Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 11

< May 10	May 12 >

May 11[edit]

Category:Supreme Court clerks[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 to Category:Law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Supreme Court clerks to Category:Clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Merge, duplicate categories. Target category is older and less ambiguously named. At time of nomination, all included in category to be merged were clerks at SCOTUS. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~No objection. Gabriel Duvall (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Rename, do not merge. The old category deals with a different subject: William Suter is a Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States, but he isn't a law clerk. My category is for law clerks. Better is Category:Law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States Gabriel Duvall (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC), updated 11:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*rename per nom For clarity and inclusion. There is no reason to change the name per Duvall in order to eliminate Suter and other clerks of SCOTUS from the list. Hmains (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

But Suter is a Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States. We need a category for law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States, which is a separate job. Separately, we have parallel articles in the list of law clerks that need to be merged or trimmed so that there aren't redundancies--especially since the articles don't agree with each other. Gabriel Duvall (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Supreme Court clerks to Category:Law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States per G Duvall, as these seem to be different jobs. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Gabriel Duvall. The Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States is a VERY different job from a clerkship for a Supreme Court Justice, and the two jobs need to have separate categories. — Dale Arnett (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Johnbod. Note: that a one or two year job is being categorized here, so when we come to the McDonald's employees take note.... :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (nominator). Well, to be fair, it's a bit more difficult/prestigious to land one of these jobs than one at McDonald's. The split sounds like a fair enough idea to me as nom and I wouldn't oppose such a move.
  - Ah but we don't categorize on difficultness or prestige, which would be a POV problem anyhow. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
organize in such a way that there are two categories: Category:Clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States for the clerks of the court itself and Category:Law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States for the clerks who work for the individual justices Hmains (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The clerks of the court (the non-law clerks) are few in number and aren't that significant to justify a cat. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:21, 19 May 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:A.J. Raffles[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. Wizardman 02:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:A.J. Raffles to Category:A. J. Raffles

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, naming conventions -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary eponymous overcategorization for a fictional character. The article serves as an appropriate navigational hub for all of the included material. Otto4711 (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - the article has more adaptations anyway. Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. gidonb (talk) 02:36, 19 May 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:9/11 images[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. Wizardman 03:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:9/11 images to Category:September 11, 2001 images

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, naming conventions -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Even better would be to concentrate the media at the commons, but this isn't always feasible. gidonb (talk) 02:38, 19 May 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:Israeli revolutionaries[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. Wizardman 17:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I've never heard this term used in this context. There already was discussion about it on the category's talk page, although the reasoning there is quite different from mine. I have something much simpler to say: It is true that all of them were leaders of parties that won elections after being opposition leaders, but "revolutionary" is really not a good word to describe a quiet change of government through elections. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though nom misses the purpose of the category - see talk there. Not a common term, or a good description, and better covered by categories like Category:Irgun members Johnbod (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That guy on that talk page gives a pretty weird explanation. They were just leaders at the times of government change, which is called mahapakh in Hebrew. My bet is that the creator of the category thought that since this word is close to mahapekha - the Hebrew word for a real revolution, they should be categorized as revolutionaries. Or something in that vein. But maybe i'm wrong.

And certainly Ben-Gurion has absolutely nothing to do with the Irgun. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not revolutionaries in common parlance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a common naming, case illustrates problems of defining the supercat 'Revolutionaries'. --Soman (talk) 11:35, 15 May 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:CanWest Global Communications[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. Wizardman 02:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CanWest Global Communications to Category:Canwest

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is to be consistant with the main article name, and the rebranding of the company. Rob (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support; straightforward corporate rebranding. Bearcat (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to match corp. and article name changes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:16, 16 May 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:Vampire superheroes[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. Wizardman 00:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: too vague a category. All of the characters currently listed here are not superheroes by any stretch of the name. Just vampires that fight for their own causes. Perhaps a better description and a different page title would be best. Otherwise, I suggest deletion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Or weakly, listify) - Given the genre, such characters typically float in the "anti-hero" realm (if that), and defining such as "superheroes" is, at times, a challenge at best. This is another case where citations/references would be useful, and as such this should be a list, at best. (And where's Blade?!) - jc37 21:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And to see how extensive this really is, see also: List of fictional vampires, Category:Fictional vampires, and Vampire (disambiguation)#Fiction. - jc37 22:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redundant as a cross-section of Category:Fictional vampires and Category:Superheroes. -Sean Curtin (talk) 06:20, 15 May 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:Scarlett Johansson albums[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. Wizardman 00:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Misleading category, as Johansson has made only one album (which has yet to be released) and has apparently no future plans of making another one. Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 14:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per precedent - "Previous discussions have formed the consensus that a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album (irrespective of whether they are likely to release more in the future)." Lugnuts (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I believe consensus here was that we would not challenge the wikiproject that started doing this. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per set precedent. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 18:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per hundreds of precedents.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:10, 13 May 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:Screenshots of software with missing fair-use rationale[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. Wizardman 02:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This has been removed from the template that populated it. I am not sure how much review that removal received so I didn't want to speedy delete it as an empty cat.BirgitteSB 13:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete empty cat. Images should be at the commons where possible. gidonb (talk) 02:40, 19 May 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:Knitting Machine companies who make Automobiles[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. Wizardman 00:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Two entry category that appears to be over categorization. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interesting, though. --Eliyak T·C 13:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overcat.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete arbitary intersection, companies of one type making products of another. Could be millions of these categories created for the one or two companies destined to occupy them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:47, 13 May 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:User:Thisisbossi/DYK[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. Wizardman 00:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - This category has mainspace pages in it that this user nominated for DYK. While it is great he did that, this doesn't need a category. Would set precedent for hundreds of other categories like these being made, and you would start seeing tons of these hidden categories based on individual users on mainspace articles if this were allowed. Keeping a list on one's userpage should be more than sufficient, or at least on a subpage in userspace. VegaDark (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think it is better to list this in a user subpage.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - User categories are pretty common on Commons. I tried checking, but didn't spot anything against user categories on the EN wiki. If that's the way it is, that's fine. Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 06:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:47, 13 May 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:Mamballikalam Family[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. Wizardman 00:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. If there are only two articles to place in this category, it seems that a simple "See also" link at the bottom of both articles would suffice, rather than having a category for the family. (If kept, at least fix the caps and change to Category:Mamballikalam family.) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The family connection is not mentioned in either article, and cannot be worked out from the online refs - grandfather & g'son? Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication that the family is notable as such. --Soman (talk) 11:33, 15 May 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.