Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 3 July 5 >

July 4[edit]

Category:Diesel trucks[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. Courcelles (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Diesel trucks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. OK, this category has been around for almost three years and has only two articles. One for a defunct company and the other for a vehicle. So I'd say, there is no support for classifying trunks that use diesel fuel. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete many trucks have engine options, so they could run on diesel, gasoline, CNG, or other stuff (ie. kerosene) 76.66.195.196 (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete member articles are sufficiently categorized.--Lenticel (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2010 (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:Santana[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 as nominated. Carlos Santana may have well obtained legal rights to the band's name, but the contents refer the band. — ξxplicit 01:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Santana to Category:Santana (band)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating category to match main article Santana (band). Santana alone is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In a quick effort to boldly improve the encyclopedia, I overlooked the ambiguation. The category would benefit from renaming. dissolvetalk 03:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unnecessary eponymous category per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. The existing links and templates serve more than adequately for navigation and the material is nowhere near the complexity or volume that requires separate categorization. Not every band needs and eponymous category, in fact most don't. Otto4711 (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding the name-variant sub-cats, which should be retained and renamed, to the nomination to deal with everything at once. Otto4711 (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The editor that added the section to the guideline opposes a new band category?[1] Shocking... dissolvetalk 03:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure why it's relevant that after a lot of CFDs for just this sort of category resulted in deletion, an editor who was at the time very involved in the CFD process would add that section (which has been substantially altered by other editors in the interim). I don't know why you'd bring it up at all, unless it's as a thinly veiled personal attack made in an attempt to discredit my opinion. But I'm sure a fine upstanding editor like yourself would never stoop to something like that, would you. Otto4711 (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to match Santana (band). Otto seems to have forgotten in his absence from cfd that it is a long time since there was any consensus to delete such categories with 3 (or more) subcats. (1 subcat - delete; 2 subcats - marginal; 3 subcats - keep.) Occuli (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we maybe not make this about me and what I may or may not have done or "forgotten" or whatever? Could we maybe focus on the fucking nomination and not one of the participants? Otto4711 (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parent article is Santana (band). Carlos Santana produces music with a band that is called "Santana". Kind of how like Jerry Seinfeld was on a show called Seinfeld. We wouldn't get sloppy and call the TV show Jerry Seinfeld. Same principle here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should also be (certainly) Category:Carlos Santana albums for his solo albums, which are at present under Category:Santana albums (which should be renamed to Category:Santana (band) albums, as an editor notes above). I would personally use catrel to link the 2 album cats. Occuli (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carlos Santana is the more substantial article, although Santana (band) currently has material being added. From his article, Carlos Santana "obtained legal rights to the band's name" in 1973, so it may be difficult to separate his solo work from that of the band. Even before 1973, he seems to have controlled the band, eg in choice of personnel, and he is the only constant member, so a change to Category:Carlos Santana would seem reasonable to avoid ambiguity. The subcats could then be left as they are. Cjc13 (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2010 (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:Mobile video[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: merge. Courcelles (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Mobile video to Category:Mobile content
Nominator's rationale: Merge. One article here was about technology and it was moved to Category:Mobile technology. That leaves a single article best merged into one of the parents or simply moved to Category:Mobile technology. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom to the much better established target category. The source category name was poorly chosen, as it confuses users on whether it categorizes online content (which it does) or portable video recording systems. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2010 (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:Residential solar electricity[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. Courcelles (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Residential solar electricity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This 3 member category covers one piece of equipment that is used in homes and commercial applications and two companies that provide equipment for homes and commercial uses. So nothing here is strictly about residential applications. If in the future we have a main article and specific material, there could be a need to create this category. Is there any equipment that really can't be used in any application? After all, a small business may need less power then many homes. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only article of the three which appears to be defined by this category is the company SunRun. So delete per WP:SMALLCAT, until such time as we have more articles, if ever. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2010 (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:Economic incentives[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. Courcelles (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Economic incentives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A single entry category lacking even a main article. The article's other categories are fine. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2010 (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:United States federal vehicle fleet[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. Courcelles (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States federal vehicle fleet to something else or maybe delete
