| < October 14 | October 16 > |
|---|
- 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. Dana boomer ( talk) 15:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
-
Category:Shirley Jackson Award winners (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: No sign that this is a notable award CutOffTies ( talk) 21:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Disagree. It is awarded at ReaderCon. -mbfitz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbfitz ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Awarded only since 2008, no evidence of award notability, already fully covered in Jackson's article. That it was awarded at a conference doesn't mean much, most awards with proper award shows have no categories because of WP:OC#Award recipients Hekerui ( talk) 21:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Google news search shows it mentioned as a notable award, as well as listing it as a notable award certain people have won. Going to go make an article for it now with these sources added. Shirley Jackson Award Dream Focus 06:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Having a Wiki page doesn't mean the award recipients need a category (again per
WP:OC#Award recipients and previous deletion discussions like the
Philip K. Dick Memorial Award).
Hekerui (
talk)
08:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I was commenting on the previous post, someone claiming the award wasn't notable. I was thinking that a category allows people to see it at the bottom of the page for the people or media that won it. People can then easily click there to see who else won it. But there will most certainly be an award section in the articles of those that won the award, listing all the notable awards they have one, and people can just click on those links to read about the award and find a list of other winners. So I agree a category probably isn't necessary, but its not harming anything either, and some might still prefer to have it. Dream Focus 08:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete -- This is an award category. The normal solution is to listify such categories, but the list already exists at Shirley Jackson Award. We only allow them for the most notable awards of all, such as Nobel prizes. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per above. I've !voted for deletion of award categories which are clearly notable; if this is kept, I'll ask for undeletion/re-creation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename. Dana boomer ( talk) 15:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Hollywood United players to Category:Hollywood United Hitmen players
- Nominator's rationale: That's been their name since they began play last season. Hollywood United Hitmen. Category definetly needs to be renamed. – Michael ( talk) 20:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support to match parent article. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. If anyone wants to listify, I can provide you with info on what was in the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Great Basin namesakes to Category:Great Basin
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. At best this is categorization by name. I believe that most of these are actually for articles that can be included in the parent article or one of the subcategories there. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Listify instead of merge. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 04:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - I think few of these articles are truly related to the Great Basin by more than name. Those that are, recat accordingly, but I think the presumption should be against. --
Bsherr (
talk)
05:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would not object to an outright delete since I suspect that all of the articles are already in appropriate categories, even if not in the Category:Great Basin tree. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: Listify and delete. Dana boomer ( talk) 14:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
-
Category:West Country Carnival (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Essentially
WP:OC#VENUES as places that have hosted the
West Country Carnival.
Tim! (
talk)
18:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure WP:OC#VENUES applies as these are not specific buildings or arenas, but towns where a significant cultural event with 400 years of history, ie the West Country Carnival, takes place.— Rod talk 20:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: number of points to pick up here, and readers should note that I was the original creator of this category. Firstly, the rational of the deletion is based on
WP:OC#VENUES, which states "There is no encyclopedic value in categorizing locations by the events or event types that have been held there, such as arenas that have hosted specific sports events or concerts;" and then gives in example WrestleMania venues, Republican National Convention venues, Democratic National Convention venues: all such events which generally go to one location per annum in rotation, and then almost never return. The
West Country Carnival is an annual celebration which has a 400 year history across many of the venues in the category. Secondly,
WP:OC#VENUES further states: "However, categories that indicate how a specific facility is regularly used in a specific and notable way for some or all of the year (such as Category:National Basketball Association venues) may sometimes be appropriate." The NBA across a number of fixed-point venues has only been going for around 100 years, so something going around the same venues for 400years is well within the terms of "specific and notable." Thirdly, inclusion in this category of a town means that we don't get 30+ versions of the article "the XYZ carnival." Fourthly, this editor seems from their recent edit record to be on some form of Fairs category clean-up, and after creation of numerous new categories, has further then miss-categorized many carnivals to add to the new fairs categories to fill them up. I conclude therefore in part that this deletion is prompted in at least part as a result of their own poor focus - had they not seen the existing category
Category:Carnivals? In summary the WCC is notable, been running for 400+ years, and a specific category makes both navigation easier and keeps down excess text and entries; the category itself does not fall under the deletion criteria specified by
WP:OC#VENUES on two counts, making the nomination invalid. Rgds, --
Trident13 (
talk)
00:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, you took it rather personally didn't you? As to my alleged mis-categorisation, I'd love to know which articles you are referring to as everything I applied a new category to was already in Category:Fairs or Category:Annual fairs, apart from a couple I found by searching. In passing I note that you have not removed any from the new categories. The fact that something is notable and been running for 400 years is quite irrelevant to making a useful category, these towns should instead be listed in the West Country Carnival article.
