Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 1 September 3 >

September 2[edit]

Category:Elvira's Movie Macabre films[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 05:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Elvira's Movie Macabre films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - category created in what appears to be a pointed response to this discussion. Being made into an episode of Elvira's Movie Macabre (which currently redirects to Cassandra Peterson) is not defining of these films. Many of these films are featured in any number of these horror host shows and having categories for all of them will result in a cluttered category section at the end of the articles. The films which currently have articles all appear to be independently notable so any argument applying the informal "MST3K test" (appearance on the show imparts notability to the film which boosts the definingness of the category) does not IMHO apply. An episode list, which since it will include those films not notable enough for a Wikpiedia article is more comprehensive, already exists. The better solution for dealing with these horror host shows is to create a sourced list of episodes for each and group them in something like Category:Lists of horror host episodes or the like rather than having a dozen categories tacked onto an obscure film. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – an incidental rather than a defining characteristic of a film. Occuli (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and per Occuli's rationale. 70.242.6.127 (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are You The Cow Of Pain? -- This was not an attempt to make a point. (Though I believe your election for deletion of this category was.) You brought it to my attention in an earlier comment that Elvira's Movie Macabre didn't have a category and I was legitimately shocked -- the fact that the show was one of the first examples you thought of when looking into these kinds of categories led me to believe that this was a relevant category. She was syndicated nearly a decade before MST3K and made these films more notable to that generation. Elvira's impact on those movies is harder to measure because the Elvira fans are not the internet generation -- The MST3K fans are younger and the impact of that show to these people is reflected largely on the internet. IMHO Elvira is just as relevant if not more so then MST3K because she directly influenced that show.


  • How I really feel about all of this: If your only way of justifying a category is that it is being a defining feature of the film then all categories of this nature should be taken down. Just because someone took the time to ad "This film was later featured on MST3K" to each article about a movie does not mean that it's a defining attribute. It's arguable that the films define these type of shows and not the other way around. For example, a category of films on MST3K is only useful to people who watch MST3K and doesn't tell you anything about the actual film other then it is probably of poor quality and easy to make fun of. I am a HUGE fan of MST3K -- I'm not attacking the show. It's this line of reasoning that I have issue with. DixieDellamorto (talk) 07:47, 4 September 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:RiffTrax films[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 05:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:RiffTrax films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is little rationale to have such a Category, my first suspicion was spam but the user who created seems to have done in good faith. Put its still smells of spam as serves to promote rather than categorize Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous deletion discussion here. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TheRealFennShysa. The arguments raised in the previous discussion are still valid. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The arguments raised are still valid but it seems that in the 2007 deletion, there were more people who wanted to keep it then delete it. As far as it being spam, I don't see how it could be, since someone who doesn't know what RiffTrax is is not likely to click on the category -- If anything it promotes the films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DixieDellamorto (talk • contribs) 23:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a deliberate re-creation of previously deleted material by an editor who, based on the discussion of Cinema Insomnia films below, was likely aware that this had been previously deleted and ignored the previous consensus. User:DoctorWho42 and User:DixieDellamorto have created several of these categories following the opening of the CI films CFD. I will assume good faith since I am unfamiliar with the editors in question, but suggest that they stop creating such categories while the issue is under discussion as it has the effect of subverting that discussion. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising so any promotional effect of the category is irrelevant. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Are You The Cow Of Pain? about the advertising. Also, I will stop creating categories while this issue is under discussion -- Though I do believe the deletion of the RiffTrax category in 2007 was unfair as well as the nomination for deletion of the Elvira's Movie Macabre category which isn't on this page for some reason... DixieDellamorto (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I went to place the EMM nomination on this page the system had a note that the page was closed to new nominations. The CFD tag on the category links to this page so I relocated the nomination. If this is in error please revert. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – an incidental rather than a defining characteristic of a film. Occuli (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Agree it is not a defining characteristic of these films. If the rifftrax itself for each movie was an individually notable (eg significant coverage), I could argue some keep, but that's rarely the case here. Take, on the other hand, the MST3K equivalent catalog; nearly every episode of that show received commentary, and in most cases, the appearance on MST3K is the only reason the film is notable. I don't think we have to argue that for things like the Star Wars films or even The Room. --MASEM (t) 03:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I noted that the Rifftrax twitter linked to here, so watch for drive-by !voting. [1] --MASEM (t) 03:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see how it's any different than the Category:Mystery Science Theater 3000 films. While it might not be THE defining feature of a film it is A defining feature. The fact that a movie had a rifftrax recorded instantly makes it notable to people that may not find the movie notable otherwise. Rifftrax are a popular and notable form of pop entertainment. Crwatkins (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The speedy deletion of this category has been undone and non-admin closure of this discussion have been reverted, since the article (under a slightly different but substantially similar name) did survive a deletion discussion in 2007. Jclemens (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - and it was then deleted pursuant to this discussion, which took place six months after the first one and thus supercedes it, making it eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G4 as a recreated page that is sufficiently identical to the deleted page.