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This seems to be focused on presidential cars. I don't know if that would be able to generate enough articles or not. If it is, then we need to rename to something like Category:Presidential cars of the United States and cleanup. Note the absence of other vehicles in the fleet, like aircraft or ships. So maybe deletion is an option and allow for something else in this area. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A quick look at the Fleet vehicle article reveals that Nopetro/Nudecline read somewhere that the Obama administration was going to purchase a fleet of electric cars, which of course got his pulse racing. He created a section on this -- which really should be split off -- and a category to promote it. Neither Fleet vehicle nor General Services Administration really belong: they are about much broader topics. So that leaves the three different kinds of cars in the presidential motorcade. Category:Presidential cars of the United States would I think be WP:SMALLCAT, I can't see us having that many articles on cars that are unique to the US prez's motorcade. And if they're simply cars in the motorcade, but not unique to it, that's hardly defining for the vehicles in question. So unless we want to repurpose this to be a top level category for ships, aircraft, US mail trucks and what have you -- which I don't -- delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2010 (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:Renewable-energy investment management companies[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. Courcelles (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Renewable-energy investment management companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. None of the articles even mentions renewable so they could have been removed, but then I'd be nominating an empty category. In any case, listing investment companies by the field they invest in could lead to category clutter since many of these companies invest in many industries and except for a handful that restrict their investment focus, this is not a defining characteristic. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2010 (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:Johnny Cash gospel albums[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 (actually upmerged to Category:Gospel albums). This discussion combined with other recent ones for very similar categories (e.g., 1, 2) suggests that there is a general consensus that we should avoid the "artist+album+genre" triple intersection. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Johnny Cash gospel albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is no precedent for [Artist] [genre] albums, other than possibly Category:Christmas albums by artist. It seems like a bad idea to start categorizing by this intersection. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum All of these albums are in Category:Johnny Cash albums or another of its subcategories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Good point; I have amended my proposal to mention how they are already in one redundant category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK - but I expect an upmerge will do nothing if the article is already in the target, so it is easier to say 'upmerge' than check all the articles. (They are not all in Category:Gospel albums.) Occuli (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I understand the reasoning for the nom, but in this case I think an exception could be made, as these albims do form a distinct body of work for Johnny Cash, see Johnny Cash discography. Many singers do not have 10 notable albums, so for a singer to have 10 notable albums outside his usual genre seems to be worth recording as a separate category. Cjc13 (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I suspect this is a rare case where a singer operated substantially in more than one genre. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. Kill it before it spreads.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Occuli. We don't need to start creating exceptions, which will only lead to arbitrary creation (SomeMusician deserves this category due to the X albums he's done outside of his genre; SomeBand doesn't deserves this category due to the one/few albums he's done outside of his genre). — ξxplicit 01:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - given that there are 78 articles in Category:Johnny Cash albums, subcategorization strikes me as appropriate, and genre grouping seems to be a very reasonable way to do that. cmadler (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, given the extent and variety of his output and the worthwhile number categorised here, without encouraging categories for any smaller intersections. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2010 (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:Publicly Owned Pawn Companies[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Publicly Owned Pawn Companies to Category:Pawn shops
