Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 5 August 7 >

August 6[edit]

Category:Albums without cover art[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 to Category:Album articles without cover art --Kbdank71 14:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albums without cover art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Repurpose to talk pages, per precedents like Category:Place of birth missing and other non-defining-characteristic cleanup categories. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repurposing it means that instead of the category appearing on the article, it will be placed on the talk page of the article. This is primarily done for adminsitrative purposes. — Moe ε 21:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename & repurpose per Carlos, TewfikTalk 19:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repurpose for sure, but I don't know about renaming, the name seems fine to me. — Moe ε 21:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Currently this category is automatically added (to the article pages), by way of Template:Infobox Album. AFAICT repurposing will require this category to be manually added (to the talk pages), which seems cumbersome for such a transient property. It would constantly be out-of-date. Renaming it to something with "Album articles..." rather than "Albums..." sounds good though, and "missing" sounds better than "without" but since it is automatically populated (assuming it still will be) we don't know if the article has any cover art, which makes "missing" inappropriate, so Category:Album articles without cover art. --PEJL 06:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I've been asking for that since the category was created. Repurposing is problematical, for the reasons PEJL mentioned. I agree that it should be on the talk page, but unless we can come up with a reasonable way to do it, I oppose the change. There's currently a discussion at WP:ALBUM about it. -Freekee 22:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category cannot be repurposed because it is added conditionally by the {{Infobox Album}} template. Maintaining this category by hand doesn't make any sense. Jogers (talk) 09:28, 12 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:Polar exploration by Russia and Soviet Union[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, as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Polar exploration by Russia and Soviet Union to Category:Polar exploration by Russia and the Soviet Union
Nominator's rationale: Rename, in line with normal English usage. RegRCN 22:03, 6 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:Forbes[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; as a category about people, this should be deleted per eponymous precedent and OCAT. as a category about the company, I agree with DGG and his/her arguments, but in this case, there really aren't enough articles to sustain a category, especially when all of the articles are already linked to from Forbes. --Kbdank71 13:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Forbes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Appears to be an unnecessary eponymous category for Forbes publishing company. All the articles actually directly connected to Forbes publishing are (or should be) already included in the main article. Moreover it isn't advisable to include freelance columnists and others who might do work for Forbes but also work for other publishers. See WP:OCAT for reasons to generally avoid eponymous categorization when the main article suffices for navigation. Dugwiki 20:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This category is ambiguous. If you look at the parents, you would think that it is for a magazine, but it mostly people articles. I don't object to categories when a company has several related articles about it, or for the brands, but this seems to have no focus. Vegaswikian 21:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To add to that comment, I should point out that most companies don't need their own category if there's only a handful of articles to include. Basically a company should only have its own category if the company's main article doesn't act as a sufficient navigational hub for the reader. Dugwiki 22:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and use properly. Categories for major publishers are significant, as a way of bringing together the articles on their publications, especially their magazines. It's much better than a list at the bottom of the article, which can grow to great proportions--and its enormously better than the expedient of a navigation box, which has actually been tried once or twice for this purpose. Categories for this sort of thing should be strongly encouraged. Rename a Forbes publishing company. DGG (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Forbes had more articles directly associated with it I might agree with you that it could use its own category. But as it stands there's no indication that this category is going to grow too much beyond its present size, and everything currently in the category can be handled by the main article itself. Again, most companies, including publishers, do not need their own category just to handle links that already appear within the company's main article. Dugwiki 14:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:OCAT. Otto4711 14:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per DGG's rationale - as long as it is used properly it should be fine, though I suppose the question of whether it could reasonably expand should be weighed (I believe it can, but perhaps others more familiar with the content feel differently). TewfikTalk 19:28, 9 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:Jeff Buckley[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 --Kbdank71 13:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jeff Buckley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Many precedent for eponymous musician categories. Nothing is in the cat except for the "song" and "album" cat. Andrew c [talk] 18:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a brand new category, give it time to be expanded, I will work on adding articles to it. IrisKawling 20:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' This one had a good amount of material. Hawkestone 21:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCAT#Eponymous_categories_for_people. This category is a textbook example of what that guideline is addressing. The people with which it's being populated are easily interlinked through the text of Buckley's article and each other. This subject does not fall under the exception that is outlined there, namely, it does not consist of multiple directly linked subarticles which cannot otherwise be reasonably categorized. Otto4711 21:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the creators should articulate why navtemplates cannot link all the articles that would be in this category, rather than extolling the quantity of those articles; simply, they cannot. Carlossuarez46 05:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ample precedent, TewfikTalk 19:30, 9 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:List of UNICEF Goodwill Ambassadors[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. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of UNICEF Goodwill Ambassadors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is just a copy and paste of the List of UNICEF Goodwill Ambassadors article, with a single person in the category. I think the creator probably intended to make something like Category:UNICEF Goodwill Ambassadors. However, people on this list are notable, not because they are UNICEF ambassadors, but because they are Olympic sports people, or because they a noted writer of childrens fiction, or because they are a famous comedian, or whatever. Andrew c [talk] 18:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a mistake. RegRCN 20:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining. Carlossuarez46 05:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A category is not a list. --Juiced lemon 15:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this copy of the list into category-space, TewfikTalk 19:32, 9 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:Title Tracks[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 - Nabla 19:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Title Tracks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Title tracks, or Delete as non-defining. -- Prove It (talk) 13:21, 6 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:Roman women in ancient warfare[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 - Nabla 19:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman women in ancient warfare to Category:Ancient Roman women in warfare
Nominator's rationale: Rename, To improve the logic and to better tie in with the parent categories. Ravenhurst 13:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Johnbod 16:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency, clarity, readability, and to exclude time travellers. :) Xtifr tälk 01:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for clarity. Jmm6f488 04:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency, TewfikTalk 19:34, 9 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:Roman plebeians[edit]

Category:Roman equites[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 both. After Midnight 0001 21:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman plebeians to Category:Ancient Roman plebeians
Propose renaming Category:Roman equites to Category:Ancient Roman equites
Nominator's rationale: Rename, for clarity, per several precedents. Ravenhurst 13:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per many precedents. Johnbod 16:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per precedent and for clarity and consistency. Xtifr tälk 01:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency, TewfikTalk 19:34, 9 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:Mankiewicz family[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 keep. After Midnight 0001 21:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mankiewicz family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - per many precedents this is a form of eponymous overcategorization. Articles are interlinked through text links and the article Mankiewicz family exists to illustrate the familial relationships as the category can't do. Otto4711 13:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Membership of a prominent family is a defining characteristic. Ravenhurst 13:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no consensus that family categories should not exist, and the only way to demonstrate one would be to get the most prominent categories removed, not just a few marginal ones. Therefore each category must be considered on its own merits, just like categories for say settlements of sports teams. This one is about a sufficiently prominent category with sufficient articles. Hawkestone 13:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is certainly consensus regarding this sort of Hollywood family category, as demonstrated by the deletion of seven of them here, the deletion of nine of them here, the deletion of four of them here, the deletion of nine of them here, the deletion of two of them here and I could go on but these dozens should convince you. Notice how there are almost no categories for families in Category:Hollywood families? That's because, by consensus, they have been almost entirely deleted. Otto4711 13:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your evidence is less than compelling because it is mostly the same few (very few) people advocating deletion each time. The total number of different people on each side of the debate is dead even at six. Hawkestone 21:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of people on each side might matter, if CFD were a vote. It's not. Closing admins repeatedly weighed the arguments on both sides and repeatedly found the arguments for keeping to be lacking. Otto4711 15:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To further comment, the deletion of Category:Gates family, a family that, it may be argued, is at least as prominent as the Mankiewicz family, was endorsed at deletion review. Otto4711 21:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are sufficient articles to justify a category. RegRCN 20:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain why this category should not be addressed by the guideline outlined at WP:OCAT#Eponymous_categories_for_people? Simply counting up the number of articles in a category is not a valid reason for keeping the category. Categories with far more articles than this one are routinely deleted. Otto4711 21:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't for a person, it's for a family. The difference is rather fundamental. RegRCN 22:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please re-read the link, particularly the last sentence. Otto4711 14:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The item has been re-written so it's now the second sentence - "This also includes groupings of people, such as families and musical groups." Otto4711 17:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per what seems to be the consensus on Hollywood families, though as none of the linked prior discussions contain especially extensive discussion, this may be a good opportunity to better flesh out the topic. TewfikTalk 19:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Excuse me, but why on earth is this category being discussed purely in terms of its being a subcat of Category:Hollywood families, as if that's its sole defining characteristic? In point of fact, it also has two other parent cats: Category:American families and Category:Jewish families. If it hadn't been placed in Category:Hollywood families along with the other two, I rather doubt that it would ever have come to Otto's attention, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Of the 8 family members with articles, 5 are "Hollywood people" -- enough, it would seem, to qualify as a "Hollywood family" -- but 3 have careers in other fields (journalism, broadcasting, etc.), so perhaps it shouldn't even be considered a "Hollywood family".

But let's not forget that Category:Hollywood families remains available as a parent category because there was no concensus to delete it. Furthermore, it's not at all clear what Otto means by "this sort of Hollywood family category". Those CFDs were pretty skimpy on discussion, and didn't produce any real guidelines that I could see. In fact, most of the cats that were removed were deleted because they only had a very small number of articles in them. So I really don't see what the supposed "concensus" was. (I agree with Hawkestone's comments in that regard, as well.)

In any event, the Mankiewicz family has 9 members (one is notable but has no article yet) who have established their notability over 3 generations as a Jewish and American family. So, unless these family categories are to be reserved solely for families that have turned into actual "dynasties", there is no compelling reason to delete this category. Cgingold 11:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The parent category was nominated for renaming, not deletion, so its continued existence as a parent is not really relevant to this discussion. Whether or not this would have come to my attention otherwise is also irrelevant. The guideline regarding categories named after families is laid out at WP:OC#Eponymous_categories_for_people which includes categories for groups of people, like families. Discussion of more families by profession deletions here, for professional wrestling families and circus families, here for auto racing families, here for baseball families, here for sports broadcasting families, and there are many more but this really ought to be sufficient. Most of these were also under the American families category too. Otto4711 14:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, categories that were nominated for renaming end up getting deleted all the time -- Category:Hollywood families could have been deleted, but it wasn't. In addition to which, nobody has seen fit to take the step of nominating it for deletion. As a matter of fact, you indicated in that earlier CfD that you support its existence -- so clearly, you must feel that there are families which should be placed there.
But you still haven't answered my implicit question above: what exactly do you mean by "this sort of Hollywood family category"? I wasn't able to make any useful inferences as to what that might mean from the five CfDs you linked above, beyond the fact that an awful lot of them had only 2, 3, or 4 articles -- not 8 like this one. As for the rest, since the cats were emptied, there's nothing to go on except the names of the families. I haven't a clue as to what sort of well-defined criteria may have been applied in those cases.
As to Category:Mankiewicz family, you say that it's placement in (and thus, your finding it in) Category:Hollywood families is "irrelevant". And yet, you immediately singled it out as being "this sort of Hollywood family category" -- not "this sort of American family category" or "this sort of Jewish family category". The clear implication is that being placed in that particular category somehow delegitimates it -- but surely, that's at odds with your ostensible support for Category:Hollywood families.
As for the issue of OCAT guidelines re families, I will take that up below. Cgingold 11:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- there is no "precedent" whatsoever to delete anymore of these family categories, unless you consider a "consensus" or "precedent" to be the same Wikipedia deletionists 'voting' to delete these categories every single time around. If this category does happen to be deleted, would someone at least have the courtesy to listify this category in order to prevent further data loss? The massive loss of data that has occurred over time with these irrational category deletions grinds on my nerves. --Wassermann 07:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps if you took note of the fact that the nomination links to the article for the family which in fact already contains more data than a category ever can, your nerves might be somewhat soothed. Converting a category to a list does not lead to any loss of data. A category is a list of article names. A list is a list of article names. Lists can be expanded, as this one already has been, to include information on how the people within it are actually related to each other. Otto4711 16:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good, but it doesn't negate the fact that deleting this category would prevent those readers who choose to explore Wikipedia through the category structure from learning of a notable Jewish, American, Hollywood family named Mankiewicz. Just because categories may not happen to be certain editors' preferred mode of using Wikipedia doesn't mean that everbody else should be deprived of legitimate, useful categories. Furthermore, there's certainly nothing in the guidelines that requires us to choose between Category and List in every case. It's perfectly fine to have both, unless there is a compelling and persuasive reason not to -- which hasn't been established in this case. Cgingold 11:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This makes no sense. Eventually if they want to learn about the family they're going to have to click on an article. Squirelling the family article away behind an extra layer of categorization actually makes them do additional navigation. Or are you suggesting that our hypothetical person is only going to want the names of the family members with absolutely no interest in any other information about them? Otto4711 12:35, 12 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:Sporting siblings[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. After Midnight 0001 21:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sporting siblings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete These articles are about individuals rather than groups of siblings. The fact that these people happen to have a sibling involved in sport is non-defining trivia. This co-incidence will be mentioned in the article in most cases. There is insufficient reason for this essentially random selection of sportspeople to be in the same category. Many articles about prominent sportspeople suffer from category clutter, and this makes it worse. Alex Middleton 12:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - precedent and consensus is strongly against categorizing sports family members in this fashion. Notable siblings should be interlinked through the individual's articles and, should the family have sufficient numbers of notable members, a list article might be created. Otto4711 12:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sorry to say I have to agree. I noticed this last week and cleaned it up, also worked with the good-faith creator and he agreed that multiple siblings must have articles to warrant inclusion and began policing accordingly.. However, it's still based on coincidence and a cat where inclusion is contingent on two people having articles is problematic. Deiz talk 13:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Jade Knight 21:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ample precedent, TewfikTalk 19:42, 9 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:Songs that radio no longer plays[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, unverifiable, not useful, WP:POINT. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs that radio no longer plays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as non defining, not a good idea to categorize by non-events. -- Prove It (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Which radio stations? How can it be proved the these songs are not on the playlist of any station anywhere in the world? What would be the point of trying to prove that anyway? Alex Middleton 12:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, entirely unmanageable. Deiz talk 13:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Splendid POV effort, but no. Johnbod 13:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverifiable. RegRCN 20:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per reasons given (and most songs are still played on online radio, if nothing else). The Jade Knight 21:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 05:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless. --Juiced lemon 17:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless, POV, unverifiable. Bearcat 00:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Alot of people who are hoping for select classics to be played on the radio again are persistently disappointed as their patience dwindles while listening to a hit radio station or radio stations that used to play special subsets of genres. And a category will help them understand that issue. Otherwise they will be frustrated to find information. --Green Pipe 17:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Green Pipe. I can understand the frustration radio causes when songs they played before are no longer played, especially if oldies radio stations are reluctant to play them. --Koopa turtle 18:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ample precedent, TewfikTalk 19:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It would be impossible to verify anything put in this category. As someone who worked in and listened to a lot of college and community radio, I can tell you that everything ever recorded gets played on some radio station somewhere at some time or another. - Crockspot 20:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - People who want to hear songs they can't find on their local radio stations should possibly acquire their own recordings of the songs. Nerwen 16:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That may be a good solution, however some people are too lazy to copy to an MP3 player and buy a computer to copy to MP3 players with. Also, if criticism about Windows Vista can be put in the Windows Vista article, then why can't we put information concerning the tendency for hit radio stations to stop playing good songs, and the oldies station's tendancy to only play select classics? It doesn't make sense, I still think we should keep. --Koopa turtle 18:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. Simply put, this is a category that can not be maintained or be managed. It is not verifiable. What happens if a song is listed here and then some station in a town of 200 residents airs the song. How does we know that the category is no longer valid for that song? Also the criteria defined in the category are not verifiable and imprecise. Exactly when does stopped playing years ago mean? And we need to roll out the crystal ball to know And not even the oldies radio station may play them in the future either. Does it apply to a song played on AM radio with a FM low power repeater a few towns over?Vegaswikian 22:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It sounds like someone is trying to have Wikipedians maintain their pet project for them. Wikipedia is not an infodump. -Freekee 22:47, 11 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:Motorcycle gangs[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 upmerge to Category:Motorcycle clubs. After Midnight 0001 21:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Motorcycle gangs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
While this category was no doubt proposed in very good faith, I regret that there is quite a bit of tenacious debate as to just what a motorcycle gang is. To address this issue, I created what I felt was a more precisely-defined category that largely overlaps the "motorcycle gangs" category (please see the next CFD below). As such, Delete Upmerge respectfully recommended for this category. (Btw, there is a List of motorcycle gangs presently in existence to "fill in" for this category as well.) —Catdude 07:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems like a fairly straightforward matter to me, and a defining characteristic of the gangs. As you have not disclosed what the "precisely-defined category" is, it is not possible to judge whether it is an improvement. Alex Middleton 12:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the vote and comment, Alex Middleton. To kindly clarify, I used the name found in the CFD below to create more of an "operational definition" as a substitute category for "motorcycle gang." There's been a lot of debate as to just what a motorcycle gang is; some of this is apparent if you go to WP articles which cover the "outlaw" and "one percenter" biker/bikie clubs. Yet, I do agree that "motorcycle gangs" is a pretty "simple" name. Do you perhaps have any suggestions to avoid the aforementioned ambiguity in a workable manner? Thanks again. —Catdude 19:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Motorcycle clubs. This is a single entry cat that will probably be very POV without some kind of strong article to support what a Motorcycle gang is. Vegaswikian 22:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge with Motorcycle clubs. The constituents of the Gang category is eclectic & incoherent, to say the least, and the definition of gang (e.g. a group of friends, children, criminals or troublemakers) is informal and loose. This makes it hard to use for encyclopedic content. Club has more formal connotations, and is more appropriate for m/c groups with clear memberships and rules (even if some operate outside the law). Ephebi 09:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per subjective definition pointed out by Vegas, TewfikTalk 19:44, 9 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:US-headquartered, non-AMA-affiliated motorcycle clubs[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 --Kbdank71 14:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:US-headquartered, non-AMA-affiliated motorcycle clubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I, the creator of this category, recommend a rename to US-headquartered, non-AMA-chartered motorcycle clubs One-percenter-patched motorcycle clubs. This would be, I feel, a bit more precise and even a bit more simple for a category name. —Catdude 07:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: seems a bit overly specific. We don't generally categorize things by what they're not, and "headquartered" seems a little redundant. Wouldn't it be better to categorize the AMA-affiliated ones separately, rather than the non-affiliated ones? And just say "US clubs"? (I don't think anyone will assume that that implies membership is restricted to US citizens.) Xtifr tälk 10:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment, Xtifr. I do kindly state that the category name uses a "negation approach" that we generally want to avoid for cat names. The reason that I went with it is I was trying to find a way to corral those biker/bikie clubs commonly known as "one percenter" or "outlaw" clubs, but I know that there's been tenacious debate on just what a "motorcycle gang" is. The number of AMA-chartered clubs runs about 1,200; there are far less clubs which are headquartered in the US which are not AMA-chartered. Thus, the reason for my approach :) But, if you have any improvement tactics here, they are welcome. Thanks again. —Catdude 19:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Motorcycle clubs. We try to avoid abbreviations in category names, this category has two. Categories work to group like things, this seems to be grouping based on a trivial intersection which is also generally not acceptable. Vegaswikian 22:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the vote and comment, Vegaswikian. In regards to your concern with the existence of two abbreviations in the cat name, how 'bout American-based, non-AMA-chartered motorcycle clubs? :) I do kindly beg to differ on the importance of the intersection of the two concepts in the cat name. Intersect the two concepts, and you pretty much corral those "outlaw" or "one percenter" clubs which constitute a category of strong interest for many people. Like you, I think that "motorcycle gang" as a cat name is too potentially POV; again, just trying to find a workable solution to the problem. Thanks again! —Catdude 02:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have an issue with creating a category for American Motorcyclist Association-chartered clubs; your suggested name (long form, perhaps) seems fine. As a beneficial way of corraling the one-percenter clubs, how about using "One-percenter-patched motorcycle clubs"? This would provide reasonable stability/understandability of what should go in there (or not go in there), IMHO....Any further thoughts? Thanks again! —Catdude 03:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge as per Vegaswikian. Drop the AMA & US HQ concept, as M/C clubs & gangs are not a US phenomenom, nor can you assume that overseas chapters or affiliates are 'subvervient' to a US 'HQ' run by their US brethren. Ephebi 14:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have logical issues raised, Ephebi, and as such, you could take a gander at what I just proposed to Vegaswikian above :) I still think it would be valuable and encyclopedic if we could find a way to categorize those genuine one-percenter clubs, if we can find a feasible way to do so. Thanks again! —Catdude 03:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:American Motorcyclist Association motorcycle clubs per Vegas' comments, thus preserving the existing "clubs" scheme. TewfikTalk 19:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • IF it is encyclopedic to record m/c clubs that are affiliated with the AMA, would it not be better to record this through a list at AMA entry, just like the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme page does with its affiliates? Ephebi 08:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Listify is certainly an option to a new category. Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme may be justification for this option. If this is the decided approach the upmerge still needs to happen. The only change is that we don't need to create a new AMA category. I'd suggest that if anyone is considering creating the new category they consider implementing a list since there may be support for a listify vote here if the category shows up. Vegaswikian 00:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think a rename works since the AMA clubs are not really grouped exclusively in a single cat today. Your rename is in reality an upmerge followed by creating the AMA category and then populating the new cat. Vegaswikian 00:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-proposal from nominator and category creator, incorporating a synthesis of others' ideas: The AMA clubs could be, I respectfully feel, both given their own cat as well as listified. Right now, there's a modest number of WP articles about AMA-chartered clubs, and they could be categorized appropriately with a sub-cat. A list could be used to list many more AMA-chartered clubs (there's presently around 1,200 AMA-chartered clubs). As for the original object of debate, I propose, as alluded above, changing the name of the cat to One-percenter-patched motorcycle clubs. All the clubs which presently populate this cat are unquestionably one-percenter clubs, and we wouldn't have any extraneous debates as to whether we are appropriately including "motorcycle gangs" or not (or US-headquartered M/C's or not) via this renaming scheme. One-percenter-patched clubs can simply be defined as: M/C's which wear, as part of their full colors, the one-percenter diamond/rhombus patch. This cat approach does indeed corral virtually all the clubs commonly thought of as "motorcycle gangs" which have at least some presence in the United States, but also allows the inclusion of some other clubs which sport the one-percenter patch which aren't generally perceived by much of the public and law enforcement as gangs (and/or have a more international locus). And, as there's a perpetual keen interest in "one-percenter" clubs/bikers, this does allow such clubs/folks to be beneficially corralled as such. Thus, I respectfully propose this scheme to resolve the aforementioned issues :) —Catdude 01:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be a triple intersection which is generally not a good way to categorize people. Just upmerge and split off the simply defined groups. Vegaswikian 22:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the additional comment; however, I do see many examples of cats which have successfully stood the test of time which do incorporate two or oftentimes even three "intersections" as you state it — to me, this particular proposed sub-cat (as modified) seems like a very understandable, not-overly-complex idea...but I do, again, appreciate others' takes on the idea! —Respectfully, Catdude 02:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment As a European, motorcycle club member, we (over here) don't particularly recognise the US situation of motorcycle gangs and that the phrase "motorcycle club" is associated with crime over there (see my extensive "discussions" on the talk page of "motorcycle club". thus the challenge on the English Wikipedia is how to differentiate the "clubs" that are "1%ers" or "outlaw", etc eg Hells Angels (that are notable of course) from the clubs that "normal" / legal - eg Dungannon and District Motorcycle Club. I hope that makes some sense. Pickle 16:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do precisely understand your arguments, Pickle. And again, by my proposed re-cat scheme (i.e., "One-percenter-patched motorcycle clubs"), this re-cat gets away from having to deduce whether a club is a "gang" or not — but handily, IMHO, groups together those clubs which proclaim to the world that they're "one-percenters." Pretty much all the outlaw clubs with a significant US presence will be in there, but we don't need to wrack our brains as to whether "1%er" means "outlaw" or not (or how much "US-based" they are :) ) Thanks for the thoughts! —Catdude 20:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Put like that i can defiantly sport that (ie splitting the Motorcycle clubs category into 2 camps. If i understand "upmerge" correctly i would be very much against it in the long term (if the argument is the cat is underpopulated), as we need some sort of further sorting of this category. (I'm not entirely sure what my voting options are here!) Pickle 22:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the alignment of philosophy here, Pickle, and to answer your question, if you like my re-naming approach (i.e., "One-percenter-patched motorcycle clubs"), you can simply indicate your preference for this re-naming scheme. Obviously, I'm being the protagonist on this re-naming scheme [smile], but I do feel that it would be (alluding to your vision) a "durable-for-the-future" category name. Any M/C which wears, as part of its full colors, a one-percenter patch signifier (invariably, it seems, a diamond/rhombus-shaped "1%" or "1%er" patch) would be eligible for the list. Pretty simple, I think :-) Every club now in the pre-existing cat would qualify for remaining in the re-named cat. And, we can certainly corral the AMA-affiliated clubs with a sub-cat of its own as well if so desired. Thanks again :) —Catdude 01:56, 13 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:People in Anime[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 upmerge. After Midnight 0001 21:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People in Anime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is completely redundant with the more specific categories found in Category:Anime industry. It serves no useful purpose as people have no idea what role they play in the anime industry. If a person doesn't fall in a more specific category, then they should be in the Category:Anime industry. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:23, 6 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:TUGS[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, precedent --Kbdank71 14:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:TUGS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for a TV show. Following cleanup the remaining material does not warrant a category. Otto4711 02:17, 6 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:Britt Allcroft[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, precedent --Kbdank71 14:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Britt Allcroft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Everything in the category is easily interlinked through text links; this doesn't approach the exception laid out for eponymous categories for people. Otto4711 02:04, 6 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_6&oldid=1142606445"