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.
Although I agree with the rename I would urge for caution, because this category has seen some controversies lately, with the creation of various subcategories that were deleted soon afterwards (if my memory serves me well), and I don't know if this nominaton has any relation with those controversies.
Debresser (
talk)
22:11, 9 February 2010 (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:Taoist eschatology
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.
Nominator's rationale: Only one article. I know a little bit about Daoism and I don't think there is much possibility for growth as it is essentially agnostic about the world to come (i.e. I don't think there is much Daoist eschatology.) —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
09:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. There is something odd about the one article in that category: it doesn't actually mention
Taoism in the text, yet it's in
Category:Taoist eschatology. If it wasn't being discussed at CFD, I'd remove it from that category. I know too little about Taoism to make a judgement on this just now, but I suggest that the nominator should leave a note at
WikiProject Taoism to ask for some expert input. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
12:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:Eschatology. Like the nominator, I suspect that the concept of Taoist eschatology is a bit of an oxymoron. But even if I am wrong about that, there is only one article in this category and no evidence that it has any likelihood of expansion. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:09, 15 February 2010 (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:FloppyOS
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.
Delete as vague. The proposed renames remove the neologism, but do not reflect the inclusion criteria which are set to exclude an OS which can boot off a floppy but requires other mass storage devices to run usefully; that excludes
Windows 2000 and many flavours of Linux. A rename which reflects those inclusion criteria would require a horribly verbose category name. I think that this is a topic much better covered in a list. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
04:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)reply
I think this is the best option as it describes the focus of the OS, rather than the possibility of booting some barely functional version from a floppy. IIRC, on Win2000 you can only boot the kernel from a floppy; to get anything usable, you need access to a hard disk (or CD-ROM). The same goes for most Linux distros, but not
Tomsrtbt, etc.
Pcapping02:43, 9 February 2010 (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:Massachusetts College of Art
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. Even though they're not tagged, I'm going to rename the subcategories for consistency to save the work of another nomination that would undoubtedly result in renaming them.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:49, 16 February 2010 (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:American political documentary films
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.
Not quite the same thing, though I'm not sure how best to resolve this, and maybe others will read the titles differently than I do. But based on its name, I would expect
Category:American political documentary films to be for American documentary films that are about politics, but without specifying what country's politics; it could include an American documentary about French politics.
Category:Documentaries about American politics, on the other hand, specifies that American politics is the subject but does not specify the country of origin; it could include a French documentary about American politics. postdlf (talk)
16:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure I agree with your last point. Since the vast majority of Category:Documentaries about American politics would be US films I still think its useful to maintain Category:American documentary films as a parent, even if the match isn't 100%. But perhaps that's just my personal approach to category trees and I won't insist on it if you or someone else removes it.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
19:42, 8 February 2010 (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:Current events from January 2010
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 as empty/emptied monthly maintenance category. Per convention, any admin can delete these when empty/emptied.
Debresser (
talk)
08:46, 8 February 2010 (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.
Sculptures by artist
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.
Rename. I agree that it's a good idea to rename these to this format. It resolves the ambiguity (they are by that person, not of that person) and it mirrors the format of many of the other categories in the "Works by artist" tree (and the "Works by author tree").
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply
"... there surely is no ambiguity'." You vastly underestimate the potential for error-creation in the human mind. I need to introduce you to some university students I know ... better yet I'll just mail you some exam scripts ...
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment If this is extended to "paintings" I strongly recommend a change to the formula "Cat:Art by Foo", which unlike this one, would actually solve a real problem. The sculptures could then be a sub-category, which will work fine, whereas the paintings don't work, being all mixed up with prints, drawings etc.
Johnbod (
talk)
19:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Renames per above sage remarks. Also support rename to Good Olfcatory (per BHG above) which suggests a further rename in due course to Good Olfcategory, in deference to sterling work in cfds.
Occuli (
talk)
09:41, 9 February 2010 (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:Songs that reached number one on CCM chart
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.
Strange Somewhere back in
history, this cat seems to have been re-purposed. How and why it went from being about contemporary Christian music to Colombian music I'm not quite understanding, though. Odd.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
08:12, 8 February 2010 (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:Political organizations in the United Kingdom by ideology
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.
Nominator's rationale: This was just closed due to proceduralism: I emptied it and then decided to nominate it, not emptied it in order to nominate it.
As you can see form the logs of the "Political organizations in ... by ideology" categories, this is work in progress, actually I just started work. Besides anarchist organizations there are organizations of quite some more ideologies yet to be categorized - and they will be categorized at exactly this category level. This category level is indeed useful to reduce chaos, to avoid cluttering, to allow for consistent structure between countries and between ideologies and to keep categorization in the article namespace clear and simple. So please wait and see it developping, and if the categories should still be quasi empty, feel free to file an rfd. Just stating, it were pointless is no argument though, but an unsubstantiated opinion.
