Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 31 April 2 >

April 1[edit]

Category:Creepy[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 via CSD C1 - category empty - as well as WP:SNOW. No point keeping this pseudocategory hanging around. Mike Peel (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Creepy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is huge and makes no sense. There is no consistent theme. It is someone's personal view of what is "Creepy". It is a personal collection. Further, I cannot figure out how to get an article out of the category. Mattisse (Talk) 23:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a category - in reality this is a huge list someone is calling a category. Mattisse (Talk) 23:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it, whatever it might be. Occuli (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree all - I suppose we do it, not AfD. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I guess by calling itself a category, it automatically becomes one so it is here and becomes our problem. Mattisse (Talk) 01:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; if this had really been a category page (as opposed to what it is - a list masquerading as a category) - it would have been deleted long ago, because it would have been noticed (because the articles within the category would have been noticed by readers of those articles). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Let's not get wrapped around the axle debating whether this should be an AfD or a CfD - since it pretends to be a category, let's just ask ourselves if we'd keep a category page that really was being used to categorize the listed articles. I don't think we would. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: why is this one even up for debate? Can cats be speedy deleted? Oren0 (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but only for specific criteria. This one doesn't meet the criteria. However, I'd say it is eligible for regular Speedy Deletion, since technically it has apparently been empty for at least 4 days, seeing as it was created about a month ago. (It might even qualify as "patent nonsense", I suppose.) Unfortunately, since it's already under discussion here, it's disqualified from that course of action. Oh, well. Delete - Cgingold (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per Cgingold above. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect this was created this way in good faith by someone who misunderstood how to create and populate a category, not as a way to evade detection. So we probably should treat it as if it were a properly created category. At any rate, it's a pretty clear WP:NPOV violation which doesn't belong here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - C1 - Empty Category. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and WP:DAFT this Grutness...wha? 23:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pile-one, per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2008 (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:People convicted of sex crimes[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: relisted on apr 7. Kbdank71 13:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People convicted of sex crimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There are only 4 articles in this category. Only one of the articles is about a person. Also, there are no inclusion criteria besides having committed a sex offense which is too vague. There are other categories more specific like Sex offender by country, sex offenders by offense, eg.g Rapists etc. Mattisse (Talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - all the subcategories being put in the above category, including various list of people by crime, country, etc are already subsumed under Category:Sex and the law which has a category Category:Sex crimes. Plus Category:Sexuality and age which contains Category:Child sexual abuse which has categories of people, real and fictional and Category:Pedophilia likewise. Mattisse (Talk) 17:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix up. This should serve as a meta-parent category for those that are more specific by offense and nationality. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I cleaned out the slang word and the play. I also removed an artile of BLP where the descriptions and conviction of sex offense was not clearly cited. I remove another BLP who was convicted of involutary manslaughter which is not a sex offense. I put a category description. Mattisse (Talk) 12:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Striking out my keep above, as the comment below indicates that the category system for this area needs to be thought through and clarified. Also, persons who were not convicted of a sex offense should not be in the category, regardless if there is a sexual element to the crime. And, especially per BLP, the sex offense needs to be cited per WP:V. Mattisse (Talk) 17:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Comment - How are you going to add gay people? Because we're not currently split out by era, and prior to 2003 gay sex was a crime in a number of states; and it is still a criminal offense in some countries. I repeat my contentions from some previous discussion I can't find right now: "sex crime" is too variable a category to be meaningful. Seriously, where is Oscar Wilde? Also, don't forget adultery, straight folks! Still a crime in parts of the world, and historically a crime in much of the US. I'm curious: Have people who are advocating "keep" actually looked at the head articles, sex crime and sex offender? These are very, very broad terms. I'll also add that in addition to being over inclusive to what one might want to include, it is also under-inclusive, since some kinds of acts may be intended as sex crimes in one situation (flashing), and not in another (breastfeeding), and still be prosecuted under the same statute (indecent exposure), and it may vary as to whether such things will be counted as "sex crimes" or not. --Lquilter (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is exactly right. And indecent exposure is not necessarily considered a sex offense in most jurisdictions that I am familiar with. Plus many defendants plea bargain the sexual element of the crime out. Plus what is the point anyway. In the county where I live there are thousands of sex offenders. Should all go into a sexual offense category? If so why, or why not? Mattisse (Talk) 21:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
E.g. Amnon was a rapist, but not convicted of a sex crime, and someone who was convicted of rape but later exonerated would not belong in the category of rapists. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Category:People convicted of sex-related crimes. The point of this category is to serve as a super-category grouping together people who were convicted of sex-related crimes. As such, it is intended to assist reader in navigation, and while the sub-categories cover a range of sex-related crimes, they are no more disparate than 100's of other super-categories. Needless to say, some of the sub-cats -- in particular the entire category tree under Category:Sex offenders by nationality -- also need to be renamed. Cgingold (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please relist for further discussion. Cgingold (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2008 (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:Fighting game mechanics[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fighting game mechanics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Has a grand total of one article, and that one is of dubious notability Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the article should be gone soon enough and then the cat will be empty. I don't see how any article in this category wouldn't violate WP:GAMEGUIDE. Oren0 (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2008 (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:3Es Schools[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:3Es Schools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only three articles in the category, and no information on how there could ever be more. Ratarsed (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are more (see 3Es site) but it seems to me that the category should be deleted pending an article on 3Es as too much is expected of the reader as it stands. (3Es - not a household name.) Occuli (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2008 (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:Images made obsolete by an SVG version[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Images made obsolete by an SVG version to Category:Wikipedia images available as SVG
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a Wikipedia administrative category and as such should start with "Wikipedia". The category is automatically populated by the template {{Vector version available}}. Also, many of the images are not "obsolete" since the new SVG versions are often of less quality, such as bad line width, no margins, or even wrong information since the person converting the image to SVG did not properly understand the subject in question. Also, many of the SVG images are dependant on the old (PNG) images for their attribution path, or they will break licenses such as the GFDL. Thus not "obsolete" but "available". To keep the name short I choose "as SVG" instead of the rather long "in SVG format" or "as an SVG version". David Göthberg (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2008 (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:Banking technology solutions[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Banking technology solutions to Category:Banking technology
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Banking technology solutions" is redundant; "Banking technology" should do just fine. Notified creator and posted on talk pages for relevant Wikipedia projects. Lukobe (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2008 (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:Medicines[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Medicines to Category:Drugs
Nominator's rationale: Merge/Delete, With no definition to go by and only Category:Antibiotics as a subcategory, it looks to me like it's probably Category:Drugs by a different name. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2008 (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:Scientific theories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Scientific theories to Category:Theories
Nominator's rationale: Merge/Delete, This newly-created category adds nothing to the category tree — it's only subcategory is the target category. In theory (har), Category:Theories may be able to be broken down into scientific theories and other types of theories (which is actually the reverse of how the parent–subcategory relationship is set up now), but this is not what the category is currently doing. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2008 (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:Ideas[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ideas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete or somebody make useful Perhaps someone could make this category work, but in its current form it's nigh unto useless. The only article in it at the time of nomination is Idea, and the only parent category is Category:Things, which I've nominated directly below. I'd argue for a straight delete, since it doesn't appear that the creator knew what the category was going to be for when it was created, but if anyone wants to have a go at making it useful in the category tree, be my guest. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2008 (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:Things[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Things (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This has been newly-created as a member of Category:Main topic classifications, but I don't find it to be a particularly helpful meta-category, since it would include almost all the other subcategories. You can classify almost anything as a "thing", even non-material "things" like beliefs or events. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Was this perchance an April Fools Day joke? :) Cgingold (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did consider that, but the creator's other edits seemed sincere and done in good faith, so I wasn't positive. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately his other edits are also highly erratic, removing several categories from Category:Main topic classifications for example, and could perhaps be considered disruptive, though probably in good faith. The same guy did Ideas, Medicines etc above & appears to have properly messed up the medical scheme. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absuredly overbroad.--Bassettcat (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - Much too broad (if fully populated to be useful). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2008 (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:Land-grant universities and colleges[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 13:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Land-grant universities and colleges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Category is similar to previous categories that have been deleted: Space-grant universities and colleges, Sea-grant universities and colleges, and Sun-grant universities and colleges. The rationale (copied from the other categories' nominations) is: "categorizing universities and colleges by which grants they have obtained is wrong for a number of reasons: (a) it's not defining - are any of these schools' notability based on its land grant money; (b) it's not maintainable - grant money comes and goes; and (c) it makes no allowance for the substantiality of the grant. We have an article about Land-grant university and List of land-grant universities, which lists all the recipients (as far as it's maintained), we don't need added category clutter to navigate among recipient institutions." Scott Alter 01:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems to me from outside the USA that these universities are linked not just because they have received a grant but that these grants are integral to their very existence through their foundation. They define the university. The term has been in wide use for a very long time. The other grants mentioned above are quite different. They do not define the universities that receive them and are much more recent. So I say keep unless someone can convince me otherwise. --Bduke (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The list and category do not contain the same information content. Content includes the order in which entries are presented. The list is presented in US state order: to find a university in the list, one must first know what state it is in. The category is in university name order. Quite different. Both category and list are useful to meet different needs. And being a land-grant university IS a defining feature of these schools, in their beginning, their history and currently. The fact of land grant places certain public service requirements upon the institution that other universities do not have to meet. As for 'category clutter': that is a matter of opinion; there is nothing in WP rules or guidelines that says too many WP categories exist or that anyone should be trying to reduce their number. Hmains (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- land-grant status is a defining characteristic of such institutions. Frankly, I think the other -grant categories should have been kept, too. --Lukobe (talk)
  • Keep -- It's not obvious which institutions are land-grant colleges to the average person. This marked a period in history that institutions were not limited anymore to the classical studies that had been offered since medieval times. SirChan (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nominator's rationale is puzzling, equating as it does "Land-grant colleges" with colleges in those deleted categories on the basis of having formally analagous names. They are, in fact, fundamentally different: the "land-grant" colleges were quite literally founded with those grants to serve specified purposes, and are considered historically significant for that reason. The three new types of grant were obviously given those names as a sort of homage to the historic land grants, and are merely one source of funding for already-existing institutions. In short, they are utterly dissimilar. And I'm pretty sure that it wasn't a mere oversight by Carlossuarez that he didn't include Category:Land-grant universities and colleges when he brought the other 3 categories to CFD last year. Cgingold (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Land grant status gets at the heart of why these universities were established and defined their missions. so it is the root of their notability. Gwguffey (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm honestly not familiar with the "sea grant", "sun grant", etc., but "land grant" is not just "a grant" -- it's typically the founding grant and establishes some share of the mission and purpose of the organization. I'm on the fence about whether a list wouldn't be better just for maintenance purposes, but this might be a situation in which both the category and the list are appropriate and complementary. --Lquilter (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see maintenance being an issue -- this is a stable cohort since no additional land-grant colleges will ever be created. Cgingold (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's one end of maintenance: adding & subtracting as appropriate. The other end of maintenance is ensuring that there are no inappropriate adds & deletions. That's the hard thing to do with categories. --Lquilter (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that's, shall we say, tautological. Are you saying there are special issues for this particular category? Cgingold (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was the nominator in the 3 cited cats, and specifically excluded this cat because most of these colleges were founded by and as land-grant, so this is defining and not a here-today-gone-tomorrow funds source. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A useful and informative category.--Bassettcat (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2008 (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:Kennedy Center Honors recipients[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename with lowercase honorees. Kbdank71 12:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: current nomenclature is really incorrect emerson7 00:16, 1 April 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_1&oldid=1138389433"