Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 29 July 1 >

June 30

Action film series

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 all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Airport film series ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:A Better Tomorrow (film series) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Fantastic Four films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Indiane Jones films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Jack Ryan films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:The Lone Ranger films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Mad Max films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:The Punisher films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Rambo films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:RoboCop films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Rush Hour films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Transformers films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small categories, the vast majority of which have no likelihood of expansion, with one or two that may get another entry if the studio should decide to squeeze another sequel out of a dying franchise. Film series articles tend to be strongly interlinked and many of these have navtemplates as well. Per a number of recent CFDs, if the category for the film series is unlikely to ever contain much of anything other than the articles on the films along with maybe an article on the series itself, no need for the category. Otto4711 ( talk) 23:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
- J Greb ( talk) 15:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Checking three of the categories more or less randomly, the contents of my sample (Airport, Jack Ryan, Rambo) were all in at least one of the categories from your list, so the nominated cats are neither reducing categories on the articles nor diffusing the parents. Category:Action films has nine articles along with various sub-genre and chronological subcats. I don't think it's crystal-balling to assert that most of the film franchises nominated are dead (last Airport film 1979, last RoboCop film 1993, etc.) and for those who still have some life in them, the categories are still small with exceedingly slow growth potential (last Jack Ryan film 2002, next film is in development with a tentative release date of 2011). If there's a sudden rush of such films so that the franchises begin resembling, say, Category:James Bond films then re-creation is not off the table. Recent similar CFDs found here, here (one even Alansohn found unnecessary!), several here. There are more scattered back through CFD history but sadly our resident CFD historian hasn't collected them. Otto4711 ( talk) 16:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose this is a bad group nomination that looks more or less thrown together indescriminantly. little possibility of expansion certainly does not apply to all of them. There are a lot of Jack Ryan novels on which to base movies on. And any comic book that's been around for 40+ years has alot of material usable for exploitation into movies. As there's a Transformers film in theatres right now that is doing boffo box office, that hardly seems to characterize that franchise either. A proper argument for deletion should be appropriately presented for the appropriate categories. 76.66.193.20 ( talk) 21:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • That there is possible source material for a particular franchise does not mean that there will be any additional films made within that franchise, and assumptions along these lines are not justified per WP:CRYSTAL. The choice of categories to nominate was not indiscriminate but were instead based on a review of all of the categories within the action film series parent cat which IMHO are in the same vein as the many other film and film series categories deleted both recently and over the last several months to few years. Otto4711 ( talk) 04:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • That your argument is not based on WP:CBALL, but on the likelihood of more movies, and the fact that the franchises are dying shows that it is indiscriminantly thrown together. If you put together a proper argument for deletion, instead of a bad one, I would probably not oppose. 70.29.208.69 ( talk) 04:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Except that I already explained that I reviewed all of the sub-categories in the parent and nominated those that match up with other similar and deleted categories, so your continued insistence on something that is not accurate or true is odd. Otto4711 ( talk) 16:50, 3 July 2009 (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:Major League Baseball players on the 2003 positive steroid test list

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: Speedy delete (had been emptied by time of close). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Major League Baseball players on the 2003 positive steroid test list ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is based on an unattributed source that clearly states its content is "rumored" and "unconfirmed".  StarScream1007   ►Talk  21:43, 30 June 2009 (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:Junior footballers

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. the wub "?!" 13:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Junior footballers to Category:Scottish Junior Football Association players
Nominator's rationale: Per discussion at WP:FOOTY. "Junior footballers" is imprecise, as outside Scotland that usually means young players who are not yet ready for first team football. Junior football has a different meaning in Scotland, as it operates in parallel to "senior" football ( Scottish Premier League, etc). Players of all ages play in Scottish "junior" football. Therefore I believe that SJFA players is a more appropriate name for the category, which is worthwhile as it records participation in a notable competitive structure. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 20:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
No, it wouldn't be, as the Junior leagues aren't fully professional by any stretch of the imagination. It's additional information, i.e. "these notable player also played in the SJFA competitions". For instance, we have categories of players with clubs in the Highland League, eg, Category:Inverness Thistle F.C. players, or the various categories for players in the semi-professional leagues in Northern Ireland. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 06:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Support, I started the category for players who have played in fully professional leagues at some point in their career (thus allowing them to have Wiki articles, but have delved into the juniors at some point) Salty1984 ( talk) 14:33, 6 July 2009 (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.

