- 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:
Relisted at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 23. --
Black Falcon (
talk)
20:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale This seems to violate the rule against categorizing by award. I read through the article on the award and really saw no evidence that this is a prestigious enough award to be an exception to the general rule. We already have a list so do not need to listify. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note: I've alerted Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas to this discussion. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question. Why is the category not linked from this discussion? Even if the nominator has decided for some reason not to use
WP:TWINKLE, the template with which the category is tagged provides a boilerplate which sets up the link and section heading etc. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
16:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think because I got impatient and forgot to do so. We are fallible human beings after all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:08, 16 February 2013 (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: no consensus. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Don't mean to rankle nerves on the other side of the pond - but categorizing people (especially musicians mostly here) on a single political view point seems a bad idea. I can just imagine the various categories on various people on their viewpoints on every conceivable thing even if they are not "activists" by Wikipedia's definition (which we have for gay rights, women's rights, anti-nuke, death penalty, and all sorts of political causes). We'll have categories on who says/thinks should we tax the rich, get rid of welfare, every immigration position, pro-Obamacare, anti-Obamacare, pro-EU/anti-EU, pro-Euro/anti-Euro, pro-NAFTA/anti-NAFTA, whether someone likes gun-control or not - the categories on outspoken people would proliferate to the point of not being able to find anything. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete We don't have
Category:American monarchists. In fact my experience is many political related categories are way over applied, even when they should be much more limited.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well we do have that category, but I think it is just as bad. I am going to nominate it for deletion. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is only one member of
Category:Republicans by nationality, so they should all be nominated together.
Tim! (
talk)
07:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- feel free to be BOLD.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
17:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would if I was convinced of the soundness of the nomination, because while I agree the category makes no sense on
Robert Smith (musician), I was not surprised to find
Tony Benn in
Category:British republicans as he proposed the
Commonwealth of Britain Bill. Maybe if it was considered acceptable to categorise Benn directly in
Category:Republicanism in the United Kingdom the republicans categories could be deleted.
Tim! (
talk)
08:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- The United Kingdom is a very poor scope for categorising Republicans, other than as a geographical container. Republicanism in Northern Ireland is a very different beast to Republicanism in England. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
09:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- PS I have removed Robert Smith (musician) from Category:English republicans, because I found nothing in the article which provides any basis for his inclusion there. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- The United Kingdom is a very poor scope for categorising Republicans, other than as a geographical container. Republicanism in Northern Ireland is a very different beast to Republicanism in England. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
09:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would if I was convinced of the soundness of the nomination, because while I agree the category makes no sense on
Robert Smith (musician), I was not surprised to find
Tony Benn in
Category:British republicans as he proposed the
Commonwealth of Britain Bill. Maybe if it was considered acceptable to categorise Benn directly in
Category:Republicanism in the United Kingdom the republicans categories could be deleted.
Tim! (
talk)
08:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- feel free to be BOLD.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
17:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. The nominator's rationale does not offer any reason for deleting this category, while keeping
Category:Republicans by nationality and all its other subcats. Unless there is some particular problem with this category, then all the republican categories should all be considered together.
In this case, Republicanism was one of the ideologies which led to the English Civil War, and the anti-monarchist forces of that period are in Category:Roundheads, which is a subcat of Category:English republicans. It would be bizarre to remove those people from the broader Category:Republicans by nationality, but that would be one of the effects of deleting this category. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)- It's the damned if you do, damned if you don't. If all are nominated - I have no objection to anyone adding the rest - there will be no doubt comments saying "this one shouldn't be lumped with the rest". The opposers have not put forth any rationale that this shouldn't go, and the rest to follow (except
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, lame). And the roundheads properly have other more appropriate categories like
Category:People of the English Civil War which certtainly does not include 21st century celebs.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
17:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Carlos, try a group nom and see if you are damned. It may be that the discussion will bring out some distinctions which mean that any action is taken separately; or maybe not. We won't know unless we have that discussion.
In the meantime, you offer no reason for removing the roundheads from the Republican category. And do take time to read OTHERCRAPEXISTS before citing it; you will find that it is about articles, not categories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Carlos, try a group nom and see if you are damned. It may be that the discussion will bring out some distinctions which mean that any action is taken separately; or maybe not. We won't know unless we have that discussion.
