Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 25

< December 24	December 26 >

December 25[edit]

Category:James Randi[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 16:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. The few articles that remain after recategorizing his books and person by project articles don't warrant a category. Otto4711 (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:OC#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Doczilla (talk) 08:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nothing wrong with the category it has 3 articles in it. Lobojo (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ocat per nom and many previous discussions as well as being small with limited growth potential. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:19, 30 December 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:Idaho Law[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. Kbdank71 16:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Idaho Law to Category:Idaho law

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistent with other states in Category:State law in the United States. —Markles 22:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename as a spelling error. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per nom and Vegaswikian. Snocrates 05:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename for incorrect capitalization. Doczilla (talk) 08:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename as capitalization error. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:19, 30 December 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:Neoconservative political parties in the United States[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 16:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unhelpful category, based on undefined, non-relevant, perhaps non-existent distinction. Category is now empty. previously, only article in category was article on US Republican Party, only subcategory in category was US Republican Party category. Republican party contains many kinds of conservative members and beliefs. Describing the whole party this way seems to be an overly political act. Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (unless there actually is some U.S. Neoconservative Party that can be added here!) Terraxos (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:20, 30 December 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:Mini-Bots[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:Transformers Mini Vehicles. Kbdank71 16:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mini-Bots to Category:Mini Vehicles

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category was created under the false assumption that "Mini-Bots" is an official Transformers term. It is not, though it is a very popular fanterm. The correct term is either Minicars or Mini Vehicles. http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Mini_Vehicle ItsWalky! (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The suggested target is ambiguous. Not sure what other options might work. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Transformers Mini Vehicles. Otto4711 (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Transformers Mini Vehicles. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that works. --ItsWalky! (talk) 16:17, 26 December 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:Ceiling fans[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. Kbdank71 16:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ceiling fans to Category:Images of ceiling fans

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To follow form of other like categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - but with a lower case "c" in "ceiling." Otto4711 (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename with lower case ceiling. Doczilla (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:21, 30 December 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:With trademark[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. Kbdank71 16:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:With trademark to Category:Images with trademarks

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Image cat without the word image. Current name is ambiguous. There may be something better but I could not think of a better name so it you have one, fell free to suggest it. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:21, 30 December 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:Intrastate WB Templates[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, empty. Kbdank71 16:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The WB network has been defunct since 2006. This category of templates is no longer needed once templates are deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaidService (talk • contribs) 14:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems premature to CFD these while cats are populated on the grounds that they are no longer needed. Suggest withdraw CFD, depop cats, then CSD#C1 them if they remain empty for a week. ~~Oh, and WHO nominated this?~~I added Template:unsigned JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:00, 25 December 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:Intrastate UPN Templates[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, empty. Kbdank71 16:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The UPN network has been defunct since 2006. This category of templates is no longer needed once templates are deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MaidService (talk • contribs) 14:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems premature to CFD these while cats are populated on the grounds that they are no longer needed. Suggest withdraw CFD, depop cats, then CSD#C1 them if they remain empty for a week. ~~Oh, and WHO nominated this?~~I added Template:unsigned JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is premature. Don't delete the category while the templates still exist. Category remains useful even if only to help with TfD on the templates. Doczilla (talk) 08:37, 27 December 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:El Tarf Province[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. Kbdank71 16:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:El Tarf Province to Category:El Taref Province

Nominator's rationale: It is the official name, as well as that used by the French Wikipedia, and it returns more Google hits: [1] [2] escondites 13:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support seems reasonable to be consistent with what editors who are familar with the subject matter would expect (unlike myself). JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to match articles in category, which use "Taref". Snocrates 05:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:22, 30 December 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:Suicides by Asian-Americans[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 16:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: {{{3|This category is not only biased but also falsely accusing listed people of psychos. I believe the category is Engrish as well. The comment on the category page shows what the editor, Dnivera intended. --Appletrees (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Asian-American community is faced with a mental health crisis. Many cultural and mental health issues still need to be examined as contributing to suicides by Asian-Americans.[3]