Indian Army

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 all per nom. -- Xdamr talk 21:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. There was only one Indian Army during the World Wars. Its name was the Indian Army, not the British Indian Army. There has never been an organisation called the British Indian Army. We use Category:British Indian Army personnel to differentiate between pre- and post-independence personnel, but that is unnecessary in these categories. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:16, 30 June 2009 (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:Writers by award

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 wub "?!" 13:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Writers by award to Category:Writing award winners
Nominator's rationale: Other similar categories in Category:Award winners follow the "FOO award winners" model: there's Art award winners, Architecture award winners, Film award winners, Theatre award winners, etc. I believe this category ought to follow the same model. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – this is a subcat scheme for Category:Writers. (Are all the subcats for winners only? Some are named 'recipients'. In any case it's enough for the subcat to include 'winners' in its name as the category 'Writers by award' does not appear on any articles.) Occuli ( talk) 13:30, 30 June 2009 (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:Slavic nations

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. Tiptoety talk 03:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Slavic nations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete or merge. Essentially duplicates Category:Slavic countries. Indeed, that's the only line in its description:

See also Category:Slavic countries.

The only other similarly named category Category:Island nations is a {{ category redirect}} to Category:Island countries. I doubt that's needed here.
-- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 12:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep These are all articles on peoples not countries. There is absolutely no duplication with Category:Slavic countries whatsoever. Not all of them have a country, though some do. A rename to Category:Slavic peoples would make sense. WAS, you have an unfailing tin ear on these issues; why do you keep nominating in this area? This category has Bulgarians, the other Bulgaria. I frankly don't understand how an experienced user can fail to see the difference. "See also" does not mean "this is a definition". Johnbod ( talk) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • WAS, I participate here partly to prevent lazy and erroneous nominations like this succeeding. Have you now abandoned the argument in the nomination? Category:Slavic people is a biography category; as far as I can see it does not "contain(s) these in its subcategory tree" - did you actually look? "There are no "Slavic nations" spanning nation-states" shows a depth of ignorance of Central & Eastern European history that that is truly stunning; I won't even start on that. Occuli's point is relevant; that category is a sub-cat of this one, & contains a larger number of small and historical groups. A merge to that is one option, but personally I think the current scheme, with the bigger national peoples in a higher level makes sense. But that isn't the nomination. The Silesians might sensibly be moved to the lower category, and the Estereicher, who certainly aren't a nation. Johnbod ( talk) 13:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Occuli's point is ill-informed, as demonstrated above. Thank you for demonstrating that several of these articles are not "nations". As for the rest of your rant, it is essentially a 19th-century racist argument, similar to the Nazi rationale for a Jewish "nation". I reject that racism.
    -- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 08:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Since you seem to be rather pedantic today: note that the nomination says "essentially", not "exactly". It is obvious that the articles/subcategories are singular in one, and plural in the other. As any reader of any language can tell.
    -- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 09:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – I am not convinced from the above that the nom is fully conversant with Slavic matters (or Tamil ones). I look forward to ill-advised forays into Kurdish and Celtic categories, or perhaps the Irish/Northern Irish ones. Occuli ( talk) 11:13, 2 July 2009 (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:Slavic countries

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 wub "?!" 13:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Slavic countries to Category:Slavic-speaking countries and territories
Nominator's rationale: Rename and prune. A subcategory of both Category:Slavic languages and Category:Countries by language, it should reflect that in its name. Most others in Category:Countries by language are "-speaking", so rename to match.
Its current description:

The category includes recognized and unrecognized countries with the majority of population belonging to the one of Slavic language groups.