- It's the damned if you do, damned if you don't. If all are nominated - I have no objection to anyone adding the rest - there will be no doubt comments saying "this one shouldn't be lumped with the rest". The opposers have not put forth any rationale that this shouldn't go, and the rest to follow (except
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, lame). And the roundheads properly have other more appropriate categories like
Category:People of the English Civil War which certtainly does not include 21st century celebs.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
17:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment However the complain about trivial inclusion clearly applies here, whether it applies to other categories is hard to tell.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is back to the old thorny problem of whether we categorise people into any categories which they fit into, or only into categories which are defining for them. I wonder whether the problem could be resolved in the case of Republicans by renaming the categories as "Republican activists". That would exclude those who merely hold an opinion. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
09:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Which is why we should delete this category, becuase is is not really defining in any way to the people who hold these views. Holding a view is an ephemeral state, and in and of itself not defining.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Umm, no. It's a reason to rename the category and narrow its scope, not to delete it. - BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Which is why we should delete this category, becuase is is not really defining in any way to the people who hold these views. Holding a view is an ephemeral state, and in and of itself not defining.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is back to the old thorny problem of whether we categorise people into any categories which they fit into, or only into categories which are defining for them. I wonder whether the problem could be resolved in the case of Republicans by renaming the categories as "Republican activists". That would exclude those who merely hold an opinion. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
09:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that political/ideological categorization is often applied too broadly and randomly; that said, this category is a relevant and defining political viewpoint in some cases. I think that the category should exist for people who have been republican activists, but also agree that it should not be added to every contemporary entertainment figure who merely said "Britain should scrap the queen" in an interview once. Tony Benn, yes; Roundheads, yes; Robert Smith, what now? Keep, but apply stricter inclusion standards. Bearcat ( talk) 08:38, 22 February 2013 (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: merge to Category:People from Fayetteville, North Carolina and also to Category:Mayors of places in North Carolina. There is a consensus to upmerge, but only of the 3 editors in this discussion spotted that the category has two parents. Please can nominators remember to check this when proposing a merger? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Category has only 1 entry ...William 15:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Unlikely to grow. -- Marco ( talk) 16:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Merge for now without prejudice against recreation. As a city with over 200,000 people Fayetteville is probably large enough we would consider being mayor of it a notable position. I did create an article on the only person who was mayor of Fayetteville when it was that large, Anthony G. Chavonne. Even he is only border line notable though. In an article on his wife who was a sate legsilator we learn that J.O. Tally, Jr. was mayor of Fayetteville, and someone might be able to find enough to make an article on him. However I don't really see this category gorwing to be large enough to justify having it any time soon. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- WP:SMALLCAT specifically precludes small categories that do not have potential for growth — but given that the city is large enough for its mayors to count as notable per WP:POLITICIAN, this category does have potential for future growth. That said, it seems evident that we don't actually have enough articles about the mayors to warrant a separate category yet, so merge without prejudice against recreation. Note however that both articles must be upmerged to Category:Mayors of places in North Carolina as well as the proposed target. If and when we have a couple more articles to file in this category, then it can be recreated. Bearcat ( talk) 20:46, 20 February 2013 (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: merge. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:World War II guns to Category:World War II artillery
- Nominator's rationale: This category completely duplicates the target, and uses a less precise and significantly more ambiguous name. As the scope of this category is for artillery, not "guns" (which would include pistols, machine guns, aircraft cannon, naval rifles, etc.), a merge to the more precise name is in order. The Bushranger One ping only 10:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. Nom could need more thought as target cat already has
Category:World War II guns of Italy as sub-cat. Consistency? --
Marco (
talk)
16:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I moved that category to the target category this morning, planning to manually move the contents of "guns" to appropriate "artillery" categories as having been miscategorised, then realised not all of the articles in this category could be done that way (there is no "French guns" or "French artillery" category to properly move the proper articles to, and creating one would result in shifting out of process) and a full merge was necessary. Note that Category:World War II guns of Italy is at CFDS for renaming to "artillery" format. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, fast response. I'll look at it again. Cool. -- Marco ( talk) 16:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Sound proposal and rationale. -- Marco ( talk) 16:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Rename for now. The current title is clearly too broad. We probably should rename the anti-aircraft guns category as well, although it might not be inherently ambiguous. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support the current category name is not as restrictive as the categorization it is meant to provide, it is not for handguns or other types of guns. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 05:00, 16 February 2013 (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: keep. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous category created for a single article, which has since been recategorised elsewhere according to WP:CRIC standard on categorisation -- Jack | talk page 03:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Additional categories for deletion on same rationale are:
- Category:1994 in English cricket
- Category:1997 in English cricket
- Category:1998 in English cricket
- Category:1999 in English cricket
- Category:2000 in English cricket
Delete all. ---- Jack | talk page 03:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note. Relevant to this nomination is this discussion. ---- Jack | talk page 04:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep all as part of a series. Note that these categories are amongst several which have been depopulated out-of-process by the nominator ( [1], [2], [3], [4], etc), and I will now rollback the edits which did that. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Question for User:BrownHairedGirl. Don't get you. They are not in a series and are smallcats. Why shouldn't someone recategorise articles?-- Marco ( talk) 16:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)- Delete all per nom. As above, not in a series and are
smallcats. More to point, similar articles are in
Category:English cricket seasons from 1969 to 2000. See no reason to decompose that cat. No point keeping these. No logic. --
Marco (
talk)
16:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Reply. Actually, there are lots of other YYYY in English cricket categories, so these are part of a series.
Category:English cricket seasons from 1969 to 2000 and its subcats currently contain
157 articles, which is an average of over 5 per year in that period. That makes a by-year sub-categorisation scheme viable for this period, and the categories will grow as more articles are created.
Note too that thse by-year categories significantly reduce category clutter on each article. For example, Category:2000 in English cricket is a subcat of Category:2000 in English sport, Category:English cricket seasons from 1969 to 2000 and Category:2000 in cricket, so each of these sub-categories replaces 3 other categories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Reply. Actually, there are lots of other YYYY in English cricket categories, so these are part of a series.
Category:English cricket seasons from 1969 to 2000 and its subcats currently contain
157 articles, which is an average of over 5 per year in that period. That makes a by-year sub-categorisation scheme viable for this period, and the categories will grow as more articles are created.
- Additional comment. You are missing another point. Who is going to create a full series and who is going to properly populate them. As things stand, it is a willy-nilly operation, neither one thing nor the other, which is fouling up our categorisation structure and causing confusion to readers who are trying to navigate the structure, which is the basic purpose of categorisation. Why not forget your ludicrous CfD RULES and use some common sense to support the project and help the readers? ---- Jack | talk page 10:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- (
edit conflict)
WP:NOEFFORT is relevant, I believe. Also, the
WP:COMMONSENSE and useful to the readers solution here is to keep, not to delete. -
The Bushranger
One ping only
10:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Reply. Jack, please have the courtesy to accept that common sense can point in more than one direction. I have set out my reasoning above.
