Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 11

< June 10	June 12 >

June 11[edit]

Category:Orgone Science and Technology[edit]

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Orgone Science and Technology to Category:Orgone energy

Nominator's rationale: "Orgone Science and Technology" is a bit odd as a category name, especially as orgone energy is sort of a canonical fringe idea. "Orgone energy" would be a more neutral and typical category name here. MastCell ^Talk 21:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Orgone is not a scientific concept. Paul B (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as "orgone energy" seems to be the dominant term from what I see. Mangoe (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditch the category. Merge with vitalism, psychoanalysis or what ye will....Redheylin (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom -- "Orgone energy" is simple and straightforward, there's no need to dress it up. Cgingold (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. At this point the category includes a scientific theory and articles related to it. There seems to be no mention of technology at all. Dimadick (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2008 (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:Syndicated television series in Canada[edit]

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Syndicated television series in Canada to Category:First-run syndicated television programs in Canada

Nominator's rationale: Rename. See also the US category nominated below. The name is misleading, as we do not categorize network shows that are repeated in syndication, only those shows that are first-run. Otto4711 (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Favour rename. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2008 (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:First-run syndicated television programs[edit]

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 and recreate after move as the parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:First-run syndicated television programs to Category:First-run syndicated television programs in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per extensive discussion on the talk page the category is intended for US-syndicated programs only. There's now a categroy for syndicated programs in Canada so this needs to be renamed. Ideally then the cat should be re-created and serve as a parent. Otto4711 (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Favour moving entries to a US-specific subcategory, but then keep the original as a parent for the Canada and US cats. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's easier to move the entries than it is to rename the category then I'm fine with that alternative. I wasn't going to manually move hundreds of articles myself. Otto4711 (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the entries is actually how a category renaming is done, but obviously it would generally be done by somebody who has AWB so that they can do a batch run rather than manually changing every article. Bearcat (talk)

OIC. So then you and I are advocating the exact same result, just in different ways. Otto4711 (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, yeah :-) Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and then recreate as a parent category, per Otto. -Sean Curtin (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Diffuse. With 501 articles in the category, it would be foolhardy to assume that there aren't at least a few non-U.S. shows in the bunch. It would be better to handle this outside of CFD. Just create a sub-category for every country of origin encountered. — CharlotteWebb 19:12, 13 June 2008 (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:Adult Swim anime[edit]

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate and redundant category with a misleading name. Category:Adult Swim already exists for programs aired during the Adult Swim programming block. There is not such a huge number of series that a subcategory is necessary. This category, Category:Adult Swim anime implies it is anime created by Adult Swim, which of course is false as Adult Swim is not a producer of anime (and couldn't be, as its a US programming block, not a Japanese production company). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So your only legitimate argument is the title? Right, deletion versus renaming...

The Adult Swim programming block is of a decent enough size where another category could be warranted for the anime. There's not actually any explanation for why it's inappropriate, either. Keep and rename. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Sorry, my computer is being a pain and you replied before I could expand. It also is not appropriate as we do not generally categorize anime series by the channels they aired on. Not the first channel, and certainly not the US rebroadcast. It gives extreme bias to AS for the few anime titles it airs when we do not do the same for every for channel. Wikipedia is also not a TV guide. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do cartoons by television channel - can you name any reason why anime should be any different?