Wikipedia shouldn't be classifying "unrecognized" countries. Who decides whether a "majority of population" belongs to "language groups"? (Languages belong to "language groups", not people.) The description should be cleaned up, and could be limited to countries that have adopted a Slavic language as an official language, as currently stated in its parent: "To categorize countries per official language."
-- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 12:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Modified nomination to delete after discussion, as there are no longer any "Slavic-speaking" countries, it cannot be a member of Category:Countries by language.
-- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 06:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply
If a category is incorrectly parented a simple edit is the solution, not deletion. I will remove it from Category:Slavic languages. Occuli ( talk) 11:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Slavic-speaking countries Keep per johnbod, remove non-countries, remove it from Category:Slavic languages (a country is not a language - {{ catRel}} is the way to go) [done]. There is Category:Territories by language for sub-countries. Occuli ( talk) 14:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep/Comment Since there is no language called Slavic, I'm dubious that "Slavic-speaking" is a valid term. WAS, if a category seems to be in an inappropriate category, the best approach is to consider whether it should be removed, rather than proceeding without thought to mangling or deleting the category to make it fit the parents. In this case the tree is a little odd, but the best approach would seem to be to create a new Category:Slav at top-level, redefine the current top-level Category:Slavs to contain just biographical categories, following recent precedents. As for the present category, perhaps Category:Slavic nations above could be repurposed, with current nation-states as a sub-cat? The nom says "Wikipedia shouldn't be classifying "unrecognized" countries" - well, yes it should somewhere if they have articles, but not under "country" categories, since the convention is that in categories "country"="nation-state" (in fact just one meaning of country). Where does was think such articles should be categorized? In fact all the articles in the main category are states, there are "former countries" as a sub-cat, which is unobjectionable, and Category:Russian-speaking countries and territories etc contain various sub-national but formal territories. I'm failing to see much of a problem here. Johnbod ( talk) 15:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Johnbod ( talk) 15:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Rename as per Occuli. Debresser ( talk) 17:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep unless a better all-round solution is reached. Have you seen a Slavic-speaking person lately? Neither did I. I'm not sure that Slavic-speaking correctly identifies countries where Slavic languages (not one language) are spoken. And then there's the issue on non-Slavic countries where Slavic languages have official recognition. Austria and Kyrgyzstan recognize them but is it really what's intended? NVO ( talk) 19:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
P.S. By the same token there should be Germanic-speaking countries or Romance-speaking countries... or not? NVO ( talk) 19:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
I think you have the wrong end of the stick as usual. Even you recognise that Slav matters should be grouped together, as in your nomination proposal. Why do my comments suggest "some POV greater Slav nation spanning nation-states"? Johnbod ( talk) 13:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply
It is, called the Slavic languages. As pointed out above, Slavic-speaking no more works than "Romance-speaking" or "classical-speaking". Johnbod ( talk) 02:55, 2 July 2009 (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:Finance by Country

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: speedied, debate not really necessary. Bearcat ( talk) 14:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Finance by Country ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Messed up the capitalization, accidentally duplicated Category:Finance by country. Cander0000 ( talk) 10:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Debate isn't really necessary; as an innocent mistake that you fixed as soon as you caught it, you can just {{ db-author}} this. Consider it speedied. Bearcat ( talk) 14:55, 30 June 2009 (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:Converts from Transcendentalist Movement to Roman Catholicism

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Converts from Transcendentalist Movement to Roman Catholicism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a small category with no potential for growth. The Transcendentalists were never numerous, and few ever converted to Roman Catholicism; and since Transcendentalism is a historical movement, there will not be any more converts. As it is, the category includes only a single article, Orestes Brownson. Therefor, I suggest the category should be deleted. -- darolew 08:08, 30 June 2009 (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:Polynesian flora