- If the consensus is to keep these categories, I undertake to complete the series and to populate them. It will be less than an hour's work. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
10:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- All right, I'll hold you to that. ----
Jack |
talk page
10:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please do! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well I am happy to help too. There are some Derbyshire CC categories not in Category:English cricket seasons from 1969 to 2000 eg Derbyshire County Cricket Club in 1971 to which I will add “1971 in English cricket”; it has “1971 in England” (&1971 in cricket) at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo999 ( talk • contribs) 12:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- All right, I'll hold you to that. ----
Jack |
talk page
10:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. As part of an established category tree these fit the WP:SMALLCAT exemption, and having them maintained is more useful to readers, than not. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, with just a few moments work I have added another four articles into the 1994 category, and I don't doubt similar could be done for the other years, with lots of potential additions for articles that haven't been created yet. Harrias talk 16:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nomination withdrawn. Given that there is an intention to complete the series and fully populate the categories I'm happy for these to be introduced from 1946 to 2013. ---- Jack | talk page 09:48, 20 February 2013 (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: keep. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale:
WP:OCAT#SMALL. Has only four entries, one of whom shouldn't be there as he is a person, not a work. Also,
Ralph Wiggum (song) does not seem to be a parody, though the categories suggest parody. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
01:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- For the record, this category was larger before someone moved half the entries to Category:Non-fiction books about The Simpsons. This category was created because things like MacHomer are related to The Simpsons, but didn't belong in any other Simpsons category, so this was made. -- Scorpion 0422 02:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Part of an established category tree and has a more than reasonable chance for expansion. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems to be a sound rationale to keep. -- Marco ( talk) 16:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep A more than credible defining characteristic of these works. Alansohn ( talk) 20:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep However, I don't see "non-fiction books about foo" included anywhere else as a "work based on foo," so I've changed it from a sub-category to a related category. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. See also Feb 18, as merging Category:The Simpsons merchandise into this will fatten it up again. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:03, 18 February 2013 (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: keep. There is some support for, but no clear consensus to, rename to Category:Parodies based on works by Dr. Seuss, so I encourage a follow-up nomination (perhaps including similar categories in Category:Parody by topic) to discuss the name. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Single-entry category, unlikely to expand. Last CFD failed to reach consensus, as it was a discussion to upmerge instead of delete. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. No rationale has been offered for deletion. The nominator should have linked to the the previous discussion (at CFD 2013 January 9), and explained why he think that deletion is appropriate. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- What part of "Single entry category, unlikely to expand" did you not get? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per BHG's oppose and Rename to Category:Parodies based on works by Dr. Seuss, as part of the "Foo based on works by Bar" system. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Creator's comment: In the previous discussion, I identified half a dozen or so potential entries to the category (including two or three already existing Wikipedia articles). With one exception (the original O J Simpson poem) these examples were all based on secondary and tertiary sources, some of which I cited, so presumably some of them are notable enough to have their own articles and populate this category. Perhaps there's a new one: www.examiner.com/article/jon-stewart-uses-dr-seuss-like-poem-to-describe-obama-haters [blacklisted site]. So if by "unlikely to expand" you mean there's just not enough Dr. Seuss parody going around in the world to qualify, that is almost certainly incorrect. If by "unlikely to expand" you simply mean no editor is going to ever bother, well, I have no idea. Regarding the articles that exist, I am not going to sneak in a category on "someone else's" article just to win an argument about "my" article. Similarly, I am not going to create a few stubs on topics which I really am not interested in. But I am interested in the Robert Coover story, and it is notable, and it is a Dr. Seuss parody, which is why I created that article, and gave it this category.
- As to renaming the category, look in Category:Parodies. There are several "XXX parodies" subcategories out there, presumably you want to rename them too.
- The discussion last time was also looking for a word other than "parody". It has occurred to me since that "pastiche" might be a more suitable word. I assume it would be appropriate for all the existing "XXX parodies" subcategories. Choor monster ( talk) 13:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- If there are other parodies with articles of Dr. Suess's work with articles on wikipedia that you have identified, please add the articles to this category now. That will allow people to better consider the category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Which Dr. Seuss parodies exist that have articles? As far as I see it, none. Are any of them notable? Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
23:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Creator's comment: Reprising what I identified in the previous discussion (really, you are simply being unhelpful by not bothering to notice: do note that when the previous discussion was closed, the summary stated that it was indeed obvious that there is potential for expansion), and let me re-iterate that most of the following (pre-2004) can be found mentioned in Nel, Philip (2004). Dr. Seuss: American Icon. Continuum International Publishing. pp. 168–192, chapter six, a secondary/tertiary source:
- One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads is a stub. The book is written in Dr. Seuss style. More pastiche than parody.
- Two Moms, the Zark and Me, sequel to the above.
- A Scause for Applause contained a Dr. Seuss parody as a segment.
- The Kid in the Crib is a Dr. Seuss parody. I found one review (Library Journal).
- The Cat and the Mitt is a Dr. Seuss parody. I found several newspapers that have mentioned it, some with a brief summary, as part of their RNC reporting.
- The Cat NOT in the Hat is a Dr. Seuss parody, the subject of a notable lawsuit.
- " The OJ Trial As Told By Dr. Seuss" was a viral e-mail/USENET posting back in the day. It is mentioned, and the first four lines are quoted, in the Nel book.
- " The Binch" is a Dr Seuss parody about 9/11, available on Snopes, who explains it was discussed in several newspapers.
