Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 31 February 2 >

February 1[edit]

Category:U.S. baseball teams[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 discussion was no consensus, but renaming per nom simply to expand the abbreviation. Relist to determine if further renaming is desired. Kbdank71 14:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:U.S. baseball teams to Category:United States baseball teams
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Replacing abbreviations per WP:NCCAT Neier (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2008 (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:U.S. ice hockey teams[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 discussion was no consensus, but renaming per nom simply to expand the abbreviation. Relist to determine if further renaming is desired.. Kbdank71 14:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:U.S. ice hockey teams to Category:United States ice hockey teams
Nominator's rationale: Rename. We should not have abbreviations in the category name, per WP:NCCAT Neier (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2008 (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:Professional ice hockey teams in Pennsylvania[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 discussion was speedy delete per WP:CSD#C1. Spellcast (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Professional ice hockey teams in Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: empty, unnecessary subcat of Category:Pennsylvania ice hockey teams Neier (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. Neier (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as empty. If empty more than four days you could use the template {{db-catempty}} for speedy deletion. It saves listing them here if that helps? Sting au Buzz Me... 00:37, 2 February 2008 (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:Golden Globe Award for New Star Of The Year - Actors[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 Feb. 17, with most other Golden Globe categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Golden Globe Award for New Star Of The Year - Actors to Category:New Star of the Year Golden Globe
Nominator's rationale: Merge, same thing. Leo Laursen ( T ¦ C ) 22:04, 1 February 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.

G stories[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 discussion was '. Kbdank71 15:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Double-story g (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Single-story g (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete both - created in the course of these two CFDs, which, leaving the bad form of that action aside, categorizing typefaces on the basis of the shape of a specific letter is still overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcategorisation. --BelovedFreak 20:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a recreation from this discussion. While that one has not been closed yet, the outcome is clear. So this is pushing this a bit, but on the other hand the categories should not have been created while the other discussion was active. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That nomination was to rename the category to this (although nom had previously states reservations about overcat on the cat. talk page) & one of those delete votes came from the person who renamed it to this cat. The remaining four comments did want to delete due to WP:OCAT, but I'd hardly say that it qualifies for WP:SNOW.
    • I think that the info might be better conveyed in a Comparison of fonts, but have no strong opinion on what happens to the categories. --Karnesky (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcat. Sting au Buzz Me... 00:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Vegaswikian. The results of the previous CFDs should also hold for these recreations. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2008 (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.

Wrestling alumni[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 discussion was no consensus for ECW, delete WSX. Kbdank71 16:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Extreme Championship Wrestling alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wrestling Society X alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Listify and Delete - a similar category was deleted here and I had hoped that the nomination would serve as a precedent. Although it was deleted, one of the delete !votes was based on the relative size and notability of the promotion. So, here are a couple more, including one for a major promotion, again with the notion of perhaps establishing a wider consensus on the category type. To reiterate the previous rationale, we don't appear to categorize any other sports or entertainment performers on the basis of their former associations with teams or companies. Baseball players, for instance, are in the players category for each of their teams and not in any "former players" structure. These categories also implicate WP:OC#performer by performance in the same way that categories for actors by TV series cats do. Wrestlers can and do perform for a variety of promotions and categorizing all of them on each wrestler's article leads to category clutter.. Otto4711 (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "(X) wrestlers". "Alumni" should not be used for any athlete categories, even pro wrestlers.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have the same objections to a Foo wrestlers naming scheme because it's still performer by performance, the same as Foo actors. Otto4711 (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The more I look at the categories, the more I think they're nicely organized, and strongly parallel the athlete "player" categories. But I still object to alumni. So I think they should just be (X) wrestlers, or we should do nothing. Deleting them seems highly arbitrary on our part, especially if you're not nominating Category:World Wrestling Entertainment alumni.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted here and in the last nomination, I'm using these as test nominations to put together consensus on the category tree. If consensus is to listify and delete these then I'll nominate the rest of the tree. Otto4711 (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 17:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete per nom. Sting au Buzz Me... 00:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the ECW one, delete the WSX one. ECW was one of the tope promotions in the world, WSX was a failed promotion made by MTV that they cancelled after a few months due to low ratings. Rename if you want, but I don't see the problem when there are similar categories for almost every sports team (these are less bad though since they are limited to former wrestlers and not current wrestlers in that organization). TJ Spyke 06:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename ECW per MS (But delete WSX per TJ Spyke). I see no difference to record who a wrestler was in big promotions than I do for athletes in the MLB, NFL, NBA etc. for each team they belonged to in their career. I think people will definitely use such categories as a fast way to see who wrestled for a particular promotion. VegaDark (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2008 (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:Professional baseball teams in Canada[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 discussion was merge per nom. If further discussion is wanted regarding fooian baseball teams or baseball teams in foo, a new cfd can be opened. Kbdank71 14:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Professional baseball teams in Canada to Category:Canadian baseball teams
Nominator's rationale: Merge, I'm proposing a merge of these two categories for the following reasons: (a) for consistency with other categories showing baseball teams by country or U.S. state, which are named Country/U.S. state baseball teams (see many examples in Category:Baseball teams); (b) for consistency with the decision made in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 29#Category:Professional baseball teams in Pennsylvania, where the consensus was to merge a category called Professional baseball teams in Pennsylvania into Pennsylvania baseball teams; (c) for consistency with the guidelines in Wikipedia:Overcategorization, which discourage narrow or small subcategories (see WP:OC#NARROW and WP:OC#SMALL). Although there are enough articles on semi-pro or amateur baseball teams in Canada to consider creating separate subcategories for amateur/semi-pro and professional baseball teams in Canada, for most other countries and U.S. states this is not the case. Creating a separate subcategorization of professional baseball teams in country/U.S. state would result in many very small categories and would be an example of overcategorization. BRMo (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Apparently the only current distinction is professional vs. amateur? Totally unnecessary, non-standard, and probably not being maintained. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Pennsylvania precedent.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose adjectival modifier, per other sports category trees and WP:NCCAT. These should probably be Category:Baseball teams in Canada. Neier (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would support renaming as Baseball teams in Canada if the other baseball-teams-by-geography categories were similarly renamed. However, we still don't need a Professional baseball teams in Canada subcategory. BRMo (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2008 (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:Defunct museums in Massachusetts[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 discussion was delete, empty. Kbdank71 15:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct museums in Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unusually specific, only has 1 article mitrebox (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Defunct museums in the United States Lugnuts (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:potential for many more museums to be added to this category in the future & the whole museums category is moving to state cats because of the number of museums in general. FieldMarine (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If upmerge is decided, double upmerge - the Defunct category per Lugnuts and Category:Museums in Massachusetts. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double Upmerge per Lugnouts & Fayenatic for all 10 identical noms here (which should have been combined). It is too soon for these categories, which make using Category:Defunct museums in the United States too difficult. Unless it can be shown there are many other articles waiting to be added. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here and applies as well to the remainder. The only reason I can see for these categories is so that someone browsing the local category to only view the currently open museums and not those that have closed. I'm not sure that is needed at this point. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Defunct museums in the United States and to the correct local category. Not all of these are broken down by state there are a few city categories in the mix. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2008 (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:Defunct museums in Colorado[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 discussion was double upmerge. Kbdank71 15:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct museums in Colorado (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unusually specific, only has 1 article mitrebox (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2008 (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:Defunct museums in Wisconsin[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 discussion was upmerge. "I shit you not" That's priceless. Kbdank71 15:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct museums in Wisconsin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unusually specific, only has 1 article, on a bathroom tissue museum (I shit you not) mitrebox (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2008 (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:Defunct museums in California[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 discussion was upmerge. Kbdank71 15:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct museums in California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unusually specific, only has 2 article mitrebox (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2008 (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:Defunct museums in Louisiana[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 discussion was double upmerge. Kbdank71 15:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct museums in Louisiana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unusually specific, only has 1 article mitrebox (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2008 (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:Defunct museums in New York[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 discussion was double upmerge. Kbdank71 15:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct museums in New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unusually specific, only has 2 articles mitrebox (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2008 (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:Defunct museums in South Carolina[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 discussion was double upmerge. Kbdank71 15:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct museums in South Carolina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unusually specific, only has 1 article mitrebox (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2008 (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:Defunct museums in Oregon[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 discussion was upmerge the one article to Category:Defunct museums in the United States, it is already in Category:Museums in Portland, Oregon. Kbdank71 15:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct museums in Oregon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unusually specific, only has 1 article mitrebox (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2008 (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:Defunct museums in Nevada[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 discussion was upmerge the one article to Category:Defunct museums in the United States; it's already in Category:Museums in Las Vegas. Kbdank71 15:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct museums in Nevada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unusually specific, only has 1 article mitrebox (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2008 (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:Novels by Kingsley Amis[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 discussion was keep. Kbdank71 14:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novels by Kingsley Amis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unusually specific, only has 1 article mitrebox (talk) 06:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See Kingsley Amis for list of novels.Henry Merrivale (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has since been populated - also well established scheme for Novels. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nom is totally wrong to say unusually specific - there are hundreds of "novels by..." cats. Now populated. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The main problem seems to be resolved. There are now several articles included. Dimadick (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Johnbod and because it is now populated. --BelovedFreak 20:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that it's populated -- not that the nominator should be faulted for nominating this given that it was previously underpopulated. Doczilla (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2008 (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:Time Zone Intrastate Broadcast 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 discussion was keep. Kbdank71 14:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Time Zone Intrastate Broadcast Templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unusually specific, only has sub cats, all sub cats have no articles mitrebox (talk) 06:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you give it some time, articles will be added... I mean the categories were created only recently!!! I say keep them!!! WIKIVUE Detroit (talk) FRI FEB 1 2008 2:41 AM EST —Preceding comment was added at 07:42, 1 February 2008 (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:Visitor attractions in Armenia[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 discussion was keep. Kbdank71 14:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Visitor attractions in Armenia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unusually specific, only has 1 subcat and no articles mitrebox (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think it's unusually specific; there are 159 other categories with the identical name, with the exception that they are named for other countries. This appears to be part of a well-accepted categorization scheme that is common to all countries' categories. For most of the other countries, there are usually no articles either because the visitor attractions are subcategorized by type. Zoporific 09:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Part of naming scheme used by each country. FieldMarine (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep part of wider scheme. Read WP:OCAT please Mitrebox Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Part of a consistent naming scheme. Dimadick (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of a wider categorisation scheme. --BelovedFreak 20:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for reasons stated by others above and the category is now well populated. When categories are underpopulated, then work on filling them up and improving WP. Stop thinking 'delete' every time a category needs help. Hmains (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep populated cat per naming scheme. Doczilla (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2008 (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:Documentaries alleging war crimes[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 discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 14:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Documentaries alleging war crimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unusually specific, only has 1 article mitrebox (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note already under debate here. Now has 3 articles. Mitrebox, please stop saying "unusually specific" when you clearly have no idea what is unusual and what is not! Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now it seems to be populated. Dimadick (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Johnbod has explained, this Category was created as a result of talks regarding the delete of Category:Documentaries_about_alleged_war_criminals. It was suggested that this is a more neutral category, as it does not label the individual(s) under question, but describes the documentaries themselves. While seemingly "unusually specific" there do seem to be quite a few documentaries on this topic, so I think having this category is both timely and relevant. Cheer. Serouj (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think creating this category during the debate, and moving most of the contents out to it, was completely wrong, but having two open debates won't help. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It was me who added 2 more articles to this category, testing out whether it could usefully be populated. I wasn't aware of the other CFD. I expect that more articles for this cat could be found. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough - I hadn't looked at it before - the original has only one it now. Johnbod (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this has all of the same problems as many of the other "films about"-style categories that have been deleted. How much time within the film does the allegation have to take up to be included here? Every documentary about World War 2 could end up here based on its description of Nazi (or Allied) atrocities. Added to that are WP:BLP concerns. This and its antecedent, Category:Documentaries about alleged war criminals, were created so the creator could express a POV about Henry Kissinger being a war criminal and the film The Trials of Henry Kissinger to be a film about a war criminal. Serious WP:NPOV concerns are raised by the category's existence. And it's not particularly defining that a documentary includes an allegation of a war crime. Otto4711 (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the big deal with having a new category? It's not like it takes up a lot of memory in the database. Clearly there is more than one documentary about war crimes. So why not have a category for it? I think you should assume good faith. The Trials of Henry Kissinger is a documentary alleging war crimes. It's the next best category after Category:Documentaries about people. And yes, a particular movie can be in more than one category. Many documentaries are multi-faceted. Serouj (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto; well said. Zoporific 06:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Otto's points are well taken. In general, however, I believe that pages about allegations simply cater to conspiracy theories--an attractive nuisance, if you will. It's not necessary to have a tribunal to have substantial evidence, but I see films making allegations about weapons use, for which there is little or no forensic evidence.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This category provides a useful grouping of articles. The topic of "war crimes" is often inflammatory, but use of the term is not inherently advocate a particular POV. The "How much" question raised above is only a straw-man. The obvious standard is that the allegations occupy a substantial portion of the film's focus. (sdsds - talk) 04:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How much of the focus constitutes a "substantial portion"? 51%? 30%? 10% if it's a really juicy allegation? Fahrenheit 9/11 contains IIRC more than one allegation that the "War on Terror" and the Iraq war are illegal but such allegations are far from the film's focus. But the film contains an allegation of a war crime. Otto4711 (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It might help if someone could explain how this category can be described as "useless." Category links are used by readers who want to find articles similar to the one they are reading. Why is it implausible that readers of an article about a Darfur documentary would also want to read about a Fallujah documentary? (sdsds - talk) 16:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto and Carlos. Any category with "alleged" or "allegations of" is immediately problematic for the reasons discussed, WP:BLP being a major concern in many cases. Furthermore, any film/documentary/TV show category with "Foo about" is problematic for the inclusion criteria reasons also discussed. Snocrates 21:31, 10 February 2008 (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:Metro Station albums[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Kbdank71 14:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Metro Station albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: 1 does not make a cat mitrebox (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was considering a possibility of further creations by same band. However I'm perfectly okay if you propose that the category be created if and when such an event occurs. LeaveSleaves (talk) 06:38, 1 February 2008 (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:Outdoor sculptures in Utah[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 discussion was keep. Kbdank71 14:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Outdoor sculptures in Utah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Usefullness mitrebox (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator of Category's thought: I recently (less than 30 minutes ago) created this category with the intention of organizing the many outdoor sculptures of Utah into the category. I think it would be extremely useful! Argyleist (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Category:Outdoor sculptures in the United States has a number of other location-specific subcategories, and breaking the country down in this way seems like progress and something to be encouraged. It would be nice if all of these in the parent U.S. category could be categorized by state so that they could be navigated to through the state portals. Definite keep. Zoporific 09:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, and too-short nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Could you wait for a day or so before nominating a new category?Dimadick (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zoporific, looks like a useful category. --BelovedFreak 20:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a reasonable category that connects articles in a meaningful way. Doczilla (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This category can greatly be expanded upon and at present serves as a good foundation linking all the subsequent articles together. Just as a side note, the user who nominated this category for deletion has been blocked for "disruptive and unacceptable edit warrings" so I think this category has been unfairly nominated for deletion. Theonlysilentbob (talk) 07:35, 4 February 2008 (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:History in Hamilton, Ontario[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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 16:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:History in Hamilton, Ontario to Category:History of Hamilton, Ontario
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match up with the other categories in the group. ... discospinster talk 03:02, 1 February 2008 (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:Spanish-language radio stations in California[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 discussion was upmerge. Kbdank71 14:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spanish-language radio stations in California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily specific category which only contains three two articles. Upmerging to Category:Spanish-language radio stations in the United States should be sufficient. Note that La Raza (radio) will need a double-upmerge to category:Radio stations in California as well. Fayenatic (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double upmerge per nom - I think another is not in the Calif cat either. Johnbod (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only one needs a double upmerge. Of the other two, one is in the Calif cat, and one is in a local subcat of that one. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No double upmerge needed. That was a network and the category was updated. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no double upmerge needed. The category has been updated again, returning the article from Europe to America! - Fayenatic (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2008 (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:Spanish-language radio stations in Oklahoma[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 discussion was upmerge. Kbdank71 14:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spanish-language radio stations in Oklahoma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily specific category which only contains three articles. Category:Spanish-language radio stations in the United States serves the purpose just fine. JPG-GR (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2008 (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:Spanish-language radio stations in Ohio[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 discussion was upmerge. Kbdank71 14:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spanish-language radio stations in Ohio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily specific category which only contains four articles. Category:Spanish-language radio stations in the United States serves the purpose just fine. JPG-GR (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2008 (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/2008_February_1&oldid=1088686291"