PanchoS (
talk)
00:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Addition: Take a look at
Political movements in Argentina. At the moment, this would be just as much an candidate for an rfd. Now see
Political movements in the United Kingdom, which already has been populated. It would have been just as empty be yesterday or so. But apart from this work-in-progress argument: I don't see a problem in varyingly populated categories, as long as they are part of a useful structure. If, say, Political movements in Belize would be hardly populated it still made sense to guide new articles to an existing category structure. If someone writes the second article about an islamist group in Estonia, and the one existing is already properly categorized, then it's easy to place the new one there, too. If not, it will probably end up somewhere else and produce cleanup work. However, this must obviously be carefully balanced with the objective not to overcategorize or produce empty categories.
PanchoS (
talk)
00:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. Political ideologies do not have have clearly-defined edges, and people and organisations rarely fit neatly within those loose boundaries, so they are a poor basis for categorising people or organisations. Such categories inevitably lead to POV disputes, sometimes due to POV-pushing, but more often due to good faith differences in interpretations. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
01:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply
This is indeed an argument, but it fails the topic this is about. I'm not categorizing individual or organization articles with an ideology tag. In fact there are already hundreds of categories like "Indian islamists" and "Spanish anarchists" or "Canadian conservatives". And there are hundreds of categories like "Trotskyist organisations of Mexico" or "Fascist political parties in Spain" (many of these categories have been existing for years, and obviously the POV-conflicts were containable). All I'm doing is giving these categories a consistent naming scheme and a systematic place within the category tree. Potential POV -conflicts arise from tagging an organization or individual with the label "anarchist" or "communist" or "nationalist". This potentially POVish tagging happens within the article text rather than by categorization. In any case it does not happen within the category tree structure, meaning that this has nothing to do with the contested category.
PanchoS (
talk)
03:05, 8 February 2010 (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:FC College alumni
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 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:Political organizations in the United Kingdom by ideology
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:Procedural close. Emptying a category before bringing it to CfD pre-empts any decision which might be made at CFD, thereby making the discussion pointless. I have repopulated the category (without prejudice to its merits or otherwise), and it may be nominated again if anyone wants to, but so long as it is not emptied beforehand. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Although I agree with the rename I would urge for caution, because this category has seen some controversies lately, with the creation of various subcategories that were deleted soon afterwards (if my memory serves me well), and I don't know if this nominaton has any relation with those controversies.
Debresser (
talk)
22:11, 9 February 2010 (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:Taoist eschatology
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.
Nominator's rationale: Only one article. I know a little bit about Daoism and I don't think there is much possibility for growth as it is essentially agnostic about the world to come (i.e. I don't think there is much Daoist eschatology.) —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
09:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. There is something odd about the one article in that category: it doesn't actually mention
Taoism in the text, yet it's in
Category:Taoist eschatology. If it wasn't being discussed at CFD, I'd remove it from that category. I know too little about Taoism to make a judgement on this just now, but I suggest that the nominator should leave a note at
WikiProject Taoism to ask for some expert input. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
12:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:Eschatology. Like the nominator, I suspect that the concept of Taoist eschatology is a bit of an oxymoron. But even if I am wrong about that, there is only one article in this category and no evidence that it has any likelihood of expansion. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:09, 15 February 2010 (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:FloppyOS
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.
Delete as vague. The proposed renames remove the neologism, but do not reflect the inclusion criteria which are set to exclude an OS which can boot off a floppy but requires other mass storage devices to run usefully; that excludes
Windows 2000 and many flavours of Linux. A rename which reflects those inclusion criteria would require a horribly verbose category name. I think that this is a topic much better covered in a list. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
04:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)reply
I think this is the best option as it describes the focus of the OS, rather than the possibility of booting some barely functional version from a floppy. IIRC, on Win2000 you can only boot the kernel from a floppy; to get anything usable, you need access to a hard disk (or CD-ROM). The same goes for most Linux distros, but not
Tomsrtbt, etc.
Pcapping02:43, 9 February 2010 (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:Massachusetts College of Art
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. Even though they're not tagged, I'm going to rename the subcategories for consistency to save the work of another nomination that would undoubtedly result in renaming them.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:49, 16 February 2010 (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:American political documentary films
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.
Not quite the same thing, though I'm not sure how best to resolve this, and maybe others will read the titles differently than I do. But based on its name, I would expect
Category:American political documentary films to be for American documentary films that are about politics, but without specifying what country's politics; it could include an American documentary about French politics.