- Moxy Früvous has a version of Green Eggs and Ham.
- Bulworth: the raps are described by Nel as in the style of Dr. Seuss.
- Truax is a pro-logging rebuttal discussed in The Lorax.
- " How the Grinch Stole the Election" by Bill Maher
- " How the Grinch Stole America" by Salman Rushdie
- " Oh, The People Who Hate You!" by Jon Stewart (new)
- I repeat: I am not interested in any of the above, and I am not going to "win" the argument by adding the category to the articles that exist or creating stubs for any that do not and which look like they have enough notability. I just think the claim that this is obviously an inherently small category can't be correct. Choor monster ( talk) 16:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Creator's comment: Well, look what the ..., never mind. Someone has added two articles to the category. Two articles that have been around for quite awhile, and are not on my list above. Choor monster ( talk) 16:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I did a search and added a couple. A word of caution: I think we'd need to be careful about adding works that just have a Seuss-like title, such as an Al Franken book that I found. Simply using a Seussian (?) title does not make it a parody of the author's work. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep And per genre parodies Category:Star Trek parodies and Category:Star Wars parodies, I'm not sure we'd need a rename as proposed by Bushranger. But no strong objection if that proves to be the consensus view. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Creator's Comment: Dr. Seuss on the Web includes a long section on parodies. Most are trivial, but a few might be notable, e.g. The Kids in the Hall have a frequently US-censored sketch " Dr. Seuss Bible". Choor monster ( talk) 21:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: The renaming proposed by Bushranger is not just a reasonable Wikipedia style suggestion, but it is probably mandatory. The title "Dr. Seuss parodies" is actually ambiguous: not only does it cover parodies of Dr. Seuss, but also parodies by Dr. Seuss (like The Butter Battle Book). Similarly, How Much for Just the Planet? and Star Wreck are both Star Trek parodies, but with different meanings of the phrase. Choor monster ( talk) 13:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Parodies based on works by Dr. Seuss. The current title actually is most logically Parodies by Dr. Seuss, and thus should include the "Butter Battle Book" but not what it currently does. I also second the view that parodying a title is not enough to make it a parody of a work by Dr. Seuss. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree with the rename, but I believe it should be part of a multiple rename, for all "XXX parodies" categories. The simpler Category:Parodies of Dr. Seuss works with Category:Parodies of Star Trek, the more complicated Categories:Parodies based on works by Dr. Seuss does not translate well to Star Trek. Choor monster ( talk) 16:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Why not Caegory:Parodies based on Star Trek? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- The longer form is needed for avoiding ambiguity. "Parodies of Dr. Seuss" could be parodies of Theodore Geisel himself, as opposed to The Cat in the Hat, which "Parodies of works by Dr. Seuss" makes clear. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like an unnecessary ambiguity to avoid. Theodore Geisel's claim to fame, and hence claim to be an object of parody, is almost entirely from his works as Dr. Seuss. Imagine what a parody of the person would involve, say a novel about his evil twin who writes sick-in-the-head children's books. Almost certainly there would be enough excerpts from the evil twin's writings to qualify as parodies of the works themselves. Choor monster ( talk) 18:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- I may be wrong. There is a kind of fiction where somebody famous has his biography rewritten so that he no longer pursued what he is most noted for. There's a short story where Einstein is a career violin player, and another where Asimov is a megafamous megapundit on everything, so presumably, someday somebody will parody Geisel, having him take up a career as a movie critic or something. But I find it hard to believe somebody will do so without putting Seussian rhymes in! The Einstein/Asimov stories rely on the fact that the main character is recognizable without the famous aspects. Choor monster ( talk) 19:37, 22 February 2013 (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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only contains one page, which is already properly categorised as a list. – Fayenatic L ondon 00:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lacks potential. -- Marco ( talk) 16:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator and WP:SMALLCAT. ...William 01:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and WP:SMALLCAT. Given that notability is not inherited, and therefore an individual episode of a television series gets to have its own separate article only if reliable sources can be added that are specifically about the episode itself and which note the episode's real-world significance and not just its plot summary, this is not a show with many (or possibly any at all) episodes that are actually likely to meet that standard — and accordingly the existing list is all we'll ever really need. Bearcat ( talk) 08:25, 22 February 2013 (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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only contains one page, which is already properly categorised as a list. – Fayenatic L ondon 00:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lacks potential. -- Marco ( talk) 16:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator and WP:SMALLCAT. ...William 01:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- For the record, I was a huge, obsessive fanatic of this show when it was running — but even so, I can think of exactly two episodes in its entire run which might, maybe, have enough reliable sources about them and their real-world significance to get past the fact that notability is not inherited (the key words, for the record, being "Shakespeare" and "sex"), and exactly no reasons why we would actually need separate articles about them — the existing list is entirely sufficient. Which makes it a WP:SMALLCAT with no potential for significant growth, and therefore a delete. Bearcat ( talk) 08:18, 22 February 2013 (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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only contains one page, which is already properly categorised as a list. – Fayenatic L ondon 00:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lacks potential. -- Marco ( talk) 16:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator and WP:SMALLCAT. ...William 01:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and WP:SMALLCAT. Given that notability is not inherited, and therefore an individual episode of a television series gets to have its own separate article only if reliable sources can be added that are specifically about the episode itself and which note the episode's real-world significance and not just its plot summary, this is not a show with many (or possibly any at all) episodes that are actually likely to meet that standard — and accordingly the existing list is all we'll ever really need. Bearcat ( talk) 08:23, 22 February 2013 (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: Relisted at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 23. --
Black Falcon (
talk)
20:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale This seems to violate the rule against categorizing by award. I read through the article on the award and really saw no evidence that this is a prestigious enough award to be an exception to the general rule. We already have a list so do not need to listify. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note: I've alerted Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas to this discussion. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question. Why is the category not linked from this discussion? Even if the nominator has decided for some reason not to use
WP:TWINKLE, the template with which the category is tagged provides a boilerplate which sets up the link and section heading etc. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
16:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think because I got impatient and forgot to do so. We are fallible human beings after all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:08, 16 February 2013 (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: no consensus. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Don't mean to rankle nerves on the other side of the pond - but categorizing people (especially musicians mostly here) on a single political view point seems a bad idea. I can just imagine the various categories on various people on their viewpoints on every conceivable thing even if they are not "activists" by Wikipedia's definition (which we have for gay rights, women's rights, anti-nuke, death penalty, and all sorts of political causes). We'll have categories on who says/thinks should we tax the rich, get rid of welfare, every immigration position, pro-Obamacare, anti-Obamacare, pro-EU/anti-EU, pro-Euro/anti-Euro, pro-NAFTA/anti-NAFTA, whether someone likes gun-control or not - the categories on outspoken people would proliferate to the point of not being able to find anything. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete We don't have
Category:American monarchists. In fact my experience is many political related categories are way over applied, even when they should be much more limited.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well we do have that category, but I think it is just as bad. I am going to nominate it for deletion. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is only one member of
Category:Republicans by nationality, so they should all be nominated together.
