Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 16

< August 15	August 17 >

August 16[edit]

Category:Fiona (singer)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Fiona does not meet the exception laid out in the guideline in that she does not have multiple sub-articles. The people in the category with her can be interlinked through her article and theirs as appropriate. Otto4711 21:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Free albums[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 11:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Free albums to Category:Free (band) albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to reduce ambiguity in the name and to match the sister category for members. Otto4711 21:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to make sense. Wryspy 06:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for consistency and to avoid confusion. Bencherlite ^Talk 01:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and precedent. --PEJL 03:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Fictional characters by U.S. city[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename all. the wub "?!" 11:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency and per common practice. Demonyms such as "Chicagoans", "New Yorkers", etc. are no longer used in "People from..." categories, per this CFD more than a year ago. In addition, other "fictional characters by city" categories, such as Category:Fictional characters from New York City, follow the same format as the "people from..." cats. szyslak 19:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per previous discussions. --musicpvm 02:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per previous discussions. Wryspy 06:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Demonyms may not be widely known and also may vary from region to region. --Pixelface 15:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:British atrocities[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This appears to a POV pushing category — there is no parent Category:Atrocities. Many of the member articles are about massacres which can be categorised in Category:Massacres, which appear to be subcategorised by the country in which they occured rather than by perpertrator. Tim! 18:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - POV category. Some incidents may not have been Britain/England's "finest hour", but terming them "atrocities" isn't appropriate. Bencherlite ^Talk 19:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Deliberately biased. Dominictimms 22:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete laugh out loud? Bulldog123 05:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective category. Wryspy 06:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hmmm didn't take long for the little england mafia to get organised I see. POV? the words "pot" and "kettle" spring to mind. It is a fact that these massacres were carried out by Britain/England much as certain vested interests may like to hide the truth. Re: - Some incidents may not have been Britain/England's "finest hour", but terming them "atrocities" isn't appropriate. - I can imagine the victims thinking at the time, "'Don't worry we're not victims of an atrocity we're just not witnessing England's finest hour"!!! A shameful and disgusting trivialisation of british atrocities. And why shouldn't massacres be listed as carried out by those responsible? . --Ponox 09:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Besides the POV, the entry requirements seem odd. For instance, it seems somewhat extreme to count, say, Operation Flavius as an atrocity, or the Siege of Carlisle (December 1745) - however gory the deaths for treason were in those days. Certainly the articles don't seem to support that classification. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure POV. Carlossuarez46 17:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure point-scoring POV. Craig.Scott 00:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely subjective and POV.Kernel Saunters 23:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant POV pushing. Horologium t-c 01:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Birdman[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization as a small category with little or no room for growth as well as being an unnecessary eponymous TV show category. The few articles are all interlinked and appropriately categorized. Otto4711 16:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Fashion in popular culture[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 11:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Fashion in popular culture to Category:Fashion

Nominator's rationale: Merge - unnecessary layer of container categorization between the child cats and the parent. Otto4711 15:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and precedent, and in this case isn't fashion mostly a reflection of popular culture anyway, so redundant, kind of like Category:Fashion in covering nudity. Carlossuarez46 17:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as tautological. Fashion is popular culture. Dominictimms 19:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Non-alcoholic beer[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as WP:OC. We have Category:Beer styles and Category:Types of beer and Category:Non-alcoholic beverages. There are very few notable low alcohol beers, and even those are better discussed within the parent organisation article as per WP:ORG. SilkTork 15:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant category. Wryspy 15:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Senior Officers of the AGIR[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 12:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution officers, to match Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Theories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus / withdrawn. the wub "?!" 12:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: ~~Too wide category to be useful for systematics. See also Category_talk:Theories.~~ Keep. Ok, I was convinced by Xtifr arguments not to remove this category. Orionus 11:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 21:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All I see are two statements in the talk page, no discussion. This is also an umbrella catgory for theory categories, so it is necessarily wide. Category:Thought, this category's parent is even wider than this. 132.205.44.5 22:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. For example Category:Abstraction is also too wide. Just imagine all abstractions from all sciences in this category... Orionus 07:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Bulldog123 05:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one person's theory is another's fact, or heresy, or religion. Carlossuarez46 17:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Indeed, this category is broad, though not as broad as direct subcategories of Category:Categories (the root of the category tree), which are—deliberately—about as broad as it gets. I don't see "too broad" listed anywhere as a deletion criterion. Umbrella categories like this are extremely useful. Of course, umbrella categories also should not generally contain many articles, and this category looks like it may be due for some cleanup, but nevertheless, the nomination seems to show a fundamental understanding of Wikpedia's category system. (See also: Category:Fundamental.) A broad, drastic change to a category so near the top of Wikipedia's category system deserves a broader discussion than CfD is likely to provide. Xtifr _tälk 03:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what purpose are you personally using category "Theories"? To my opinion category is thesaurus-like tree. The category with very different information on all branches of science is not useful nor for learning, nor for information finding. Another example is category Category:Abstraction. As I said, just imagine all abstractions from all sciences in this category... It is enough to have category science, then branches - physics, chemistry. And then every branch has its theories and abstractions. Orionus 07:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be imagining Wikipedia's categories as a tree—they are not. Scientific theories are a subset of science, but not all theories are scientific, and not all science is theories. Umbrella categories exist to group related categories, not to hold individual articles. Categories like Theories and Abstractions would be useless if they were intended to directly contain every related article, but since they are not, that argument seems irrelevant. It is not enough to categorize science, since not all theories nor all abstractions belong under science, However, since the category system does not form a tree, this should not be a problem. Xtifr _tälk 21:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you convinced me. But only if "Umbrella categories exist to group related categories, not to hold individual articles." When I had a first look at this category, I was terrified by the diversity of articles in the root of this category... On the other hand during the weekend I imagined, that this category can be useful for philosophers. Orionus 14:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, as per Xtifr. Stefanomione 05:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Effects[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete vaguely named category with a circular definition. "Effects" is far too broad to be a useful category. Category creator has quickly populated through B, but needs to hold off till the category itself is evaluated. Wryspy 08:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - far too infinite. Onnaghar ^{tl | co | @} 11:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very artificial category. In most cases the only sense junction with the category is the word "effect". Orionus 13:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 21:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categorisation by name is too random. Dominictimms 22:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator is free to notify me on my talk page if he/she wants me to stop adding the category to articles. I suppose that Category:Effects could fall under Unrelated subjects with shared names seen in WP:OCAT, but they *are* related — they are all observable effects. Initially, List of effects contained mainly physical phenomena (Casimir effect, Doppler effect, Greenhouse effect, etc}. I later added many more articles to List of effects. I intentionally left out books, movies, bands, albums, TV shows, TV episodes, and videogames from the list because it isn't just a list of articles with the word "effect" in them. I then decided to put the articles in the same category. I suppose Category:Effects could be re-defined as "Eponymous effects" or "Effects named after people." I don't think the category is too broad or infinite or artificial or random. You might as well claim that Category:Matter is too broad. As of August 16, 2007, List of effects has wikilinks to 912 pages, hardly infinite. I've already established that pages like The Butterfly Effect, Reggie and the Full Effect, and Mass Effect don't belong in the category. These are observable effects, not just articles with "effect" in the title. I feel that the nominator's focus should be on the articles in the category, not the category itself. It's easy to take a word and put "effect" after it and claim it's real — you can do it for every word in every language. There needs to be a criteria for articles on effects, but the category itself doesn't deserve to be deleted. --Pixelface 00:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Effect" by definition is "The result or outcome of a cause." I think it is too broad - there are too many causes and outcomes in our world. There are also many "effects", that do not have a word "effect" in its formulation or even name. For example, the second law of Newton: "The rate of change of momentum of a body is proportional to the resultant force acting on the body and is in the same direction.". Orionus 07:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category is not meant for each and every possible effect. The category is for notable terms for phenomena that contain the word "effect", such as Greenhouse effect, Thermoelectric effect, etc. --Pixelface 10:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what are criteria for notability? Newton laws in particularly state, that forces are the reason of the change of velocity. It is very important effect in classical physics. Unfortunately, Newton laws do not contain word "effect". Orionus 13:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for inclusion in the Effects category is: a term for a phenomenon (with "effect" in the name), so Butterfly effect may be included, but the movie The Butterfly Effect may not. If an article has met the notability guidelines and hasn't been deleted, it's notable enough for inclusion in the category. If any of Newton's laws of motion were ever called "the Newton effect", I suppose that article could be put in the Effects category. There is already Category:Doppler effects. Category:Effects could easily be a parent category for that. I see there is already Category:Physical phenomena but not everything in Category:Effects is physical phenomena. I just recently found the article Scientific phenomena named after people which looks useful and is closer to what I had in mind, but not everything in List of effects is scientific phenomena. --Pixelface 15:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You, of course, understand, that there is a difference between notability for wikipedia and notability for inclusion into the category:). I think you should maintain List of effects, but they are not worthy to be a separate category, because very different fields of science are mixed in it. Orionus 17:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, everything is an effect of something else, what's next Category:Causes which I hope turns redlink on submission. Carlossuarez46 17:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although "too broad" is an invalid argument for deletion—without umbrella categories, Wikipedia's category system would be unnavigable. Nom's other arguments are valid, however. This is not a good umbrella category, and what it groups is mostly a coincidence of name. Limiting it to articles that are already in subcategories of Category:Nature doesn't solve the category's fundamental problems. Just about everything can be considered an effect of the Big Bang, Quantum uncertainty or both. Xtifr _tälk 03:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Tony Humphries albums[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This artist is so unknown, he doesn't have a page about him. The category has only one item. 71.250.113.93 01:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete underpopulated category of albums by non-notable performer. Wryspy 05:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominate the article for deletion first, then if that passes, the category will be deleted. But underpopulation doesn't matter in category:Albums by artist.--Mike Selinker 05:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the one article is in other categories. The uselessness of this one category has no effect on other categories to which the article belongs. And like the nomination says, there is no article on the artist. Wryspy 08:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable artist with no article doesn't warrant a category. Lugnuts 11:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this isn't an "album by artist" situation. It's album by producer. The album is a compilation released by a nightclub that this Humphries person compiled. Otto4711 12:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know this. OK, delete.-Mike Selinker 19:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Otto. Carlossuarez46 17:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete iff album article is deleted. --PEJL 03:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Play School presenters[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as performers by performance, Play School is an Australian TV series, and we don't do People by television series. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete performer by performance. Wryspy 05:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Onnaghar ^{tl | co | @} 11:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, Play School runs in several countries with different presenters and thus this cat is ambiguous. Ephebi 11:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Baton Rouge portal[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 12:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Baton Rouge, Louisiana portal, to match Baton Rouge, Louisiana. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per nom. Onnaghar ^{tl | co | @} 11:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.