Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 12 November 14 >

November 13[edit]

Category:Gator Caucus[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 15:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Gator Caucus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category doesn't have a clear explanation, nor any article that describes it. Searching on Google, I found a webpage on the University of Florida website that explains "The Gator Caucus is comprised of Florida lawmakers who are legislative advocates for the University of Florida."[1] It further lists the 43 current members. However for many of the articles categorized there is no source, and in some cases the person doesn't appear to have ever been a legislator (Ivan Osorio). Is this a useful category? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I checked about 15 articles at random, none of which even mentioned caucus in the text (some mentioned gator, in the context of sports teams). Occuli (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't seem at all defining. I think even US Congress caucuses categories have been deleted here, no? Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and possibly listify, though I'm doubtful) - Good grief, if we start having categories for every so-called legislative "caucus" there will be no end to it. All legislators are advocates for all manner of causes and issues -- this is just one of m-a-n-y. (Let's be clear, this is not on a par with, for instance, the legislative Black Caucuses.) Cgingold (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But we don't allow categories for their members either. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent point. Cgingold (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and in this case I'm not even sure that a list would be a productive option. Elected officials caucus on thousands of issues, and this is probably not a defining characteristic. I did find a copy of The LegisGator, described as "the University of Florida's newsletter designed for members of the Gator Caucus", but I could find only three sources that mention the term in Google News / Archive. I applaud the U of F for making a remarkable effort to reach out to legislators, but I'm not sure that we need to categorize or list by this affiliation. I will be willing to reconsider if anyone can provide a better justification. Alansohn (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just added "though I'm doubtful" with regard to listifying. It might also be worth noting that the category creator has been identified as a possible sockpuppet. Cgingold (talk) 19:59, 14 November 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:Musical groups with siblings[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 15:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Musical groups with siblings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Recreation of previously deleted category. I have no idea how it can be defining for a musical group to have a sibling. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:45, 13 November 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:Ann Arbor music[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 15:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ann Arbor music to Category:Music of Ann Arbor, Michigan
Nominator's rationale: Per precedent of other "Music of X" categories. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, per nom. Ropcat (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, per nom. Occuli (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - but suggest examining the entire Music of Foo category structure. "Boo of Foo" works for static things like buildings but is less utilitarian when considered for things which by their nature have no geographical bound. A "based in" name for things like symphony orchestras might work better, with articles on individual musicians or bands not listed at all in he structure but instead in the "Musicians from Foo" structure. Otto4711 (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to match the rest of the parent structure. Alansohn (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just added this to the Category:Music by city parent; there does not appear to be any observed convention among the other subcategories at present. Postdlf (talk) 18:35, 18 November 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:Free State Province[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 "Free State (South African province)". Kbdank71 15:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename.
  1. so that the main category name matches the main article at Free State.
  2. to establish uniformity of naming across the various subcategories.
  3. to match the way that the name "Free State" is normally used, i.e. with the "the".
See also the similar (successful) nominations here, here, and here, and the discussion at User talk:Htonl/South Africa provincial category renaming.