Tim! (
talk)
07:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- feel free to be BOLD.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
17:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would if I was convinced of the soundness of the nomination, because while I agree the category makes no sense on
Robert Smith (musician), I was not surprised to find
Tony Benn in
Category:British republicans as he proposed the
Commonwealth of Britain Bill. Maybe if it was considered acceptable to categorise Benn directly in
Category:Republicanism in the United Kingdom the republicans categories could be deleted.
Tim! (
talk)
08:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- The United Kingdom is a very poor scope for categorising Republicans, other than as a geographical container. Republicanism in Northern Ireland is a very different beast to Republicanism in England. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
09:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- PS I have removed Robert Smith (musician) from Category:English republicans, because I found nothing in the article which provides any basis for his inclusion there. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- The United Kingdom is a very poor scope for categorising Republicans, other than as a geographical container. Republicanism in Northern Ireland is a very different beast to Republicanism in England. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
09:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would if I was convinced of the soundness of the nomination, because while I agree the category makes no sense on
Robert Smith (musician), I was not surprised to find
Tony Benn in
Category:British republicans as he proposed the
Commonwealth of Britain Bill. Maybe if it was considered acceptable to categorise Benn directly in
Category:Republicanism in the United Kingdom the republicans categories could be deleted.
Tim! (
talk)
08:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- feel free to be BOLD.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
17:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. The nominator's rationale does not offer any reason for deleting this category, while keeping
Category:Republicans by nationality and all its other subcats. Unless there is some particular problem with this category, then all the republican categories should all be considered together.
In this case, Republicanism was one of the ideologies which led to the English Civil War, and the anti-monarchist forces of that period are in Category:Roundheads, which is a subcat of Category:English republicans. It would be bizarre to remove those people from the broader Category:Republicans by nationality, but that would be one of the effects of deleting this category. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)- It's the damned if you do, damned if you don't. If all are nominated - I have no objection to anyone adding the rest - there will be no doubt comments saying "this one shouldn't be lumped with the rest". The opposers have not put forth any rationale that this shouldn't go, and the rest to follow (except
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, lame). And the roundheads properly have other more appropriate categories like
Category:People of the English Civil War which certtainly does not include 21st century celebs.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
17:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Carlos, try a group nom and see if you are damned. It may be that the discussion will bring out some distinctions which mean that any action is taken separately; or maybe not. We won't know unless we have that discussion.
In the meantime, you offer no reason for removing the roundheads from the Republican category. And do take time to read OTHERCRAPEXISTS before citing it; you will find that it is about articles, not categories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Carlos, try a group nom and see if you are damned. It may be that the discussion will bring out some distinctions which mean that any action is taken separately; or maybe not. We won't know unless we have that discussion.