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:Late Night television talk show hosts[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. — ξxplicit 05:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Late Night television talk show hosts to Category:Late night television talk show hosts
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Fixing capitalization. Trivialist (talk) 19:56, 2 September 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:Prehistoric perissodactyls[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 per nom. Perissodactyl may be a better term but the main article is called Odd-toed ungulate and it would be confusing to use a different name for the category. Ruslik_Zero 19:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Prehistoric perissodactyls to Category:Prehistoric odd-toed ungulates
Nominator's rationale: Rename. (1) To match the parent category Category:Odd-toed ungulates and the article about the order, odd-toed ungulate. (2) On the analogy of Category:Prehistoric even-toed ungulates. See discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_28#Category:Prehistoric_artiodactyls - Kontos (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match parent cat and article.--Lenticel (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Joaquin008 (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Perissodactyl is the more accurate term for the for the group and matches the names of the similar categories for other extinct taxa articles.--Kevmin § 17:46, 3 September 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:Cinema Insomnia films[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 05:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cinema Insomnia films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Discuss - this category is capturing films that were used for episodes of the series Cinema Insomnia. The question is whether being used for this series is defining of the films. I tried to think of other similar shows and came up with MST3K, Elvira's Movie Macabre and RiffTrax. We have Category:Mystery Science Theater 3000 films (which was moved from Category:MST3K movies in 2007) We do not have Category:Movie Macbre films and the series doesn't have its own article. We deleted Category:RiffTrax movies in 2007, with the argument that the films do not gain notability from being riffed carrying the day. I would say that a similar argument applies here, although these films are much more of a mixed bag. Many of the films overlap with the MST3K films but others do not and no legitimate argument can be raised IMHO that for instance The Seventh Seal gained a speck of notability for being on Cinema Insomnia. There are a lot of these sorts of film spoofing shows dating back to the early horror hosts of the 1950s, so keeping this category sets something of a precedent for creating and keeping categories for the other hosts/series. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you follow your logic, then no one should have a list, not even MST3K. "There are a lot of These sort of Film Spoofing shows dating back to the early 1950's", isn't their history just as valid as any other TV program? What is wrong with creating a precedent for keeping categories for the other hosts/series. The argument SHOULD be If MST3K has a category, then Elvira should too, and so should all of the other nationally syndicated Horror Hosts.(Which is a short list considering most modern horror hosts are on public access) Cinema Insomnia is currently nationally syndicated. MST3K hasn't been on TV in over 10 years. Cinema Insomnia however has been on TV for the past 10 years -- A younger Generation is seeing these films for the first time on Cinema Insomnia, not MST3K which isn't on even in reruns. The pages of Wikipedia are not for bragging rights, they're for information. It shouldn't matter how notable the episodes were. However if you need to raise an argument, one indeed can, for example: Super-wheels did gain notability for being on Cinema Insomnia because theirs is the only American DVD release of the film (and may be the only release World Wide). Nightmare in Blood, Frankenstein Vs. The Creature From Blood Cove, and Mark of the Damned were all broadcast premieres -- All Three Gaining notability for being on Cinema Insomnia. Also Mr. Lobo's Version of First Spaceship on Venus on Amazon.com is highest selling version of the film EVER, out selling MST3K's version by hundreds of units. MST3K only made those films more notable to fans of MST3K, not the general public. It's still generally considered a cult phenomena and not considered mainstream even though they have legions of fans. This is VERY opinionated and this is not only offensive to me but the fans and makers of Cinema Insomnia. If this is your argument, then way don't you use your time to make lists for those who you feel deserve a list, not try to delete one of legitimate information. DixieDellamorto (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well first off, this is not a list. This is a category. Lists and categories are two different things. If you read WP:CLN you will see that while both lists and categories are valid navigational tools and often work together, there are instances in which one or another is the superior choice and that lists anc categories are not required to co-exist. List of Cinema Insomnia episodes will still exist with or without this category, and will remain more comprehensive than the category because it will include films for which no article exists.
  • Second, I did not say that no film gained in notability from being on CI. What I said was that in reading the previous discussion about the RiffTrax category, the effect that being on either MST3K or RiffTrax was a factor and that analyzing that factor in relation to CI was more complicated because of the diversity of films CI includes. MST3K episodes featured a much higher percentage of films that in the absence of their MST3K episode would probably not meet WP:GNG or WP:MOVIE. RiffTrax films, at least the features, all appear to be notable separately from their RiffTrax appearance, I assume because the concept requires that the viewer/listener have ready access to the film being riffed. In looking at the CI episodes, while there are some obscure films that may have attained some notability for being included (although some of those may be notable because of their earlier appearance on MST3K), a much higher percentage of independently notable films is to be found.
  • Third, since notability is not temporary, the time lapsed between a film's MST3K appearance and its appearance on CI is not relevant, especially since about a quarter of MST3K's episodes are commercially available on DVD and much of the rest of it is unofficially available ("Keep circulating the tapes"). I disagree with the assessment/dismissal of MST3K as a "cult" phenomenon and note that based on distribution the label "cult phenomenon" applies equally to CI.
  • Finally, if you are personally offended in some way by this nomination, I suggest you find a way to work past it. This is not a personal attack on CI, on its fans or on you. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken, there is a list for Cinema Insomnia episodes as well. I apologize of my mixing of terms, though it is irrelevant to the argument.
  • You obviously didn't understand my previous comments. I did not intend to imply that CI was more well known then MST3K -- They both fall under the realm of 'Cult Status' and have a strong following that may seem mainstream or more important to those who are a part of it. You are obviously a fan of MST3K, "Keep circulating the tapes" is not exactly a household phrase. As a fan of MST3K, Elvira, Cinematic Titanic and RiffTrax I don't believe it's fair to exclude any one of these shows from having a category since they are legitimate outlets for unusual films. I don't believe that the removal of the RiffTrax category was fair either (especially since it seems as though more people were FOR keeping it then against.), I have read the archived debate regarding the RiffTrax category and the argument is "Who really cares?" Well for starters, thousands of RiffTrax fans care. Furthermore, many of the Wikipedia films have Categories that appeal to a cult or special interest -- Films taking place in a certain location, films featuring certain races of people, Films about Cars, Films about UFOs, and even Films about Dysfunctional families... The same argument can be made of these "Who really cares if there is a dysfunctional family in a film" or "Who really cares about the cars in a film" I Know I don't, but I would never elect those categories to be deleted because it's not up to me to decide how important they are -- it's important to someone and it is true information. Someone cared enough to make the Cinema Insomnia Category -- and it wasn't me. After looking at these other Categories it seems to me that it doesn't matter how notable these films were before or after being on Cinema Insomnia -- what matters is it being of sufficient interest to sustain a category. I don't think it is for you or I to decide what is of sufficient interest to the rest of the people on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a place for information, not a popularity contest. If you still feel strongly about removing Cinema Insomnia's Category, the fair thing to do would be to remove the Categories for MST3K, Elvira's Movie Macabre, and Cinematic Titanic as well as any others.
  • By the way, Suggesting I "find a way to work past it" is a snarky way to express yourself and is also offensive. I'm glad that this is not a personal attack but there are still consequence for your actions, which includes potentially offending people who care about this information. It is relevant to speak for myself rather then just speak for others who are not in the argument -- Though I know for a fact that both fans and the makers of Cinema Insomnia are following this argument. DixieDellamorto (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories are not a reward system so the "fairness" of having one and not another is not an issue. Each category stands or falls on its own merits regardless of the existence of any other categories. The argument for MST3K films and against RiffTrax films is not reasonably described as "I care about one" but "I don't care about the other one". "Fans of the show think it's important" is not a rationale for keeping. It's interesting is not a rationale for keeping. Someone cared enough to make it is not a rationale for keeping. Again, since there is a comprehensive list of CI episodes, the information is preserved whether the category exists or not. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - somehow this debate was duplicated. I relocated the one unique comment from the duplicate discussion to this one and removed the duplicate. If this is in error please revert. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - per this discussion User:DixieDellamorto has or had a working relationship with Cinema Insomnia. Note WP:COI. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – topics are categorised by defining characteristics, namely some aspect which is necessarily mentioned in any competent description of the topic. The Day of the Triffids (film) does not mention Cin insomnia at all, and so it cannot be a defining characteristic. Occuli (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fine as a list, but a non-defining characteristic for these films. Tassedethe (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with option to listify. Personally, The Day of the Triffids (film) is a very notable film. To suggest that it was in anyway defined by having been shown as part of something called Cinema Insomnia, which I've never heard of, just doesn't hold water, imo. Perhaps it's a generational or cultural thing: if you're old enough to have remembered the initial release of the Triffid film and you don't know what Cinema Insomnia is (like me) then the notion that this series has lent a defining characteristic to the original film just seems backwards. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know what the WP:COI states. I work as an archivist for the show -- I deal in facts, I am not promoting anything, nor did I create this category. I believe it's just as unfair that Elvira doesn't have one -- since she was syndicated nearly a decade before MST3K and made these films more notable to that generation. Elvira's impact on those movies is harder to measure because the Elvira generation is not the internet generation -- The MST3K fans are younger and the impact of that show is more notable to the internet generation. I won't argue for the removal of the MST3K category because apparently it would be a waste of my time, but I would for the removal of at least the Cinematic Titanic category which I believe, by these arguments, is just as irrelevant as the CI, RiffTrax, or the Elvira Categories. DixieDellamorto (talk) 07:03, 4 September 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:Neutronium[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. There is no evidence that neutronium is seriously considered to be a chemical element by scientists. So, the mentioned categorization scheme is not an impediment for deletion. The category itself contains only three real articles. Ruslik_Zero 08:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Neutronium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unjustifiable category, contains one sub category and one article. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No need for category; the article on Neutronium can go in the sub-category. Cgingold (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of a categorization scheme Category:Chemical elements each element has a category. Before the nominator placed the CfD template on the category, it resided in "Chemical elements". Deparenting and nominating at the same time seems like a bad idea. 76.66.194.106 (talk) 05:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The creator of the category mislabelled neutronium as an element, which it is not. So it should not reside in "Chemical elements".--Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment many sources have considered "neutronium" as an element, as is noted in the article, with references. 76.66.194.106 (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - The references only propose the concept of elementhood, no scientific institution or authority accepts this proposal.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment as it is a theoretical element, and acceptance of an element requires its creation, that is not a bar to the category. 76.66.197.151 (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is not an element. Any attempt to gain legitimacy for this as an element should be pointed toward WP:CRYSTALBALL until its elemental status can be confirmed. Additionally, considering there are only two actual articles, neutronium and dineutron, that's just not enough to warrant its own category. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - And tetraneutron, plus several redirects. The category is part of a larger scheme, and deleting it would break it. If the name is the problem, just rename it to Category:Element zero or something like that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator and per User:Huntster. Considering free neutrons and neutron clusters to be an element named "neutronium" is a proposal that is historically noteworthy, but that is no longer supported by any significant fraction of the scientific community. While we're at it, I also suggest renaming Category:Isotopes of neutronium to Category:Neutron clusters or Category:Polyneutrons or some such. The term "Isotope" refers strictly to chemical elements, which these are not. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wikipedia isn't bound by the current state of the world, which is why we have categories on historical concepts. The concept of neutronium was used on a recent popular science periodic table (the press garnering "Chemical Galaxy") 76.66.197.151 (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the contrary: WP:NOR says that we most definitely are bound by what scientists think, not what we ourselves think, and WP:UNDUE says that we shouldn't be calling this an element if most scientists don't consider it one. We already do mention the historical concept. What I object to is presenting it as a non-historical one. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - 'Category:Isotopes of neutronium' contains a list already exhibited in the neutronium article, so this category is at present, superfluous. Therefore, I suggest that the nomination of CfD be reopened for it.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and so does Category:Isotopes of vanadium vs. Isotopes of vanadium. This is all part of a larger categorization scheme put forth by WP:ELEMENTS, as detailed in the link above, which includes redirects. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "neutronium" is generally avoided as a scientific term for various reasons. Since bound states of multiple neutrons are unconfirmed and single neutrons are usually not treated as atomic nuclei, and the state of matter within neutron stars is undetermined and in any case usually termed neutron-degenerate matter rather than "neutronium", this category is misleading. Icalanise (talk) 22:53, 13 September 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:Television series with missing episodes[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 05:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Television series with missing episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - it was standard practice during the early days of broadcasting to wipe or dispose of recordings so it doesn't seem particularly defining of a series that it's missing episodes. Also an arbitrary inclusion standard with the requirement that at least two episodes must be missing. A sourced list might be useful as an adjunct to the wiping article. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not a defining criterion. Might as well say "Almost every show that existed before the 1970s, game shows in particular." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Joaquin008 (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm possibly but recovery of missing episodes is filling the gaps. Moreover having missing episodes becomes more distinctive with the passage of time. Possibly they should be dispersed to sub cats. Rich Farmbrough, 10:50, 5 September 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:Television series lacking information[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 05:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Television series lacking information (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - not seeing the utility or definingness of this category. Subjective inclusion criteria, requires original research to determine whether the series "did not or have been proven to not include full information on the subject or subjects of the series". Pretty much every series could be said not to include "full information" about its subject matter simply through normal editing. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's unclear what inclusion in this category means, or how it is supposed to help. If an article is lacking information, a better approach is to add {{Missing information}} to it, and specify exactly what content is missing. Robofish (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category doesn't mean that the article is missing information. It means that the series is missing information, meaning that new or different information has come to light since the series ended. For instance, Walking with Dinosaurs is apparently included because the series discusses Torosaurus as a separate genus and since broadcast it has been hypothesized that Torosaurus is a mature form of Triceratops. By this standard any series that ever referred to Pluto as a planet would get slung in here. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - subcat of 'categories lacking clear inclusion criteria' (which should be empty). Occuli (talk) 16:06, 6 September 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:Television series by number of entries[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 both. — ξxplicit 05:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Television series by number of entries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Television series with seven entries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Undeveloped category structure and rightly so. Television series run anywhere from one to hundreds or thousands of episodes and for the vast majority of episode numbers it isn't defining. In fact I'd say that only series canceled after one episode would fall into this classification. There is nothing that connects, say, a wacky sitcom about a talking poodle to a grim police procedural just because they both happened to be canceled after 13 episodes or between a daytime soap opera and a nightly news show that ran for 4,132 episodes each. Since new episodes are added to current series on a regular basis, the categories would literally in some instances require daily maintenance. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in no way a defining characteristic. Tassedethe (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a good way of categorising television series. Robofish (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a risible basis for categorisation. Occuli (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Joaquin008 (talk) 10:36, 7 September 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.

Baseball positions[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep all. Ruslik_Zero 18:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Major League Baseball pitchers to Category:Baseball pitchers
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Just as their is nothing defining about a baseball player having played in Major League Baseball and are from a certain state, there is nothing defining about a player's position and league. Imagine Category:National Football League punters, Category:Canadian Football League running backs or Category:Arena Football League quarterbacks. See here for the May discussion on league and location of players.TM 00:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the NFL needs a similar CFD.--TM 00:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you are comfortable with sorting every player by every professional league and by every position? Taken to it's logical end, it is categorization run amuck.--TM 14:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid you're misstating my views. I support cats for Major League Baseball players -- NOT for "every professional league". Perhaps you've forgotten, there are TWO MLB leagues? Cgingold (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why only MLB? There are professional leagues all over the world and across the US and Canada.--TM 00:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of the players are already in their team sub-cats, which are themselves sub-cats of Category:Major League Baseball players.--TM 23:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamentally, my point is that their is no qualitative difference between a first baseman in Major League Baseball, the Negro Leagues, Japan's professional league, or any other professional league, so what is the point?--TM 00:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know little about US sport but I take the point about subcats by team. I note that there is Category:National Football League quarterbacks which seems analogous. I'm not sure why Category:Association football midfielders is not subcategorised by something but 'by league' would seem a reasonable idea at first sight. Occuli (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In baseball, there are many levels of professional teams. A player usually plats in 3-4 different leagues before he even make it to Major League Baseball.--TM 17:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and such a player is likely to be described as 'X was a pitcher who played Major League Baseball with the Arkansas Silly Nannies' or whatever. I don't myself see why this is thought to be a trivial intersection. Occuli (talk) 19:53, 7 September 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:Ramanujan[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. — ξxplicit 05:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ramanujan to Category:Srinivasa Ramanujan
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match key article name, and per standards usually used for individuals. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 2 September 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:Bourbaki[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. — ξxplicit 05:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bourbaki to Category:Nicolas Bourbaki
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match key article name, and per standards usually used for individuals (I realise this is a pseudonymous collective, but think the same rule should apply). Grutness...wha? 00:11, 2 September 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_September_2&oldid=1138394604"