- Far more seriously how notable is this? The Carnival is not mentioned at all in the majority of the town articles, and the few that actually mention the carnival the body of the article only extend to one sentence about it.
Tim! (
talk)
08:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, but you took my case for retention personally, taking two bites at a retort! If you look at each of the towns own websites then you will see that each notes its carnival there - wikipedia doesn't include everything, as you seem to assume/an experienced editor should already know. Your edit record on the creation of the Fairs category speaks for itself - the main WCC article was not in Fairs per your category creation. My main point still stands - the category itself does not fall under the deletion criteria specified by
WP:OC#VENUES on two counts, making the nomination invalid. Rgds, --
Trident13 (
talk)
13:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please check basic facts, it is in Category:Annual fairs and you placed it there in this edit. I think you need to read WP:KETTLE and WP:OWN. Tim! ( talk) 18:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, but you took my case for retention personally, taking two bites at a retort! If you look at each of the towns own websites then you will see that each notes its carnival there - wikipedia doesn't include everything, as you seem to assume/an experienced editor should already know. Your edit record on the creation of the Fairs category speaks for itself - the main WCC article was not in Fairs per your category creation. My main point still stands - the category itself does not fall under the deletion criteria specified by
WP:OC#VENUES on two counts, making the nomination invalid. Rgds, --
Trident13 (
talk)
13:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Listify. For the towns, this is not defining. So a list in the main article about the towns involved, when and what is happening would be clearly more informative then an entry in a category when most of them could be deleted since their inclusion in the category is not supported by the article text (i.e. a significant impact vs. a mere mention). Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Listify/Delete per nom; not defining for these places. No objection to listifying for reasons given by Vegaswikian, which seems like a reasonable compromise. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete. Dana boomer ( talk) 15:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
-
Category:Sydney New Year's Eve telecast hosts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: overcat as WP:OC#PERF - should not categorise by performance The-Pope ( talk) 12:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Mattinbgn ( talk) 02:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, conceivably listifying first, but I dount we need it at all. This is a performance by performer category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete. Dana boomer ( talk) 15:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
-
Category:Sydney New Year's Eve telecast presenters (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: overcat as WP:OC#PERF - should not categorise by performance The-Pope ( talk) 11:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Mattinbgn ( talk) 02:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, conceivably listifying first, but I dount we need it at all. This is a performance by performer category. And how does this differ from the item above? Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 25. Dana boomer ( talk) 14:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Situation comedies to Category:Sitcoms
- Nominator's rationale: Suggested to move in the opposite direction: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_7#Category:Sitcoms, then the main article and the subcats. got changed. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete. Dana boomer ( talk) 16:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
-
Category:MTV Video Music Awards winners (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete Removal per WP:OC#Award_recipients, entries already in lists for the individual awards, compare deletion discussion for MTV Music Award winners. Hekerui ( talk) 08:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Listify if necessary then Delete -- we do not like award categories. Lists do the job much better sicne they can show the date, reason for the award, etc. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete. Dana boomer ( talk) 16:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
-
Category:Americana Music Award winners (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Removal per WP:OC#Award_recipients, all entries already in a list in the main article, compare previous discussion. Hekerui ( talk) 08:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Listify if necessary then Delete -- we do not like award categories. Lists do the job much better sicne they can show the date, reason for the award, etc. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 26. Dana boomer ( talk) 14:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Redirects from domain name to Category:Redirects from domain names
- Nominator's rationale: Possible speedy? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep name (or potentially delete category). Proposed name is ungrammatical. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Response What am I missing here: we have (e.g.) Category:Redirects from albums (not Category:Redirect from album, Category:Redirects from songs (not Category:Redirects from song), and Category:Redirects from alternative names (not Category:Redirect from alternative name.) Why should this be different? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. I still think it's ungrammatical, but it may be best to have consistent ungrammatical names than inconsistent grammatical names. I'm not sure the category is appropriate, however. (Individual items) mostly seem to be closer to Redirect from URL than Redirect from domain name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 26. Dana boomer ( talk) 14:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Arabic script to Category:Arabic alphabet