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus. The discussion points out many issues with the proposals. I think that it is clear that some type of rename is needed, the question is to what? Anyone interested is directed to the category talk page to discuss the issues and see if a consensus can be developed. If a consensus does develop there, a rename can be brought back here as soon as that consensus appears. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Polynesian flora to Category:Flora of the Polynesian floristic subkingdom
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is too ambiguous; "Polynesian flora" could mean the flora of French Polynesia (often informally called Polynesia); the flora of Polynesia; the flora of the Polynesian floristic region; or the flora of the Polynesian floristic subkingdom (see Paleotropical Kingdom for background on the floristic hierarchy). Hesperian 01:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Yes, this is the point I am making here: that "Polynesia" might mean
  • Polynesia in the political sense (i.e. French Polynesia;
  • Polynesia in the ethnological sense;
  • Polynesia the floristic region;
  • Polynesia the floristic subkingdom
The counter proposal therefore does not address the problem. Hesperian 02:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC) reply
That is adressed in the category note. If we moved to a global set of categories using this system, I might agree, but the terms are not generally very well known - to the general user I mean - and classifying only one part of the world this way does not seem sensible. Johnbod ( talk) 00:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply
I don't follow you. There's an entire category tree dedicated to flora by floristic regions; see Category:Flora by region. This category has always been a part of that tree; it just had an ambiguous title. Hesperian 01:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Response - The category as it currently stands is stated to include Lord Howe and Norfolk islands (both part of the New Zealand floristic region and therefore the Antarctic subkingdom), New Caledonia (which is its own subkingdom and region) and Melanesia (part of which belongs in the Fijian region and part in the Malesian region, both in the Indo-malesian subkingdom, as well as in the Polynesian region). This means that simply renaming the category may not be the best option. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 07:49, 8 July 2009 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_30&oldid=1144514304"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 29 July 1 >

June 30

Action film series

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 all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Airport film series ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:A Better Tomorrow (film series) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Fantastic Four films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Indiane Jones films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Jack Ryan films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:The Lone Ranger films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Mad Max films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:The Punisher films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Rambo films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:RoboCop films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Rush Hour films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Transformers films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small categories, the vast majority of which have no likelihood of expansion, with one or two that may get another entry if the studio should decide to squeeze another sequel out of a dying franchise. Film series articles tend to be strongly interlinked and many of these have navtemplates as well. Per a number of recent CFDs, if the category for the film series is unlikely to ever contain much of anything other than the articles on the films along with maybe an article on the series itself, no need for the category. Otto4711 ( talk) 23:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
- J Greb ( talk) 15:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Checking three of the categories more or less randomly, the contents of my sample (Airport, Jack Ryan, Rambo) were all in at least one of the categories from your list, so the nominated cats are neither reducing categories on the articles nor diffusing the parents. Category:Action films has nine articles along with various sub-genre and chronological subcats. I don't think it's crystal-balling to assert that most of the film franchises nominated are dead (last Airport film 1979, last RoboCop film 1993, etc.) and for those who still have some life in them, the categories are still small with exceedingly slow growth potential (last Jack Ryan film 2002, next film is in development with a tentative release date of 2011). If there's a sudden rush of such films so that the franchises begin resembling, say, Category:James Bond films then re-creation is not off the table. Recent similar CFDs found here, here (one even Alansohn found unnecessary!), several here. There are more scattered back through CFD history but sadly our resident CFD historian hasn't collected them. Otto4711 ( talk) 16:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose this is a bad group nomination that looks more or less thrown together indescriminantly. little possibility of expansion certainly does not apply to all of them. There are a lot of Jack Ryan novels on which to base movies on. And any comic book that's been around for 40+ years has alot of material usable for exploitation into movies. As there's a Transformers film in theatres right now that is doing boffo box office, that hardly seems to characterize that franchise either. A proper argument for deletion should be appropriately presented for the appropriate categories. 76.66.193.20 ( talk) 21:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • That there is possible source material for a particular franchise does not mean that there will be any additional films made within that franchise, and assumptions along these lines are not justified per WP:CRYSTAL. The choice of categories to nominate was not indiscriminate but were instead based on a review of all of the categories within the action film series parent cat which IMHO are in the same vein as the many other film and film series categories deleted both recently and over the last several months to few years. Otto4711 ( talk) 04:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • That your argument is not based on WP:CBALL, but on the likelihood of more movies, and the fact that the franchises are dying shows that it is indiscriminantly thrown together. If you put together a proper argument for deletion, instead of a bad one, I would probably not oppose. 70.29.208.69 ( talk) 04:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Except that I already explained that I reviewed all of the sub-categories in the parent and nominated those that match up with other similar and deleted categories, so your continued insistence on something that is not accurate or true is odd. Otto4711 ( talk) 16:50, 3 July 2009 (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:Major League Baseball players on the 2003 positive steroid test list

