Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 13

< June 12	June 14 >

June 13

Category:License migration

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. Subcategories would need to be nominated and listed to follow this rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:License migration to Category:Wikipedia license migration

Nominator's rationale: In line with the usual naming pattern, Wikipedia categories should be appended with Wikipedia. Same goes to all other ViperSnake151 Talk 23:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug. I don't really care what you call it. Please note that the subcategories are intended to hold files and templates though. So, calling it a "Wikipedia" category isn't really correct. In a few days Category:License migration candidates will be among the largest categories on Wikipedia, since it will be initiated with nearly all GFDL images. Dragons flight (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I you'd like you could have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Update_administrative_categories_section where I have shown that the word "Wikipedia" is used in only 1/6 to 1/4 of all maintenance categories. Debresser (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename -- a license category could conceivably be about main namespace articles (such as, license). The false assertion by Debresser is not supported by evidence on the record. At most recent count, there are currently 208 categories with prefix "Wikipedia:" (colon) and 5,601 categories with prefix "Wikipedia " (space).
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:01, 16 June 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:Gun fu films

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This empty category has been awaiting a decision on speedy deletion for 2 days. magnius (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Google cache has 63 films in this category. Can we have a rationale for its deletion and an explanation for its emptying? (The creator of the category placed a few films in it and these edits were reverted as 'vandalism' - how is it vandalism to create and populate a category?) Occuli (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I have no idea who deleted those films, they must have been deleted on a film by film basis by editors who may have disagreed with the tagging of the films as "Gun Fu". I have no problem with it as such, it just needs to be populated or deleted, not stand there empty. magnius (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I now see from User talk:Lg16spears that there is a history of creating short-lived small categories. However 63 is not small. I have no idea whether there are 'Gun fu' films but a search on Gun fu reveals several and the article mentions others. Occuli (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the "vandalism" part was directed at something else, the way I understand it. Debresser (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK (wrong diff), but see also this diff and this diff. Occuli (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems a valid & useful sub-cat for category:Action films by genre & the Hong Kong equivalent. Johnbod (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and (re-)populate. Debresser (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-defined and defining category that should never have been depopulated. Alansohn (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How is this well-defined? Serenity (film) just got so tagged, and there's little to no martial arts culture involved--just a fight scene that involves kicking people in the head. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe it shouldn't be in the category, like so many articles in so many categories, however well defined. I note from the article that "Stunt coordinator Chad Stahelski, a student of Jeet Kune Do under Dan Inosanto, created a customised fighting style for Summer Glau to use in the film's fight scenes. It was a hybrid of Kung Fu, kickboxing and elements of ballet, all combined to create a "balletic" martial art." - but that doesn't seem to really meet the gun fu definition - no guns for a start. Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no view yet on the validity of the category itself, however LGSpears IP socks have been repeatedly adding films and other categories to this category which are clearly NOT "Gun Fu" films, seemingly randomly choosing based on his own view of what they should be. Due to the continuing issues here, all of those IPs edits are reverted as vandalism on sight. If valid editors want to populate the category with actual "gun fu" films based on reliable sources, not just LGSpears rather off-beat ideas, I see no issue there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and (re-)populate. Xsmasher (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just blocked an IP for re-populating this category with articles that do not fit the category scope and have rolled back all of the IP's edits. Best, Mifter (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just rolledback yet another set by same guy returning under IP User:69.124.8.165. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful subgenre category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:despite the vague definition of this genre, how do we classify this genre? It's not as common as "action thriller" or "martial arts films". Etc. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:56, 20 June 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:2010s automobiles

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. Nothing has changed since the last discussion was closed as a keep. Even if that discussion was not had this could easly be closed as WP:SNOW. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. :Nominator's rationale: this is renomination , Per WP:CRYSTAL, we should not be adding this kind of category until 2010. And we have cat for this already :Category:Upcoming automobiles Typ932 ^T·C 14:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per cfd of 2 weeks ago. Occuli (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Occuli. Debresser (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-defined and defining category within a well-defined structure. Alansohn (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as too soon to renominate. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons it was kept a few days ago. Lugnuts (talk) 08:40, 14 June 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:People from Bedford Indiana

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) 09:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

category:People from Bedford Indiana - merge into category:People from Bedford, Indiana

Nominator's rationale: obvious typo just left for someone else to pick up.... Ian Cairns (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Occuli (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily agree Debresser (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to fix typo. Alansohn (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. However, I'd point out that this really could have gone to cfr-speedy instead; it doesn't require any actual debate. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 17 June 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:Unmarried people

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) 06:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There's been broad consensus in the past that we are not going to try to categorize people by marital status. In the past we've deleted categories for Undifferentiated spouses; Polygamists; Spouses of polygamists; Marriages by year; People who married their cousins; and Widows, but I've never seen a one for single people before. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete magnius (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. — Σ xplicit 20:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto, per nominator. --Millard73 (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well reasoned nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:18, 16 June 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:X-Men characters

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) 06:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:X-Men characters to Category:Lists of X-Men characters

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Contents are in the form of lists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - both because it contains only lists and to discourage individual character articles from being added, contrary to current consensus. Otto4711 (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to better match content of category. Alansohn (talk) 05:04, 14 June 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:2010s American television series

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. Well, that is what I was going to do but someone emptied the category and an admin deleted it ignoring the fact that it was being discussed here. So, if anyone wants to recreate this category they can do it. The out of process deletion should not be used as grounds for any deletion without a full discussion here. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CRYSTAL, we should not be adding this kind of category to TV series until 2010. — TAnthony^Talk 02:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Rename to Category:2010s television series. 'American' is unnecessary; there are shows that are confirmed to air in 2010 (Category:2010 television series debuts), this category fits fine. It just needs to be populated. — Σ xplicit 02:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is nothing to populate the category with until we're actually in the 2010s. As with episode counts, we don't update these sort of stats until they actually occur. (There are too many variables in broadcasting that can lead to delays or cancellations.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 04:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - or rename per Explicit. Relax, be patient, we'll be there soon and if not Wikipedia will be a minor problem. There will be many series already scheduled to debut in 2010; this is a fact, not crystal ballery. There are also plenty of similar 2010s categories, including Category:2010s automobiles which was recently kept at cfd. Occuli (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Networks are beginning to announce schedules etc, so this list will soon be heavily populated magnius (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Typ932 ^T·C 15:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by Occuli. And thanks for the laugh. Debresser (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-defined and defining category within a well-defined structure. Alansohn (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't feel the category should necessarily be deleted, as it obviously will be in use in just over six months. I'll state again, however, that we cannot populate the category until a series has actually aired post-January 1, 2010. This is in keeping with how we update "total episode" counts, which are not incremented until a new episode actually airs. (Just as a series may order a certain number of episodes in a given season, but end up airing less, a series that is scheduled to air in 2010 can easily be cancelled or delayed.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on this point; this category came to my attention because its creator was tagging series into it seemingly based on his own impression of whether an existing series would be airing in 2010, rather than pickup announcements, etc. This category is related to but different than Category:2010 television series debuts, which is populated as debuts are announced. Is it nitpicking to note that pretty much any series can be cancelled at any time? It is tempting to assume that any continuing series set to return this fall and/or contracted for multiple seasons will continue through 2010, but is this the kind of determination we want to make in June? I suppose this issue will only arise every decade, but if this CfD has increased awareness then it's served a purpose.— TAnthony^Talk 19:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are already a significant number of series which have been announced by television networks as being scheduled to debut sometime after December 31 of this year. I can think of three right off the top of my head just among Canadian networks. And any such series can have an article now if there's enough properly sourced information about it — there's no requirement to wait until such a series has already aired. So unless we're getting into a mathgeek debate about whether 2010 is really the first year of the 2010s or the last year of the 2000s, any such article needs to be categorized as a 2010 series in exactly the same ways as it would be if it were a 2009 series. WP:CRYSTAL is for situations where we're guessing or making predictions about stuff — the rule explicitly states that it's not meant to mean cover sourced information about upcoming things that have already been planned and scheduled and announced by reliable sources. The 2010 Winter Olympics haven't happened yet, either, but that doesn't mean that an article about them is a CRYSTAL violation. TAnthony is right that we shouldn't add it to series that are already airing under the presumption that they'll last into 2010 — because shows might be cancelled before then, we should quite correctly wait until we know for certain that an already-running show will survive past Xmas. But where we have sourced articles about TV shows that are scheduled to not even start until 2010, this category is needed now. Ergo, keep. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 17 June 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.