- Nominator's rationale: Per main article and other such subcats. of Category:Abjad writing systems. Personally, I am opposed to these being named "X alphabet" when they are abjads rather than true alphabets (if they were all "X script" that would just avoid the problem of categorization), but as long as most of them are named "X alphabet" and the main article is named "Arabic alphabet", there is no reason for this to be different. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose "Script" is more appropriate to the pages and sub-categories in the category. I would also rename the main article Arabic script - the content is broader than the alphabet.-- Mhockey ( talk) 21:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 26. Dana boomer ( talk) 14:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
-
Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Darin Fidika (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale:
No opinion, procedural nomination. Subject of the category has requested that it be deleted. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)- Very Strong Keep. Changing my stance here based on the OTRS ticket mentioned below. As I can read that ticket, the content of that message shows that Fidika has not changed and is presenting himself very differently in that OTRS message compared to here. Therefore, I adamantly oppose renaming this category. I can't give my full reasons for doing so without breaking the confidentiality of OTRS, however. For anyone who can read it, I've made a note there (on OTRS). ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
DeleteRename category. Rename user. Reasonable request. Sockpuppetrywas five years ago. We can let it go now, andnot punish someone for registering under their real name. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)- Just a comment: the sock puppetry wasn't just five years ago; it's been spread across several years (December 2006 (2), January 2007, April 2007, July 2008 (2), March 2009, November 2009). It only began five years ago. ···
日本穣
? ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WikiProject Japan!
15:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I misunderstood. This is a properly blocked person and a sockpuppeteer. However, the wish to remove his real name from the project is reasonable, and it does the project no credit to refuse such a request, no matter who from. Renaming the category should satisfy his wish without reducing our surveillance. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just a comment: the sock puppetry wasn't just five years ago; it's been spread across several years (December 2006 (2), January 2007, April 2007, July 2008 (2), March 2009, November 2009). It only began five years ago. ···
日本穣
? ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WikiProject Japan!
15:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Notice: I have notified of this discussion all those who have been involved in this issue. You may check my recent edits for "Notice of Discussion" to see who was notified. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. Fidika seems to want to vanish; see this at Wikibooks. Normally I wouldn't want to hinder this. But he has wasted a great amount of people's time here (notably Nihonjoe's time), and I'd want to be fairly certain that he wouldn't waste any more before doing anything that would make it harder for people to see all the "sockpuppetry" and identify and label any more outbreaks. Is Fidika serious in saying that he wants nothing to do with WP? This is what he said (as "Exiled ambition") on 21 July 2008: ¶ There is indeed no place for me in a society defined by peasantry, and that is why I am taking my leave for matters that will rightfully bare [sic] me benefit in showing the talent, perseverance, and ambition which I have fully iterated [sic]. Goodbye. ¶ So far as it is comprehensible, that sounds final. However, it's not final for Fidika, it's instead (more or less) final for "Exiled ambition". Over a year later, Fidika was merrily editing as "IMMORTAL SAMURAI". The latest word (I think) from the already blocked all-caps "samurai" was this: ¶ I'm enjoying my latest account(s) by the way if you really want to know, so enjoy the clownshow you've made up in your heads about how I'm powerless while I continue to edit. ¶ Yes, as recently as 23 January of this year, Fidika was boasting about editing under one or more other account(s). -- Hoary ( talk) 23:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. Haha, I guess I did make those two statements. Wow, sorry, I'm embarassed how pretentious and insolent I was just a year or so ago. Not to try swaying this debate in any certain direction, but I'm not that person anymore and respect each of you for the good that you're bringing to Wikipedia, especially since you're doing all of it free of charge. I know you could easily dismiss my request, and then I wouldn't be able to do a thing, as this is the internet, so I'm very appreciative for this debate. I'm against Wikipedia, but that's not because I'm the egotistic, insolent, kid I was as Exiled Ambition; I just can't respect how it's anti-capitalistic just like the rest of the internet. Each of you should be paid for what you've done to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.41.91 ( talk) 01:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Strong Keep.As a former user myself now having left Wikipedia for years and given the fact the user has used multiple socks for over 5 years and last act of socking is less than a year old in Nov 2009.Hence the user name and category should be retained for now . 74.220.215.237 ( talk) 10:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -- A request by the subject is likely to be followed by his reappearance with another ID. Sockpuppets are usually vandals who cause the rest of us no end of work in removing their ill-thought out (if not destructive) contributions. If the vandal is truly repentant and is willing to work constructively, it might be different. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. My feeling is that this is too soon to believe that Fidika is done abusing Wikipedia. I'd be amenable but after years, not months. Mango juice talk 18:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment (to last three users). You're not understanding the request. I'm no longer asking if the category and the usernames could be deleted; I'm asking if my real name could be removed from the users in that category, including the category title, and be replaced by a random pseudonym. Naturally, since the category and usernames will still be there, surveillance of me won't be any more of a problem than if I never had a name change. This is all that I'm asking, and I'm honored to have Mr. SmokeyJoe's consent on this, who suggested it. Whether you can trust me or not matters very little, as this is the internet, and appearing here as an IP address rather than as a user is the best gesture of honesty that I can give without helping Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't deserve my help, and neither should it from any of you unless communism is what you favor. It's nice to help people, to inform them, but Wikipedia is destroying industries and mocking professional life and capitalism by simply still being alive. Remember, I could simply not edit any samurai articles and attack something else and it would be absolutely impossible for any of you to identify me, but I'm above that, as it wouldn't make the internet any better of a place or Wikipedia any less influential. Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.41.91 ( talk) 02:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Rename category: Given the facts above, I see no problem with some sort of right to vanish here. NB: This is related to OTRS ticket 2010101210010857, which is from the subject - it's being dealt with here however, not OTRS. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 00:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
| < October 14 | October 16 > |
|---|
- 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. Dana boomer ( talk) 15:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
-
Category:Shirley Jackson Award winners (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: No sign that this is a notable award CutOffTies ( talk) 21:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Disagree. It is awarded at ReaderCon. -mbfitz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbfitz ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Awarded only since 2008, no evidence of award notability, already fully covered in Jackson's article. That it was awarded at a conference doesn't mean much, most awards with proper award shows have no categories because of WP:OC#Award recipients Hekerui ( talk) 21:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Google news search shows it mentioned as a notable award, as well as listing it as a notable award certain people have won. Going to go make an article for it now with these sources added. Shirley Jackson Award Dream Focus 06:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Having a Wiki page doesn't mean the award recipients need a category (again per
WP:OC#Award recipients and previous deletion discussions like the
Philip K. Dick Memorial Award).
Hekerui (
talk)
08:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I was commenting on the previous post, someone claiming the award wasn't notable. I was thinking that a category allows people to see it at the bottom of the page for the people or media that won it. People can then easily click there to see who else won it. But there will most certainly be an award section in the articles of those that won the award, listing all the notable awards they have one, and people can just click on those links to read about the award and find a list of other winners. So I agree a category probably isn't necessary, but its not harming anything either, and some might still prefer to have it. Dream Focus 08:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete -- This is an award category. The normal solution is to listify such categories, but the list already exists at Shirley Jackson Award. We only allow them for the most notable awards of all, such as Nobel prizes. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per above. I've !voted for deletion of award categories which are clearly notable; if this is kept, I'll ask for undeletion/re-creation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename. Dana boomer ( talk) 15:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Hollywood United players to Category:Hollywood United Hitmen players
- Nominator's rationale: That's been their name since they began play last season. Hollywood United Hitmen. Category definetly needs to be renamed. – Michael ( talk) 20:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support to match parent article. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. If anyone wants to listify, I can provide you with info on what was in the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Great Basin namesakes to Category:Great Basin
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. At best this is categorization by name. I believe that most of these are actually for articles that can be included in the parent article or one of the subcategories there. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Listify instead of merge. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 04:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - I think few of these articles are truly related to the Great Basin by more than name. Those that are, recat accordingly, but I think the presumption should be against. --
Bsherr (
talk)
05:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would not object to an outright delete since I suspect that all of the articles are already in appropriate categories, even if not in the Category:Great Basin tree. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: Listify and delete. Dana boomer ( talk) 14:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
-
Category:West Country Carnival (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Essentially
WP:OC#VENUES as places that have hosted the
West Country Carnival.