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: Speedy delete (had been emptied by time of close). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Major League Baseball players on the 2003 positive steroid test list ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is based on an unattributed source that clearly states its content is "rumored" and "unconfirmed".  StarScream1007   ►Talk  21:43, 30 June 2009 (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:Junior footballers

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. the wub "?!" 13:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Junior footballers to Category:Scottish Junior Football Association players
Nominator's rationale: Per discussion at WP:FOOTY. "Junior footballers" is imprecise, as outside Scotland that usually means young players who are not yet ready for first team football. Junior football has a different meaning in Scotland, as it operates in parallel to "senior" football ( Scottish Premier League, etc). Players of all ages play in Scottish "junior" football. Therefore I believe that SJFA players is a more appropriate name for the category, which is worthwhile as it records participation in a notable competitive structure. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 20:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
No, it wouldn't be, as the Junior leagues aren't fully professional by any stretch of the imagination. It's additional information, i.e. "these notable player also played in the SJFA competitions". For instance, we have categories of players with clubs in the Highland League, eg, Category:Inverness Thistle F.C. players, or the various categories for players in the semi-professional leagues in Northern Ireland. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 06:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Support, I started the category for players who have played in fully professional leagues at some point in their career (thus allowing them to have Wiki articles, but have delved into the juniors at some point) Salty1984 ( talk) 14:33, 6 July 2009 (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.

Indian Army

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 all per nom. -- Xdamr talk 21:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. There was only one Indian Army during the World Wars. Its name was the Indian Army, not the British Indian Army. There has never been an organisation called the British Indian Army. We use Category:British Indian Army personnel to differentiate between pre- and post-independence personnel, but that is unnecessary in these categories. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:16, 30 June 2009 (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:Writers by award

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 wub "?!" 13:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Writers by award to Category:Writing award winners
Nominator's rationale: Other similar categories in Category:Award winners follow the "FOO award winners" model: there's Art award winners, Architecture award winners, Film award winners, Theatre award winners, etc. I believe this category ought to follow the same model. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – this is a subcat scheme for Category:Writers. (Are all the subcats for winners only? Some are named 'recipients'. In any case it's enough for the subcat to include 'winners' in its name as the category 'Writers by award' does not appear on any articles.) Occuli ( talk) 13:30, 30 June 2009 (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:Slavic nations

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. Tiptoety talk 03:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Slavic nations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete or merge. Essentially duplicates Category:Slavic countries. Indeed, that's the only line in its description:

See also Category:Slavic countries.