- It's the damned if you do, damned if you don't. If all are nominated - I have no objection to anyone adding the rest - there will be no doubt comments saying "this one shouldn't be lumped with the rest". The opposers have not put forth any rationale that this shouldn't go, and the rest to follow (except
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, lame). And the roundheads properly have other more appropriate categories like
Category:People of the English Civil War which certtainly does not include 21st century celebs.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
17:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment However the complain about trivial inclusion clearly applies here, whether it applies to other categories is hard to tell.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is back to the old thorny problem of whether we categorise people into any categories which they fit into, or only into categories which are defining for them. I wonder whether the problem could be resolved in the case of Republicans by renaming the categories as "Republican activists". That would exclude those who merely hold an opinion. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
09:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Which is why we should delete this category, becuase is is not really defining in any way to the people who hold these views. Holding a view is an ephemeral state, and in and of itself not defining.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Umm, no. It's a reason to rename the category and narrow its scope, not to delete it. - BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Which is why we should delete this category, becuase is is not really defining in any way to the people who hold these views. Holding a view is an ephemeral state, and in and of itself not defining.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is back to the old thorny problem of whether we categorise people into any categories which they fit into, or only into categories which are defining for them. I wonder whether the problem could be resolved in the case of Republicans by renaming the categories as "Republican activists". That would exclude those who merely hold an opinion. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
09:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that political/ideological categorization is often applied too broadly and randomly; that said, this category is a relevant and defining political viewpoint in some cases. I think that the category should exist for people who have been republican activists, but also agree that it should not be added to every contemporary entertainment figure who merely said "Britain should scrap the queen" in an interview once. Tony Benn, yes; Roundheads, yes; Robert Smith, what now? Keep, but apply stricter inclusion standards. Bearcat ( talk) 08:38, 22 February 2013 (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: merge to Category:People from Fayetteville, North Carolina and also to Category:Mayors of places in North Carolina. There is a consensus to upmerge, but only of the 3 editors in this discussion spotted that the category has two parents. Please can nominators remember to check this when proposing a merger? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Category has only 1 entry ...William 15:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Unlikely to grow. -- Marco ( talk) 16:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Merge for now without prejudice against recreation. As a city with over 200,000 people Fayetteville is probably large enough we would consider being mayor of it a notable position. I did create an article on the only person who was mayor of Fayetteville when it was that large, Anthony G. Chavonne. Even he is only border line notable though. In an article on his wife who was a sate legsilator we learn that J.O. Tally, Jr. was mayor of Fayetteville, and someone might be able to find enough to make an article on him. However I don't really see this category gorwing to be large enough to justify having it any time soon. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- WP:SMALLCAT specifically precludes small categories that do not have potential for growth — but given that the city is large enough for its mayors to count as notable per WP:POLITICIAN, this category does have potential for future growth. That said, it seems evident that we don't actually have enough articles about the mayors to warrant a separate category yet, so merge without prejudice against recreation. Note however that both articles must be upmerged to Category:Mayors of places in North Carolina as well as the proposed target. If and when we have a couple more articles to file in this category, then it can be recreated. Bearcat ( talk) 20:46, 20 February 2013 (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: merge. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:World War II guns to Category:World War II artillery
- Nominator's rationale: This category completely duplicates the target, and uses a less precise and significantly more ambiguous name. As the scope of this category is for artillery, not "guns" (which would include pistols, machine guns, aircraft cannon, naval rifles, etc.), a merge to the more precise name is in order. The Bushranger One ping only 10:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. Nom could need more thought as target cat already has
Category:World War II guns of Italy as sub-cat. Consistency? --
Marco (
talk)
16:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I moved that category to the target category this morning, planning to manually move the contents of "guns" to appropriate "artillery" categories as having been miscategorised, then realised not all of the articles in this category could be done that way (there is no "French guns" or "French artillery" category to properly move the proper articles to, and creating one would result in shifting out of process) and a full merge was necessary. Note that Category:World War II guns of Italy is at CFDS for renaming to "artillery" format. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, fast response. I'll look at it again. Cool. -- Marco ( talk) 16:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Sound proposal and rationale. -- Marco ( talk) 16:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Rename for now. The current title is clearly too broad. We probably should rename the anti-aircraft guns category as well, although it might not be inherently ambiguous. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support the current category name is not as restrictive as the categorization it is meant to provide, it is not for handguns or other types of guns. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 05:00, 16 February 2013 (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: keep. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous category created for a single article, which has since been recategorised elsewhere according to WP:CRIC standard on categorisation -- Jack | talk page 03:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Additional categories for deletion on same rationale are:
- Category:1994 in English cricket
- Category:1997 in English cricket
- Category:1998 in English cricket
- Category:1999 in English cricket
- Category:2000 in English cricket
Delete all. ---- Jack | talk page 03:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note. Relevant to this nomination is this discussion. ---- Jack | talk page 04:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep all as part of a series. Note that these categories are amongst several which have been depopulated out-of-process by the nominator ( [1], [2], [3], [4], etc), and I will now rollback the edits which did that. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Question for User:BrownHairedGirl. Don't get you. They are not in a series and are smallcats. Why shouldn't someone recategorise articles?-- Marco ( talk) 16:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)- Delete all per nom. As above, not in a series and are
smallcats. More to point, similar articles are in
Category:English cricket seasons from 1969 to 2000. See no reason to decompose that cat. No point keeping these. No logic. --
Marco (
talk)
16:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Reply. Actually, there are lots of other YYYY in English cricket categories, so these are part of a series.
Category:English cricket seasons from 1969 to 2000 and its subcats currently contain
157 articles, which is an average of over 5 per year in that period. That makes a by-year sub-categorisation scheme viable for this period, and the categories will grow as more articles are created.
Note too that thse by-year categories significantly reduce category clutter on each article. For example, Category:2000 in English cricket is a subcat of Category:2000 in English sport, Category:English cricket seasons from 1969 to 2000 and Category:2000 in cricket, so each of these sub-categories replaces 3 other categories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Reply. Actually, there are lots of other YYYY in English cricket categories, so these are part of a series.
Category:English cricket seasons from 1969 to 2000 and its subcats currently contain
157 articles, which is an average of over 5 per year in that period. That makes a by-year sub-categorisation scheme viable for this period, and the categories will grow as more articles are created.
- Additional comment. You are missing another point. Who is going to create a full series and who is going to properly populate them. As things stand, it is a willy-nilly operation, neither one thing nor the other, which is fouling up our categorisation structure and causing confusion to readers who are trying to navigate the structure, which is the basic purpose of categorisation. Why not forget your ludicrous CfD RULES and use some common sense to support the project and help the readers? ---- Jack | talk page 10:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- (
edit conflict)
WP:NOEFFORT is relevant, I believe. Also, the
WP:COMMONSENSE and useful to the readers solution here is to keep, not to delete. -
The Bushranger
One ping only
10:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Reply. Jack, please have the courtesy to accept that common sense can point in more than one direction. I have set out my reasoning above.
- If the consensus is to keep these categories, I undertake to complete the series and to populate them. It will be less than an hour's work. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
10:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- All right, I'll hold you to that. ----
Jack |
talk page
10:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please do! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well I am happy to help too. There are some Derbyshire CC categories not in Category:English cricket seasons from 1969 to 2000 eg Derbyshire County Cricket Club in 1971 to which I will add “1971 in English cricket”; it has “1971 in England” (&1971 in cricket) at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo999 ( talk • contribs) 12:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- All right, I'll hold you to that. ----
Jack |
talk page
10:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. As part of an established category tree these fit the WP:SMALLCAT exemption, and having them maintained is more useful to readers, than not. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, with just a few moments work I have added another four articles into the 1994 category, and I don't doubt similar could be done for the other years, with lots of potential additions for articles that haven't been created yet. Harrias talk 16:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nomination withdrawn. Given that there is an intention to complete the series and fully populate the categories I'm happy for these to be introduced from 1946 to 2013. ---- Jack | talk page 09:48, 20 February 2013 (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: keep. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale:
WP:OCAT#SMALL. Has only four entries, one of whom shouldn't be there as he is a person, not a work. Also,
Ralph Wiggum (song) does not seem to be a parody, though the categories suggest parody. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
01:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- For the record, this category was larger before someone moved half the entries to Category:Non-fiction books about The Simpsons. This category was created because things like MacHomer are related to The Simpsons, but didn't belong in any other Simpsons category, so this was made. -- Scorpion 0422 02:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Part of an established category tree and has a more than reasonable chance for expansion. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems to be a sound rationale to keep. -- Marco ( talk) 16:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep A more than credible defining characteristic of these works. Alansohn ( talk) 20:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep However, I don't see "non-fiction books about foo" included anywhere else as a "work based on foo," so I've changed it from a sub-category to a related category. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. See also Feb 18, as merging Category:The Simpsons merchandise into this will fatten it up again. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:03, 18 February 2013 (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: keep. There is some support for, but no clear consensus to, rename to Category:Parodies based on works by Dr. Seuss, so I encourage a follow-up nomination (perhaps including similar categories in Category:Parody by topic) to discuss the name. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Single-entry category, unlikely to expand. Last CFD failed to reach consensus, as it was a discussion to upmerge instead of delete. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. No rationale has been offered for deletion. The nominator should have linked to the the previous discussion (at CFD 2013 January 9), and explained why he think that deletion is appropriate. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- What part of "Single entry category, unlikely to expand" did you not get? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per BHG's oppose and Rename to Category:Parodies based on works by Dr. Seuss, as part of the "Foo based on works by Bar" system. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Creator's comment: In the previous discussion, I identified half a dozen or so potential entries to the category (including two or three already existing Wikipedia articles). With one exception (the original O J Simpson poem) these examples were all based on secondary and tertiary sources, some of which I cited, so presumably some of them are notable enough to have their own articles and populate this category. Perhaps there's a new one: www.examiner.com/article/jon-stewart-uses-dr-seuss-like-poem-to-describe-obama-haters [blacklisted site]. So if by "unlikely to expand" you mean there's just not enough Dr. Seuss parody going around in the world to qualify, that is almost certainly incorrect. If by "unlikely to expand" you simply mean no editor is going to ever bother, well, I have no idea. Regarding the articles that exist, I am not going to sneak in a category on "someone else's" article just to win an argument about "my" article. Similarly, I am not going to create a few stubs on topics which I really am not interested in. But I am interested in the Robert Coover story, and it is notable, and it is a Dr. Seuss parody, which is why I created that article, and gave it this category.
- As to renaming the category, look in Category:Parodies. There are several "XXX parodies" subcategories out there, presumably you want to rename them too.
- The discussion last time was also looking for a word other than "parody". It has occurred to me since that "pastiche" might be a more suitable word. I assume it would be appropriate for all the existing "XXX parodies" subcategories. Choor monster ( talk) 13:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- If there are other parodies with articles of Dr. Suess's work with articles on wikipedia that you have identified, please add the articles to this category now. That will allow people to better consider the category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Which Dr. Seuss parodies exist that have articles? As far as I see it, none. Are any of them notable? Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
23:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Creator's comment: Reprising what I identified in the previous discussion (really, you are simply being unhelpful by not bothering to notice: do note that when the previous discussion was closed, the summary stated that it was indeed obvious that there is potential for expansion), and let me re-iterate that most of the following (pre-2004) can be found mentioned in Nel, Philip (2004). Dr. Seuss: American Icon. Continuum International Publishing. pp. 168–192, chapter six, a secondary/tertiary source:
- One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads is a stub. The book is written in Dr. Seuss style. More pastiche than parody.
- Two Moms, the Zark and Me, sequel to the above.
- A Scause for Applause contained a Dr. Seuss parody as a segment.
- The Kid in the Crib is a Dr. Seuss parody. I found one review (Library Journal).
- The Cat and the Mitt is a Dr. Seuss parody. I found several newspapers that have mentioned it, some with a brief summary, as part of their RNC reporting.
- The Cat NOT in the Hat is a Dr. Seuss parody, the subject of a notable lawsuit.
- " The OJ Trial As Told By Dr. Seuss" was a viral e-mail/USENET posting back in the day. It is mentioned, and the first four lines are quoted, in the Nel book.
- " The Binch" is a Dr Seuss parody about 9/11, available on Snopes, who explains it was discussed in several newspapers.
