Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 22 November 24 >

November 23

Category:Comptrollers

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename, parallel to Government audit officials etc. The present category is over-categorisation by WP:SHAREDNAME, mixing political and general management positions in with government accounting officers, see Comptroller. (Note: for several recent CfDs that removed some Comptroller categories, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 September 21.) – Fayenatic L ondon 23:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • No, because some of those have nothing in common apart from the name of their position. There may be others who should become part of this hierarchy, even though known by other titles. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support The top category should cover the broader category scope and make it clear what the scope is. Given the varying roles that a comptroller many undertake, it is not a good choice for the top of the category (although a perfectly fine choice for the given positions which bear that name, e.g. Category:Comptrollers of the United States Treasury). SFB
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Church

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: convert to category disambiguation page. – Fayenatic L ondon 15:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominators rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME, very different entries are brought together in a category based on the word "church". This is a follow-up on an earlier proposal to delete, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_4#Category:Church. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:SHAREDNAME per last time. This is just a grab bag of various things referred to as a church, the church, or church. Further Church is a disambiguation page, so the name is ambiguous -- 67.70.35.44 ( talk) 09:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • As it's not going to be just deleted, would you then support the nomination instead? Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I would prefer to it be deleted. If it can't be deleted, it should be unusable as category, so a disambiguation category would do so. -- 67.70.35.44 ( talk) 09:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support Although I've argued a different view previously, the arguments of others makes me realise that this is a problematic title which causes people to struggle to differentiate between church (building), church (organisation) and church (religion). SFB 19:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support This is the best solution to a tricky problem. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support. In the close of the last discussion, I suggested the possibility of turning this into a disambiguation category, so it's only fair that I support this nomination. I can see where the organizer of this category was coming from in grouping these things together, but this is really what disambiguation pages are for. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

International association football competitions by host

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 according to option A. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Propose renaming...
Option A: "Association football"
Option B: National variant ("football", "soccer", etc.)
Nominator's rationale: Within Category:Association football, there is an established convention to use "association football" for international or general-topic categories and the national variant (either "football" or "soccer", typically) for national-level categories. How should this convention apply to Category:International association football competitions by host, which categorizes international competitions by host country? Should the subcategories use the national variant of the host country, or should they use "association football" because they contain articles about international competitions?
There is a drawback either way... With Option A, a category such as Category:International association football competitions hosted by Costa Rica would be housed within Category:Football competitions in Costa Rica, leading to a naming discrepancy within that category tree. With Option B, international competitions involving multiple nations would be categorized under the variant of one particular nation—for example, a competition hosted by England and involving the United States would be categorized as a "football competition", and a competition hosted by the United States and involving England would be categorized as a "soccer competition". ( WikiProject Football has been notified.) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Note: I will nominate categories which already use either Option A ( example) or Option B ( example) in a follow-up nomination, based on the outcome of this discussion. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support option A I think the international element trumps the national one. The national categories are so named on the basis that readers of those categories will mostly be connected with or aware of the variant used to refer to the sport in that country. This simply cannot be assumed when someone is searching through the international competition tree. People thinking of different types of football generally won't get to something like Category:Football competitions in Costa Rica, but they may well end up in the international grouping. I also think the loss of national-level category inconsistency is an acceptable trade-off for international reader clarity. SFB 19:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support option A It should be renamed the same for all country. Assosiation football fits for all country. MbahGondrong ( talk) 21:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Depends/option B. Follow how "Category:<Football> in foo" is named. People could also arrive at these pages via articles and could be confusing if the parent categories are named differently. – H T D 15:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Option A. Nominator is right that neither is perfect and both options have their benefits and flaws, so it really just comes down to personal preference. For categories, when in doubt, I prefer using the form that is likely to be the least ambiguous for all readers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Prince-Bishops of France

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: the Prince-Bishoprics of Strasbourg and Metz were part of the Holy Roman Empire at that time, not part of France. The respective bishops of Strasbourg and Metz are already parented to Category:Roman Catholic Prince-Bishops of the Holy Roman Empire. (See also three discussions starting from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_16#Category:Prince-Bishops_of_Latvia.) Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bishops of Dié