Tim! (
talk)
18:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure WP:OC#VENUES applies as these are not specific buildings or arenas, but towns where a significant cultural event with 400 years of history, ie the West Country Carnival, takes place.— Rod talk 20:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: number of points to pick up here, and readers should note that I was the original creator of this category. Firstly, the rational of the deletion is based on
WP:OC#VENUES, which states "There is no encyclopedic value in categorizing locations by the events or event types that have been held there, such as arenas that have hosted specific sports events or concerts;" and then gives in example WrestleMania venues, Republican National Convention venues, Democratic National Convention venues: all such events which generally go to one location per annum in rotation, and then almost never return. The
West Country Carnival is an annual celebration which has a 400 year history across many of the venues in the category. Secondly,
WP:OC#VENUES further states: "However, categories that indicate how a specific facility is regularly used in a specific and notable way for some or all of the year (such as Category:National Basketball Association venues) may sometimes be appropriate." The NBA across a number of fixed-point venues has only been going for around 100 years, so something going around the same venues for 400years is well within the terms of "specific and notable." Thirdly, inclusion in this category of a town means that we don't get 30+ versions of the article "the XYZ carnival." Fourthly, this editor seems from their recent edit record to be on some form of Fairs category clean-up, and after creation of numerous new categories, has further then miss-categorized many carnivals to add to the new fairs categories to fill them up. I conclude therefore in part that this deletion is prompted in at least part as a result of their own poor focus - had they not seen the existing category
Category:Carnivals? In summary the WCC is notable, been running for 400+ years, and a specific category makes both navigation easier and keeps down excess text and entries; the category itself does not fall under the deletion criteria specified by
WP:OC#VENUES on two counts, making the nomination invalid. Rgds, --
Trident13 (
talk)
00:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, you took it rather personally didn't you? As to my alleged mis-categorisation, I'd love to know which articles you are referring to as everything I applied a new category to was already in Category:Fairs or Category:Annual fairs, apart from a couple I found by searching. In passing I note that you have not removed any from the new categories. The fact that something is notable and been running for 400 years is quite irrelevant to making a useful category, these towns should instead be listed in the West Country Carnival article.
- Far more seriously how notable is this? The Carnival is not mentioned at all in the majority of the town articles, and the few that actually mention the carnival the body of the article only extend to one sentence about it.
Tim! (
talk)
08:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, but you took my case for retention personally, taking two bites at a retort! If you look at each of the towns own websites then you will see that each notes its carnival there - wikipedia doesn't include everything, as you seem to assume/an experienced editor should already know. Your edit record on the creation of the Fairs category speaks for itself - the main WCC article was not in Fairs per your category creation. My main point still stands - the category itself does not fall under the deletion criteria specified by
WP:OC#VENUES on two counts, making the nomination invalid. Rgds, --
Trident13 (
talk)
13:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please check basic facts, it is in Category:Annual fairs and you placed it there in this edit. I think you need to read WP:KETTLE and WP:OWN. Tim! ( talk) 18:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, but you took my case for retention personally, taking two bites at a retort! If you look at each of the towns own websites then you will see that each notes its carnival there - wikipedia doesn't include everything, as you seem to assume/an experienced editor should already know. Your edit record on the creation of the Fairs category speaks for itself - the main WCC article was not in Fairs per your category creation. My main point still stands - the category itself does not fall under the deletion criteria specified by
WP:OC#VENUES on two counts, making the nomination invalid. Rgds, --
Trident13 (
talk)
13:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Listify. For the towns, this is not defining. So a list in the main article about the towns involved, when and what is happening would be clearly more informative then an entry in a category when most of them could be deleted since their inclusion in the category is not supported by the article text (i.e. a significant impact vs. a mere mention). Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Listify/Delete per nom; not defining for these places. No objection to listifying for reasons given by Vegaswikian, which seems like a reasonable compromise. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete. Dana boomer ( talk) 15:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
-