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Re purpose the category as a container for pawn shops. I think there are enough notable pawn shops around to justify the category. The 2 articles already in the category are better classified by other categories into the arena of publicly owned companies. If kept, needs to be reanmed to Category:Publicly owned pawn companies. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Pawnbrokers because that is where pawn shop redirects. We do not appear to have a category for such businesses yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the only two articles in the category are owners/operators of pawn shops so the rename as proposed would be correct. This could be a US/UK issue. Following the proposed rename, Pawn Stars would be added. I don't believe that would be a valid entry if we renamed to Category:Pawnbrokers since pawnbrokers are people]. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2010 (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:Publicly traded renewable energy companies[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: merge. — ξxplicit 01:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Publicly traded renewable energy companies to Category:Renewable energy companies
Nominator's rationale: Merge. A small (3 article) category that does not seem to enhance navigation. The articles already are listed for ownership in several better categories, so an up merge to only one parent is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A Mac/Nopreto splinter energy micro cat that serves no useful purpose. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2010 (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:Video production[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: merge. — ξxplicit 01:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Video production to Category:Film and video technology
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This two entry category seems to be better serve readers if it is reclassified into the much better populated category. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A Mac/Nopreto duplicate micro cat that serves no useful purpose. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2010 (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:Domestic 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: delete, invoking WP:SILENCE. — ξxplicit 01:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Domestic technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I considered a merge into Category:Home, but since many of these are already included there, that could mess up the existing categorizations. The other option would be to take many of the categories and articles from Category:Home and move them here, but that would create an extra level of navigation and one that most readers would not expect to contain those contents. The list article would provide ample navigation so deleting the category would not hurt navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2010 (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:Wireless electricity[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. No prejudice will be held should the renamed category be nominated for deletion in the future. — ξxplicit 01:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wireless electricity to Category:Wireless energy transfer
Nominator's rationale: Rename. In my opinion a better name and then we would have a main article! If deletion was proposed, I would not object. I'll note that the articles in the category could probably be expanded since even my electric toothbrush uses this technology. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a small but useful category. No objection to retaining and renaming. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2010 (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:Modern Indian philosophers[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. Courcelles (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Modern Indian philosophers to Category:Contemporary Indian philosophers
Nominator's rationale: This proposal is so as to make the category consistent with the philosophy categories by era. We have ancient, medieval, modern and contemporary. These are the terms we are using. By this naming system this category is intended for "contemporary" philosophers. Please note, "contemporary" does not imply that they are alive, but rather are in the "contemporary era" of philosophy. Greg Bard (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2010 (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:Inductive charging[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: merge to Category:Wireless energy transfer. — ξxplicit 01:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Inductive charging (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another 2 entry category with limited growth potential today. I did consider an up merge, but the articles have ample better categories already. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2010 (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:Human power devices[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: merge, invoking WP:SILENCE. — ξxplicit 01:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Human power devices to Category:Human power
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Up merge the single article to the very under populated parent. If kept, rename to Category:Human powered devices. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2010 (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:Philosophical works[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: merge Category:Philosophical works, Category:Ancient philosophical works, Category:Contemporary philosophical works, Category:Medieval philosophical works, and Category:Modern philosophical works; delete Category:Philosophical works by era; and keep Category:Philosophical works by author and Category:Philosophy books by author. The latter two are parts of very well developed category trees, and should not be pruned off without evaluation of the trees themselves.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging to Category:Philosophical literature, along with its subcategory structure: Category:Philosophical works by author, Category:Philosophy books by author, Category:Philosophical works by era, Category:Ancient philosophical works, Category:Contemporary philosophical works,Category:Medieval philosophical works, Category:Modern philosophical works.
Nominator's rationale: The philosophical literature category was created with the intention of containing all of this. There is no need for a "works" category for philosophy. Every "work" can be classified under literature.