It's probably a notable intersection despite the bald statements below (a quick google search of "Asian-Americans"+suicide brings 79,000 hits including CNN & the Centers for Disease Control among the first few) - were this a "positive" view of Asian-Americans no doubt most of the delete votes would find significant enough intersection to keep it, but WP:WEDONTLIKEIT is winning out demonstrating once again my theory that race categories at WP are fundamentally flawed because they will never adhere to NPOV because the community will bend over backwards to keep positive ones and bend the other way to delete negative ones regardless of whether any notable intersection actually exists as demonstrated here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so the deletion reviewers cannot whine that nothing was provided by way of sources, here goes:

US Dept of Education
CDC
CNN

We just don't like it seems to sum it up. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable cross categorisation. Lobojo (talk) 14:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there is nothing Engrish about the category. The category does not accuse anybody of anything. The articles which insert themselves into this category must have a source for the fact that the person is in-fact asian American, and that they did die from suicide. If you have objection to a particular articlebeing in the category, then it should be addressed via the edit button on the article, not by deleting the category. I removed the following from the category page as unsourced/ non-npov: "The Asian-American community is faced with a mental health crisis. Many cultural and mental health issues still need to be examined as contributing to suicides by Asian-Americans." This was the only thing I saw wrong with it. The category itself does not need to be deleted. JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overcategorization by non-notable intersection. Otto4711 (talk) 02:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Overcategorisation. Do we need Category:Left handed suiciders? Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Otto and Pavel. Snocrates 05:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:OC#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unneeded race category, like nearly all of them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:23, 30 December 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:Central School of Speech and Drama[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 relisted on dec 31. Kbdank71 16:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This seems a convoluted mess of recursive intermixing and general overcategorization. Some of the cats will only ever have one other of these categories in them.JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Included in this nomination:
- I Suggest just one category, should survive this CFD:
  - Category:Central School of Speech and DramaJERRY ^talk _contribs 05:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stong oppose First off Webber Douglas only merged into the Central School in the last couple of years and putting people who were there previously into the CSSD category is anachronistice. Secondly the alumni categories especially contain a large number of entries, whilst the other categories are the standard structure for UK universities (of which the CSSD is a part, being a college of the University of London). The category structure for uni people is stable and consistent, particularly for the University of London which has the people separated out and sub-categorised accordingly, and randomly deleting individual sections severely damages its overall efficiency. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that the category structure is consistent. The webbers get into the centrals high up the tree, and then themselves exist aside the similar ones at the bottom. It's a ball of yarn that a cat played with currently. If kept, the structure needs to be standardized per all UK univs, IMHO. JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually this set-up is pretty standard for UK universities that have either merged or absorbed - see for example Category:Queen Mary, University of London which has a similar set-up handling Westfield College, Barts and The London so that all alumni of the current institution and predecessors are either in the QMUL alumni category or the relevant sub category etc... The structure isn't overtly complicated - it just reflects the standard People subcategory with academics and alumni a further sub-category and former institutions linked in at the appropriate place. Or to put it another way, how would dumping into an unstandardised single institution category be an improvement, especially with the large number of alumni for both CSSD and Webber? Timrollpickering (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Haven't seen this before but it seems perfectly OK, and consistent with other UK tertiary colleges. Bizarre proposal. The handling of Webber Douglas and Central School categories seems OK too. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:39, 30 December 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 from Bloomington[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. Kbdank71 16:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Bloomington to Category:People from Bloomington, Indiana

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Not only is there more than one "Bloomington" in the U.S., there's more than one "People from Bloomington" category... see Category:People from Bloomington, Illinois. This is one that NEEDS to be dabbed with the state, IMHO. Dale Arnett (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename ~~and redirect~~ per nom. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- modified !vote per Vegaswikian. JERRY ^talk _contribs 07:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and do not redirect. There is more then one Bloomington category so a redirect does not seem justified. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom but don't redirect. Snocrates 05:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and create disambiguation page, per nom. - Dravecky (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but some one should check that all the people are in fact from Bloomington, Indiana, recategorising any from Illinois. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:54, 30 December 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.