too much. I could suggest this as a compromise: a character is included if s/he has been branded a traitor by any (fictional) government representative/agent/officer. However, that would require changing the title to "Fictional characters who have been accused of treason". --
Black Falcon
06:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I'd almost say "Fictional characters portrayed as traitors" or "Fictional characters that fit the role of traitor" would be better. In any case, I also think that the article itself needs to clearly contain the information that supports adding the cat. And differentiate characters that are infiltrators instead (ie is an undercover cop a traitor to the mob?). —
J Greb
08:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I think that works, since it gets rid of ambiguity often associated with this. In terms of undercover people "double agent" (which has its own category already) fits that better. We definately need some criteria here as to who is a traitor.
Katsuhagi
01:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Well, "portrayed as traitors" has negative connotations, and I can imagine a traitor being shown in a positive light (e.g., a traitor to a tyrannical regime). I can't seem to think of an option that is not seriously flawed in one or more ways. I do agree, however, the the articles need to clearly contain information that identifies a character as "traitor", an "accused traitor", a "convicted traitor", or whichever criterion is eventually chosen. --
Black Falcon
08:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Committing treason or not, it is based on the facts. Obviously not PoV.
Pea
ceNT
04:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Treason is "based on the facts," like all crimes, but it's also subject to a legal judgment. A category for fictional characters convicted of treason would be measurable (if still a useless category).
Coemgenus
14:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep after removing offending articles, or possibly delete and recreate. Treason should be easily defined. --
Lenin and McCarthy | (
Complain here)
16:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - vague and unworkable.
Metamagician3000
00:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - not encyclopedic; and if you think that treason is easily defined or that it is consistently defined world-wide, were the "patriots" of the U.S. in 1776 or of Ireland in the
Easter Rising traitors? See
Lord Haw Haw,
Tokyo Rose and
John Walker Lindh for other conundrums over the term. After a civil war ends, were the combatants (or supporters) on the losing side traitors? Is it different if it is a rebellion suppressed versus an overthrow of the de facto or de jure regime? Lots of POV judgments to make folks.
Carlossuarez46
21:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.