- Moxy Früvous has a version of Green Eggs and Ham.
- Bulworth: the raps are described by Nel as in the style of Dr. Seuss.
- Truax is a pro-logging rebuttal discussed in The Lorax.
- " How the Grinch Stole the Election" by Bill Maher
- " How the Grinch Stole America" by Salman Rushdie
- " Oh, The People Who Hate You!" by Jon Stewart (new)
- I repeat: I am not interested in any of the above, and I am not going to "win" the argument by adding the category to the articles that exist or creating stubs for any that do not and which look like they have enough notability. I just think the claim that this is obviously an inherently small category can't be correct. Choor monster ( talk) 16:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Creator's comment: Well, look what the ..., never mind. Someone has added two articles to the category. Two articles that have been around for quite awhile, and are not on my list above. Choor monster ( talk) 16:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I did a search and added a couple. A word of caution: I think we'd need to be careful about adding works that just have a Seuss-like title, such as an Al Franken book that I found. Simply using a Seussian (?) title does not make it a parody of the author's work. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep And per genre parodies Category:Star Trek parodies and Category:Star Wars parodies, I'm not sure we'd need a rename as proposed by Bushranger. But no strong objection if that proves to be the consensus view. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Creator's Comment: Dr. Seuss on the Web includes a long section on parodies. Most are trivial, but a few might be notable, e.g. The Kids in the Hall have a frequently US-censored sketch " Dr. Seuss Bible". Choor monster ( talk) 21:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: The renaming proposed by Bushranger is not just a reasonable Wikipedia style suggestion, but it is probably mandatory. The title "Dr. Seuss parodies" is actually ambiguous: not only does it cover parodies of Dr. Seuss, but also parodies by Dr. Seuss (like The Butter Battle Book). Similarly, How Much for Just the Planet? and Star Wreck are both Star Trek parodies, but with different meanings of the phrase. Choor monster ( talk) 13:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Parodies based on works by Dr. Seuss. The current title actually is most logically Parodies by Dr. Seuss, and thus should include the "Butter Battle Book" but not what it currently does. I also second the view that parodying a title is not enough to make it a parody of a work by Dr. Seuss. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree with the rename, but I believe it should be part of a multiple rename, for all "XXX parodies" categories. The simpler Category:Parodies of Dr. Seuss works with Category:Parodies of Star Trek, the more complicated Categories:Parodies based on works by Dr. Seuss does not translate well to Star Trek. Choor monster ( talk) 16:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Why not Caegory:Parodies based on Star Trek? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- The longer form is needed for avoiding ambiguity. "Parodies of Dr. Seuss" could be parodies of Theodore Geisel himself, as opposed to The Cat in the Hat, which "Parodies of works by Dr. Seuss" makes clear. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like an unnecessary ambiguity to avoid. Theodore Geisel's claim to fame, and hence claim to be an object of parody, is almost entirely from his works as Dr. Seuss. Imagine what a parody of the person would involve, say a novel about his evil twin who writes sick-in-the-head children's books. Almost certainly there would be enough excerpts from the evil twin's writings to qualify as parodies of the works themselves. Choor monster ( talk) 18:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- I may be wrong. There is a kind of fiction where somebody famous has his biography rewritten so that he no longer pursued what he is most noted for. There's a short story where Einstein is a career violin player, and another where Asimov is a megafamous megapundit on everything, so presumably, someday somebody will parody Geisel, having him take up a career as a movie critic or something. But I find it hard to believe somebody will do so without putting Seussian rhymes in! The Einstein/Asimov stories rely on the fact that the main character is recognizable without the famous aspects. Choor monster ( talk) 19:37, 22 February 2013 (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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only contains one page, which is already properly categorised as a list. – Fayenatic L ondon 00:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lacks potential. -- Marco ( talk) 16:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator and WP:SMALLCAT. ...William 01:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and WP:SMALLCAT. Given that notability is not inherited, and therefore an individual episode of a television series gets to have its own separate article only if reliable sources can be added that are specifically about the episode itself and which note the episode's real-world significance and not just its plot summary, this is not a show with many (or possibly any at all) episodes that are actually likely to meet that standard — and accordingly the existing list is all we'll ever really need. Bearcat ( talk) 08:25, 22 February 2013 (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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only contains one page, which is already properly categorised as a list. – Fayenatic L ondon 00:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lacks potential. -- Marco ( talk) 16:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator and WP:SMALLCAT. ...William 01:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- For the record, I was a huge, obsessive fanatic of this show when it was running — but even so, I can think of exactly two episodes in its entire run which might, maybe, have enough reliable sources about them and their real-world significance to get past the fact that notability is not inherited (the key words, for the record, being "Shakespeare" and "sex"), and exactly no reasons why we would actually need separate articles about them — the existing list is entirely sufficient. Which makes it a WP:SMALLCAT with no potential for significant growth, and therefore a delete. Bearcat ( talk) 08:18, 22 February 2013 (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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only contains one page, which is already properly categorised as a list. – Fayenatic L ondon 00:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lacks potential. -- Marco ( talk) 16:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator and WP:SMALLCAT. ...William 01:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and WP:SMALLCAT. Given that notability is not inherited, and therefore an individual episode of a television series gets to have its own separate article only if reliable sources can be added that are specifically about the episode itself and which note the episode's real-world significance and not just its plot summary, this is not a show with many (or possibly any at all) episodes that are actually likely to meet that standard — and accordingly the existing list is all we'll ever really need. Bearcat ( talk) 08:23, 22 February 2013 (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.