Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 3

< September 2	September 4 >

September 3[edit]

Category:Aiki Framework[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. — ξ ^xplicit 08:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single entry category with limited growth potential. Articles have ample categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination rationale. I doubt that Aiki Framework will revolutionize the art. If it does, then, at that point, it will merit a category. --Bejnar (talk) 04:51, 9 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:Document Management System[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 alternative. — ξ ^xplicit 08:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Document Management System to Category:Document management software

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This may be a better name and would match commons. However, we also need to consider renaming to Category:Document management systems to match the main article, Document management system. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rename to Category:Document management systems to match the current name of the main article. A system is more than just software, it is also hardware, etc. Hmains (talk) 17:43, 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:Queer anarchism[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. Ruslik_Zero 15:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Queer anarchism to Category:Anarcho-queer

Nominator's rationale: per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Anarcho-queer" appears to be an adjective, rather than a noun like "anarchism". --Bejnar (talk) 04:57, 9 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:Gulf sports channels[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. Ruslik_Zero 15:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete or rename to Category:Persian Gulf sports channels, per Category:Persian Gulf music. I prefer deletion as I don't believe a category grouping sports channels by their proximity to a body of water is defining. Persian Gulf music, perhaps. Sports channels, I think not. If kept, it needs to be renamed as there is more than one gulf in the world. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename if kept I'd also note that this is not grouping "by proximity to a body of water" as Shawn seems to think. The Persian Gulf is a well-defined group of countries. That being said, I'm not so sure that grouping the sports channels of this region is really significant. Pichpich (talk) 01:03, 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:Mystery Science Theater 3000 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: rename to Category:Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes. Consensus here felt that this characteristic is defining for its content, and this rename appears to be the most suitable option. — ξ ^xplicit 08:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_2#Category:RiffTrax_films, this is not a defining characteristic. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in the various discussions which have touched on this category (under the original name "MST3K movies") the notion has been floated that this category is warranted because unlike other similar categories (like RiffTrax and the other categories nominated yesterday) many of the films riffed by MST3K would not be notable were it not for their having been riffed. No real opinion on the validity of that argument. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep . More often than not, this is the defining characteristic of otherwise obscure films. Dimadick (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nomination. 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 MST3K and not the other way around. This category 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 -- which would be adequately illustrated with the category "B-Films" which already exists and many of these films are already a part of. DixieDellamorto (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my rationale for the deletion for Rifftrax films category - unlike there, most films that fall into this category would only be notable and on WP because of their use by MST3K. I would suggest a rename, since the present name suggests that MST3K *made* the films (there's technically only one MST3K film and that's MST3K The Movie), maybe "Films featured on MST3K" or "MST3K-Featured Films". --MASEM (t) 10:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Masem. This is very often the only reason a film became notable. I also agree with renaming the category to something like Category:Films featured on MST3K. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If kept another possible name is Category:Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes which would position this as a sub-cat of Category:Television episodes by series. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These films existed long before MST3K and they all had some level of appreciation before MST3K. The only people who think a film is more notable because of an appearance on MST3K is someone who watched the show or was a fan of the show. The general public won't know what Manos Hands of Fate is -- there are A LOT of people who don't even know what MST3K is. (I know it's hard to believe) This Category is irrelevant to anyone who isn't a MST3K fan and doesn't contribute anything to these films and it's existence doesn't ad anything to the articles it's attached to. You can sufficiently define a film without mentioning it was on MST3K, being on a TV show decades after a film was made should not be a defining factor. Mystery Science Theater 3000 is one of my favorite television shows of all time, I'm not attacking it, but this line of reasoning that suggests that they be the only film show to have a category is fan driven and not based in fact. DixieDellamorto (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The association these films have with MST3K is undeniably significant. A failure to mention the appearance would be a glaring omission from any of these articles. This is an informative characteristic, and makes for a valuable category. CharacterZero | Speak 00:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dimadick and CharacterZero. 70.242.6.127 (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes. This one time, it's a defining feature, because original plus overdub equals a new piece of art. Almost all of these films were brought to modern American consciousness by being overdubbed by the MST3K folks.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion as category is non-defining. It role, if any, in raising consciousness of a particular movie is not a defining characteristic. --Bejnar (talk) 05:00, 9 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:Chiranjeevins[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. — ξ ^xplicit 08:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chiranjeevins to Category:Chiranjivins

Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:38, 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:Cities and towns in Vaslui County[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename all four categories to Populated places. Ruslik_Zero 15:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cities and towns in Vaslui County to Category:Localities in Vaslui County

Nominator's rationale: Basically per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_17#Category:Cities_in_Cluj_County; it's best that categories only encompass one subject, and rather than having a separate category for cities and towns, let's have one for "localities", putting cities and towns directly there, and communes as a subcategory. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also proposing renaming Category:Cities and towns in Suceava County to Category:Localities in Suceava County, along the same lines.

Sorry, I don't see how "Localities" is equivalent to "Cities and towns". To me, a "locality" is just any place - certainly including villages, which are not towns or cities and hence are not included in this category. So renaming the category in this way wouldn't make sense - you would have to rearrange the existing categories somehow.--Kotniski (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify please. Once upon a time there was a "consensus" to dump all cities, towns and hamlets into Category:Populated places, hence Category:Populated places in Romania. What makes Județul Vaslui so special that it needs localities? East of Borschov 07:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe there was ever a consensus to "dump" all these things together - just that when they are all dumped together, the category should be called "populated places..." rather than "settlements...". Here they are not all dumped together, so neither "settlements" or "populated places" or "localities" is the right term - at least, not for this category as presently consutrcted.--Kotniski (talk) 10:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Populated places was simply presented as the consensus choice at the top levels of the tree. Starting at the country level editors were free to use a better term that is used locally. That is why we have Category:Inhabited localities in Russia. So maybe the mistake here was forgetting to add Inhabited. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Personally, I think that would be a little redundant - there are villages with population 0, but all communes, cities and towns are populated. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why do we have articles on villages with no people? If they were inhabited in the past, then populated is acceptable in the name. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My original idea in creating these (and I'm considering expanding it to all of Romania's counties) was for cities and towns not to appear directly in the county category, but in a "geography" subcategory. (If you look at a city in another county, say Jibou, you'll see it appears directly in Category:Sălaj County.) "Localities" are cities, towns, communes and villages. (We don't really need to worry about villages, since we use redirects rather than separate articles for Romanian villages, except for a handful waiting to be merged.) Each county has dozens of communes but perhaps 5-15 cities and towns, so I figured it made sense to leave the latter in the more general "localities" category while keeping "communes" as a subcategory. Remember, at present most cities and town are in an even more general category, so this is an improvement in specificity.
If you gentlemen come up with another proposal, do keep in mind that it should apply to Category:Localities in Cluj County and Category:Localities in Dolj County as well. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'd be happy with "localities" (or perhaps better "populated places", as that indeed seems to be the agreed term wiki-wide), as long as the communes and any villages are made into a subcategory of it.--Kotniski (talk) 19:33, 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:Pages with Disambiguator's Barnstar[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. Ruslik_Zero 15:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Trivial categorization. There's no reason to categorize pages by what type of barnstar a user has received. See also: nomination directly below. — ξ ^xplicit 19:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and other similar categories as useless navel-gazing. Pichpich (talk) 00:18, 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:Pages with Portal Barnstar[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. Ruslik_Zero 15:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Trivial categorization. There's no reason to categorize pages by what type of barnstar a user has received. See similar discussion concerning Category:Pages with Entrepreneur's Barnstar. — ξ ^xplicit 19:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I only created the category because other barnstars have done the same. I was following what I assumed was established convention. —Bill Price (nyb) 22:42, 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:Scheduled spaceflights[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 back to Category:Future spaceflights. Ruslik_Zero 15:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category has been moved, and had its scope changed, so many times that its original purpose has been lost. Spaceflights don't necessarily have to be "scheduled" to be in the future, and there is no sense in having a category for the cross-section that are, excluding the rest. Since there is a consensus against using it for its original purpose - categorising all future spaceflights - I can see no reason to keep it on. G W… 09:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That was actually part of a batch nomination back in June, which was met with some resistance after the closure. It may be worth naming this back to Category:Future spaceflights. — ξ^xplicit 22:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happy with either deletion or renaming, but to be honest this category has also been virtually useless due to disrepair since its associated template was deleted. --G W… 21:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ruslik_Zero 18:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly prefer renaming back to Category:Future spaceflights over any notion of deletion. Category serves a useful navigational and organizational purpose; the renaming was part of a wave of changes to eliminate the "future" categories en masse. - Dravecky (talk) 18:00, 10 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:National law enforcement agencies of the Afghanistan[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. — ξ ^xplicit 08:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:National law enforcement agencies of the Afghanistan to Category:Law enforcement agencies of Afghanistan

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There are no articles on regional enforcement agencies and I suspect that the new category was created by mistake. Pichpich (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Pichpich (talk) 15:54, 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:Sketch writers[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 all. — ξ ^xplicit 08:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - breaking down writers this much cuts too fine. Writers produce in multiple forms within genres and categorizing by each kind of writing will lead to category clutter. Sketch writers, sitcom writers, drama series writers, made-for-television movie writers, dramedy writers, infomercial writers, clip show writers, talk show writers, awards show writers, etc. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know a former comedy sketch writer -- and I suppose I used to be one, myself -- and I agree this opens the door to a range of comedy writer by show type categories. To be honest, I kind of assumed a sitcom writer category existed. I see it does not. Certainly leaning towards delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:39, 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:Mock the Week[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. — ξ ^xplicit 08:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - absent the performers who per WP:OC are incorrectly categorized there are three articles and a template. Not enough material to necessitate a category. Everything is linked through the template and the main article. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per succinct nom. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 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:Muppet writers[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. — ξ ^xplicit 08:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - per WP:OC people are not categorized on the basis of series or franchises for which they have written. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and prior precedent; this is overcategorisation, since each of these writers may have written many other things over the course of their lives. (Look at Chevy Chase for example, who is in this category, but his article doesn't even mention that he wrote for the Muppets.) Robofish (talk) 13:58, 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:Signatories of the health and social care concordat[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 all. — ξ ^xplicit 08:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - for organizations that at some point signed onto "a voluntary agreement between organisations that regulate, audit, inspect or review elements of health and healthcare in England." Does not appear to rise to the level of significance that would warrant categorization. Signatory status is reversible, further indicating the non-definingness of being a party to this document. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a defining characteristic. I don't think we normally categorise organisations and institutions by what agreements they've signed up to. Robofish (talk) 13:54, 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:Cuisine of the Lazio[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename all to remove 'the'. Ruslik_Zero 15:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cuisine of the Lazio to Category:Cuisine of Lazio

Nominator's rationale: Syntax & consistency - Alex2006 (talk) 05:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - of thirteen subcats that include the word "Lazio" some use "Lazio" while others use "the Lazio". The lead category is Category:Lazio and the lead article is Lazio, which consistently reads "Lazio" and not "the Lazio". Discussion should be broadened to make everything uniform rather than renaming a single subcat in isolation. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The normal English term is "Lazio", not "the Lazio". I'm not sure I understand your objection, Cow of Pain. You seem to be saying that we shouldn't change the Cuisine of the Lazio category name until we change all subcats' names? But what's wrong with starting with one and continuing to the others? --Macrakis (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too often (based on variations in participation) CFDs done in isolation result in divergent results for no good reason. If all of the divergent categories are nominated at once it reduces/eliminates the likelihood of mixed results. I believe it should be "foo of/in Lazio" but why not withdraw this and nominate all of the "foo of Lazio" subcats together? It's not like that would be a huge nomination. That said, if consensus is to rename this one in isolation then great, do it. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming. Just so we are clear, the categories that should be included in the renaming are:

Category:Buildings and structures in the Lazio

Category:Baroque sites of the Lazio

Category:Churches in the Lazio

Category:Monasteries in the Lazio

Category:Cities and towns in the Lazio

Category:Frazioni of the Lazio

Category:Hilltowns in the Lazio

Category:Cuisine of the Lazio

Category:Geography of the Lazio

Category:Lakes of the Lazio

Category:Mountains of the Lazio

Category:Rivers of the Lazio

Category:Valleys of the Lazio

Category:Gothic sites in the Lazio

Category:History of the Lazio

Category:Provinces of the Lazio

Category:Roman sites of the Lazio

Category:Romanesque sites in the Lazio

and have been so marked. the other Lazio categories already omit the "the". And while we are here correct "Roman sites of Lazio" to "Roman sites in Lazio". --Bejnar (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only just seen this, so too late now, but you might as well know it: To say Lazio is uneducated. It is The Lazio; to say otherwise shows ignorance. Giacomo 17:45, 12 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:CD Aves[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. — ξ ^xplicit 08:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CD Aves to Category:C.D. Aves

Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:04, 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:Goth 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. — ξ ^xplicit 08:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Vague classification. Trivialist (talk) 05:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - highly subjective classification. We have Goth music, which is an established genre, but not Goth films, which seems here to just mean 'films with lots of goth fans'. Robofish (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Google book search for "Goth film" does reveal what seem to me to be WP:RS. I think a main article could be written. But until such time as it is, I'm concerned that the category may be WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Leaning towards delete but open to recreating the category if a good main article can be written. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a subjective cat but per Shawn, this cat might be revived once a clear cut main article is created.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:52, 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:Short-lived 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: no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Completely random inclusion criteria of statehood lasting for "generally less than ten years." Some of these are states, others are micronations, some are simply occupations. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Short" is POV and non-defining. Lugnuts (talk) 07:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - entirely arbitrary classification. (Unfortunately, as it's quite a well-developed category tree.) Robofish (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I accept it is an "entirely arbitrary classification", though not that it is POV. but it seems clearly a defining characteristic, and a useful tree, which is indeed large and has been around since 2005. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undefinable inclusion criteria. There is no objective standard as to what constitutes a "short-lived" state. East Germany and West Germany at 41 years each would qualify as "short-lived" in comparison to for example the United States at 222 years but neither of them is in the category. But they don't really qualify as "short-lived" as envisioned by the category creator in comparison to say Biafra (three years) or the Kuban People's Republic (two years) or the State of Franklin (four years). List of former countries could benefit from this information (along with a lot of work) and if put into tabular form a sortable column for duration would allow readers to see the shortest-lived countries. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "undefinable" - the category page defines it. But it is entirely arbitary, as Robofish has pointed out. Johnbod (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Johnbod. Yes, the inclusion criteria are slightly problematic. But on balance the benefits of keeping this category far outweigh any hypothetical problems. Bear in mind, there are no BLP issues to be concerned about, so that very strict standard should not be applied here. Readers are well-served by this category, which does after all fulfill the primary objective of all categories: assisting readers in navigation by grouping together articles & sub-cats that share a common feature. I do not see what is to be gained by deleting it, which really is not necessary, given that it's contents are all (as far as I can see) properly described as "Short-lived states". Cgingold (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but try and figure out a better inclusion criterion. Though it may not be precise, there clearly is a notion of short-lived states. They basically all grew out of exceptional and usually temporary circumstances so their histories have points in common. A category helps to highlight this and in the end, deleting the category hurts Wikipedia. Pichpich (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've thought a lot about this over the days, but I don't see any way around the fact that this is subjective and/or arbitrary. As has been pointed out, in the broad scope of time, East Germany would qualify. But if your focus is 20th-century history, then it wouldn't. To set a specific cut-off would be arbitrary. I've tried to figure out a way around it, but I can't come up with anything. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:03, 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:Escape from communist countries[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. — ξ ^xplicit 08:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Escape from communist countries to Category:Escape from communist states

Nominator's rationale: Per parent cat. and main article. Alternately, delete as too narrow. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Is there a (substantial) difference between escapees and defectors (Category:Defectors by nationality is by far better populated). Some may argue that, for example, Arkady Shevchenko defected but did not escape because he already lived in New York for years - to me, the difference is marginal. I'd recommend keeping people in one place; Category:Escape from communist countries is better suited for how-to articles like Escape attempts and victims of the inner German border. East of Borschov 04:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looking at the escapees structure, it appears that the people so categorized are those who escaped after being the subject of a specific custodial process (arrested for a crime, etc.). This category appears to be for people who attempted to flee a locale (mostly East Berlin) without being subject to a specific custodial process. Categorizing them as "escapees" or under the more general "escape" header (especially since most of them didn't make it out of the locale but died in the attempt) doesn't fit in with our categorization system. The same information can be presented as a list of people who were killed trying to get past the Berlin Wall, a reasonable sub-article of Berlin Wall. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 'defectors' seems to be a better and more established way of classifying these articles. Robofish (talk) 13:48, 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.