Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 16

< October 15	October 17 >

October 16[edit]

Category:Genocide perpetrators[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 16:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: We already have category:People convicted of crimes against humanity, whcih is legally defined. The new category is POV & unnecessary political epithet. Mukadderat 21:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cheers, Ian Rose 02:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Does the truth hurt? Only a very small fraction of genocide perpetrators is actually 'convicted of crimes against humanity'. E.g. Adolf Hitler was not. But I do not think their exist any real doubt about his guilt. Thus the categories are not the same, by large. Once criteria are set, after deliberation and concensus, the POV argument no longer applies. Stijn Calle 05:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect that Godwin's law may apply here, but Hitler is easy: there's a fairly clear consensus on that one. But what about those with a lesser role in the German state at that time, such as Kurt Waldheim? The significance of his involvement is the subject of a long-running dispute. Likewise, what about Slobodan Milosevic? There are very strong passionate arguments on both sides about the merits/demerits of attaching this label to him, and he died before a court could issue its verdict. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Totally redundant and subject to POV. Wikipedia is not a court of law, and guilt cannot be assigned by consensus - this would fall under the defination of "original research". --MChew 08:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A list of people who committed genocide would be fine, so long as it was properly referenced balanced, acknowledging disputed cases; but a category cannot accommodate those nuances. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tragically, this category cannot be retained. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have POV disputes about who is rightly categorized as a "genocide perpetrator". But then, in a perfect world, we wouldn't have "genocide perpetrators" in the first place. The uncontested cases, like Hitler, Eichmann, et al. aren't the problem -- it's the other ones that are the problem.
To take an exquisitely topical case in point: What about the Turkish perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide? Even if we were to take the position that the vehement protests of Turks on this issue should be disregarded because they're nothing more than "holocaust denial", we would still be faced with the daunting task of sorting out and reaching concensus on which specific individuals deserve to be tagged with this label. And there are, sad to say, all too many other cases of genocide where we would be faced with the same sorts of issues — a great many of which would be exacerbated by WP:BLP issues. Cgingold 12:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Cgingold. Gatoclass 15:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-subjective and NPOV category, Category:People convicted of genocide, already exists. Snocrates 03:00, 18 October 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.

Lords of France and subcategories[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 16:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all As well as being a bad idea not to use the correct French language words of Seigneur and Sieur(we don't translate Counts into Earls!) I believe it is wrong to group Sieuries and Seigneuries together as it is like grouping Baronetcies and Lordships of the Manor together. Even if we have separate categories for Sieuries and Seigneuries I don't think we should have separate categories for each individual Sieurie or Seigneurie (we don't have separate categories for Lordships of the Manor and I don't think we should need separate categories for each Baronetcy either). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the category is modeled on the other subcats of Category:French noble titles and serves to collect a vast number of pages. In terms of using English, it should be noted that, in accordance with wiki policy, the general rule is to use the English language words Count and Duke in wiki articles, and not French comte and duc, so I don't see the problem with sieur/seigneur as lord. - NYArtsnWords 17:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Sieur is more equivalent to a Baronet or Knighthood not a Lord and a Seigneur is the equivalent of a Lord of the Manor which has a completely different status from a Lord as most english speaking people think of it. The english language translations are just not sufficient in this case. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of translations is a long one, but please keep in mind Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English); you might also check out Wikipedia:WikiProject France/Conventions for discussion of the problems of French noble titles. For more information on French titles, see French nobility. I do not agree with your parsing of the terms and translations for sieur and seigneur; if changes are to be made to the explanations on French nobility, please include footnotes to justify them. - NYArtsnWords 18:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the use of Lord here is just not sufficient as Lord as most English people think of it refers to a rank of Baron and above, not to a Lord of the Manor which is the true equivalent as Seigneuries are tied to property not genes. And I am not convinced that a Sieurie is identical to a Seigneurie as it indicates in the French nobility article as in my experience a title will use either Sieur or Seigneur. We do not have individual categories for Lordships of the Manor so we should not have individual categories for each Seigneurie either. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact we do not have any category that groups together anyone that may have been a Lord of the Manor so we should not have any of the subcategories or the top category Category:Lords of France. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For families that may have held these seigneuries and have notable members we should just do as French wikipedia does and have categories for these families, not for the seigneuries (one person often had many seigneuries as they corresponded to property). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re "most English people think of it refers to a rank of Baron and above" - Why would anglophone readers of the wiki automaticlly assume this? If they are interested in the terms, they have only to read the appropriate articles to see that the French (or German or Italian) noble systems are different from the English one and that terms should be understood in their specific context. - NYArtsnWords 22:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is not that different at all. In England we have Lords of the Manor but they are not really titles of any significance and they are the equivalent of the French Seigneur. We do not have categories for English Lords of the Manor just as we should not have any for the French equivalent. Note the French Wikipedia does not even have these categories! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I am not sure that "the French Wikipedia does not even have these categories" is really a pertinent argument. (2) As for the term lord being used as a translation of sieur or seigneur, it seems to me that your concern has far less to do with the existence of this category, and more to do with the use of the translation on all articles having to do with French nobility. Perhaps the keep/deletion category debate should come after a discussion elsewhere on those terms/translations. (3) What would you do with the similar categories Category:Lords of Portugal, Category:Lords of Spain, etc. as well as the Category:Lords by nation? Would they all be up for deletion? The French category was created in part to mirror all these others. - NYArtsnWords 02:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is a perfectly valid point to make that these articles do not exist on French wikipedia as they are more likely to know what they are doing when it comes to their own nobility and titles. Actually you are completely wrong about my concern being more about the spelling than the existence of the category- I object to both equally. I do not believe there should be any category for Seigneurs or Sieurs as there are no such categories for Lords of the Manor and having any would be equally ridiculous as having these. I do not believe that using the english word Lord is a sufficient translation for these titles as they are equivalent of Lord of the Manor which is not what most people think of as a Lord, i.e. a Peer. The other categories you mentioned were made by this same user and I will also be considering these for deletion. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, "which is not what most people think of as a Lord" is a rather huge assuption. "Lord" is a perfectly fine translation (provided that readers check out the specific meaning in the French context) and has been used for centuries. Would you have us just use sieur in all French noble articles? This would be absurd. In the same way, for example, French peerage is completely different from British peerage... would you have us not use the English word "peer" in French articles and only use "pair"? Wouldn't it just be easier to send interested readers to the discussion on Peerage of France and have them see the differences themselves? - NYArtsnWords 11:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This would be absurd", why? In scholarly writing they usually do not translate seigneur or sieur. Anyway, that is a moot point as it is the categories we are talking about and they should not exist for the reasons I already set out. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: In every case, the category should be kept, because Lordships did exist in medieval France. If a certain Seigneurie so and so does not belong in this category, then the article should be categorised in the more appropriate category, e.g. Barons of France, Baronets of France, Knigts of France, or whatever. Stijn Calle 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note you made all these categories. Please note the French wikipedia does not even have these categories and we do not have a category for the equivalent english title, Lord of the Manor let alone separate categories for each lordship. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the French wikipedia has about 500,000 Articles, and the English version about 2,000,000+. You make a quantitative argument, based on current statistics. I make a qualitative argument, based on substance of contence. Stijn Calle 05:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think they don't exist because they know what they are doing when it comes to French nobility and titles. They have created categories for families that have notable members not for each individual sieurie or seigneurie that each one has ever held. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The abysmal proliferation of inane categories simply shows that anything that can be fashioned into some sort of incomplete list can be made a Wikipedia "category" and made to appear on every single article page on that list. The accurate title for this is List of some seigneuries in regions now in France that we've noticed. The fact that "Lords of France" is a naive title shouldn't bother an intellectual community that insists on "Palace of Versailles". --Wetman 22:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wrong title. `'Míkka 00:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This form of categorisation is confusing and by nature inconsistent. The title is awkward. While one could perhaps justify a Category:Lords of L'Isle-Jourdain if there were not an article called Lordship of L'Isle-Jourdain which lists them, one cannot justify Category:Lords of Isle-Jourdain (with only three articles) on any grounds. I should make known that I find most categories on Wikipedia useless. Srnec 01:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure we should really have individual pages on these minor Seigneuries/Sieuries to be honest with you. There must be tens of thousands of these in France many with similar if not identical names. The titles can be detailed in an article on the families that held them as is the case in the French wikipedia. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. The simple solution is to recognise that some lordships (landed fiefs) were more important than others, such as Déols, Lusignan, or L'Isle-Jourdain. These deserve articles. Others do not. Because those that deserve articles will be the ones with enough published material to sustain ones, the distinction is not arbitrary. Most of the tens of thousands of lordships are not even know well enough to sustain a list of lords or even to be geographically identifiable. Srnec 19:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if the people that had these titles were notable (often with more significant titles) can't we just explain about the seigneuries they held on the individual or family pages or pages of the more senior title? I think the problem is with allowing these separate articles is that you probably can find some mention of many obscure seigneuries with things like Google Books which has indexed millions of books and is indexing more and more books by the day. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that affects my proposition. To take my examples, the lords of Déols, L'Isle-Jourdain, and Lusignan were not members of families notable in their own right, they (save for the later Lusignans) did not carry higher titles, and some of the lords do not merit pages of their own. Moreover, the lordship articles are valuable for describing the fief in its geography, importance, and alterations (e.g. in its feudal status) over time. This information, where the fief is significant enough, warrants being brought together on a single page. Small and insignificant seigneuries/lordships/fiefs do not merit pages of their own just as their lords do not. Srnec 20:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split into Category:Seigneurs of France and Category:Sieurs of France. And categorize whatever articles we have into them, as it is not necessary to have a complete set to be categorized properly. 132.205.99.122 19:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't have separate categories for Lords of the Manor so why should we have separate categories for the equivalent French title? The French wikipedia does not have these categories (or perhaps they were deleted ;). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge subcats, but strong keep for now Category:Lords of France. I have just examined about two dozen articles in this category, and found most of them wholly unreferenced, none with more than a single reference, and only one who appeared to have any wider historical significance. I have already prodded a few of them, but there needs to be a big cleanout of this collection of unreferenced non-notables.
They will be much easier to cleanup and purge if the main category still exists, which is why I ask for it not to be deleted for now. Once the cleanup is complete, the Category:Lords of France should be deleted as a badly-named grouping of a category of non-notables. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 14:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep short term per BrownHairedGirl but then Delete all per Gustav von Hempelschumpel. - Kittybrewster ☎ 22:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom with a no bot flag, and explanination, for 14 days after this discussion closes. This will allow time for the cleanup and then deletion without additional discussion. Vegaswikian 18:33, 21 October 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:The Tick[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 oct 22. Kbdank71 16:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete or Rename or Split or something. Most of the contents here are characters from one (in some instances multiple) of several media incarnations of The Tick (comic book, animated series, live-action series). We have shied away from categorizing characters on the basis of their association with other characters. On the other hand, it could be argued that these characters constitute a fictional universe along the lines of the Marvel Universe and perhaps the characters should be sub-categorized. I don't have tremendously strong feelings one way or the other but clarity and consistency are good things generally. Otto4711 16:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep these characters are actually related to one thing. --Buridan 05:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The characters, as I've said, are actually related to multiple things. Some of the characters are related to all three things, some to only one, a couple to two. Otto4711 13:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and here we find your problem differentiating the thing versus the referent to the thing. the thing is the comic enterprise known was the tick, the referents are the tv show. the category refers to the existent thing, of which, the tv shows are a part. --05:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buridan (talk • contribs)

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:Code Monkeys[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 16:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization of a TV show. The subcat is empty and tagged for speedy delete, the single non-show article is linked to the main article and elsewhere categorized (and is also nominated for deletion). Otto4711 15:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 23:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, given that most of the articles in the catagory were articles for the episodes, which were recently deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Woz (Code Monkeys). The two remaining articles need no catagory. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 23:06, 18 October 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:Slovakian bobsledders[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 16:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Slovak bobsledders, convention of Category:Slovak sportspeople. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom which ambiguates the current name. Rudget _{Contributions} 17:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to the standard title. Tankred 00:50, 20 October 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.

County GAA Club Championship Records[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 empty, no consensus on expanding the abbreviation. Kbdank71 16:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging

Nominator's rationale: Merge. These three Gaelic Athletic Association categories were too narrowly framed, and only covered three counties. They have superseded by a new series of by-county categories (see Category:GAA County Championships), to which all articles have been moved (see discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gaelic Games#Category_renaming_proposal). Note that while the new convention for Irish by-county categories is to use "County foo", the GAA county boards do not use the word county in their titles, and the articles on the county boards are of the form "Leitrim GAA" etc. The new categories follow that naming convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why not to Category:Leitrim Gaelic Athletic Association club championships? If US should not be used and it is better know, why do we need the abbreviation here? Vegaswikian 23:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. First, the merge targets already exist (part of a series of 32 such categories in Category:GAA County Championships). This nomination is about merging the empty categories into existing ones, not creating new ones.
  Secondly, there may be a case for renaming the subcats of Category:GAA County Championships, but convention suggests that should only be done if the articles Leitrim GAA etc are themselves are renamed first. If you want to pursue that idea, I suggest raising it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gaelic Games. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:45, 17 October 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:Famous Ngāi Tahu[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 16:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Ngāi Tahu, to match Ngāi Tahu, we don't do Famous people. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - very nicely put. Rudget _{Contributions} 17:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There is no reason to categorize Maori by iwi, nor do we have such categories for any other iwi. If kept rename per nom, or preferably to Category:Ngai Tahu to avoid to the special character that makes it difficult to add articles. LeSnail 17:56, 18 October 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:Machine guns of Britain[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 16:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Machine guns of Britain to Category:Machine guns of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Not a proper nation/country title. GraemeLeggett 13:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Rudget _{Contributions} 18:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - per nom. There appear to be a few other iffy cats in the parent cat too. Gatoclass 15:27, 17 October 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:Iranian-Canadian film directors[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 oct 22. Kbdank71 16:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Canadian film directors, only current member is already in Category:Iranian Canadians. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:26, 16 October 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:Category:United States Virgin Islands football competitions[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: speedily deleted, clearly created in error and now empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Nominator's rationale: includes Category: in title

speedy merge to Category:United States Virgin Islands football competitions as obvious typo; alternatively, delete if it remains empty. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Zatch Bell! voice actors[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 15:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we don't do Actors by series. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and hundreds of precedents. Otto4711 13:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 23:56, 17 October 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:Malaysian League import players[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. Kbdank71 16:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Expatriate footballers in Malaysia, convention of Category:Expatriate footballers. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:39, 17 October 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:Luddite films[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 15:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The films listed do not match the definition of the word Jok2000 12:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although the inclusion of improper articles is not grounds for deleting a category, in this instance there is no reasonable objective definition of what constitutes a "Luddite film." Otto4711 12:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Otto4711. Cheers, Ian Rose 12:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep seems there is an article luddite so there is a definition. The delete reason is not a reason for deletion, it is a reason for cleanup. --Buridan 14:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have missed my point. Yes, there is a definition of Luddite. There is not, however, a definition of "Luddite film." Taken literally, it would be a film about someone in England who opposed the Industrial Revolution. Are there even any such films? They are likely to be very few in number, which would make this overcategorization. Or is a Luddite film any film in which a character is opposed to a new technology of any sort? How much of the film needs to be about that character or theme to qualify it for the category? What objective standard do we apply here to make that determination and avoid POV or OR concerns? The Net (film), to offer one example, is very much about the theme of a person strongly opposing a new technology. Is The Net a Luddite film? Why or why not? Otto4711 15:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A "Luddite" film is one with a critical eye towards increased industrialization or new technology, as per the definition of "Luddite." grizzlehizzle 18:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is The Net a Luddite film? Why or why not? How about An Inconvenient Truth? It casts a critical eye toward increased industrialization in China and India. Luddite? Why or why not? What objective standard do we use to decide? Otto4711 19:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you would take the time to do the scholarship, I am sure you could easily develop those standards to fit your own standards of pseudo-objectivity.--Buridan 15:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category is entirely too subjective to serve a useful purpose. This is one of those rare cases where I am fully in agreement with Otto's analysis of the problems. (Which is another way of saying, this category really doesn't have a leg to stand on.) Cgingold 15:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe the category notwithstanding its contents is clear enough. A "Luddite" film can be any film that is critical of increased industrialization or new technology, as per the definition of "Luddite." It's much better than saying "Category:films criticizing a technocratic society" grizzlehizzle 18:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This does not address the subjectivity. I believe sci-fi dystopian covers it already. Jok2000 19:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In this context, the term "Luddite" is both pejorative and innaccurate. --Loremaster 21:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how is it perjorative, i must be missing something? can't it only be perjorative if you take the pov that it is that and don't take the point of view that it is neutral. --Buridan 05:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most people who use the term have very little if any knowledge about its historical origins. So in common parlance "Luddite" almost always refers to a person who allegedly has an irrational aversion to technology. Of course it's pejorative. There's no getting around that -- unless it's being used in reference to the original Luddites, which is rarely the case. Cgingold 08:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see that as perjorative, either it is the case that a person has the luddite principles, that is what they are. I think what you are trying to say is that you think that the community believes that those principles are 'bad' but wouldn't that just be a POV? it is only perjorative if you are POV toward it, in other words, else it is just a descriptive position about the nature of the world and people's principles/actions. --Buridan 16:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there may be a use for a category like this, but "Luddite" seems an inaccurate description to me. Gatoclass 15:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no such thing as a luddite film. If it's meant as a films about category, it fails as well because how much about the subject must it be and what WP:RSes tell us that it's at least that much. Carlossuarez46 23:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inevitably POV and OR because there's no such thing as a recognized "Luddite film" genre, so Wikipedians would necessarily be making their own independent analysis as to what films should be included. And it's just not a very good term to use here, because it belongs to a particular historical context; it's kind of absurd to append "Luddite" as an adjective to a post-Luddite technology. "Neo-luddite films" might be closer to the mark, but similarly incapable of anything but POV and OR categorization. Postdlf 00:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your argument here ignores academic and common usage of the term. Granted conceptually luddite is historically problematic, but there is clearly a tendency to unite these terms in various and sundry academic papers, 700 or so that deal with luddite and film in google. --Buridan 16:00, 19 October 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:Fox Feature Syndicate characters[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. Kbdank71 15:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: These categories cover the same information. Merging them collects info into one place. -- 69.182.73.240 07:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - merging the superheroes cat removes those characters from the Superheroes category structure. "Action heroes" are not superheroes and so the Characters cat should not be in the Superheroes structure. Otto4711 12:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I must modify my stance slightly. I still oppose the merger of the Superheroes category but support the merger of the adventure heroes category, in line with many previous precedents against using words like "heroes" in category names. "Superhero" is an exception to that general rule becuase it is more akin to a job description. If there is supporting evidence that "adventure hero" is more akin to "superhero" than to "hero" unmodified then I could be persuaded to oppose that merger as well. Otto4711 16:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This provides a useful distinction and (as is said above) allows it to be a child of the superhero category. (Emperor 14:10, 16 October 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:Quality Comics characters[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. Kbdank71 15:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: These categories cover the same information. Merging them collects info into one place. -- 69.182.73.240 07:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - merging would take the superheroes out of the Superheroes category structure. Not all of the characters in the "characters" cat are superheroes so the characters cat should not be in the superheroes structure. Otto4711 12:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This provides a useful distinction and (as is said above) allows it to be a child of the superhero category. (Emperor 14:11, 16 October 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:GUS Vehicle user 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 relisted on oct 22. Kbdank71 15:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Nominate category for deletion as these type of userboxes exist in the much larger parent Category:Vehicle user templates. Maybe this cat could have been speedily deleted, wasn't sure. — MrDolomite • Talk 04:10, 16 October 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:Alliances[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete at request of category creator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I am the originator of this category. i realized that it is already in existence under the name Category:Military alliances. By the way , what's the template to use if you want to delete a ctaegory which you created in the first place? can't remember that template name. feel fre to leave it on my talk page. thanks. Steve, Sm8900 00:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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