Category:Sydney New Year's Eve telecast hosts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: overcat as WP:OC#PERF - should not categorise by performance The-Pope ( talk) 12:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Mattinbgn ( talk) 02:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, conceivably listifying first, but I dount we need it at all. This is a performance by performer category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete. Dana boomer ( talk) 15:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
-
Category:Sydney New Year's Eve telecast presenters (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: overcat as WP:OC#PERF - should not categorise by performance The-Pope ( talk) 11:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Mattinbgn ( talk) 02:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, conceivably listifying first, but I dount we need it at all. This is a performance by performer category. And how does this differ from the item above? Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 25. Dana boomer ( talk) 14:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Situation comedies to Category:Sitcoms
- Nominator's rationale: Suggested to move in the opposite direction: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_7#Category:Sitcoms, then the main article and the subcats. got changed. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete. Dana boomer ( talk) 16:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
-
Category:MTV Video Music Awards winners (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete Removal per WP:OC#Award_recipients, entries already in lists for the individual awards, compare deletion discussion for MTV Music Award winners. Hekerui ( talk) 08:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Listify if necessary then Delete -- we do not like award categories. Lists do the job much better sicne they can show the date, reason for the award, etc. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete. Dana boomer ( talk) 16:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
-
Category:Americana Music Award winners (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Removal per WP:OC#Award_recipients, all entries already in a list in the main article, compare previous discussion. Hekerui ( talk) 08:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Listify if necessary then Delete -- we do not like award categories. Lists do the job much better sicne they can show the date, reason for the award, etc. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 26. Dana boomer ( talk) 14:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Redirects from domain name to Category:Redirects from domain names
- Nominator's rationale: Possible speedy? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep name (or potentially delete category). Proposed name is ungrammatical. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Response What am I missing here: we have (e.g.) Category:Redirects from albums (not Category:Redirect from album, Category:Redirects from songs (not Category:Redirects from song), and Category:Redirects from alternative names (not Category:Redirect from alternative name.) Why should this be different? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. I still think it's ungrammatical, but it may be best to have consistent ungrammatical names than inconsistent grammatical names. I'm not sure the category is appropriate, however. (Individual items) mostly seem to be closer to Redirect from URL than Redirect from domain name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 26. Dana boomer ( talk) 14:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Arabic script to Category:Arabic alphabet
- Nominator's rationale: Per main article and other such subcats. of Category:Abjad writing systems. Personally, I am opposed to these being named "X alphabet" when they are abjads rather than true alphabets (if they were all "X script" that would just avoid the problem of categorization), but as long as most of them are named "X alphabet" and the main article is named "Arabic alphabet", there is no reason for this to be different. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose "Script" is more appropriate to the pages and sub-categories in the category. I would also rename the main article Arabic script - the content is broader than the alphabet.-- Mhockey ( talk) 21:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 26. Dana boomer ( talk) 14:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
-
Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Darin Fidika (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale:
No opinion, procedural nomination. Subject of the category has requested that it be deleted. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)- Very Strong Keep. Changing my stance here based on the OTRS ticket mentioned below. As I can read that ticket, the content of that message shows that Fidika has not changed and is presenting himself very differently in that OTRS message compared to here. Therefore, I adamantly oppose renaming this category. I can't give my full reasons for doing so without breaking the confidentiality of OTRS, however. For anyone who can read it, I've made a note there (on OTRS). ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
DeleteRename category. Rename user. Reasonable request. Sockpuppetrywas five years ago. We can let it go now, andnot punish someone for registering under their real name. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)- Just a comment: the sock puppetry wasn't just five years ago; it's been spread across several years (December 2006 (2), January 2007, April 2007, July 2008 (2), March 2009, November 2009). It only began five years ago. ···
日本穣
? ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WikiProject Japan!
15:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I misunderstood. This is a properly blocked person and a sockpuppeteer. However, the wish to remove his real name from the project is reasonable, and it does the project no credit to refuse such a request, no matter who from. Renaming the category should satisfy his wish without reducing our surveillance. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just a comment: the sock puppetry wasn't just five years ago; it's been spread across several years (December 2006 (2), January 2007, April 2007, July 2008 (2), March 2009, November 2009). It only began five years ago. ···
日本穣
? ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WikiProject Japan!
15:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Notice: I have notified of this discussion all those who have been involved in this issue. You may check my recent edits for "Notice of Discussion" to see who was notified. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. Fidika seems to want to vanish; see this at Wikibooks. Normally I wouldn't want to hinder this. But he has wasted a great amount of people's time here (notably Nihonjoe's time), and I'd want to be fairly certain that he wouldn't waste any more before doing anything that would make it harder for people to see all the "sockpuppetry" and identify and label any more outbreaks. Is Fidika serious in saying that he wants nothing to do with WP? This is what he said (as "Exiled ambition") on 21 July 2008: ¶ There is indeed no place for me in a society defined by peasantry, and that is why I am taking my leave for matters that will rightfully bare [sic] me benefit in showing the talent, perseverance, and ambition which I have fully iterated [sic]. Goodbye. ¶ So far as it is comprehensible, that sounds final. However, it's not final for Fidika, it's instead (more or less) final for "Exiled ambition". Over a year later, Fidika was merrily editing as "IMMORTAL SAMURAI". The latest word (I think) from the already blocked all-caps "samurai" was this: ¶ I'm enjoying my latest account(s) by the way if you really want to know, so enjoy the clownshow you've made up in your heads about how I'm powerless while I continue to edit. ¶ Yes, as recently as 23 January of this year, Fidika was boasting about editing under one or more other account(s). -- Hoary ( talk) 23:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. Haha, I guess I did make those two statements. Wow, sorry, I'm embarassed how pretentious and insolent I was just a year or so ago. Not to try swaying this debate in any certain direction, but I'm not that person anymore and respect each of you for the good that you're bringing to Wikipedia, especially since you're doing all of it free of charge. I know you could easily dismiss my request, and then I wouldn't be able to do a thing, as this is the internet, so I'm very appreciative for this debate. I'm against Wikipedia, but that's not because I'm the egotistic, insolent, kid I was as Exiled Ambition; I just can't respect how it's anti-capitalistic just like the rest of the internet. Each of you should be paid for what you've done to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.41.91 ( talk) 01:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Strong Keep.As a former user myself now having left Wikipedia for years and given the fact the user has used multiple socks for over 5 years and last act of socking is less than a year old in Nov 2009.Hence the user name and category should be retained for now . 74.220.215.237 ( talk) 10:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -- A request by the subject is likely to be followed by his reappearance with another ID. Sockpuppets are usually vandals who cause the rest of us no end of work in removing their ill-thought out (if not destructive) contributions. If the vandal is truly repentant and is willing to work constructively, it might be different. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. My feeling is that this is too soon to believe that Fidika is done abusing Wikipedia. I'd be amenable but after years, not months. Mango juice talk 18:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment (to last three users). You're not understanding the request. I'm no longer asking if the category and the usernames could be deleted; I'm asking if my real name could be removed from the users in that category, including the category title, and be replaced by a random pseudonym. Naturally, since the category and usernames will still be there, surveillance of me won't be any more of a problem than if I never had a name change. This is all that I'm asking, and I'm honored to have Mr. SmokeyJoe's consent on this, who suggested it. Whether you can trust me or not matters very little, as this is the internet, and appearing here as an IP address rather than as a user is the best gesture of honesty that I can give without helping Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't deserve my help, and neither should it from any of you unless communism is what you favor. It's nice to help people, to inform them, but Wikipedia is destroying industries and mocking professional life and capitalism by simply still being alive. Remember, I could simply not edit any samurai articles and attack something else and it would be absolutely impossible for any of you to identify me, but I'm above that, as it wouldn't make the internet any better of a place or Wikipedia any less influential. Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.41.91 ( talk) 02:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Rename category: Given the facts above, I see no problem with some sort of right to vanish here. NB: This is related to OTRS ticket 2010101210010857, which is from the subject - it's being dealt with here however, not OTRS. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 00:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.