In the US, Adult Swim airs more anime than other channels do. There are enough animes that have aired on Adult Swim to warrant a category. It is a useful category that helps people navigate from one anime featured on Adult Swim to the other. It is not harmful, and I certainly don't see any logic to say that no one is helped by it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, actually, no, I'd say Funimation's channel or any of the other pure anime channel's airs far more than Adult Swim. I haven't seen cartoons by television channel, unless the channel was the producer, but I don't do much with those articles. Either way, it doesn't have anything to do with this. This is about anime articles, not cartoons. If we were going to follow the example, however, then it should be the actual original channels, not every rebroadcast one, which would still make Adult Swim anime an inappropriate category. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless... - We do not categorize TV shows based on the channels to which they are syndicated. If Adult Swim produces no original anime programming, then the category should be deleted. If AS does produce anime, then the category may be renamed to Category:Adult Swim original anime. I can't stand anime so I have no idea if any of the shows Adult Swim inflicts on the airwaves are original to it. Otto4711 (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. It can't. Anime is a Japanese cartoon, would have to be from Japan :P AS does its own original cartoons, which already have a category of Category:Adult Swim original programs. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For many animes on Adult Swim, they first appeared in the US on that channel. It's useful categorization - without the category, it's difficult to find animes that appeared on Adult Swim. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Adult Swim were to commission a Japanese production company to create a show and airs it on Adult Swim, in what way would this show not be an "Adult Swim anime"? Is there some definitional rule that says so? Otto4711 (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) For purposes of Wikipedia categorization, it does not matter that AS was the first US outlet for the shows, because we don't categorize on the basis of where a program is syndicated. We could end up with 100s of categories on widely syndicated programs. There is a list of programs broadcast by Adult Swim, which I assume has an anime section. Otto4711 (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conlict)To borrow from the article: Anime is "a Japanese style of motion-picture animation" or "a style of animation developed in Japan." Non-Japanese works that borrow stylization from anime is commonly referred to as "anime-influenced animation." Now, if AS coproduced an anime series in Japan and it also was released in Japan, then it could still be categorized as AS original programming. A subcat would only be needed if it became a habit. We shouldn't have a category for "what if" as it would just sit empty for a long long time. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then change it to Cartoon Network. The simple fact of the matter is that with Cartoon Network, there are dozens of animes that could fit the category, meaning it's a far more notable category than "every other channel featuring anime". - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Again, its syndication airing. We don't categorize any show by the channel it is syndicated on, only its first airing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then change the title of that category to include programming for Adult Swim. It doesn't become an extra category, just becomes a bigger, more expansive category. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still aren't getting it. There is a category for AS' original programming. Syndicated programming doesn't go there or in any other AS category, and that includes the dubbed anime it re-broadcasts. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And most of the anime on Adult Swim is the English premiere of those animes. To the readers, Cowboy Bebop premiered on Adult Swim, Case Closed premiered on Adult Swim, and Trigun premiered on Adult Swim. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should work to dispel the ignorance of those readers, because those shows did not premier on Adult Swim. Encyclopedias should be free of factual errors, not perpetuate them. Otto4711 (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with being ignorant to the fact that the anime first premiered in a non-English territory. To the US, Adult Swim was the first time anyone ever saw the show. It's the US premiere of the show. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On October 24, 2007, it was decided that the list of programs broadcast by Adult Swim was sufficient and a category for (non-original) shows that aired on AS wasn't necessary. (Shows on Adult Swim CFD). On the subjects of "Adult Swim anime originals", only the second season of The Big O would fall in said category.--Nohansen (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominted and deleted: Cartoons in syndication on Comedy Central. Otto4711 (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In part because this will result in other articles being categorized based on which channels they were broadcast on. Given that many anime series have been broadcast on at least a half dozen channels — and that's before they reach the international market, this will result in over-categorization. --Farix (Talk) 19:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this brings up the issue of companies that license foreign stuff and distribute it locally... especially for anime and manga... which seem to have categories right now... 70.51.11.175 (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - additional similar deleted categories: Shows on Cartoon Cartoons; Shows on Miguzi; Shows on Toonami. Otto4711 (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Superflow, and stubby. I would say delete.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 22:59, 20 June 2008 (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:Convicted Kerb crawlers[edit]

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Do we really need this category for a relatively minor offence. If it is kept, it should be renamed to "Convicted kerb crawler". ukexpat (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial basis for a category, potential BLP problems because of the implication that the person was attempting to solicit a prostitute. Otto4711 (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Blank white paper, empty, and orphan.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 23:01, 20 June 2008 (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 associated with the Brontës[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete at the creator's request. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as over-categorization. If everybody was categorized by their associations with others, where would it end? Bencherlite ^Talk 16:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear-cut overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the category's creator...I have over-categorised and agree with the nomination. Jack1956 (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator you can empty the category and tag it with {{db-author}} for speedy deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2008 (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.