- htonl (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose "Free State" is a highly ambiguous term. Ambiguous category names is an invitation for cleanup maintenance quagmires. 76.66.198.46 (talk) 05:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – we get very different pages at Free State and Free state. I think we need something like 'Free State (South Africa)' throughout. Occuli (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern has been the ambiguous nature of free state. I need to sleep on it, but I think that Occuli's proposal may be the best solution. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Occuli's first suggestion of "Free State (South Africa)" to replace "Free State" in the nominator's proposed new names, assuming that there's only one region in South Africa with that name. Adding "province" only seems useful for cases like "North West", and we don't add specifiers to all category instances just because some need disambiguation. --Zigger «º» 04:35, 15 November 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:Christian groups and movements[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: merge nominated category. Obviously, a future CfD would be needed to discuss sub-proposals A–E that were discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Christian groups and movements into Category:Christian denominational families
Nominator's merge rationale: Many Christian movements (or groups) are also rightly placed in Category:Christian denominational families and if they are not, if difficult to know which category of the two or three the best place for them since most Christian movements are also or tend to become denominational families over time. Carlaude (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As I said in the CFD before (not that this has to be the way) I would keep/put
  • Comment (I have added A-E to the points above for convenience). In general I am supportive, and have suggested much of this previously. My preference is to keep "organizations", and "denominations/independent churches" completely apart, which I think is not too difficult, and also "movements", though some of these are perhaps close to being denominations. Some, like Ministries Without Borders say, seem pretty close to being denominations, on the information provided. These should be taken out of Category:Christian organizations - most have plenty of other categories, usually too many. Really we need a higher level category for Catholicism to bring in Category:Catholics not in communion with Rome, & go in Category:Christian denominational families. Equally, I see no need for Category:Christian evangelicalism, plus Lutheranism, Calvinism etc not just to go under a new Category:Protestant denominations, - there is no point in having this category if all the major groups sidestep it - Anglicanism is the only exception I can think of. The families category would be much smaller, and mean what it says. So in fact I only wholly agree with the merge in general and A above.Johnbod (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all Johnbod said except:
  • denominations and independent churches are also "organizations" and should be in Category:Christian organizations and will even aid in moving the denomination-like-organizations out of "organizations."
  • Some "Movements" are not really close to being denominations-- they are or are close to being denominational families and thus item C
  • While a higher level category for Catholicism is a better system, and may be worth the time and effort, you may get RCs fighting you to the death or it.
  • Trying to put the "Protestant" denominations under Category:Protestant denominations and not also under Category:Christian denominations will never ever work and could not be maintained.
  1. A good number will disavow even being "Protestant" like say the Stone-Campbell movement denominations and the Nontrinitarian denominations.
  2. Many many of these groups barely agreed to being two levels down from the important identifier "Christian denominations" but this would make it three!
E.g. Christian denominations > Protestant denominations > Methodist denominations > United Methodist Church
3. With aide of you (Johnbod) it was somehow agree to put a denominations page directly in Category:Christian denominations, starting with the RCC. Why fight to make another layer if all 5000 Christian denominations can also add their name to the top such category also.--Carlaude (talk) 21:23, 14 November 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:Continuation High schools and secondary 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: Withdrawn as nominator. Jh12. I thought it would be ok to keep this discussion open after the independent deletion of five of the categories because this is categories for discussion, not vote or deletion, and I thought it would allow editors across Wikipedia to build consensus towards the naming of the category. However, davidwr is right; there is definitely consensus to have one category called Category:Continuation high schools in California and it has already been listed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Add_requests_for_speedy_renaming_here speedy renaming, so the result is definitely moot. --Jh12 (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Continuation High schools and secondary schools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Continuation High schools and secondary schools by country
Category:Continuation High schools in the United States
Category:Continuation High schools in California
Category:Continuation High schools in California by county
Category:Continuation High schools in Kern County, California
  • Comment – the creator can use {{db-author}} and they disappear speedily. Also (if you use cfd) the others need to be listed here. Occuli (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the response; I partly wanted to CFD in case someone felt any of the continuation high school categories was still desirable. I've listed all of the involved categories above. --Jh12 (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When I saw the category structure, it had the vague appearance of being a full organized structure, but all of this exists for what was one article. If there is some evidence that this is a larger phenomenon with more articles to come or be tagged by category, then I will reconsider my vote. Otherwise these categories are just an empty structure. Alansohn (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know of no other state that uses the term "Continuation High Schools" besides California. If this turns out to be the case, then, like Parishes in Louisiana, a state category without a national category might make more sense. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be cautious against arbitrarily creating a tree of categories, particularly since all six categories were initially created for a single article. A series of empty categories is counterproductive to the purpose of organizing articles with a similar scope. I would prefer the fewest number categories to get the desired page --Jh12 (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I call for arbitrary category creation, or creation of empty categories? I am not opposed to the removal of the empty categories here, else I would have "voted" so. I suggest only that articles exist and categories should be populated with them.-choster (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I must have misunderstood. I took "hardly precludes the need to build a branch for such alternative types of schools in the U.S. and in other countries" followed by the statement about Wikipedia high school articles to mean you thought a branch of continuation high school categories was desired. --Jh12 (talk) 07:41, 18 November 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:SRC network shows[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, although you certainly didn't make this one easy. There is definite consensus to rename this category, but the target is less clear. Based upon the discussion, people are split evenly between Category:Télévision de Radio-Canada network shows and Category:Radio-Canada network shows. Normally a no consensus close, but seeing as there it's unanimous to rename, I'm going to go out on a limb and pick Category:Radio-Canada network shows, based on the following flimsy criteria: The three people who wanted Category:Télévision de Radio-Canada network shows had differing opinions on the accent, one wanting it, one neutral, and one against. The people who wanted Category:Radio-Canada network shows didn't have such differences. If this causes a problem, I have no issues with relisting it, just let me know. Kbdank71 14:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:SRC network shows to Category:Télévision de Radio-Canada network shows
Nominator's rationale: SRC, or as expanded as Société Radio-Canada, is not the name of the network (which is supposed to be Télévision de Radio-Canada). Although SRC is used as the abbreviation (and thus..was also used as a brand for a short while), it doesn't mean we should use it here. ViperSnake151 20:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the original creator, I'm not opposed in principle to finding an alternate name for this if other editors would prefer a different name, but pertaining to this particular nomination I think it's necessary for us to avoid the accented character é — since category names don't redirect in the same "straight to the real page" way that article redirects do, simply creating a redirect from the unaccented title isn't a viable solution to the problem that this category name creates for people who don't know how to type the accented characters. Category:Radio-Canada network shows might be appropriate, although it too could be potentially mistaken for the radio networks. Favour a rename, if a suitable one can be found, but I don't think this particular rename is the right choice. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 3 November 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 14:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, except neutral on accents (well weakly against having them), although recent decisions seem to show movement in favour of having them in category names, or am I imagining that? Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, except mildly against accents. (There seemed to be recent indecisions about en-dash, which I can always spot just there below the edit window. I suppose I can copy and paste Télévision ... there, it wasn't too bad.) Occuli (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Radio-Canada network shows. This is the real name as it appears on the logo within the article, actually Radio-Canada Télévision. The article name and the proposed target here seem to be some kind of mixed French-English name. I suspect that the article itself should be renamed to match what is used on the logo. So I think there are very good reasons to support the rename proposed by Bearcat, who I believe is a Canadian. If there is a concern about this also including radio network shows which may also exist, sorry but I can't read French, then we could use Category:Radio-Canada television network shows which avoids the accent issue by using only the main company name. I'll also add that the web site is http://www.radio-canada.ca/television/. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Radio-Canada network shows. I think this would make the most sense to a Canadian English-speaker (at least it does to me, who is a Canadian English-speaker). I would usually refer to the network colloquially as "French CBC", with "Radio-Canada" being the more formal name that would be widely understood. I think we should set aside the radio vs. TV issue for now, and if it becomes an issue, we could use Vegaswikian's other suggestion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:06, 15 November 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.

FC Groningen[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 15:37, 19 November 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:Places in Singapore[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: no consensus. Kbdank71 16:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Places in Singapore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, and create more standard category types. Forgive me if I'm wrong with this, but this one just doesn't seem right to me. No other country has a "Places in..." category, as far as I can see - they all have a fairly standard set of categories for "Buildings and structures in Foo", "Cities/towns/villages in Foo", "Neighbourhoods in Foo", "Roads in Foo", and "Administrative divisions in Foo". For some unknown reason, this Singaporean category seems to bunch them all together into one hodgepodge of "places" - if they're going to be grouped together loose anywhere, the existing Category:Geography of Singapore makes as much sense as this and reduces the categorisation hierarchy by one level. I feel these articles would be far better categorised in the same way as for other countries. Grutness...wha? 08:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I'm looking over Category:Urban planning in Singapore and the related Urban planning in Singapore. I also note that the "more specific cats" that the nom mentions have already been created and reside there or at Category:Geography of Singapore. "Places" seems too broad. Is there anything like this elsewhere? - jc37 17:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not many that I can see, but Hong Kong and Gibraltar, and other sub-national areas, have "Places in" categories. This is a mix of categories & articles normally dealt with under geography, urban planning & buildings & structures. There seems to be no "settlements of" category for Singapore, which given that it is a city-state may be appropriate. A "districts of" category, covering suburbs etc, would sweep up most of them. But it could be argued the category makes sense in this case, and for some other micro-nations, where it would not be helpful for larger countries. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral seems like other small pseudo-nations that Johnbod found has this category scheme. 76.66.198.46 (talk) 04:14, 15 November 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:Queenstown[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Queenstown to Category:Queenstown, Singapore
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I've just removed several articles relating to Queenstown, New Zealand from this category. That alone should be reason enough for renaming this to match the article, which is at Queenstown, Singapore. Grutness...wha? 07:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming - Three cheers for disambiguation! Cgingold (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - jc37 17:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and per the glut of candidates in Queenstown. Occuli (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to correspond to the title of the article. Alansohn (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - VandalismDestroyer | Talk to me 03:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename this and any similar categores names that include just city name without further qualification. A big mistake everywhere. Hmains (talk) 20:38, 14 November 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:Canada's Walk of Fame[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 15:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Canada's Walk of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per usual, overcategorization by minor honor. Should be listified as the main article does not contain a list. Otto4711 (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The rationale is based entirely on POV. What makes it such a "minor honor"? Just because you have never heard of Canada's Walk of Fame does not make it minor. -- Scorpion0422 12:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – there is a list at List of inductees of Canada's Walk of Fame. I see no a priori reason why this honour should be considered minor, Canada being a sizeable place. Occuli (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "The Walk of Fame was first conceived back in 1996 when founder and current president Peter Soumalias suggested the idea of a Walk of Fame for famous Torontonians to the board of the Toronto Entertainment District Association." and Canada's Walk of Fame#Criticism - both seem to indicate that this is not a "major" award, and may even be locallised to Toronto. There is already a list. No need for a category. Also per WP:OC#AWARD. - jc37 17:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next phrase is "They rejected his idea"; the list is not localised to Toronto. I am not yet convinced either way. Occuli (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you had bothered to take a look at List of inductees of Canada's Walk of Fame (or even read the next sentence of that article), you would see that it is not just for Torontonians and people from all regions of Canada have been inducted. -- Scorpion0422 02:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to you both for helping clarify in case I had not read further. (Though indeed, I did.) One thing worth noting is that this is rather new, yet this award appears to not be a single person a year (113 since 1998). And while there are indeed economic reasons related to other awards as well, there are just too many indications which may suggest that this is a regional gimmick. Noting also that a regional award could be given to the Prime Minister of England, or even HRH the Queen, but that wouldn't make an award any less of a "regional" award. The same goes for the local school reading award, given out weekly, and televised. - jc37 03:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, it's a regional award because it's based in a single location and they promote it as a tourist attraction? Wouldn't that apply to most hall/walks of fame? And could you please point out which "local school reading award" gets headline media coverage across an entire nation? It must be some award. -- Scorpion0422 04:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wouldn't that apply to most hall/walks of fame?" - Perhaps. Noting that I support listification of every such example nominated on this page at least. An individual may receive any number of awards, and to categorise an individual by those awards is simple clutter. Which is the reason behind WP:OC#AWARD. And before you suggest that there are other awards which you feel may be less important than the one you're currently supporting here, let me suggest that you go ahead and nominate them, and we'll see how it goes. - jc37 09:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per deleters, and having a list. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only reasons being given are personal POV that the Walk of Fame isn't a major award. Sure it isn't as big as the Oscars, but it is still a big deal and you will find a lot of reliable sources to back this up. It's not like this is an internet-based award or something, the annual ceremony is broadcast on CTV. -- Scorpion0422 02:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and per recent deletion of Hollywood Walk of Fame category. Postdlf (talk) 19:12, 18 November 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:Walk of Fame of Cabaret[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 15:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Walk of Fame of Cabaret (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by minor honor. If retained should be renamed to Category:Walk of Fame of Cabaret inductees as an inductees category. Otto4711 (talk) 06:47, 13 November 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:St. Louis Walk of Fame members[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 15:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:St. Louis Walk of Fame members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - minor honor given to people who tend to accumulate many such honors which would result in category clutter should they all be categorized. Similar to the deleted Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_23#Category:Hollywood_Walk_of_Fame. Otto4711 (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify/Delete to St. Louis Walk of Fame. A local award (est. 1989). Also per WP:OC#AWARD. - jc37 17:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Now Hollywood has gone, easily the most notable, they all should. Any further ones in a single nom, if possible. The article has a big list, much bigger than the cat, although I suppose they should be cross-checked. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Keep I understand that's it's not kosher to add a comment after a review like this is closed, but I was so disappointed not to be notified or made aware of this discussion as it was going on, that I feel that my voice must be heard for the record. I can see where you're coming from in terms of clutter on articles, but I must respectfully disagree with that rational in this instance. I believe this category adds value to Wikipedia and the articles in the category. I'm also shocked that a nationally recognized honor such as the Hollywood Walk of Fame would even have it's category deleted. Perhaps if more editors had been aware of the discussion, it might have had a different outcome. I feel that this review was rushed through, and express my deep disappointment at this category's deletion. I urge both the admins of this process and people commenting on these reviews to actively seek out editors who have not only created these categories, but editors whose articles or Wikiprojects might be related to the category. Thank you for letting my voice be heard, albeit too late. Monowi (talk) 05:06, 20 November 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:James Bond soundtrack music artists[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 15:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:James Bond soundtrack music artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Delete - clear-cut case of overcategorization by project/performance. Otto4711 (talk) 06:40, 13 November 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:West Coast Stock Car Hall of Fame[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, list exists. Kbdank71 15:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:West Coast Stock Car Hall of Fame to Category:West Coast Stock Car Hall of Fame inductees
Nominator's rationale: Either rename to clarify that this is an inductees category or, if this regional HoF is not considered prestigious enough for its own category, delete in favor of the list at West Coast Stock Car Hall of Fame. Otto4711 (talk) 06:39, 13 November 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:Fictional witches[edit]

Category:DC Comics witches[edit]

Category:Marvel Comics witches[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 at 2008 DEC 1. Normally, I would agree with the concerns raised on procedural grounds. However, I closed the previous "fictional witches" discussion and I must say that I had no time frame in mind when I left open the possibility of a renomination, and I don't think the proposal should be prejudiced because it was within some arbitrary time frame. And it was closed as "no consensus", not as a "keep", which tends to significantly dampen the problems involved with a quick renomination, since there really was no consensus that this nomination would attempt to overturn. Also, I explicitly encouraged a future nomination. I also think the nominator was justified because of the intervening results of the "fictional wizards" discussion, which could have very reasonably been interpreted by jc37 as a precedent that could apply equally well to the witches category. (I am not sure if the other suggestions I gave in the previous CfD were followed and how the "patrolling" went, but as an admin I can't monitor things like that and we need to trust editors that they've at least attempted to apply the advice they've been given.) In light of the special circumstances involved here, I'm inclined to just say we should discount the comments that relate to purely procedural issues and get on with it. If we do that, so far we have 2 comments in favor of the proposal and one against. So in the relisting I am going to suggest we ignore the procedural issues and have a discussion on the merits. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Fictional witches to Category:Fictional characters who use magic
Merge Category:DC Comics witches to Category:Fictional characters in DC Comics who use magic
Merge Category:Marvel Comics witches to Category:Fictional characters in Marvel Comics who use magic
I ask the closer to please take this CFD discussion, this CfD discussion, and this CfD discussion under consideration when closing this discussion.

Per those discussions, the word "witch" has issues of vagueness in definition and application.

This was apparently a "catch-all" cat, from before the target cat above existed. Many of the members aren't actually called "witches", but simply are female characters who use magic.

As noted at Magician (fantasy)#Names and terminology, what the names applied to magic-using characters means varies depending on the author.

And finally, having these separate would seem to be a hindrance, rather than a help, to navigation.

However, rather than outright deletion, I'm proposing to merge these instead. - jc37 03:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Delete - as nominator. - jc37 03:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose and procedural close - we just had this discussion, what, two weeks ago? Otto4711 (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you even click on the links I provided? Probably not. - jc37 09:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, actually I read the discussions as they were ongoing. Like the ones for these categories that closed out barely a month ago. So, yeah, still gonna have to go with keep and close as borderline abuse of process. Otto4711 (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First, it's been over a month and a half; Second, the original nomination was for deletion, this is for merger; Third, they closed as "no consensus" which means that they can be renominated at any time; and finally, Fourth, the closer even suggested renomination. (Which is why I question whether you actually checked out the links provided.)
    That said, considering your strong oppose in the last discussion, I suppose your current comments shouldn't be surprising. - jc37 11:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The last CFD for "fictional witches" closed October 8. The renomination was November 13. In what universe is that "over a month and a half"? The Marvel and DC witches CFD closed October 2. Again, not "over a month and a half". Otto4711 (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First, even if we go from the closures rather than the date of nomination (September 23), that's still over a month. But besides that, the other points above still apply... - jc37 16:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and whale slap This goes well above and beyond the usual and customary abuse of process that we tolerate here for some unknown reason. Six weeks is hardly long enough to show any change in consensus. Making a minor tweak to the terms of your demands hardly changes anything. Alansohn (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per keepers. Too soon; nothing significant has changed. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since what? Since no consensus? Again, did you even read the previous closure? - jc37 17:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, in a short break from my trolling activities. I might point out I did not participate in any of the other debates. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be happy to provide a link to the previous discussion (noting, of course, that it's already the first discussion link in the nom, above). - jc37 03:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What on earth are you talking about now? Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You mentioned that you hadn't been "in any of the other debates" in response to my question of whether you read the links provided. So I was presuming good faith, despite appearances, and offering to provide such a link. And my apologies if commenting here has forced you to take a "short break" from past activities. - jc37 04:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I say I have read the debates, and so you offer to provide a link to one? Even for you, the absence of logic seems striking (never mind the baffling comment below - but please don't explain it). Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, the "yes" referred to having read them? I thought that referred to my question of "since when". My apologies for misunderstanding your response. - jc37 04:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, but how - oh never mind. Johnbod (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per keepers. Perhaps we can at least get a consensus that it is too soon to be revisiting these. Occuli (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Where's Cgingold? If we're going to have a barbeque, shouldn't the whole group be here? Maybe we should invite some Australians to toss another shrimp on the barbie? - jc37 03:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, you got my attention, jc -- I couldn't figure out why my ears kept tingling every time I glanced at this page... Since you invoked my name, here's what I think: If the characters are identified by the author as "witches" (or are said to be practicing "witchcraft"), leave their articles in these categories. If they are not so described, and are merely practicing some form of magic, move their articles into the parent cats. And a word to the wise, jc: be very careful when you tangle with a coven of witches... Cgingold (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with that idea is that every author (as noted) defines the term differently. And thus this falls under "vague inclusion criteria". - jc37 16:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you OK? (If you are going to introduce Australians for whatever reason, their preferred spelling is barbecue.) Occuli (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Clearly there are problems with the current names. There is no abuse of process in this nomination. In fact process recommends a follow on nomination when there is no consensus especially for lack of consensus for what the name should be. While this option may not have been proposed in the first discussions it is a very reasonable follow on to try and achieve consensus for a better name for these categories. This needs to be discussed on the merits and not on some presumed process violation. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and Vegaswikian. I was going to side with the "keep, too soon" crowd, but then I read the prior CFD's. Category:Fictional wizards was merged to Category:Fictional characters who use magic, why shouldn't witches? And I stand by my comments in the other CFD in that "keep and patrol" never works (yes, I know nobody said that here, but when people are complaining because this was "too close" to the prior CFD, then those people are confirming that decision. Otherwise, they'd come up with actual reasons to keep). --Kbdank71 16:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_13&oldid=1074801140"