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:Roman Catholic bishops in France. – Fayenatic L ondon 15:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per Roman Catholic Diocese of Saint-Dié. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American female pop singer-songwriters

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Like the rock one, a decision was already reached on Category:American pop singer-songwriters to triple-upmerge it. This child category was missed in that nomination, and would be made an orphan by that action. Count me as Neutral but the current situation makes no sense, Courcelles 17:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge As this dilutes the meaning of singer-songwriters, which is crucial to maintain for continued use of the broader Category:Singer-songwriters tree. SFB 19:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American female rock singer-songwriters

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; each article will have to be assessed individually for target; will place at WP:CFDWM. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This child cat seems to have been missed in the decision to delete its parent, and therefore should be discussed. Count me as Neutral but the current situation makes no sense. Courcelles 17:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge but not to the singer-songwriter category. Having actually looked at the article on the term, I suspect it is being misused when applied to these individuals. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Contemporary music

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. – Fayenatic L ondon 15:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per main article: contemporary music/ contemporary classical music. Alternate proposal: Delete as an arbitrary mish-mash of 20th/21st-century musical styles, including contemporary R&B, Pop, psychedelic, etc. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 12:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Renaming seems not appropriate as the target already exists and is a child category of the nominated category. Deleting seems not appropriate since there are a number of 'contemporary' child categories so (if desired) it would require to first delete the 'contemporary' child categories before deleting the container category. I would not oppose purging the category though, i.e. to remove all child categories that are not a 'contemporary' form of a longer existing music genre. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. While a "music fan" editor may see only an "arbitrary mish-mash", anybody who troubles to click upon the super-categories will appreciate that the category works well among many similarly-named categories to place music in the history of contemporary arts and affairs. It happens that, at any given time in history there IS an "arbitrary mish-mash" of music, just as there is an "arbitrary mish-mash" of wars, scientific discoveries, styles of painting or anything else you like. I apologise for the disorganised state of the world, of course, but there is no reason given here to falsify this state of affairs. Redheylin ( talk) 09:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I disagree with the above as it means the category is a floating target. Do we knock artists out of Category:Contemporary blues musicians as they die, or as the decades move on? Where do they go to then? I would much prefer a "by century" approach (e.g. Category:21st century blues musicians). Presumably for most "contemporary" genres, the definition of the genre is its actuality, not its content. On that basis, it's sole defining feature is time alone so a by period categorisation is much more appropriate and specific. SFB 20:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I would assume that 'contemporary' is a documented term, preferably based on an article. For classical music this is the case, for Christian music as well. So for those types of music it would be okay to use 'contemporary' as a category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People educated at Marple Hall School

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; category re-populated with a total of 5 articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Nothing here that isn't on the school's main page. One Of Seven Billion ( talk) 10:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Not enough entries to constitute a category. George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 12:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – part of the established scheme Category:People educated by school in England, 5 articles to date, and the school is open producing around 200 potentially notable people every year. Oculi ( talk) 13:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Oculi ( talk) 13:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - only one entry (I have removed all the others as unsupported by RS) so not needed. 200 potentially notable students a year?! Nonsense. Giant Snowman 15:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Unfortunately we have thousands of 1 member categories, let's get rid of them if they can't be populated as they just hinder navigation. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I can't really assess this nomination since the category has been largely purged. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Not enough entries, despite Oculi using poor references (Spanish language source that no one has ever heard of for an English/Welsh footballer's school? Really?) to try and fluff it up. WP:OSE is not grounds for keeping the category, and most of those 1-member categories should go in the WikiBin as well. Nor is making crystal-ball speculation about "potentially notable people" a policy-based argument. These categories also aren't defining in most cases. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The general feeling is that categories in large schemas like this are justified even with 1. I strongly suspect we could find reliable sources to put back the other four people, but even if we can't, 1 is enough to keep a category of this type. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Television series involving disabilities