Double double names names[edit]

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. However if someone chooses to listify the contents, except for Category:Double-named places in Australia‎, and then empty the categories they would be eligible for a speedy delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - overcategorization by name characteristic, also trivial, also per the outcome of the Double names CFD. Listify if desired. Otto4711 (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing worth categorizing that's shared by Bling-bling and The The, for example. The Australian places are worth listifying, but a list exists already at List of Australian repeated place names. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OCAT. Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am extremely disappointed to see Category:Double-named places in Australia nominated again with no reference to the previous discussion. The rationale remains as I and others said in that debate: linguistic phenomenon of indigenous Australian languages ... Indigenous Australian languages are important and this cat will help people to study ... Reasonably populated and links various places with name of similar meaning. My understanding is that in Indigenous Australian languages, duplication is used as an intensifier .. Keep this categorisation is a very useful tool for finding places in Australia that detail direct language and mutually respectful relationships between European Settlers and the Indigenous Australian populations. Towns so named are related to each other by the relationship of either a single Indigenous peoples eg: Wiradjuri or by trading (and thus language) relationships between two or more of those peoples. Maintaining this categorisation will hopefully prompt the development of specific articles or sub-parts of other articles that reflect that relationship. --Matilda ^talk 21:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't apply to the other two categories, however. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't qualify my Keep vote and I chose not to. It was inappropriate to relist the Australian cat. I can see no reason for deletion of the other two cats. I disagree there is over categorisation. As per the article on Reduplication: Reduplication is found in a wide range of languages and language groups, though its level of linguistic productivity varies. I see no reason why these categories should be deleted. I find the nominators argument that overcategorization by name characteristic, also trivial as not so. It is a recognised linguistic phenomenon, not a trivial one and not an overcategorisation as to help people find examples. Similarly I don't see how the argument of there's nothing worth categorizing that's shared by Bling-bling and The The, for example is arrived at given it is a linguistic phenomenon and it is that phenomenon that is categorised and shared. I would wish somebody to find the rationale in WP:OCAT that they wish to apply - these categories in my view do indeed serve as a useful tool to group articles for ease of navigation, and correlating similar information; inclusion in the category is not by a Non-defining or trivial characteristic. While a list can provide a useful alternative to the category system per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates , These methods should not be considered to be in conflict with each other - I see no reason to listify the categories and the disadvantages of lists would apply in this case - why dismantle the categories? --Matilda ^talk 00:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A further point - I see the categorisation here as quite different to the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_4#Category:Double_names - the sorts of examples included in that category were people who had a common first name and surname - there was no linguistic phenomenon, it was a quirky category with examples such as Sirhan Sirhan , Llewelyn Lewellinand Richard N. Richards. Inclusion in that category certainly met WP:OCAT as categorisation by coincidence of name format - definitely a Non-defining or trivial characteristic - these people had nothing else in common and there was no rationale that the format of their first name together with their second name was of any significance. --Matilda ^talk 00:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I add my ditto on the immediately above point concerning WP:OCAT, which for the reasons posited by Matilda clearly do not fit in the case of Double-named places in Australia.--VS ^talk 01:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be contradicting yourself. On the one hand you agree that categorizing people by coincidence of name format is overcategorization, yet you are defending Category:Reduplicants which contains inanimate objects that are categorized on the basis of coincidence of name format. You dismiss the notion that there is no relationship between Bling bling and The The, so what is the encyclopedic relationship? Yes, some cultures have reduplication as an important linguistic component. To the best of my knowledge, hip hop culture (the source of bling bling) and New Wave music (The The) do not, nor do they share a commonality of culture between them which includes reduplication. In the absence of such connection, categorizing them is trivial. The same applies to Category:Double-named places. There is no shared linguistic reduplication heritage between Ossining, New York (home of Sing Sing) and Kwekwe Zimbabwe, thus categorizing them is on the basis of coincidence of name format. No different than Category:Cities that begin with the letter P or Category:Words ending in -gry. Otto4711 (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assertions in this point. There is a linguistic phenomenon of reduplication and that is the shared characteristic of terms in this category. The phenomenon occurs across many cultures - indigenous Australian languages being one - we have a reasonably lengthy article on the topic which goes into detail - suggest you read it. You would then find that hip hop and new wave may be related as per the section English reduplication - in fact I would challenge you to provide a cite which suggests they are not. That reduplication exists across many languages is interesting. That sometimes better categorisation can occur so that like with like are categorised together and not with others is preferable - that is an argument for more categories rather than less - thus we would have a category that covers Reduplication in Bantu Languages and another category that covers Indo-European etc to ensure that the shared linguistic reduplication heritage is properly characterised - until those sub cats are deceloped I suggest we keep the parent cat. My point is - it is no mere coincidence in name format that these terms are reduplicated - thus the categorisation is not trivial. The example of Category:Cities that begin with the letter P is obviously a trivial example and so too probably is Category:Words ending in -gry - but we are not discussing these examples, we a re discussing a phenomenon that has an article devoted to the subject and thus the argument it is a mere coincidence or is trivial does not apply.
Just to refute slightly that it is merely overcategorisation applying to the formerly deleted cat: you would have to wonder whether there isn't some share sadism in the parents of as Sirhan Sirhan , Llewelyn Lewellin and Richard N. Richards so maybe there is a shared characteristic there - people whose parents were cruel enough to give their children reduplicated names (they are all male so I assume it was parental whim). --Matilda ^talk 21:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is an article devoted to the topic of reduplication does not justify the categories. Not everything that is notable enough for an article also warrants a category, else every article on Wikipedia would be eligible for its own eponymous cat. As for providing a cite that hip hop and New Wave cultures share a reduplication linguistic background, it's not my job to prove that they don't. You're the one asserting that the two articles have this linguistic relationship; it's your job to provide the cite. In the absence of reliable sourcing that the contents of these categories share some linguistic cultural background that warrants categorizing them together, your assertions that they do amount to original research by synthesis. You're the one asserting a meaningful linguistic connection between these far-flung places and objects; prove it. Otto4711 (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I share Matilda's disappointment that Category:Double-named places in Australia has been renominated without reference to the previous discussion, (which is detailed and linked for easy access in the talk page of that category) and when that previous discussion provided good and clear reasons why this category should be kept. On the previous nomination I wrote the following words which I continue to stick by - keep is a very useful tool for finding places in Australia that detail direct language and mutually respectful relationships between European Settlers and the Indigenous Australian populations. Towns so named are related to each other by the relationship of either a single Indigenous peoples eg: Wiradjuri or by trading (and thus language) relationships between two or more of those peoples. Maintaining this categorisation will hopefully prompt the development of specific articles or sub-parts of other articles that reflect that relationship.--VS ^talk 22:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Australia list for the reasons identified by Matilda. Wagga Wagga in New South Wales is more linguistically significant than Walla Walla, for example. There's a uniting theme in those double named. No comment on the other two. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually there is a Walla Walla, New South Wales which is of the same phenomenon as Wagga Wagga (and 130 km away) but not (I assume) as Walla Walla, Washington --Matilda ^talk 00:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