Question - are ALL philosophical works written and therefore literature? Are there no philosophical works within other spheres such as the fine arts or music? Is Die Zauberflöte, for example, not a philosophical work? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Philosophical fiction (however arbitrary) can be well extended into music or spoken epics. But opera libretto and spoken epic are literature. East of Borschov (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would answer yes to the question ,because once it crosses over into some non-written media, that media claims it. If is is a song, it belongs in music, not philosophy. If it is a scuplture, it belongs in art. People within the fields of music and art would find it quite off putting for philosophy to be encroaching on theor turf, and I would understand that. There is a sense in which everything belongs under philosophy, but we can't exactly do that pragmatically can we? Let the musicians have their music, etc. Greg Bard 22:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further Question. What about podcasts, such as Philosophy Bites? I regard these as philosophical works, but they aren't written and therefore, by definition, can't be considered literature. OK, there isn't currently an article on these, but doesn't the category structure have to allow for new ways of doing philosophy? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a particular podcast achieved notability beyond Philosophy Bites such that it warranted its own article, at that point I would suppose there would be a transcript available. Philosophy Bites itself is properly categorized under "philosophical media." So the question of finding a philosophical "work" that wasn't also a piece of literature is still wanting. Furthermore, can someone name a single philosophical "work" (art work, song, etc) that actually had a notable impact on the history of philosophy? I am talking about notability from within the field of philosophy.Greg Bard 20:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative question - when Socrates was in the agora, he was doing philosophical work, but was he producing philosophical literature? Or is the latter a time-limited concept? AllyD (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think, for the purposes of philosophy, we are perfectly reasonable to place any such thing in literature, because inevitably and invariably, that is the form it takes. Socrates in the agora? If we have an example beyond Plato (which is all clearly literature), it surely has a name, and an account in subsequent philosophical literature. Whatever existence it has beyond that need not have its own category on WP. "Works" is a bit of overcat to me. We can place the whole of "phil lit" under all the same cats as "phil works" without any problem.Greg Bard 20:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My idea was to make a category that will contain solely philosopgical works (texts, essays etc.). The category "philosophical literature" should contain not only works themselves, but also articles about philosophical literature in general, such as for example Consolatio Literary Genre, Soviet Orientalist studies in Islam, and also articles about magazines, encyclopedias etc, that are also not 'works', but are literature.--Abiyoyo (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you are coming from. I had not considered that issue. I think conspicuously identifying this type of article as distinct from the rest of philosophical literature is wise. However, I think that is what the main "philosophical literature" category is supposed to be for. The rest is supposed to be diffused to some subcategory(ies). I think the alternative is to rename the philosophical literature task force also, in order to be consistent. This really is a difference between a piece-of-literature and a meta-piece-of-literature both of which are pieces of literature. Greg Bard 01:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 21:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there not a distinction between original works setting out philosophical positions and academic literature providing a commentary on such? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the distinction you mention is between primary literature and secondary literature.Greg Bard (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: if Abiyoyo intended to define the categories as all-encompassing "literature" cf "works" for primary/original writing, does Greg Bard have a clearer proposal to achieve the same distinction? If not, the nomination should fail this time around (without prejudice to re-nominating when a good idea comes along). - Fayenatic (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2010 (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:Public information and participation[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Public information and participation to something or maybe even deleting
Nominator's rationale: Rename? Another category that has an overly broad scope and no main article. How are public information and public participation related in a way that makes this category useful? Lacking a main article, deletion may be the best choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Our peripatetic Renaissance Man strikes again! Holy crap. This one is making my head hurt. Ironically, I'm starting to think of the tidal wave of Nopetro categories as rather akin to the endless onslaught of toxic tarballs that are washing up on Gulf Coast beaches. Cgingold (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, I'm trying to get us past this stuff. But mixed in with categories like this are some good ones. If everyone chipped in, we could have this completed in a few hours. It is easy to find these once the light turns on when you realize how simple it really is. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've certainly noticed how many of these you've been bringing to CFD. At one point it occurred to me that we probably ought to go through Nopetro's edit history to systematically root out all of the nonsensical categories he created. Is that what you've been doing? Cgingold (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but restricting the search to the category name space and searching for created. Also, a bulk nomination is useless since the reasons vary as do the proposals. And like I said there are the good ones that we need to keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've been evaluating all of them on a case-by-case basis, and I'd say that about 1 in 10 are valid, functional categories. I have implored him with the utmost sincerity to take our concerns seriously, so I sure hope he (Nopetro/Nudecline) has gotten the message. Cgingold (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's been indef blocked, so it doesn't matter anymore. I too have been going through his edit histories, across all four sock identities, to find these, over a period of weeks. But