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Too vague to be of any meaning. Virtually every show in the 19080s had a "very special episode" revealing a character's ADHD, blind neighbor, etc. Shows often include characters with various impairments of varying severity. How bad was George Costanza's vision? Velma Dinkley's? Geordi La Forge's? Does Scooby Doo have a speech impediment? There is no clear line. SummerPhD ( talk) 07:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and refocus the scope to "A list of television series that centers around or features a character with a disability." I think this is a topic well worth exploring, but maybe better dealt with something like Category:Television series with disabled lead characters or similar. I don't think any of the four above mentioned people would pass this criteria (having glasses is not typically thought of as a disability – most likely because it would be quite revolutionary to classify a massive swath of the population as disabled). SFB 12:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Velma is nearly helpless when she drops her glasses. Geordi is blind without his visor. Both sets of eyewear are more essential than Dr. House's cane, but we don't have sources calling any of them "disabled". It all comes down to original research. - SummerPhD ( talk) 17:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
@ SummerPhD: Geordi La Forge is described as blind and we generally consider blindness a disability. I don't see original research entering the equation. Velma illustrates my point well – she has poor eyesight but is not considered disabled, just like I've never been described as disabled (though I'm similarly "Velma-helpless" without a visual aid). Also, please find attached an academic source discussing La Forge and disability. Ultimately it boils down to economic utility in modern society, but discussing this fully will simply derail the discussion! SFB 20:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Were Velma to apply for a job at a lab and the protective eye wear provided didn't work with her glasses, she could demand protective eye wear that does under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This would also apply to George Costanza. Category:Television series involving presbyopia and other disabilities? I'm willing to bet every episode of every medical show includes someone with a disability. Looking up a list of popular TV shows, I found list. Of the shows listed, I've seen only a handful: The Walking Dead, The Big Bang Theory, Breaking Bad, Orange is the New Black, Downton Abbey and Dexter. As far as I can see, ALL of them would qualify for this category, even if we don't count glasses. - SummerPhD ( talk) 23:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per SummerPhD. I was originally going to say that it should be kept, but then I read SummerPhD's comment about it all coming down to original research, and that swayed my opinion. -Fimatic ( talk | contribs) 22:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete "Involving" is just too loose of a criteria. However, I'm open to a rename/purge if someone wants to clean this up or recreate a better defined category later. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I agree that "involving" is too loose a criteria to support a category, and permits the inclusion of too many series whose connection to the topic is tenuous or trivial at best. A category for series in which disability is central to the show would absolutely be legitimate, but inclusion in that category should be restricted exclusively to shows in which the disability actually merits mention right in the article's introduction — it should not include every single show that happens to write a supporting or guest character as having a disability. Sue Thomas F.B. Eye and John Callahan's Quads!, for example, certainly belong — but our article on George Lopez completely fails to contain any explanation whatsoever of why the category's even there. Rename and restrict per SFB. Bearcat ( talk) 08:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC) reply
We're still in WP:OR territory here. What is a "disability" and is it "central"? Is Dr. House's cane use a disability that is "central"? It isn't mentioned in the introduction. The intro to Star Trek: The Next Generation doesn't mention any characters, so that one's out. Ditto Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood. "A key recurring character was Geri Tyler...who has cerebral palsy" is not in the intro at The Facts of Life (TV series). Heck, most of the current members of the poorly populated category don't mention anything that might be a disability: Alphas, Blind Justice (TV series) (other than it being in the title!), Covert Affairs, Criminal Minds, Daredevil (TV series), George Lopez (TV series), Ironside (2013 TV series), John Callahan's Quads!... I'm just not seeing a way through this that gives us objective membership in the category without rewriting articles with the aim of including them in the category. - SummerPhD ( talk) 15:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC) reply
I won't argue with some of the ones you singled out — but the very first sentence of Blind Justice is "Blind Justice is an American television series created by Steven Bochco about a blind New York City police detective", so it's not just in the title. Daredevil is about a blind lawyer slash superhero, if you read the "premise" section. Ironside is a literal remake of the 1967 series that's sitting right next to it in the same category, and the introduction contains the phrase "wheelchair-using". John Callahan's Quads! needs some major improvements as written, I admit, but the show's core premise was all about a guy in a wheelchair and his support system of other friends who were all also disabled in one way or another (including a blind guy, a double arm amputee and a disembodied head) — depicting disability was the show's entire raison d'être.
I'm not disagreeing that there are some cases where it's OR as to how central the disability is to the premise — but there are numerous other cases where there's simply no actual debate to be had at all, and a category is warranted for those unequivocal no-OR-necessary cases. I argued in favour of removing those subjective and/or OR cases, not leaving them untouched. Bearcat ( talk) 21:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, without prejudice to starting over with a better-defined premise. The current title ("involving") leaves the category too loosely defined, and the proposed alternative of Category:Television series with disabled lead characters would make it indiscriminate—not to mention the problem of differentiating lead and supporting characters. The proposed alternative assumes that a lead character's disability is always a central and defining characteristic of a television series, when it could just be an incidental element.
    I do think that there is potential for Category:Disability television (or similar) that includes reality television series centered on individuals with disabilities (e.g., Beyond Boundaries, Britain's Missing Top Model, Dancing on Wheels, Push Girls) and perhaps television series in which disability is a key premise (e.g., The Michael J. Fox Show, Nico (TV series), Pelswick), but that excludes television series that are only incidentally connected to disability, unless we consider emotional angst and dysfunctional relationships to be disabling (e.g., Covert Affairs, Malparida, George Lopez (TV series)). Such a category would require ongoing maintenance to ensure inclusion reflects reliable sources, but I do think that there is a need for a category on this topic. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as being to subjective - Geordi La Forge is a perfect example: Is he disabled? (ask any bloind person whether or not they are; on the other hand, with this technology, he can see at least as well as any normal person) To what degree is Star Trek TNG "involving" his disability? (It does come up in a few episodes, but not usually; on the other hand, you always see him with his VISOR, a clear mark that he is, in fact, blind) And he appears in most of the TNG episodes, usually as a major cjharacter, but not even once in A Matter of Honor. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as being totally subjective, and having a very wishy-washy inclusion criteria. As things stand, something could be in this category for having an extra in a wheelchair going down the street in the background. The term "disability" itself is also very vague and open to interpretation; where is the line between a mere "handicap", like someone being short sighted, and a "disability", like someone being blind, drawn? I also agree with the concerns surrounding WP:OR. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_23&oldid=1138399841"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 22 November 24 >