Category:Documentaries about American politics, on the other hand, specifies that American politics is the subject but does not specify the country of origin; it could include a French documentary about American politics. postdlf (talk)
16:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure I agree with your last point. Since the vast majority of Category:Documentaries about American politics would be US films I still think its useful to maintain Category:American documentary films as a parent, even if the match isn't 100%. But perhaps that's just my personal approach to category trees and I won't insist on it if you or someone else removes it.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
19:42, 8 February 2010 (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:Current events from January 2010
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 as empty/emptied monthly maintenance category. Per convention, any admin can delete these when empty/emptied.
Debresser (
talk)
08:46, 8 February 2010 (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.
Sculptures by artist
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.
Rename. I agree that it's a good idea to rename these to this format. It resolves the ambiguity (they are by that person, not of that person) and it mirrors the format of many of the other categories in the "Works by artist" tree (and the "Works by author tree").
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply
"... there surely is no ambiguity'." You vastly underestimate the potential for error-creation in the human mind. I need to introduce you to some university students I know ... better yet I'll just mail you some exam scripts ...
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment If this is extended to "paintings" I strongly recommend a change to the formula "Cat:Art by Foo", which unlike this one, would actually solve a real problem. The sculptures could then be a sub-category, which will work fine, whereas the paintings don't work, being all mixed up with prints, drawings etc.
Johnbod (
talk)
19:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Renames per above sage remarks. Also support rename to Good Olfcatory (per BHG above) which suggests a further rename in due course to Good Olfcategory, in deference to sterling work in cfds.
Occuli (
talk)
09:41, 9 February 2010 (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:Songs that reached number one on CCM chart
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.
Strange Somewhere back in
history, this cat seems to have been re-purposed. How and why it went from being about contemporary Christian music to Colombian music I'm not quite understanding, though. Odd.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
08:12, 8 February 2010 (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:Political organizations in the United Kingdom by ideology
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.
Nominator's rationale: This was just closed due to proceduralism: I emptied it and then decided to nominate it, not emptied it in order to nominate it.
As you can see form the logs of the "Political organizations in ... by ideology" categories, this is work in progress, actually I just started work. Besides anarchist organizations there are organizations of quite some more ideologies yet to be categorized - and they will be categorized at exactly this category level. This category level is indeed useful to reduce chaos, to avoid cluttering, to allow for consistent structure between countries and between ideologies and to keep categorization in the article namespace clear and simple. So please wait and see it developping, and if the categories should still be quasi empty, feel free to file an rfd. Just stating, it were pointless is no argument though, but an unsubstantiated opinion.
PanchoS (
talk)
00:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Addition: Take a look at
Political movements in Argentina. At the moment, this would be just as much an candidate for an rfd. Now see
Political movements in the United Kingdom, which already has been populated. It would have been just as empty be yesterday or so. But apart from this work-in-progress argument: I don't see a problem in varyingly populated categories, as long as they are part of a useful structure. If, say, Political movements in Belize would be hardly populated it still made sense to guide new articles to an existing category structure. If someone writes the second article about an islamist group in Estonia, and the one existing is already properly categorized, then it's easy to place the new one there, too. If not, it will probably end up somewhere else and produce cleanup work. However, this must obviously be carefully balanced with the objective not to overcategorize or produce empty categories.
PanchoS (
talk)
00:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. Political ideologies do not have have clearly-defined edges, and people and organisations rarely fit neatly within those loose boundaries, so they are a poor basis for categorising people or organisations. Such categories inevitably lead to POV disputes, sometimes due to POV-pushing, but more often due to good faith differences in interpretations. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
01:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply
This is indeed an argument, but it fails the topic this is about. I'm not categorizing individual or organization articles with an ideology tag. In fact there are already hundreds of categories like "Indian islamists" and "Spanish anarchists" or "Canadian conservatives". And there are hundreds of categories like "Trotskyist organisations of Mexico" or "Fascist political parties in Spain" (many of these categories have been existing for years, and obviously the POV-conflicts were containable). All I'm doing is giving these categories a consistent naming scheme and a systematic place within the category tree. Potential POV -conflicts arise from tagging an organization or individual with the label "anarchist" or "communist" or "nationalist". This potentially POVish tagging happens within the article text rather than by categorization. In any case it does not happen within the category tree structure, meaning that this has nothing to do with the contested category.
PanchoS (
talk)
03:05, 8 February 2010 (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:FC College alumni
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 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:Political organizations in the United Kingdom by ideology
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:Procedural close. Emptying a category before bringing it to CfD pre-empts any decision which might be made at CFD, thereby making the discussion pointless. I have repopulated the category (without prejudice to its merits or otherwise), and it may be nominated again if anyone wants to, but so long as it is not emptied beforehand. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:16, 8 February 2010 (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.