credit where credit is due: before me and well before Vegaswikian, Cgingold was on the case. Anyway, yes, delete, as a hopelessly vague and arbitrary category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't even tell what this category is supposed to be about. cmadler (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2010 (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:Nuclear phase-out[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. — ξxplicit 01:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Nuclear phase-out (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Delete this two subcategory parent. The categories have ample parents that are better then this one. The only parent, Category:Nuclear technology is somewhat odd since the categories here are not about the technology, but rather obsolesce and repair costs (Category:Nuclear power stations with closed reactors) and activism (Category:Anti-nuclear power movement). Vegaswikian (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE: neither category is really about the "phase out" of nuclear power: one is for the anti-nuclear movement and the other for closed nuclear reactors. The creation of this category is at the very heart of Nopetro's (previously known as "Nukeless") misuse of Wikipedia to promote an anti-nuclear agenda, as stated here when he assumed what would be his final ID before his indef block. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2010 (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:Fossil fuel scarcity[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. — ξxplicit 01:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fossil fuel scarcity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I was going to suggest adding the parent categories to the only article. But in looking at them, I'm not sure how many can correctly be applied. So lets delete and if anyone wants to add any of these to the article, feel free to do so. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yet another Nopetro Special. He must have forgotten about this one when he created Category:Peak fuels 24 hours later -- or maybe he just couldn't see the relationship? <sigh> Cgingold (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary overcategorization. Beagel (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2010 (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:Molten metal batteries[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: merge. — ξxplicit 01:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Molten metal batteries to Category:Rechargeable batteries
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge single entry category to its single parent. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2010 (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:Time Magazine 100 Lists[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 to Category:Time (magazine) 100 Lists. — ξxplicit 01:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Time Magazine 100 Lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete or Rename. I question whether this category is needed since it doesn't seem like these individual lists become particularly notable very often and these would reside nicely (as two already do) in Category:Time (magazine) articles, but if it's kept it should be renamed in line with Category:Time (magazine) and its subcategories. Otto4711 (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral -- we have articles on a number of magazine categories. There is also one for Playboy lists. CErtainly the title should match that for the article on the magazine. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't categorize these as Time articles. The question is whether this particular subset of articles warrants separate categorization or whether the existing articles category is sufficient. Otto4711 (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2010 (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:Canadian monarchists[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: no consensus, but with a need for a purge. The "delete" voters are all correct about the likelihood of a Canadian being a monarchist. That said, this is part of a category tree by nationality, and so the presumption is that all countries can have monarchists. There's an overabundance of articles in this category, and so any for whom monarchism isn't a noteworthy feature should be removed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Canadian monarchists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Being a Canadian who supports the monarchy, is like being a Canadian who supports free elections, an independent judiciary, the occasional beer, or watches the Stanley Cup on TV. It's nothing special. In some other places, being a monarchist, is a defining characteristic (usually in countries divided along sectarian lines). Being an *active* opponent of the monarchy, might warrant categorization. I find it particularly silly to include politicians who were required to swear an oath of allegiance in order to hold their office. Now when somebody gives up the office they won in an election, because they won't swear that oath, that might warrant a category.--Rob (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (from an Englishman): I would have thought that being an anit-monarchist in Canada might have been notable, but being a monarchist was too commonplace to be worthy of note. If you were talking about a US or Mexican monarchist, that would certainly be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have just checked several articles and none of these examined obviously referred to his political stance. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. I would add that it is almost impossible to determine whether or not someone belongs in this category. In the case of Eugene Forsey there is clear evidence. Not so for others who have been included. Forsey referred to himself as a "monarchist" and, in his writings, unwaveringly supported constitutional monarchy as a form of government. So do I and probably the majority of Canadians, as Peterkingiron has observed. Most, of us, however, could not be called "monarchists." Sunray (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorry, but I don't see how this CfD can succeed unless it addresses all the other monarchists by country categories in Category:Monarchists. Please have a look. The suggestion that Canadian category is somehow uniquely deletable just doesn't make sense, imo. If bio articles don't support the use of this category then the category should by all means be removed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shawn in Montreal's comments - tout a fait - many, perhaps most, links should be cut to this cat page as these bios are not clear or do not source the claim to be monarchist, but as long as there is the tree, and I doubt, personally, we need this tree, but as long as we have it, this sole category should not be singled out Mayumashu (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - At the very least, similar scrutiny should surely be applied to Category:British monarchists -- and also to Category:Australian monarchists and Category:New Zealand monarchists, since those countries by my understanding have an analagous relationship with the British Crown. Cgingold (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, at the very least, every country that has a monarchy would need to be scrutinized. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh and by the way, there's quite a bit of POV in the nomination that I cannot allow to pass unanswered, as a Canadian. "Being a Canadian who supports the monarchy, is like being a Canadian who supports free elections, an independent judiciary, the occasional beer, or watches the Stanley Cup on TV. It's nothing special." is not a factual statement, it's his opinion. Yes, the monarchy is part of our constitutional system but that does not automatically confer monarchist sentiments to all Canadians, regardless of what the nomination might have you believe. I am a Canadian who is quite happy to see Queen Elizabeth II here this week but I could in no way be called a monarchist. To do so would be factually incorrect. The nomination statement does not give the appearance that the nominator fully understands the "defining-ness" of categories, especially as they relate to biographical articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to similar CFD for the other ones. I looked at the contents of the British cat, most of those listed were members of the International Monarchist League, and would be better in a category related to that. The remaining one was active in the 1660s and would be better in a Cavalier category related to the Civil War and Restoration. I would this suggest that the outcome for a CFD for the British category would be 'Rename but purge'. (voted above). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a defining characteristic that is part of a global structure. Alansohn (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question (for those that argue for keeping this category): What should the criteria be for adding someone to this category? Sunray (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The top-level category Category:Monarchists only has "Supporters of monarchy" as a description. I would suggest that we should require reliable sources indicating that support for the monarchy is a defining characteristic of the individual's views or activities, I guess. Not just for the Canadian category but for all. I think what I'm opposed to most of all is the singling out of the Canadian cat for some kind of special treatment, based on the faulty assumption that we are biologically wired to think and feel a certain way on this or any issue, in the Great White North. As a fellow Canadian, I hope you'd agree with that. For others: try walking into a bar and telling a room full of French Canadians that they're inherently supporters of the English monarchy. I'll hold your coat for you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Monarchism may be a defining characteristic in a country where it is rare, but in this case it is more a default characteristic; not a universal one, but sufficiently widespread that it is notable by its absence rather than by its presence. There may well be other pointless categories of monarchists, but that's no reason to keep this pointless one. Other cases should be examined on their individual merits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not going to badger each delete !vote, but your argument presupposes that a clear majority of Canadians can be said to have pronounced monarchist sentiments. Take a look at where the country is now at Debate on the monarchy in Canada#2010. There's a number of polls showing different results, but I think it dispels the idea that being monarchist in Canada is a "default" position.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (voted above for delete). One answer might be to create a category (or tree of them) for members of Interational Monarchist League, to transfer relevant persons to it, and then remove this whole tree. I doubt we need categories for a person's stance on every political issue. We deleted categories for liberals and conservatives, where this was not related to being a memebr of a particular political party, and I suspect we should do the same here. I accept that monarchism is not universal, but the category (if kept) should be limited to those whose articles specifically refer to that as a defining characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hard to establish criteria for inclusion. TFD (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shawn in Montreal, but prune as needed per Mayumashu. cmadler (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2010 (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:SE Entertainment Records albums[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: AFD closed as delete- deleting this as empty. Courcelles (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:SE Entertainment Records albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Redlink record label; speedy was declined. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:01, 4 July 2010 (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:Thirst[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: dehydrate delete. Courcelles (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Thirst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Basically covers thirst and drought as the only articles. I see no advantage to a category grouping these. Does a drought cause thirst? Vegaswikian (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - I just had to see who the creator of this category was, and don't ya know it was our old buddy Nopetro. What an amazing array of categories he's created! The guy is a veritable Renaissance Man. :) Cgingold (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quench per nom :-) --Lenticel (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Touché! (Damn - I wish I had thought of that... ) Cgingold (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2010 (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:Geosolar[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: merge to both category:Geothermal energy and category:Solar power.---Mike Selinker (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Geosolar to Category:Geothermal energy
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I fail to see why these items can not simply be listed in the parent categroy. This breakout either makes it difficult to navigate or requires excessive categories in the affected articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2010 (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:A123Systems[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. Courcelles (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:A123Systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A two entry category for a newish company. Allow recreation in the future if there are more articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:46, 4 July 2010 (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:Portable devices[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, invoking WP:SILENCE. — ξxplicit 01:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Portable devices (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another small category. Is a hearing aid portable? Wearable yes. But portable? How is a payment service portable? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2010 (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:Loan guarantees[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. Courcelles (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Loan guarantees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A single entry category with limited growth potential. The article has ample parents. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. I can see no evidence that there are multiple articles on different kinds of loan guarantees. Loaners, yes. Loans, perhaps. But not loan guarantees. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2010 (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:Solar lighting[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. Courcelles (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Solar lighting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The contents currently fall into two classes. One is for illumination provided by batteries charged by using the sun's rays. The other is for architectural features that allow sunlight to enter buildings (with the notable exception of windows). I think deleting is going to be the better choice for the few entries rather then suggesting a rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2010 (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:Air travel disruptions[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. Courcelles (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Air travel disruptions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Currently contains one category and one article that are events that have resulted in air travel disruptions. It we were to take the name at face value we would need to list every hurricane, cyclone, presidential visit, wild fire, flood, tsunami, earthquake and so on. So the category is excessively broad. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/possible Keep - Another Nopetro special - first cousin to the other categories he created for the volcano in Iceland. I immediately removed Category:September 11 attacks from the category, since the vast majority of its contents have nothing to do with air travel disruptions. However, it occurred to me that there might be an article or two on that subject, and after a thorough perusal of the contents I did find a couple that deal with it. That said, I'm uncertain as to whether the category should be kept or deleted, so I'd like to see what other editors have to say. Cgingold (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "disruptions" as a category seems too vague. I'm assuming most pages about specific air travel events are crashes/hijacks etc. which are under other categories. --Vossanova o< 19:25, 7 July 2010 (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:College sports teams in the United States[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: it's complicated. I had to take elements from a lot of proposals to create a workable close for this. Though there's no consensus to a single approach, I believe this scheme (for this and the next nomination) will get everyone what they want:
That seems to cover all concerns as best as one scheme can. It gets us down to a by-state category, a by-college category, and a main category. I am aware that I just broke up the symmetry of Category:University and college sports clubs by country, but "sports clubs" doesn't sound right for, say, the USC Trojans. So more nominations may need to follow.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Propose merging Category:College sports teams in the United States to Category:University and college sports clubs in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Category:College sports teams in the United States is a newly created category that seems to be intended to break US college sports team down by state. This should be done within Category:University and college sports clubs in the United States Jweiss11 (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DjlnDjln (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:College athletic programs by college[edit]

Propose merging Category:College athletic programs by college to Category:University and college sports clubs in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Category:College athletic programs by college seems to contain the bulk of US college sports programs, but some are also listed in Category:University and college sports clubs in the United States, which is more accurately titled and integrated ito the category tree for college sports in other countries. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:College sports teams in the United States. College sports is a particularly American phenonomen so I think it is better to use common or close to common American English here is appropriate. (I do favour 'sports teams' to 'athletic(s) teams' for disambiguation for a non-American audience however.) Mayumashu (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First, the category is "by college" and should contain only subcategories for individual institutions' programs. If anything, it is the parent Category:College athletic programs that could be merged with Category:College sports teams in the United States. Second, "club sports" in the U.S. refers to sports teams organized independently of the institution's athletic departmen: compare University of Michigan Men's Soccer Team with University of Michigan Men's Club Soccer. Even some varsity teams have only club status, such as the University of Connecticut men's crew or the Cornell University men's fencing team, but because club teams have much more limited resources, the distinction is a useful one. Some cleanup may be in order. The intercollegiate athletic program, the university athletic department, and the university's athletic teams are similarly distinct, but at present the difference is too subtle to be reflected in articlespace.- choster (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2010 (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:Peak fuels[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 to category:Peak resource production. Consensus suggests this is a perfectly useful concept for a category. There are lots of suggestions here, so I picked one that was tightly worded.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Peak fuels to something or just delete or convert to a template.
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Peak here is rather ambiguous. When I first saw this, I thought it was for fuels that you would use in a peaking power plant. That of course is not correct. Instead the main articles are about when each fuel will reach its peak production. As ambiguous as this name is, it could still wind up being the best choice if we keep this. However, do we need this category given all of the other categories about the use of fuel? I think a template could well be the best solution here. Suggestions? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment remove the "s", this is not about peak fuels, it is about peak fuel. Or just delete the category, and listify at peak fuel. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly rename. Both Category:Peak uranium and Category:Peak coal are up for deletion, with their contents to be upmerged into this category, so I don't really understand why we would want to delete it -- there is ample reason to retain it. However, I'm having trouble deciding on the proper name for the category, so I'd like to see what other editors have to say. Cgingold (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- We also have subjects like Peak copper. I would therefore suggest that we should merge them all inot something like Category:Peak mineral production. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very interesting point and certainly worth serious consideration. I wonder if anybody has any other possible names to suggest for such a category -- I don't believe oil or natural gas would qualify as "minerals". Perhaps Category:Peak resource production?? That almost seems overly broad -- though it's worth noting that we do have Category:Resource conflict, which could perhaps be either a parent cat or a sub-cat (depending on how you look at it). Cgingold (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe some variation on Category:Maximum possible production of natural resources? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oil is a "mineral", petroleum is a mineral oil, and not a bio-oil (vegetable oil or animal oil); since it's not a vegetable or an animal, it's a mineral. Rock oil and rock gas are mineral resources. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The word "peak" seems to convey a certain opinion. Anybody using a term like "peak oil", is probably a critic. Suggesting a fuel has peaked, is inherently controversial. "Non-renewable" would be more appropriate. We already have "Category:Non-renewable resources". So, either that should be adequate, or you could make a subcat of it. --Rob (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all clear what you mean by "probably a critic", but I certainly agree that this is closely related to Category:Non-renewable resources, which is an obvious parent cat. In any event, what you seem to be overlooking is that we already have a fair number of articles that deal directly and specifically with these "peak resource" issues -- so we are simply trying to come up with a category to encompass all of those articles, regardless of any inherent controversy. Cgingold (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I just came across the article Peak minerals, and there may be others. Cgingold (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those who use the term "peak", use it to suggest that a resource has hit, or will soon, hit peak production, and will only go down from there. Usually, people who are conscious of hitting the "peak" point, advocate conservation or alternatives. If somebody has no worries about a non-renewable running out, they won't use of the term "peak". All non-renewables resources theoretically have a peak production point. So, either you call all non-renewable resources "peak", which is pointless. Or you call only those that have reached peak, which is contentious. Can you provide any non-contentious means of determining when a resources is "non-renewable" but not "peak". --Rob (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're still missing the point here, Rob. Let's be very clear: Nobody is suggesting that these terms should take the place of the broader, neutral term "non-renewable resources". These particular categories are focussed very specifically on the topics which are known as "peak oil", "peak minerals", etc. Whether you like it or not, those terms/concepts are out there in the real world, and our categories merely address that fact. Cgingold (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2010 (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:Criminal sanctions[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: merge. Courcelles (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Criminal sanctions to Category:Punishments
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Sanctions on a criminal are just punishments. I could see some value in a category like this if we could somehow make a distinction between a sanction and punishment for these. I find this too confusing as it currently exists and in fact there is significant overlap between the two categpries. I'm totally confused on how Category:Penology is about sanctions rather then punishment. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I also don't see a meaningful and clear distinction. And I'm familiar enough with Nopetro to be quite certain that he could not have advanced a comprehensible argument on this point either, if he was still around to make one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_4&oldid=1078927453"