whoops on my end. I was going by memory on NSW geography and am not familiar with Walla Walla, the one I was referring to as different was indeed the one in Washington state. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Australia category, my bad, I didn't look at the talk page before nominating. I still have my suspicions about the utility of the category but regardless of whether it is kept the other two should still be deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Useful categorization of world wide use of reduplication in language.Muntuwandi (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the encyclopedic relationship between Beriberi, a nervous system disease, and Rebel Rebel, a David Bowie song? Otto4711 (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name of a song probably does not merit inclusion in the list. However, please see my response above in support of world wide use of reduplication in language. We have A number of Nepalese nouns are formed by reduplication. As in other languages, the meaning is not that of a true plural, but collectives that refer to a set of the same or related objects, often in a particular situation. + reduplication in Russian language serves for various kinds of intensifying of the meaning and we don't actually have a statement yet on Wikipedia as to what it means in Indigenous Australian terms but I believe the usage in Indigenous Australian terms is as for the Nepalese - ie not that of a true plural, but collectives that refer to a set of the same or related objects, often in a particular situation. The existence of such categories allows for prompts of further additions in article space to the wikipedia. I cannot see that wikipedia is better off without these categories than with them. The do not merely collect trivial associations. --Matilda ^talk 21:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't the name of a song merit inclusion in the category? On what basis would you exclude it? Is it not a reduplication? Or is it not a reduplication that is the result of a shared linguistic heritage, thus undermining your defense of the category? Otto4711 (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think my prejudice against song titles, say for example Baby, Baby is because it is probably not a linguistic reduplication but a musical one and hence the distinction--Matilda ^talk 05:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Otto for listing these together so that we can have a coherent discussion. Keep the Australian one and change its parent category to category:Reduplication. Listify significant members of the others to the article Reduplication then delete them. I know I have been adding non-significant pages to them; call it experimentation - perhaps it fruitfully drew your attention to raise this CFD. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection I see that I have damaged Category:Reduplicants by adding pages into it that are merely repeated words, not linguistic reduplication. (See my talk page.) I'm sorry. Repurpose (or just clarify) and partially depopulate - If we take the bands and songs out again, and spell out on the category page an explanation in simple words of what the category is intended for, then it may be worth keeping. A priori, if that one is kept, then Category:Double-named places‎ would also be worth keeping, although it should be renamed reduplicant or reduplicated place names. The Australian one should then be renamed likewise. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- One at a time. I'll say keep. Those is not copyvio.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 23:02, 20 June 2008 (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:South China A.A.[edit]

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:South China A.A. to Category:South China AA

Nominator's rationale: Per the name of the main article. Hikikomori.hk (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consequently:

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:National parks in Kerala[edit]

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: Split per June 12 CfD that covered all of the related park and sanctuary categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Since renaming to Category:National parks and sanctuaries in Kerala -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 13:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC) ( creator request)[reply]

Keep as part of a series. Split out the sanctuaries into a new category, Category:Wildlife sanctuaries in Kerala, and delete Category:National parks and sanctuaries in Kerala. As a note, categories should not be emptied or moved without a discussion here. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete/ Comment. I created both the categories. Initially I created Category:National parks in Kerala and then found there was a different convention already as below

National parks of India

National parks of India by state or union territory

Therefore I created Category:National parks and sanctuaries in Kerala again and Just asking to delete the former one (Category:National parks in Kerala) which I had created -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 11:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you are taking the correct category and replacing it with a wrong one. The sanctuaries should be under Category:Wildlife sanctuaries of India and not the national parks one. So you should be creating Category:Wildlife sanctuaries in Kerala and that would have different parents then Category:National parks in Kerala. The category tree you are using as an example as several problems that need to be cleaned up. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other combined categories have been nominated for splitting, correcting the names, and removing the ambiguous use of sanctuaries. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think this one can be closed keep or no consensus based on the comments of the the only Delete editor in another discussion. In this discussion the editor who proposed deleting this is now supporting a split of National parks and sanctuaries categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - without knowing precisely what Kerala (or the other states) have, I would have thought that "National Parks in Kerala" and "Wildlife Sanctuaries in Kerala" were legitimate subcategories of Category:National parks and sanctuaries in India. Since Category:National parks and sanctuaries in Keralawould be a parent category with just two subcategory members and no article members, it would be pointless and should exist (at most) as a redirect. The number of states in India is not enough to preclude a given state having two subcategories within it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The other discussion mentioned above would split and delete Category:National parks and sanctuaries in Kerala. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2008 (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:Mergers and acquisitions by company[edit]

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. There were only 2 subcategories. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: OCAT of a non defining characteristic. Better covered by a list in the article or a template. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a larger cat to merge?--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 23:05, 20 June 2008 (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 criminals[edit]

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 was some support for a rename. If anyone feels that a rename is the correct way to go then make a nomination. Clearly there is no consensus for deleting. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Other editors have expressed concern on the talk page about the potential for mischief. My main concern is the lack of context or rebuttal: as it says at Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Biographies of living people, "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear by the article text." I would prefer to let the article text speak for itself. Marvin Diode (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Short of deletion, a name change to Category:Americans convicted of crimes would be a step in the right direction. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you also proposing deletion of all the subcategories? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Marvin Diode (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. The category has clear and strict criterion- only convicted felons with two listed exceptions. This nomination appears to be a response to a proposal to add the category to Lyndon LaRouche, who served five years of a fifteen year sentence in federal prison, and whose followers have strongly maintained was unfairly convicted. There've been active discussions on the talk page, but I don't recall anyone talking about deletion, and the nominator hasn't raised his concerns there. This is a proper and important category. There are 46 subcategories of Category:American criminals.[1] that are also proposed for deletion. It'd be strange to delete the category for just one country, so to be logical we should also delete the parent, Category:Criminals by nationality with its 852 subcats, and maybe even grandparent category, Category:Criminals, which must have thousands of subcategories. I don't see a good reason to delete this large, mature category structure. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/rename to Category:Americans convicted of crimes, per comments below. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If we delete this, we'll likely want to delete Category:Criminals by nationality (and its subcategories) in the interest of consistency. For subcategories like Category:Canadian computer criminals, is the proposal to move articles up to their non-nationally specific parent category (i.e. Category:Computer criminals)? Or is the plan to leave specific criminal types sorted by nationality, and just not have any parent national categories (i.e. Category:Canadian criminals)? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to eliminate the use of potentially pejorative categories altogether in BLP articles, and cut back substantially on their use throughout the project. I have seen too many instances where POV warriors, unable to get consensus for skewing an article text their way, resort to the use of categories, which brand a person or topic as such-and-such, and can be wikilawyered into the article. I realize I may be tilting at windmills here, but I don't think that the system of categories is all that useful. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. People shouldn't be added to this category if inclusion is controversial or inappropriate, obviously, but that doesn't invalidate the existence of the category. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We should be very careful in using the category, especially on BLP, but it is a perfectly reasonable category. Aleta ^Sing 14:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - I don't see what the problem is here. Just because one current member of the category may not belong there, that doesn't mean the whole thing should be deleted. --Eastlaw (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Agree with the sentiments above. One incorrect usage of the category shouldn't be used to delete the category entirely. Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. — Dulcem (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about one article, despite Will Beback's efforts to imply that it is (Will tends to cry "LaRouche!" in any dispute in a way that reminds me of George Bush crying "9-11!"). Honestly, it's probably not even about one category, or one category tree. I have severe reservations about the use of categories in general as a vehicle for circumventing the BLP and NPOV policies. "American criminals" seemed like to good place to start. I may have to take this to another forum. I tried raising it last year at Talk:Neutral point of view#Templates and Categories. Is there a general talk page for the use of categories? --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep for all the good reasons that the category structure exists: helping to find articles Hmains (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "American criminals" for reasons above. The subcategories are not tagged/listed, so they cannot be considered in this nom anyway. (Delete the entire tree because of a dispute over one article? There are better ways ....) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate proposal: Rename - I have no problem at all with this category tree -- in fact, I've argued for keeping any number of sub-categories in previous CFDs. However, I have to say that the straight, unadorned use of the term "criminals" does give me pause, because it seems to carry the implication that the individuals so-labeled are, in essence, career criminals.

There have been a number of cases where we've renamed categories to clearly denote the fact that they're for people who have been "convicted of Xyz". Perhaps we should extend that principle to all of these categories. In this case, that would mean renaming to Category:Americans convicted of crimes. It might also be a good idea to use the super-category and all of the nationality sub-cats primarily as container categories, since all of the individuals have been convicted of specific crimes -- not of some sort of generalized criminality. Putting the emphasis on the conviction instead of the criminality also helps with regard to WP:BLP concerns. Cgingold (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's merit in that idea. A subcat that really bothers me is Category:American fraudsters. There are similar categories - counterfeiters, murderers, molesters, drug traffickers, etc. It'd be more polite, if wordier, to say, "people convicted of counterfeiting", "people convicted of drug trafficking", etc. However I suggest that such a proposal for a renaming like that needs to happen at a higher level than this, with a broad scope to include all of these "criminal" categories. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be sure, this will need to be taken up at a higher level as well. But I thought it was worth a trial run here, since the subject had been opened for discussion. And if there's support for it, there's no reason we can't start by renaming this one. Cgingold (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The renaming would also address concersn such as found at Talk:Leonard Peltier#American Murderer category. Some editors thereobjected to calling the subject a "murderer", since his guilt is contested, but didn't mind designating him an "American convicted of murder". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an excellent example of what I'm talking about. It's the same basic issue that I tried to address in two previous CFDs re sex-related crimes that you might want to take a look at. Cgingold (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename to Category:Americans convicted of crimes -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 11:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the rename, as it partially addresses BLP concerns. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very helpful to the closing admin for you to make note of this at your "Nominator's rationale" above. Cgingold (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: bad faith nomination. -Sean Curtin (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Category:American murderers was renamed as Category:Americans convicted of murder but I haven't looked into why it was re-created. The discussion at Category talk:Americans convicted of murder#Name may help here. Sorry, I haven't time to go into this one. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears intended to cover people who are regrded as having committed the crime, but who were not convicted. Such as people who died after confessing, who fled justice, or perhaps even those who were found not guilty by reason of insanity. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Deleting a huge category over content disputes for few of its articles is censeless. Dimadick (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A parallel category also has problems. Category:Political prisoners and victims. I've started a thread to see how to fix it. Interested editors are invited to comment. See Category talk:Political prisoners and victims#Criteria. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Category:Americans convicted of crimes. This will prevent trolls from deleting their "favorite celebrities" from the category using the absurd reasoning that "they are not notable only because of their crimes". See Billy Preston, Mel Reynolds, James Brown and others for examples of this trolling. John celona (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment text: One is not a troll simply because one can read plain English. The applicable paragraph does, indeed, require that the person so categorized must be solely notable for their crime. Here it is, with the applicable language bolded: "Have been duly, lawfully, and finally convicted of a felony by one or more United States federal courts or State courts (excluding impeachments, convictions that have subsequently been fully pardoned, cases resulting in a conviction that have been sealed or expunged, or cases resulting in a conviction that have been subsequently dismissed and/or reopened with a new trial), can claim notability solely because of the crime,.... Inconvenient for trollish pots trying to call a kettle black, but true nonetheless. David in DC (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing an important "or" in there. Being convicted of a felony is one of the criteria. An alternate criteria is being known solely for a lesser crime. A third criteria is being strongly presumed guilty of a felony, but not having been convicted due to dying, fleeing justice, etc. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the whole text:

For inclusion in this category, a person must:

Have been duly, lawfully, and finally convicted of a felony by one or more United States federal courts or State courts (excluding impeachments, convictions that have subsequently been fully pardoned, cases resulting in a conviction that have been sealed or expunged, or cases resulting in a conviction that have been subsequently dismissed and/or reopened with a new trial), can claim notability solely because of the crime, or
Have committed notable and unambiguously verifiable felony criminal acts, but have gone unconvicted for reasons other than lack of proof such as death during the commission of the crime where the allegation of criminal activity was undisputed, undisputed confession, death during appeal where guilt was undisputed, or being a fugitive from justice where original guilt was undisputed.

There are two alternatives.

The first is to be convicted of a felony, not be pardoned and be notable solely for the crime (Paragraph 1)

The second is to have committed a notable and unambiguously verifiable felony but have gone unconvicted for one of a series of reasons. (Paragraph 2).

So, if you're going in the category by reason of conviction, you must be solely notable for your crime.

Arguably, if you're going into the category without benefit of a felony conviction, you don't need to be notalbe solely for your crime, but the first prong is clear, if you're going in because of a conviction, you must be solely notable for your crime. The language may be inconvenient, but it's crystal clear. David in DC (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to discuss the category criteria in detail. Idont see how this concerns the matter before us, which is whether to delete, keep, or rename the category. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if people are to make an informed decision it's critical that they know the text. JC said renaming the category would solve a problem he perceives. I hope I've demonstrated how changing the category name would have no effect on the problem he perceives. The language of the category would remain the same, and would still require that, if one were to be included in the category on the basis of a felony conviction, one would still have to be solely notable for their crime. You said I was leaving out pertinent language. I responded. David in DC (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Along with the renaming the category the language should be simplified to read "Americans who have been convicted of crimes". Period. That would end the problems with trolls like one who deleted a congressman twice convicted of seperate felonies (a corruption case and a statutory rape) using the "rationale" of "wrong use of category". See Mel Reynolds.John celona (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or default to keep. Renaming to "Americans convicted of felonies" might work. Also, we have specific categories for different types of crimes. I know "American arsonists" exists, so why not make the categories crime specific, instead of this vague blanket category like "American criminals". Finally, to John celona, people who disagree with you aren't trolls, and "Americans who have been convicted of crimes" is a terrible category. Speeding is a crime. Jay walking is a crime. Littering is a crime. That category could be applied to just about any person. Ani Mate 00:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jay walking, littering and speeding are not crimes but civil infractions. John celona (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't try to practice law. Speeding, depending on how fast, can be a misdemeanor or a felony. Even where it's slow enough to be just an infraction, it's not a civil infraction. Traffic laws are, for the most part, found in a criminal code and speeding, for the most part, is a criminal infraction. Jay-walking and littering too, where they are infractions, are not civil infractions. Ani: No worries. Being called a troll by JC is a lot like being called ugly by a frog. It's uncivil, but hardly merits notice. :) David in DC (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Or delete/change everything in Category:Criminals by nationality.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and or rename Rename it if you like but deleting it is overkill. Albion moonlight (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Renameto crime specific categories or Delete. --Jkp212 (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In light of the concern that's been expressed by several editors, I want to reiterate something that I said above: "It might also be a good idea to use the super-category and all of the nationality sub-cats primarily as container categories, since all of the individuals have been convicted of specific crimes -- not of some sort of generalized criminality." In other words, Category:Americans convicted of crimes will not be used as a category for bio articles -- only the sub-cats for specific crimes will be applied to those articles. And we're obviously not going to sign off on categories for trivial offenses like speeding or jay-walking. Cgingold (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, there are currenltly about 373 entries in the category itself. The trouble with Cgingold's proposal is it requires having a subcategory for every type of crime, and perhaps even for variations of the crimes. It would also lead to people being categorized for several crimes (which may not be so bad). For example, one of the current subcategories is "American fraudsters". That would presumably be changed to "Americans convicted of fraud". What about a person convicted of "conspiracy to commit mail fraud"? Do we need special subcategories for conspiracies to commit a crime or shall we include those in the same categories with the main crimes? Another problem is that on some occasions the exact criminal statutes that the person was convicted of violating are not known. Lastly, we'll need to find a way of accomodating those who are known to have committed a crime but who weren't convicted. John Wilkes Booth, for example. Perhaps "people convicted of crime" should be a subcategory of criminals, and a another subcategory would be something like "People presumed to be guilty of crimes". Any better ideas? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Instant keep. The cat is right.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 23:06, 20 June 2008 (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:IRC[edit]

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:IRC to Category:Internet Relay Chat

Nominator's rationale: Per the name of the main article. Personally, I'm indifferent to where it is, but wherever it is, the parent category and all subsequent articles and categories should be named accordingly. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consequently:

Rename all per the fact that the parent is Internet relay chat and not IRC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep : Acronym IRC is well known and hence no ambiguity here.. -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 11:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:IRC If you want to rename Internet Relay Chat, then go to that talk page and suggest it there. As long as the main article is named "Internet Relay Chat" then the categories should be named as such, right? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Rename. IRC has at least 21 uses and the main article is at Internet Relay Chat. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not aware of anything else that's named "IRC", so I don't see any potential for confusion. It's Category:PDAs, too, and not Category:Personal digital assistants. --Conti|✉ 00:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - many other uses of the abbreviation listed at IRC (disambiguation), and the fact that Google shows seven different meanings in the first page of (ten) results would suggest that no one usage dominates. And at least two of the other uses of IRC have categories: Category:Internal Revenue Code and Category:Red Cross. -- AJR | Talk 01:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all - per the article Internet Relay Chat. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
REname all - the title is highly ambiguous unless expanded. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2008 (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.