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:merge. Kbdank71 18:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge, The categories are no longer significant; the main articles for each have been merged into smaller articles, and the parent category is not too crowded to need these subcats. —ScouterSig 23:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Most or all of the articles are already in both the parent and the subcats, and there is no need to split a category of less than circa 20 articles. Black Falcon(Talk) 00:11, 26 March 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.
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 18:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An under-populated category that will likely never have more relevant or justified content. More specifically, and more relevant to why it should be deleted, is the fact that there is no definition for "steampunk music." This has been a bone of contention over at the Steampunk article, wherein the very existence of "steampunk music" has been debated endlessly. The all-too-vague definition that is being used, it seems, is anything with a Victorian look or sound, which has led to artists like The Decemberists and Tom Waits being listed. I see a great chance of just such nonsense occurring with this category, with a variety of artists being listed, many of whom may have never uttered the word "steampunk." The current under-populated category is only barely justifiable by the assertion on the part of two of the bands that they are influenced by steampunk. But, in the absence of any agreed-upon definition of the term, the categorization is too vague to be considered encyclopædic, and will become a target for nonsense. As such, it should be deleted. -RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —ScouterSig 03:26, 26 March 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:Companies that have emerged from bankruptcy[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.
Nominator's rationale: This seems like a less than useful category. Lots of companies have emerged from bankruptcy and have little else in common. Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possibly rename. Clearly a useful cat and defining. Johnbod (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the category creator, if we have categories for people based on where they spent four (or less) years of college, having a category for where companies spent some of their existence seems to make sense. Apologize for the awkward title; it was the best I could come up with, and I would certainly welcome an alternative. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Declaring bankruptcy is far from an everyday occurrence, and surviving bankruptcy is far from guaranteed. Those companies that don't survive are categorized as "Defunct". (I'm less sure about a related cat, Category:Companies in Chapter 11, which I've just nominated for renaming and possible deletion -- too late for this day's CFDs, it's on the March 20 list.) Also, I've added another parent cat for this one, Category:Companies of the United States. The current name is probably okay, but if someone can suggest an improvement, that would be fine. Cgingold (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think surviving a near-death experience with bankruptcy is a defining characteristic for a company, at least in a free-market system. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is notable about a company that filed for bankruptcy for the sole purpose of getting a better interest rate on their loans? There are many reasons that companies file for bankruptcy knowing that the company will survive and in better shape having used the system to improve themselves at the expense of others. Also many companies (say US Airways Group) exist as a name after filing for bankruptcy but are not really the same company, how do those get included or excluded from a category like this? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Vegaswikian. The category fails to distinguish between bankruptcy caused by serious financial problems and bankruptcy filed for financial gain. A list is probably better-suited to covering this topic. If kept, perhaps a rename to Category:Formerly bankrupt companies could be considered. Black Falcon(Talk) 00:15, 26 March 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.
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 all. Black Falcon(Talk) 00:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete with all subcategories. How is any of this information culturally or indepedently notable? Clearly a character is the product of when they were written, and perhaps in terms of whichever generation they represent. A fictional time of birth can be inconsistent (continuity error or sliding timeline, for example), clearly were it relevant, then it would be mentioned somewhere in the actual article (for example, John Connor). Does it matter that all The OC characters were born in the 80s, or the Skins characters in the nineties? Categorising fictional characters by trivia, are we? Anyway, I'm sure the apostrophe is in the wrong place on all the subcategories.~ZytheTalk to me! 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial and subjective, probably original research in a number of instances. Please be sure to tag all of the subcats and add them to the nomination. Otto4711 (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too in-universe. Characters are created, not born. Alientraveller (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if these are kept, then they'll need to be renamed to remove those damn inappropriate apostrophes. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Beyond trivial, even where not OR, and it's really just a bunch of arbitrary nonsense to group them together like this. Reminds me of the now mercifully AFD'd attempt I saw at compiling a fictional timeline of all fictional events in any work of fiction. People need to stop confusing what is actually significant or consistent about subjects of fiction with what would be significant about them only if they were real people. Postdlf (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the comments above. If kept, delete apostrophes for consistency with real-life people birth category formatting. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:20, 21 March 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:Characters who are their own ancestors[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:Don't see the point of this, personally, but four people do, so...rename. Kbdank71 13:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, though deletion is an option. I can think of a few examples, though (Lazarus Long, IIRC, and Dominic Prime, to start with). Grutness...wha? 00:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename it would be horrible if we confused real and fiction characters who were their own ancestors. Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:21, 26 March 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.
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. Black Falcon(Talk) 23:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename - to match the lead article and because "explicit" is somewhat subjective. Otto4711 (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How do we know it is unsimulated? How much sex has to be unsimulated? Open to a better rename, but this is worse. Johnbod (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We know it's unsimulated because there are reliable sources that say so, or the sex is observable by watching the film. If there is any unsimulated sex in the film, then it is a film with unsimulated sex. Otto4711 (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come come, "sex" is very vague. From the list (which arguably could do the whole job much better, for the usual reasons) it seems that in most cases the sex is oral, not penatrative. There is also (from the list):" Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song (1971) - Director/actor Melvin Van Peebles appears in several unsimulated sex scenes. Van Peebles contracted a sexually transmitted disease while filming and successfully filed for worker's compensation. While the actor maintains that the scenes were unsimulated, nothing is shown onscreen that could not have been simulated." Not sure how RS anyone here is, especially as litigation was involved. I'm leaning to delete, in favour of the list, especially if no better name is forthcoming. Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that oral sex isn't sex? Are you Bill Clinton? Otto4711 (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like Bill Clinton's staff I think it is certainly ambiguous. Maybe it's a US/UK thing, but in the UK "sex" is usually penetrative. Johnbod (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is this only notable in the US? Are films like this notable in the rest of the world? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear as to why the question is relevant. Otto4711 (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards a delete since I suspect that this may not be notable outside of the US. Even in the US this may not be the defining characteristic of the film but simply another element hence not needed. So maybe a listify if someone wants. Then you can include the type of sex performed and not deal with the ambiguity discussed above. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the kind of category that must be a list to work, and we have one: List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex. Both "mainstream" (is Afrodite Superstar mainstream if it tries to be an explicit film?) and "unsimulated" require explanation, which the list can do and the category can't.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments above, & MS. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of definitional problems galore per Johnbod and Mike Selinker — "explicit", "sex", "unsimilated", "mainstream" — almost every important word of the old and proposed category names have definitional problems in this context. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is both hard to define/prove "explicit" as well as being undefining intersection. —ScouterSig 00:18, 23 March 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.
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. Black Falcon(Talk) 21:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category with unclear growth potential. The only film in it is already in the parent category. Is there material, given the restrictions placed on the category (no hand-tinting, no colorized), for it to be useful? Otto4711 (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a few entries. A useful niche category. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as expanded; clearly large rnough now. Johnbod (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems a very notable concept to have colour films of that era. Lugnuts (talk) 08:26, 20 March 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.
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 in favor of the list. Kbdank71 13:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge as needed - I don't believe "Vice chiefs" of anything are sufficiently noteworthy to have categories for. Cgingold (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But in a case like this, it is a grouping of 35 people holding what is in essence a secondary role (not even a command), less notable than many flag officer commands which (correctly) don't have categories (FOSCOM commander, TRADOC Commanders, Pacific Command commanders, etc). This category won't grow beyond what it is already until the next guy takes office. The list exists already, and gives you more info than a category. We might have categories for CEOs, but not corporate Vice Presidents, just national ones.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 00:01, 27 March 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.
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 13:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Proposed to correct spelling so that it matches that used in related articles such as Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. Apologies for prematurely creating the new category - this is the first time I've tried to rename a category. Reggie Perrin (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming, but it took me a while to realize that this was something to do with Canada. Should not "Canada" be in the category name somewhere? --Bduke (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Canada" wasn't in the CCFs name and there aren't any other Co-operative Commonwealth Federations to disambiguate from. Reggie Perrin (talk) 10:14, 19 March 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:Justices of the New York Supreme Court[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.
Weak oppose The Supreme Court is not the "lowest" court in NYS, but it is quite in contrast to similarly named courts in other states which are the highest court of appeal. (Note, too, that the intermediate appellate court, above the ordinary Supreme Court and below the Court of Appeals, is the "Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court".) The proposed naming may be more consistent with other states, but it is also more misleading. Kestenbaum (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I will look over the category-name practice as to comparable courts in other states and return with (I hope) a clearer view on this change. Kestenbaum (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, I do agree that the change would be a little more misleading, but I think that conformitty with the other States is more important. I have explained at the top of the category page that it isn't really the highest court. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 00:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem that I noticed, and I bring it here for a potential solution, is that the cat apparently includes old Justices that were on the highest court in New York but before the current names for the different levels were in place. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 00:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. I wasn't aware that New York ever had a highest court called the Supreme Court. If so, it must have been over 100 years ago. However, there are states (Kentucky for one) where highest court used to be called the Court of Appeals, but has been displaced by or renamed to "Supreme Court". In Michigan, the Supreme Court originally consisted of all of the circuit judges sitting en banc. Changes in the relative ranking or powers of courts is not unique to New York. Kestenbaum (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Samuel Beardsley, the second name in the cat, is such an example. The article mentions how he became Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court, which obviously isn't the trial level court as is meant today. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 20:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename for consistency. -- Ynot? 22:19, 26 March 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.