November 23

Category:Comptrollers

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename, parallel to Government audit officials etc. The present category is over-categorisation by WP:SHAREDNAME, mixing political and general management positions in with government accounting officers, see Comptroller. (Note: for several recent CfDs that removed some Comptroller categories, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 September 21.) – Fayenatic L ondon 23:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • No, because some of those have nothing in common apart from the name of their position. There may be others who should become part of this hierarchy, even though known by other titles. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support The top category should cover the broader category scope and make it clear what the scope is. Given the varying roles that a comptroller many undertake, it is not a good choice for the top of the category (although a perfectly fine choice for the given positions which bear that name, e.g. Category:Comptrollers of the United States Treasury). SFB
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Church

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: convert to category disambiguation page. – Fayenatic L ondon 15:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominators rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME, very different entries are brought together in a category based on the word "church". This is a follow-up on an earlier proposal to delete, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_4#Category:Church. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:SHAREDNAME per last time. This is just a grab bag of various things referred to as a church, the church, or church. Further Church is a disambiguation page, so the name is ambiguous -- 67.70.35.44 ( talk) 09:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • As it's not going to be just deleted, would you then support the nomination instead? Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I would prefer to it be deleted. If it can't be deleted, it should be unusable as category, so a disambiguation category would do so. -- 67.70.35.44 ( talk) 09:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support Although I've argued a different view previously, the arguments of others makes me realise that this is a problematic title which causes people to struggle to differentiate between church (building), church (organisation) and church (religion). SFB 19:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support This is the best solution to a tricky problem. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support. In the close of the last discussion, I suggested the possibility of turning this into a disambiguation category, so it's only fair that I support this nomination. I can see where the organizer of this category was coming from in grouping these things together, but this is really what disambiguation pages are for. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

International association football competitions by host

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 according to option A. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Propose renaming...
Option A: "Association football"
Option B: National variant ("football", "soccer", etc.)
Nominator's rationale: Within Category:Association football, there is an established convention to use "association football" for international or general-topic categories and the national variant (either "football" or "soccer", typically) for national-level categories. How should this convention apply to Category:International association football competitions by host, which categorizes international competitions by host country? Should the subcategories use the national variant of the host country, or should they use "association football" because they contain articles about international competitions?
There is a drawback either way... With Option A, a category such as Category:International association football competitions hosted by Costa Rica would be housed within Category:Football competitions in Costa Rica, leading to a naming discrepancy within that category tree. With Option B, international competitions involving multiple nations would be categorized under the variant of one particular nation—for example, a competition hosted by England and involving the United States would be categorized as a "football competition", and a competition hosted by the United States and involving England would be categorized as a "soccer competition". ( WikiProject Football has been notified.) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Note: I will nominate categories which already use either Option A ( example) or Option B ( example) in a follow-up nomination, based on the outcome of this discussion. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support option A I think the international element trumps the national one. The national categories are so named on the basis that readers of those categories will mostly be connected with or aware of the variant used to refer to the sport in that country. This simply cannot be assumed when someone is searching through the international competition tree. People thinking of different types of football generally won't get to something like Category:Football competitions in Costa Rica, but they may well end up in the international grouping. I also think the loss of national-level category inconsistency is an acceptable trade-off for international reader clarity. SFB 19:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support option A It should be renamed the same for all country. Assosiation football fits for all country. MbahGondrong ( talk) 21:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Depends/option B. Follow how "Category:<Football> in foo" is named. People could also arrive at these pages via articles and could be confusing if the parent categories are named differently. – H T D 15:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Option A. Nominator is right that neither is perfect and both options have their benefits and flaws, so it really just comes down to personal preference. For categories, when in doubt, I prefer using the form that is likely to be the least ambiguous for all readers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Prince-Bishops of France

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: the Prince-Bishoprics of Strasbourg and Metz were part of the Holy Roman Empire at that time, not part of France. The respective bishops of Strasbourg and Metz are already parented to Category:Roman Catholic Prince-Bishops of the Holy Roman Empire. (See also three discussions starting from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_16#Category:Prince-Bishops_of_Latvia.) Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bishops of Dié

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:Roman Catholic bishops in France. – Fayenatic L ondon 15:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per Roman Catholic Diocese of Saint-Dié. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American female pop singer-songwriters

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Like the rock one, a decision was already reached on Category:American pop singer-songwriters to triple-upmerge it. This child category was missed in that nomination, and would be made an orphan by that action. Count me as Neutral but the current situation makes no sense, Courcelles 17:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge As this dilutes the meaning of singer-songwriters, which is crucial to maintain for continued use of the broader Category:Singer-songwriters tree. SFB 19:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American female rock singer-songwriters

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; each article will have to be assessed individually for target; will place at WP:CFDWM. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This child cat seems to have been missed in the decision to delete its parent, and therefore should be discussed. Count me as Neutral but the current situation makes no sense. Courcelles 17:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge but not to the singer-songwriter category. Having actually looked at the article on the term, I suspect it is being misused when applied to these individuals. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Contemporary music

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. – Fayenatic L ondon 15:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per main article: contemporary music/ contemporary classical music. Alternate proposal: Delete as an arbitrary mish-mash of 20th/21st-century musical styles, including contemporary R&B, Pop, psychedelic, etc. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 12:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Renaming seems not appropriate as the target already exists and is a child category of the nominated category. Deleting seems not appropriate since there are a number of 'contemporary' child categories so (if desired) it would require to first delete the 'contemporary' child categories before deleting the container category. I would not oppose purging the category though, i.e. to remove all child categories that are not a 'contemporary' form of a longer existing music genre. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. While a "music fan" editor may see only an "arbitrary mish-mash", anybody who troubles to click upon the super-categories will appreciate that the category works well among many similarly-named categories to place music in the history of contemporary arts and affairs. It happens that, at any given time in history there IS an "arbitrary mish-mash" of music, just as there is an "arbitrary mish-mash" of wars, scientific discoveries, styles of painting or anything else you like. I apologise for the disorganised state of the world, of course, but there is no reason given here to falsify this state of affairs. Redheylin ( talk) 09:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I disagree with the above as it means the category is a floating target. Do we knock artists out of Category:Contemporary blues musicians as they die, or as the decades move on? Where do they go to then? I would much prefer a "by century" approach (e.g. Category:21st century blues musicians). Presumably for most "contemporary" genres, the definition of the genre is its actuality, not its content. On that basis, it's sole defining feature is time alone so a by period categorisation is much more appropriate and specific. SFB 20:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I would assume that 'contemporary' is a documented term, preferably based on an article. For classical music this is the case, for Christian music as well. So for those types of music it would be okay to use 'contemporary' as a category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People educated at Marple Hall School

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; category re-populated with a total of 5 articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Nothing here that isn't on the school's main page. One Of Seven Billion ( talk) 10:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Not enough entries to constitute a category. George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 12:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – part of the established scheme Category:People educated by school in England, 5 articles to date, and the school is open producing around 200 potentially notable people every year. Oculi ( talk) 13:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Oculi ( talk) 13:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - only one entry (I have removed all the others as unsupported by RS) so not needed. 200 potentially notable students a year?! Nonsense. Giant Snowman 15:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Unfortunately we have thousands of 1 member categories, let's get rid of them if they can't be populated as they just hinder navigation. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I can't really assess this nomination since the category has been largely purged. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Not enough entries, despite Oculi using poor references (Spanish language source that no one has ever heard of for an English/Welsh footballer's school? Really?) to try and fluff it up. WP:OSE is not grounds for keeping the category, and most of those 1-member categories should go in the WikiBin as well. Nor is making crystal-ball speculation about "potentially notable people" a policy-based argument. These categories also aren't defining in most cases. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The general feeling is that categories in large schemas like this are justified even with 1. I strongly suspect we could find reliable sources to put back the other four people, but even if we can't, 1 is enough to keep a category of this type. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Television series involving disabilities

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Too vague to be of any meaning. Virtually every show in the 19080s had a "very special episode" revealing a character's ADHD, blind neighbor, etc. Shows often include characters with various impairments of varying severity. How bad was George Costanza's vision? Velma Dinkley's? Geordi La Forge's? Does Scooby Doo have a speech impediment? There is no clear line. SummerPhD ( talk) 07:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and refocus the scope to "A list of television series that centers around or features a character with a disability." I think this is a topic well worth exploring, but maybe better dealt with something like Category:Television series with disabled lead characters or similar. I don't think any of the four above mentioned people would pass this criteria (having glasses is not typically thought of as a disability – most likely because it would be quite revolutionary to classify a massive swath of the population as disabled). SFB 12:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Velma is nearly helpless when she drops her glasses. Geordi is blind without his visor. Both sets of eyewear are more essential than Dr. House's cane, but we don't have sources calling any of them "disabled". It all comes down to original research. - SummerPhD ( talk) 17:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
@ SummerPhD: Geordi La Forge is described as blind and we generally consider blindness a disability. I don't see original research entering the equation. Velma illustrates my point well – she has poor eyesight but is not considered disabled, just like I've never been described as disabled (though I'm similarly "Velma-helpless" without a visual aid). Also, please find attached an academic source discussing La Forge and disability. Ultimately it boils down to economic utility in modern society, but discussing this fully will simply derail the discussion! SFB 20:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Were Velma to apply for a job at a lab and the protective eye wear provided didn't work with her glasses, she could demand protective eye wear that does under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This would also apply to George Costanza. Category:Television series involving presbyopia and other disabilities? I'm willing to bet every episode of every medical show includes someone with a disability. Looking up a list of popular TV shows, I found list. Of the shows listed, I've seen only a handful: The Walking Dead, The Big Bang Theory, Breaking Bad, Orange is the New Black, Downton Abbey and Dexter. As far as I can see, ALL of them would qualify for this category, even if we don't count glasses. - SummerPhD ( talk) 23:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per SummerPhD. I was originally going to say that it should be kept, but then I read SummerPhD's comment about it all coming down to original research, and that swayed my opinion. -Fimatic ( talk | contribs) 22:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete "Involving" is just too loose of a criteria. However, I'm open to a rename/purge if someone wants to clean this up or recreate a better defined category later. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I agree that "involving" is too loose a criteria to support a category, and permits the inclusion of too many series whose connection to the topic is tenuous or trivial at best. A category for series in which disability is central to the show would absolutely be legitimate, but inclusion in that category should be restricted exclusively to shows in which the disability actually merits mention right in the article's introduction — it should not include every single show that happens to write a supporting or guest character as having a disability. Sue Thomas F.B. Eye and John Callahan's Quads!, for example, certainly belong — but our article on George Lopez completely fails to contain any explanation whatsoever of why the category's even there. Rename and restrict per SFB. Bearcat ( talk) 08:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC) reply
We're still in WP:OR territory here. What is a "disability" and is it "central"? Is Dr. House's cane use a disability that is "central"? It isn't mentioned in the introduction. The intro to Star Trek: The Next Generation doesn't mention any characters, so that one's out. Ditto Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood. "A key recurring character was Geri Tyler...who has cerebral palsy" is not in the intro at The Facts of Life (TV series). Heck, most of the current members of the poorly populated category don't mention anything that might be a disability: Alphas, Blind Justice (TV series) (other than it being in the title!), Covert Affairs, Criminal Minds, Daredevil (TV series), George Lopez (TV series), Ironside (2013 TV series), John Callahan's Quads!... I'm just not seeing a way through this that gives us objective membership in the category without rewriting articles with the aim of including them in the category. - SummerPhD ( talk) 15:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC) reply
I won't argue with some of the ones you singled out — but the very first sentence of Blind Justice is "Blind Justice is an American television series created by Steven Bochco about a blind New York City police detective", so it's not just in the title. Daredevil is about a blind lawyer slash superhero, if you read the "premise" section. Ironside is a literal remake of the 1967 series that's sitting right next to it in the same category, and the introduction contains the phrase "wheelchair-using". John Callahan's Quads! needs some major improvements as written, I admit, but the show's core premise was all about a guy in a wheelchair and his support system of other friends who were all also disabled in one way or another (including a blind guy, a double arm amputee and a disembodied head) — depicting disability was the show's entire raison d'être.
I'm not disagreeing that there are some cases where it's OR as to how central the disability is to the premise — but there are numerous other cases where there's simply no actual debate to be had at all, and a category is warranted for those unequivocal no-OR-necessary cases. I argued in favour of removing those subjective and/or OR cases, not leaving them untouched. Bearcat ( talk) 21:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, without prejudice to starting over with a better-defined premise. The current title ("involving") leaves the category too loosely defined, and the proposed alternative of Category:Television series with disabled lead characters would make it indiscriminate—not to mention the problem of differentiating lead and supporting characters. The proposed alternative assumes that a lead character's disability is always a central and defining characteristic of a television series, when it could just be an incidental element.
    I do think that there is potential for Category:Disability television (or similar) that includes reality television series centered on individuals with disabilities (e.g., Beyond Boundaries, Britain's Missing Top Model, Dancing on Wheels, Push Girls) and perhaps television series in which disability is a key premise (e.g., The Michael J. Fox Show, Nico (TV series), Pelswick), but that excludes television series that are only incidentally connected to disability, unless we consider emotional angst and dysfunctional relationships to be disabling (e.g., Covert Affairs, Malparida, George Lopez (TV series)). Such a category would require ongoing maintenance to ensure inclusion reflects reliable sources, but I do think that there is a need for a category on this topic. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as being to subjective - Geordi La Forge is a perfect example: Is he disabled? (ask any bloind person whether or not they are; on the other hand, with this technology, he can see at least as well as any normal person) To what degree is Star Trek TNG "involving" his disability? (It does come up in a few episodes, but not usually; on the other hand, you always see him with his VISOR, a clear mark that he is, in fact, blind) And he appears in most of the TNG episodes, usually as a major cjharacter, but not even once in A Matter of Honor. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as being totally subjective, and having a very wishy-washy inclusion criteria. As things stand, something could be in this category for having an extra in a wheelchair going down the street in the background. The term "disability" itself is also very vague and open to interpretation; where is the line between a mere "handicap", like someone being short sighted, and a "disability", like someone being blind, drawn? I also agree with the concerns surrounding WP:OR. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_23&oldid=1138399841"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE