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 as empty. --Xdamrtalk 01:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Found this oddly placed single entry category. I think the merge is best. If there is a better target, let me know. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is now empty :) --Cybercobra (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename per nom. --Xdamrtalk 01:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. In keeping with WP:WAF, these categories should be named after the series franchise instead of the fictional "time line". Farix (Talk) 20:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Given that Mobile Suit Gundam SEED is one but not the only title in the particular (sub)franchise, is that the official name for the (sub)franchise? Do all the others have "SEED" in the title, making it recognizable? (I suppose I could figure this out on my own, but Gundam is a rabbit hole that takes me hours to navigate. Props to you for unwinding clews through the labyrinth.) —Quasirandom (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All titles in the franchise have Mobile Suit Gundam SEED as the base title, whether it be Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Astray, Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny, or Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny Astray. --Farix (Talk) 21:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought. In that case, support all the renames, based on your rationale. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename per Quasirandom. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support More accessibility & clarity the better. Navigating through those articles must not like playing one those point and click game adventure game. --KrebMarkt 13:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as just that much more long-overdue Gundam cleanup. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename per nomErik9 (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm going out on a limb here, but this category has been bothering me for a long time. It's extremely ambiguous; "metals processes" could include hundreds or thousands of different processes, from chemical, thermal, or mechanical standpoints. Right now it just contains a random collection of stuff. On one hand we have the steelmaking sub-cat, which doesn't really belong there because this cat is a sub-cat of category:metalworking (it really belongs as a sub-cat of category:metallurgy). Then we have the category:industrial furnaces sub-cat, which isn't a process at all, but rather an object. There's a lot of various metalworking processes in there which I don't think belong, but the real problem is the other non-metalworking articles, like aluminium smelting, ammonia cracker, bole hill, the Miller process, etc. I feel that we need an article for these things, but don't know what to unambiguously call it. Maybe it should all be thrown into category:industrial processes and the cat deleted, I don't know (although I have beef with that category too over being far too ambiguous). Opinions and thoughts are very welcome here. Wizard191 (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without knowing too much about the subject it seems fine to me as a subcat of Category:Industrial processes. Most articles end in "-ing" or "process", which suggests they belong. I don't see why metalworking is not industrial, I must say. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not articulating myself better—I'm not saying that metalworking articles aren't industrial processes, but I'm saying that if we take all of the metalworking processes and put it in this article, and then all of the chemical processes that can be done to metals, and all of the thermal processes that can be done to metals and put it in this category its going to be huge and pointless. My main point and bottom line is that currently it's far too vague to be useful. Wizard191 (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Metallurgical processes. It may be necessary to prune out a few items that do not belong. This should be a subcat of Category:Industrial processes and of Category:Metallurgy, as some aspects of metallurgy (such as metallography) are not industrial. An alternative might be to Merge with metallurgy, but I think that is less satisfactory. Metalworking processes (involving reshaping it etc) are industrial, but not (strictly) metallurgical. bole hill is about the location for a lead smelting process; hence about a metallugical process. However, I expect that there are some that need pruning off. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a decent proposal, but just to understand it better I would like to ask a few questions. Does metallography not count as an "industrial process", because its not done on a large scale? If that's the case, we shouldn't categorize the article as a Category:Metallurgical processes because its a sub-cat of industrial processes, even though I would feel inclined to. This leads me to the point that I don't like the industrial processes category for its vagueness. If we strictly limit to mass production processes (like the article states), then many of the articles within it ought to be removed. Oh the dilemmas...
You also state that merging this cat with category:metallurgy is "less satisfactory", why? Are we separating it from category:metallurgy just so it can be categorized under Category:Industrial processes? If so, that makes pretty good sense to me, but if not, I like the idea of upmerging it into category:metallurgy. In either case I think there are some articles that need to be trimmed out. Wizard191 (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing how the 7 days are up, Peterkingiron's proprosal is definitely better than nothing, so I support renaming to Category:Metallurgical processes. Wizard191 (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename per nomErik9 (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since the category was kept, proposing it be renamed similar to what was proposed for its parent Book cats (and seems likely to pass) -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 13:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the discussion the notion that the rename seems "likely to pass" is a bit far-fetched. Otto4711 (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - the proposed name seems more appropiated, since the term "film adaptation" is often used when talking about films based on novels. --LoЯd۞pεth 17:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indifferent. That is, I don't see this would be a big improvement, but see no reason to oppose it either. Debresser (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being made into a film is not a defining characteristic of a novel (or book). Grouping novels on this basis imparts little or no encyclopedic information. Otto4711 (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Rename - but the 2 categories should be consistently named. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the consistent naming. Though to my ear "as" sounds more natural than "into," but pronouns are notoriously fickle among varieties of English, so I'll accept the proposal is standard in someone else's flavor. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We already have Category:Films based on novels which is a defining characteristic of a movie. But one can read a whole novel and not learn-- or need to learn-- if it was ever made into a movie. Hence it is not defining. Carlaude:Talk
Where does it say that categories must be a "defining characteristic"? --Cybercobra (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The joke here is that you get to claim that a category must be deleted because its not "defining" simply by saying so. I've asked for a definition and it does not exist. I'm working on creating a definition, the absence of which would be as ludicrous as not having a definition for "notable" in article space, which will eliminate much needless drama and create some principle-based standards, when and if it is ever accepted. Alansohn (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moving past the usual diatribe...the source material of a film is an integral part of the production process of the film. The film can't exist without the book. That a book was at some point adapted into a film or a play or whatever has no bearing on the existence of the book. That the book may be re-released in the run-up to the film's release, even with a big "NOW a MAJOR MOTION PICTURE!" medallion on the cover, is just marketing and promotion. Being mentioned in reliable sources is, as usual, not the standard for categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename Being adapted as a film is a strong defining characteristic, noted in articles published in reliable sources about both the novel and the film, as well as on new releases of the book released in conjunction with the film. The media and book publishers all clearly believe this to be a defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The media clearly believe that it's a fact worthy of note and book publishers clearly believe that it's a good marketing ploy. Otto4711 (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - as per nomination - whether we like it or not - film have a major impact on the success of literary works - particularly modern ones. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Keep/Nomination withdrawn. Concerns have been addressed. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Only one entry. Should be merged with its parent category. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 11:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see 14 there, as of this minute. I suspect it will keep growing. Crum375 (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful category, although what counts as "surviving" is a pretty flexible term. I've added a couple of entries, and the category obviously has potential for growth. Jafeluv (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is very useful. Crum375 (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A classic case of the single most defining category for everyone I looked at in it - it is the only thing that makes them notable. Debresser's use of the term "trivial" is not that of WP:OCAT:"In general, categorize by what may be considered notable in a person's life, such as his or her career, origin and major accomplishments. In contrast, someone's tastes in food, their favorite holiday destination, or the number of tattoos they have may be considered trivial." Since there are now 15 members, the nom's rationale has clearly been overtaken.Johnbod (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I've looked again through the articles, their status as a lone survivor is what makes them notable and stands as their primary defining characteristic. "Trivial" is bandied out to mean anything any editor doesn't like, but for these individuals the fact that they are the lone survivor of some incident is the only reason they appear on Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Demanding that "trivial" be interpreted as "I don't like it" is an abject failure to assume good faith on the part of one's fellow editors and, when unsupported by a shred of evidence, may be a deliberate falsehood proffered to advance an editor's agenda. Argue against the argument. I note that WP:BIO1E specifies that articles about people notable for only one event may not pass our notability guidelines, and WP:NOT#NEWS advises that while a sole survivor may be newsworthy, newsworthiness does not automatically translate into notability. I have as yet not formulated an opinion about this category. Otto4711 (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can all agree that being a sole survivor is not "trivial" in any sense for the person concerned, which is indeed the context used in the WP:OCAT passage quoted above, as opposed to in other passages about "trivial" intersections etc. Obviously, notability is an issue for AFD & individual articles. Since we have at least 15 articles here, we at Cfd need to decide how best to categorize them as long as they are here. At the least, Norman Ollestad (who wrote a best-selling survival memoir) and the topical sole survivor of a British invasion of Afghanistan, William Brydon, seem clearly notable, while others like George Fenner are more debatable. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otto, of all people, in addition to your persistent incivility of claiming "deliberate falsehood" and your other customary personal attacks, you seem to be confusing the difference between notability and definingness. You are welcome to disagree with the notability of any of these individual articles, but that's a process that takes place at the article level via WP:AFD. There you can use one of the other top ten misapplied justifications of WP:BIO1E as your rationale for deletion to convince the community that a particular individual is not notable. You may also argue at the article level that being a sole survivor is a "trivial" aspect of their life, as would the fact that they might be left-handed or named Steve, and that the category should be removed based on consensus. If the word "trivial" is to have any meaning in CfD discussions, it can't be used in a context as in this discussion to mean that this is not a defining characteristic. Otherwise, it becomes a "deliberate falsehood" that means nothing more than I don't like it. Alansohn (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> Same old phony claims of incivility, same old fake claims of personal attacks, same old false conflation of triviality and "you don't like it". You're a smart pony, can't you at least try to learn a second trick? I am unclear why you feel the need to lecture me but I can assure you I already know everything you felt compelled to act like I don't. And again, I have not formulated an opinion on this category. Otto4711 (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant characteristic for the individuals in question. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Initially, I had my suspicions as to its value but am now convinced. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment I have brought the category up to 30. I note that memoirs published by members include "Sole Survivor", "And I Alone Survived", and "Survivor". No one is suggesting that pairs etc of survivors should be given separate categories. There are an alarming number of "Fictional sole survivors" from Robinson Crusoe onwards .... Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2009 (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:University of the Philippines, Diliman[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 all per nom. --Xdamrtalk 02:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match titles of parent articles. Alansohn (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename per nom. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2009 (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:Magazines of the Jehovah's Witnesses[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.
Nominator's rationale: Limited category and poorly named. JW literature already suitably categorised Jeffro77 (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If not deleted, should at least be named more concisely, maybe Jehovah's Witnesses magazines. However, a category of two items seems a little pointless.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both are in the parent category. Carlaude:Talk 20:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 1 entry, unlikely to expand. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – there are 2 articles, Awake! and the Watchtower. It is (arguably) part of an attempted subcat scheme for Category:Christian magazines (which is quite large and does have other such subcats, admittedly bigger than this one). Occuli (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the category is retained, it would be more consistent with the parent category to call it Jehovah's Witnesses magazines.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2009 (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.