The only other similarly named category Category:Island nations is a {{ category redirect}} to Category:Island countries. I doubt that's needed here.
-- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 12:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep These are all articles on peoples not countries. There is absolutely no duplication with Category:Slavic countries whatsoever. Not all of them have a country, though some do. A rename to Category:Slavic peoples would make sense. WAS, you have an unfailing tin ear on these issues; why do you keep nominating in this area? This category has Bulgarians, the other Bulgaria. I frankly don't understand how an experienced user can fail to see the difference. "See also" does not mean "this is a definition". Johnbod ( talk) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • WAS, I participate here partly to prevent lazy and erroneous nominations like this succeeding. Have you now abandoned the argument in the nomination? Category:Slavic people is a biography category; as far as I can see it does not "contain(s) these in its subcategory tree" - did you actually look? "There are no "Slavic nations" spanning nation-states" shows a depth of ignorance of Central & Eastern European history that that is truly stunning; I won't even start on that. Occuli's point is relevant; that category is a sub-cat of this one, & contains a larger number of small and historical groups. A merge to that is one option, but personally I think the current scheme, with the bigger national peoples in a higher level makes sense. But that isn't the nomination. The Silesians might sensibly be moved to the lower category, and the Estereicher, who certainly aren't a nation. Johnbod ( talk) 13:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Occuli's point is ill-informed, as demonstrated above. Thank you for demonstrating that several of these articles are not "nations". As for the rest of your rant, it is essentially a 19th-century racist argument, similar to the Nazi rationale for a Jewish "nation". I reject that racism.
    -- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 08:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Since you seem to be rather pedantic today: note that the nomination says "essentially", not "exactly". It is obvious that the articles/subcategories are singular in one, and plural in the other. As any reader of any language can tell.
    -- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 09:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – I am not convinced from the above that the nom is fully conversant with Slavic matters (or Tamil ones). I look forward to ill-advised forays into Kurdish and Celtic categories, or perhaps the Irish/Northern Irish ones. Occuli ( talk) 11:13, 2 July 2009 (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:Slavic countries

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 wub "?!" 13:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Slavic countries to Category:Slavic-speaking countries and territories
Nominator's rationale: Rename and prune. A subcategory of both Category:Slavic languages and Category:Countries by language, it should reflect that in its name. Most others in Category:Countries by language are "-speaking", so rename to match.
Its current description:

The category includes recognized and unrecognized countries with the majority of population belonging to the one of Slavic language groups.

Wikipedia shouldn't be classifying "unrecognized" countries. Who decides whether a "majority of population" belongs to "language groups"? (Languages belong to "language groups", not people.) The description should be cleaned up, and could be limited to countries that have adopted a Slavic language as an official language, as currently stated in its parent: "To categorize countries per official language."
-- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 12:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Modified nomination to delete after discussion, as there are no longer any "Slavic-speaking" countries, it cannot be a member of Category:Countries by language.
-- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 06:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply
If a category is incorrectly parented a simple edit is the solution, not deletion. I will remove it from Category:Slavic languages. Occuli ( talk) 11:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Slavic-speaking countries Keep per johnbod, remove non-countries, remove it from Category:Slavic languages (a country is not a language - {{ catRel}} is the way to go) [done]. There is Category:Territories by language for sub-countries. Occuli ( talk) 14:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep/Comment Since there is no language called Slavic, I'm dubious that "Slavic-speaking" is a valid term. WAS, if a category seems to be in an inappropriate category, the best approach is to consider whether it should be removed, rather than proceeding without thought to mangling or deleting the category to make it fit the parents. In this case the tree is a little odd, but the best approach would seem to be to create a new Category:Slav at top-level, redefine the current top-level Category:Slavs to contain just biographical categories, following recent precedents. As for the present category, perhaps Category:Slavic nations above could be repurposed, with current nation-states as a sub-cat? The nom says "Wikipedia shouldn't be classifying "unrecognized" countries" - well, yes it should somewhere if they have articles, but not under "country" categories, since the convention is that in categories "country"="nation-state" (in fact just one meaning of country). Where does was think such articles should be categorized? In fact all the articles in the main category are states, there are "former countries" as a sub-cat, which is unobjectionable, and Category:Russian-speaking countries and territories etc contain various sub-national but formal territories. I'm failing to see much of a problem here. Johnbod ( talk) 15:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Johnbod ( talk) 15:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Rename as per Occuli. Debresser ( talk) 17:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep unless a better all-round solution is reached. Have you seen a Slavic-speaking person lately? Neither did I. I'm not sure that Slavic-speaking correctly identifies countries where Slavic languages (not one language) are spoken. And then there's the issue on non-Slavic countries where Slavic languages have official recognition. Austria and Kyrgyzstan recognize them but is it really what's intended? NVO ( talk) 19:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
P.S. By the same token there should be Germanic-speaking countries or Romance-speaking countries... or not? NVO ( talk) 19:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
I think you have the wrong end of the stick as usual. Even you recognise that Slav matters should be grouped together, as in your nomination proposal. Why do my comments suggest "some POV greater Slav nation spanning nation-states"? Johnbod ( talk) 13:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply
It is, called the Slavic languages. As pointed out above, Slavic-speaking no more works than "Romance-speaking" or "classical-speaking". Johnbod ( talk) 02:55, 2 July 2009 (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:Finance by Country

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: speedied, debate not really necessary. Bearcat ( talk) 14:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Finance by Country ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Messed up the capitalization, accidentally duplicated Category:Finance by country. Cander0000 ( talk) 10:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Debate isn't really necessary; as an innocent mistake that you fixed as soon as you caught it, you can just {{ db-author}} this. Consider it speedied. Bearcat ( talk) 14:55, 30 June 2009 (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:Converts from Transcendentalist Movement to Roman Catholicism

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Converts from Transcendentalist Movement to Roman Catholicism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a small category with no potential for growth. The Transcendentalists were never numerous, and few ever converted to Roman Catholicism; and since Transcendentalism is a historical movement, there will not be any more converts. As it is, the category includes only a single article, Orestes Brownson. Therefor, I suggest the category should be deleted. -- darolew 08:08, 30 June 2009 (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:Polynesian flora

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus. The discussion points out many issues with the proposals. I think that it is clear that some type of rename is needed, the question is to what? Anyone interested is directed to the category talk page to discuss the issues and see if a consensus can be developed. If a consensus does develop there, a rename can be brought back here as soon as that consensus appears. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Polynesian flora to Category:Flora of the Polynesian floristic subkingdom
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is too ambiguous; "Polynesian flora" could mean the flora of French Polynesia (often informally called Polynesia); the flora of Polynesia; the flora of the Polynesian floristic region; or the flora of the Polynesian floristic subkingdom (see Paleotropical Kingdom for background on the floristic hierarchy). Hesperian 01:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Yes, this is the point I am making here: that "Polynesia" might mean
  • Polynesia in the political sense (i.e. French Polynesia;
  • Polynesia in the ethnological sense;
  • Polynesia the floristic region;
  • Polynesia the floristic subkingdom
The counter proposal therefore does not address the problem. Hesperian 02:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC) reply
That is adressed in the category note. If we moved to a global set of categories using this system, I might agree, but the terms are not generally very well known - to the general user I mean - and classifying only one part of the world this way does not seem sensible. Johnbod ( talk) 00:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply
I don't follow you. There's an entire category tree dedicated to flora by floristic regions; see Category:Flora by region. This category has always been a part of that tree; it just had an ambiguous title. Hesperian 01:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Response - The category as it currently stands is stated to include Lord Howe and Norfolk islands (both part of the New Zealand floristic region and therefore the Antarctic subkingdom), New Caledonia (which is its own subkingdom and region) and Melanesia (part of which belongs in the Fijian region and part in the Malesian region, both in the Indo-malesian subkingdom, as well as in the Polynesian region). This means that simply renaming the category may not be the best option. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 07:49, 8 July 2009 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_30&oldid=1144514304"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE