Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 9 October 11 >

October 10[edit]

Food product brands[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 16th. Kbdank71 12:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Brand name food products to Category:Food brands

Category:Brand name alcohol products to Category:Alcoholic beverage brands
Category:Brand name beverage products to Category:Beverage brands
Category:Brand name breads to Category:Bread brands
Category:Brand name chocolate to Category:Chocolate brands
Category:Brand name condiments to Category:Condiment brands
Category:Brand name confectionery to Category:Confectionery brands
Category:Brand name cookies to Category:Cookie brands
Category:Brand name crackers to Category:Cracker brands
Category:Brand name dairy products to Category:Dairy product brands
Category:Brand name desserts to Category:Dessert brands
Category:Brand name diet products to Category:Diet product brands
Category:Brand name frozen desserts to Category:Frozen desserts brands
Category:Brand name hot dogs to Category:Hot dog brands
Category:Brand name poultry to Category:Poultry brands
Category:Brand name snack foods to Category:Snack food brands
Category:Brand name soups to Category:Soup brands
Category:Brand name yoghurts to Category:Yoghurt brands
Rename: The Foo brands formulation is prevalent throughout Category:Brands and its subcategories with the sole exception of foods and beverages. I also prefer this form as it is more compact and allows natural sorting in the Category:Brands branch. Note: related CFR underway for Category:Brand name potato chips, potato crisps, and other potato-based snack foods.-choster (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose All - I gave this category tree some very serious thought a couple of months back, but didn't pursue any changes because well, I just haven't had the energy to take it on. The way I see things, except for these sub-categories, Category:Brands has got it all wrong, because it mostly conflates brands (or brand names) with products. (To illustrate the difference: for instance, Nabisco is a brand name which appears on a whole array of products.) I realize that it complicates things somewhat, but our objective here should be first and foremost to get it right -- not merely to simplify things. We need to clarify and preserve the distinction between brands and products, not blur it further. (And yes, I'm suggesting that an awful lot of those other sub-cats need to be renamed to reflect the fact that they are for products.) Notified (some) category creators with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No doubt some cleanup is required. But the distinction you make is somewhat artificial. An Oreo is a kind of cookie--a product-- but clearly it is also a brand of cookie, else why so many Oreo varieties? An Eggo, simply, is a frozen waffle, but in fact it is not only a whole line of different waffle varieties, but as the article the Eggo name is used for "French toast sticks, muffin tops, a breakfast cereal, syrup, and 'Toaster Swirlz,' and there is even an Eggo (breakfast cereal) article. It is natural for a successful brand to be extended to related products; the fuzziness of the articles arises from real world fuzziness.-choster (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mildly opposed. I'm the creator of many of these categories, and I'm not overly fussy about what they're called. I do agree, though, that most of the articles in these categories are about products, not brands -- and to throw in another point of confusion, some of the food-and-drink categories also confuse brands and companies, as well (see Category:Tea, in particular). My main concern has been separating articles about purely commercial food products from those about generic foodstuffs, because the focus and notability criteria for the two kinds of articles are so different (compare Fig Newton with Lebkuchen, for instance). Anyway, I'll go along with any Wikipedia-wide consensus about how to categorize the commercial product articles. Dr.frog (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, editors do confuse terms. Since products have a category structure, would you be opposed to allowing this rename and then moving out the products into the correct categories? Or even better, moving the products out now? The only real confusion should be when the company, product and brand are the same. Or is it better to withdraw the nomination knowing that someone will be doing some cleanup and then they can bring back what is left for a rename or deletion? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People movers[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 OCT 20. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People movers to Category:???
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is ambiguous when restricted to a single type of people mover. The question is, what to do the contents of this category. And if reusing this category as a parent for the various types of people movers. I believe that the current entries are might be better classified as Category:Automated fixed guideway systems. What is interesting is that Category:Monorails is not included here and yet it is an automated fixed guideway system. Maybe this is just a case of a cleanup being needed. Moving walkways at some airports really meet the definition since they are 'fully automated, grade-separated mass transit systems' when they cross over roadways. I'll note that Category:Automated guideway transport exists and again Category:Monorails is also not included there. So bringing this here for a discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have not found a corresponding Wikipedia article for "automated guideway transport" to assist in providing a definition of what "automated guideway transport" might be. Do you know of any definitions? —Sladen (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about Automated guideway transit? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The second line of the Automated guideway transit article currently states[1] "AGT is normally used to implement either limited people mover systems, or more complex mass transit systems." Based on that, could AGT be moved to be a sub-category of both Category:people movers and Category:Public transport? (There is no Category:Mass transit, and Mass transit in article space leads to Public transport. Whilst WP:GHITS should be taken is a drop of salt, "people mover" results one-hundred times as many results as "automated guideway *". I'm wondering if the relative frequency in use (and/or obscurity) of the terms reflects in the size of Category:Automated guideway transport and the automated guideway transit articles. —Sladen (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As in keep it simple. Category:Automated fixed guideway systems is a) just going to confuse readers, and b) by definition, is not limited to people. That could include the systems used to route your luggage from check-in to plane at the airport. Besides, people mover has this nice description: the term "people mover" is generic, and may use technologies such as monorail, duorail, automated guideway transit or maglev. --Kbdank71 13:54, 16 October 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:Brand name potato chips, potato crisps, and other potato-based snack foods[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 21st. Kbdank71 15:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Brand name potato chips, potato crisps, and other potato-based snack foods to Category:UNKNOWN
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I have no idea, but anything but this. Perhaps Category:Brand name potato snack foods, or Category:Brand name potato-based snack foods. I don't know, they're all too wordy... Katr67 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 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:Merlin episodes[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 match article. Kbdank71 13:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Merlin episodes to Category:Merlin (TV series) episodes
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match article Merlin (TV series). Otto4711 (talk) 17:15, 10 October 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:Conan the Barbarian films[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 16th. Kbdank71 13:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Conan the Barbarian films to Category:all parents except Fantasy films by series
Nominator's rationale: Merge - only two entries in the category with no likelihood of expansion in the near future. Two films doesn't really constitute a "series" and two articles vs one subcat in each of the parent categories is not an unwieldly expansion. Otto4711 (talk) 16:59, 10 October 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:Pseudonutrition[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pseudonutrition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No reliable sources that such a category indeed exists. If Pseudonutrition makes no claims of medical or nutritive benefit, then it has no reason to be called "pseudo-" anything. Appears to exist to label against WP:POV policy ZayZayEM (talk) 06:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, OR and POV; Google turns up only 99 results of which this category is the first, so it does not appear to be a legitimate industry term. -choster (talk) 22:33, 10 October 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:American TV series based on telenovelas[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 as nominated. If desired, a future nomination could consider "based on" vs. "adapted from". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American TV series based on telenovelas to Category:American television series based on telenovelas
Nominator's rationale: Rename - expand the abbreviation. Otto4711 (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggest that it be renamed to "adapted from", as it reduces ambiguity. - jc37 06:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure about "adapted from" but am leaning toward opposed. We tend to use "adaptations" when talking about specific works (Category:Adaptations of Les Misérables) or authors (Category:Adaptations of Shakespeare), and it is not in line with such top-level categories as Category:Media based on media and Category:Films based on works. Otto4711 (talk) 06:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that, but there have been some previous CfDs which suggested that "adapted from" was the way to go. (There also being a difference between "adaptions of" and "adapted from".)
    (This is another case of where we're screwed either way: Do we group nom, only to have people complain about the group nom? Or do we deal with these as they come along, only to have people complain "What about x"?)
    That said, I don't mind waiting on this single point, if we're going to do a large group nom in the future. - jc37 07:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I'm not sure I like the use of "telenovela" at all, as this term isn't really used in the States. (I had to look it up just now to be sure I even knew what it meant.) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's certainly used when discussing series based on them (see multiple reliable sources regarding Ugly Betty) and when discussing American series that share the telenovela format (see coverage of The CW and its telenovelas). Otto4711 (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be used in the sources, but the point of categories is to assist in navigation of the encyclopedia, and most Americans would not be familiar with this term. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not an American encyclopedia, and what Americans do or don't understand is not the standard we should be adhering to. A spot check of the constituent articles indicates that they include a link to telenovela in the first sentence or two, and not later than the first sentence of the second paragraph. There is also a link to telenovela in the category description. I have faith in our readers, if they are unfamiliar with the telenovela concept, to click on the appropriate link. Otto4711 (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I think either "based on" or "adapted from" would be ok since I too have faith in our readers and feel that they won't be confused with whichever is chosen, but I prefer "based on" because of the parent categories, it's slightly shorter, and it has the words DON'T PANIC inscribed in large friendly letters on its cover. As for "telenovela", sure, no problem. --Kbdank71 13:21, 16 October 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:American TV programs based on Australian TV programs[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 as nominated. If desired, a future nomination could consider "based on" vs. "adapted from". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American TV programs based on Australian TV programs to Category:American television series based on Australian television series
Nominator's rationale: Rename - per recent CFD that resulted in the similarly-named American/British category being renamed. This expands the abbreviation and, since this is for American series, uses American terminology.. Otto4711 (talk) 06:12, 10 October 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:American programs based on foreign programs[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 OCT 20. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American programs based on foreign programs to Category:American television series based on foreign television series
Nominator's rationale: Rename - per recent CFD that resulted in the similarly-named American/British category being renamed. This clarifies what sort of programs and, since this is for American series, uses American terminology. Otto4711 (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't say as I have a problem with it but if "series from other countries" is preferred I don't have strong feelings. Otto4711 (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really have strong feelings about this in any direction. I think it's clear when there's a country mentioned by name in the category name that "foreign" means "countries other than the named one" but if it's truly going to result in confusion then I have no objection to wording the name however people think best. Otto4711 (talk) 17:27, 16 October 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:Television programs remade oversea[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. I really wanted to join this discussion, because a) I'm leaning toward I don't know if this is useful, so delete, and b) but if kept, really needs a rename because the current name sucks (ok, that may be too strong, but look, when you have to read the title, and then re-read it, and re-read it again, just to figure out what the creator meant, and is it actually good grammar or not, then it's poorly named), but then I realized that I wasn't going to convince either of you to change your mind (oh, I almost forgot, ding ding, to your corners, gentlemen), and since this hasn't been touched since the 11th, it should just be closed, to be renominated at a later date. Kbdank71 14:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Edit: Rename to Category:Television programs remade overseas to add S. --Kbdank71 15:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Television programs remade oversea to "something".

I think I understand what it's trying to include. (But the "oversea" just needs to go : )

Anyway, the name has problems as is, and honestly it's just too broad to be anything but a parent category.

As such, I'm leaning towards renaming to a "Lists of..." category. The non-list members can be merged to a list. (A new one, or an existing one, if found.) - jc37 05:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I just realized that I read this category backwards. It's not for shows that are based on foreign shows. It's for shows that serve as the source for shows in other countries. Now I'm wondering if it's a worthwhile categorization scheme at all. Otto4711 (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. And I think that the lists should be categorised in a "Lists of..." cat - especially since, due to a few of the articles in the cat, other lists may be created in the future. Hence my comments above. - jc37 07:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Rename to Television formats licensed internationally, which is the correct (broadest) term, and avoids m/mm issues. But the articles included should cover, or at least mention, the international spin-offs. After removing a couple of Betty duplicates and adding Big Brother we have 3 (or 2 - see below) valid sub-cats, 2 lists, & 1 other article, so this category seems the sensible solution - no doubt there are others. The main Big Brother (TV series) article is a well-done example of the global approach to tv-articles, which I think should be encouraged as much more encyclopedic, where appropriate. But Category:US Shows remade for the French market, which contains only 1 French show, shows notes still need to be added clarifying what goes in - parent or children shows. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon further cogitation, I'm gonna go with delete. I don't think being remade or licensed overseas is a defining characteristic for a TV series. Certainly there should be a section in the article discussing overseas franchising but imagine the category clutter that could result on particularly popular shows. Queer Eye for example was franchised to at least nine countries, and I shudder to think how many categories would end up on Pop Idol. List of Fooian television series remade for another country or something similar would probably be the best solution as it can include multiple entries for popular shows and the like. I'm mildly opposed to the word "licensed" because of the potential for confusion with series licensed for syndication. Otto4711 (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point is just to have one category for widely licensed series, plus the odd UK/British etc one. Ones like Big Brother rightly have their own cats, and this super-cat pulls them together. Where is this previous debate you mention above (in the noms 2-3 up)?. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand what the point is, I just disagree that it's a worthwhile thing to categorize. The previous debate mentioned in noms above, which doesn't have any bearing here, is found here. Otto4711 (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - certainly it has a bearing - it should be a sub of this category. The fact we have large existing branches of a tree that aren't joined up in a super-category reinforces the case for this one, which should contain both "parent" and "child" sub-cats and articles, though these need to be clearly distinguished by their names. If it is worthwhile categorising at a local level, it is worth a global super-category, which hopefully will be a step towards a properly encyclopedic treatment of the whole tv area, now sorely lacking. Johnbod (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It shouldn't be a sub of this category. This category is for shows that originate in Foo and are remade in Boo. Categories for shows made in Boo that are based on shows from Foo shouldn't be included, because the two concepts are opposite. The proper parent for "Fooian shows based on Booian shows" would be something like "Television series based on series from another country", not this. I wonder if you're reading this category backwards like I did. Otto4711 (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well my main point is that there should be a tree unifying what currently appear to be several quite large isolated branches. Both the existing, obviously defective, name & my proposed one are in fact applicable to both parents and children, and given the existence of cats like Ugly B & Big Brother, which join both, this seems right. There could then be separate new sub-cats for material organised into parents & children, like the ones in the noms above. But I think it is important the whole lot join up at some level, and how they are organised below that is less important. Johnbod (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd welcome clarification from Otto & jc as to why, when from the nominations just above they seem to be happy with local categories on cross-border tv remakes/licensing, they seem here to object in principle to a global head category to bring the local cats together. Or have I got this wrong? Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to a head category for shows which are based on shows from other countries. I believe that being based on a show from another country is a defining production characteristic, in the same way that a film's having been based on a novel is defining. I do object to any categorization of source shows that have been remade in other countries. I don't believe that having been made into a show in another country is defining of the original show. The resulting new show should be mentioned in the original's article (e.g. Steptoe and Son should mention that Sanford and Son is based on it), if there are sufficient numbers of adaptations then a list article may be appropriate (similar to Adaptations of Moby-Dick) and a list of Fooian shows based on Booian shows would be interesting and allow for annotation but I don't think the source material should be categorized as such. Otto4711 (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't agree with that - it is surely wholly defining of the original Mexican Ugly Betty, Dutch Big Brother & so on that they were licensed internationally, and indeed that this was in these cases the main revenue stream they produced. Frankly this is adopting a viewers perspective rather than an industry one - we should cover both. But in any case, much of the material is already, and rightly, arranged on a global basis, so how do we categorise this, and group it with the lists? Recent noms have demonstrated we are clearly failing to do this. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Betty la fea (the original, which is Colombian in origin, not Mexican) currently has 19 franchised countries listed in its article. Are you suggesting that we add 19 categories to its category list? Or are you suggesting that we have a single category for every program that's been franchised to another country, which is so vague as to make the category useless? This puts me in mind of the discussion of a year or so ago addressing an attempt to develop a categorization scheme for shows that had been syndicated to other countries. That scheme was rejected and its rudiments deleted, because any particular show could be syndicated to 200+ countries and trying to categorize on that basis is completely unworkable. The example of Baywatch was given, as the most-watched show through syndication on the planet at one point it could have wound up with dozens or hundreds of categories. I'm not seeing the difference between the two schemes. I'll see if I can dig up the syndication discussion but it'll be a long shot. Also, the notion that franchising is the main revenue stream for these shows is speculation. Otto4711 (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you read a word I've said? From above: "The whole point is just to have one category for widely licensed series, plus the odd UK/British etc one. Ones like Big Brother rightly have their own cats, and this super-cat pulls them together." I don't know Betty's figures, but it would be truly amazing if the original production made more money than the foreign rights. Endemol's business model is a matter of common knowlge and public record. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I try to read every word you say, it's just that so often you make so little sense. So just that I'm crystal clear, you're in favor of putting a vague "this TV show was franchised to other countries" category in place. The idea that having a category to advise that a show has been sold to a foreign market is stupid. What does this category tell the reader? Anything useful? No. Creating referenced lists of shows by country and including them in a "Lists of..." category is the better way to present this information. Any category that is presenting the information in terms of the source country should be deleted out of concern for category clutter and because it is a poor way to present the information. While it would be lovely if a category could actually be restricted to just the "widely licensed" programs (and, pardon, what was the objective definition of "widely licensed" again? How many countries are there in a "widely licensed"?) but of course once the category exists there is nothing stopping any editor from adding any TV show that's ever been sold to even a single foreign market. And of course, declaring that the category is off-limits to such entries is POV-pushing. And forgive me, but individual companies' marketing strategies strike me as being somewhat irrelevant since we are not talking about categorizing on the basis of company but of country. Otto4711 (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No that is what you persist in talking about, despite the fact that it is not exclusively what the category is now about or should be about. It is entirely typical of you that when I directly respond to your last point it "strike[s] me as being somewhat irrelevant"! I think we'd better wait on this until the usual. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 11 October 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:Sword-and-Sorcery films[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:Sword and sorcery films. Feel free to create a new parent and reorganize as needed. Kbdank71 13:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sword-and-Sorcery films to Category:Sword and sorcery
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I originally proposed that this category be speedily renamed to Category:Sword-and-sorcery films (with a lowercase "s" in "sorcery"), but some users argued that it did not fit the criteria for speedy renaming. However, the consensus is that it should be renamed to Category:Sword and sorcery instead. I personally have no objections to this. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:55, 10 October 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:Notable Philosophy Majors[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Notable Philosophy Majors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The one person currently in this category is not actually known for what her major was in college, and pretty much no one else is either. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Most people aren't know for being a Princeton Alumni, but there's a category for that. Llamabr (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - first, notability is required for a Wikipedia article so the use of the word "notable" is redundant. Second, one's college major is not a defining characteristic. I'd be willing to bet that most people aren't even working in a field related to their major. Otto4711 (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both. Vast numbers of British politicians (and Bill Clinton) did Philosophy, Politics and Economics btw, and a fat lot of good it has done them. Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there's another problem with this category: "philosophy majors" should not be capitalized. --Ixfd64 (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a NN characteristic. Philosophy, Politics and Economics is (I think) only taught at Oxford University, but it is overrepresetned in the polictical class. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_10&oldid=1074801276"