Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 24 September 26 >

September 25[edit]

Category:G8 summit resorts[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, listify if desired. Kbdank71 14:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:G8 summit resorts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, over-categorization by a non-defining detail. --Eliyak T·C 23:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This doesn't rise to the level of importance that warrants a category. A nav-box template would be better in this case. Cgingold (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See below .... Keep -- As of 2008, there are be 34 plausible entries in this category; but the process of developing this category is understandably slow. Sufficient merit is demonstrated by the rationale which has motivated a host country in choosing the location -- as is demonstrated by the the Japanese government's decision to site the 34th G8 summit in economically depressed Hokkaido. A similar story can be seen in the current development of articles about the 35th G8 summit and the 36th G8 summit. --Tenmei (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, the number of potential entries in the category isn't the issue here. In fact, that number indirectly bears witness to the fact that hosting the G-8 summits is a transient occurrence, and thus not worthy of a category. Again, this would be better served by a nav-box template. Cgingold (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I am simply misconstruing concepts and terms?
  • Eliyak considered this category a non-defining detail?
  • Cgingold's points seem conceptually different in several ways: Doesn't rise to level of importance? Nav-box template would be better in this case? Transient occurrence?
Could it be that Eliyak and Cgingold are each correct in that each is considering this issue from the disinterested perspective of a wiki-taxonomist -- see, e.g., Zirn, Cäcilia, Vivi Nastase and Michael Strube. "Distinguishing Between Instances and Classes in the Wikipedia Taxonomy" (paper); (video lecture). 5th Annual European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2008).
At the same time, could it be that Tenmei is not incorrect in identifying this and other wiki-categories as plausibly useful tools? In this case, Category:G8 summit resorts becomes a potentially helpful device for developing the array of articles about G8 summits (which includes the early G6 and G7 summits as well) ...? The "useful tool" argument arises from different grounds than what I take to be an interesting, but functionally barren taxonomy-focused discussion? The utility of Category:G8 summit resorts is informed by the reasons the different Japanese governments chose 34th G8 summit/Toyako, Hokkaido and 26th G8 summit/Nago, Okinawa for G8 summit meeting sites ... which turns out to be somewhat similar to the rationale expressed by Canadian governments which chose 36th G8 summit/Huntsville, Ontario and 28th G8 summit/Kananaskis, Alberta? Research reveals that the location decisions of host nations were informed by perceived pre- and post-summit economic benefits. This common factor might not have been considered by Eliyak. The serial accounts of these summits have tended to focus on international macro-consequences; but the host-country's decision-making has also seemed to focus on micro-consequences which have been otherwise overshadowed or overlooked. I created this category when the research began to reveal it, but other matters drew me away from the subject. Perhaps Eliyak and Cgingold are suggesting that I've put the cart before the horse?
I'm wondering if Wikipedia's broader goals will be best served by allowing this category to persist, especially in light of those who are likely to be consulting 35th G8 summit/La Maddalena, Italy and 36th G8 summit/Huntsville, Ontario/Deerhurst Resort? Perhaps I'm mistakenly conflating apples and oranges, but I understood the concept of "category" to have a significance beyond mere navagational convenience?--Tenmei (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep strong characteristic that usefully groups these locations for one of the most important international meetings. Alansohn (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it is valuable information for Wikipedia to have, it's not particularly a defining characteristic of the resorts. Probably better compiled as a list than a template — a list can also include contextual information, such as when the resort hosted a G8 summit and where the resort is located, but a category just alphabetizes the resorts' names. Listify. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have nothing much against the category, but the arguments given for it I think would be far more applicable as an article on the topic. A list would have the same effect here and such an article with the list could go into the kind of detail that is above that could make an interesting read. The category could accompany that article maybe, but on its own the interesting notes given above a rather meaningless as that isn't conveyed through a simple category.- J.Logan`t: 18:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is just another list and this fails not a directory. THis catagory is just another nothin catagory and is not highly notable, in its own right.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a category, which is inherently different from a list in that it isn't subjected to WP:NOTDIR as you've used it (it doesn't fall under NOTDIR's scope at all, for that matter). All categories are directories — therein we could say categories shouldn't exist. Your argument is therefore flawed. --Izno (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or listify — the reasons put forth by Bearcat are persuasive in my opinion in creating a list of this information, though I think I would much prefer a straight keep. There is something bugging me about this category though... :/ --Izno (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See below .... Responding to Bearcat's proposal, I did create a stub List of G8 summit resorts. From the outset, I wondered above about putting the cart before the horse. In light of Izno's comment, I'm uncertain about what's best ... :/
  1. At this point, maybe it makes sense to abandon category in favor of the list? When or if further research clarifies the relevant factors, a category might be re-created in early Summer 2009?
  2. Alternately, maybe it's better to leave the category as is until Spring 2009, and then we can re-visit questions like the ones raised here?
I'm ready to cooperate with whatever consensus decision is reached.--Tenmei (talk)
  • To clarify, Tenmei, I nominate this category for deletion in line with this guideline: Wikipedia:OCAT#Venues by event. If you browse that page, you will see that this is consistent with the general idea that articles should be categorized only by points that describe the essence of the topic at hand. --Eilyak T·C 10:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Rename — I believe there were good reasons for creating this category, although perhaps instead of being exclusively focused on resort communities that have hosted G8 Summits, it could be renamed to something like Category:Locations of G8 summits or Category:G8 summit locations which would be more inclusive of resort and non-resort host communities. Any such categories should also be included under the Category:G8 parent category.Plasma east (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete Non-defining characteristic, venue by event. Otto4711 (talk) 21:32, 28 September 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:Anglican archbishops by diocese in the United Kingdom[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 to Category:Anglican archbishops by province. Kbdank71 14:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese in the United Kingdom to Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese
Suggest merging Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese outside UK to Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese
Nominator's rationale: Merge - I understand the why behind this split but it still seems weird to me to split up the archbishops in this particular fashion. If kept, the latter category needs to be renamed to Category:Anglican archbishops outside the United Kingdom. Otto4711 (talk) 21:25, 25 September 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:Actors in Heroes[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 14:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Actors in Heroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Overcategorisation of performer by performance per Wikipedia:OCAT#Performers_by_performance. BelovedFreak 21:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per overwhelming consensus and precedent. Otto4711 (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - While it's still in production, I think we're going to see continued recreations under various names. - jc37 06:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is already List of Heroes cast members. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:50, 26 September 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:Roman Catholic archbishops of Bologna, and others from Category:Italian archbishops[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 to rename. Please remember that what is known about italian bishops to you people (aka commonsense that they are all catholic) may not be to the reader. Kbdank71 14:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Shorter names are better, where there is no serious ambiguity (as here), and they are certainly more readable. These categories occur often with numerous others, so let's keep them concise. Where there is ambiguity, I prefer the usage at Category:Bishops of Liverpool (Roman Catholic). Charles Matthews (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - unless no other religions have archbishops that operate out of these cities. RC isn't the only religion that has archbishops. Otto4711 (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think it is extremely unlikely that any other church has archbishops anywhere in Italy. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, in Italy, "Catholic" is the default and the reader is hardly going to be misled. We allow Category:Popes, and Category:Popes of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria - the point is that "Pope" to the general reader means the Roman Pope. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is another issue that should be addressed at the more global level. The parent Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese is split between entries in the form of "Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Foo" and "Category:Archbishops of Foo". Making this change may shift the balance but still leaves a rather inconsistent assortment of entries. Alansohn (talk)
  • oppose instead of this, all the subcats of Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese should include the words 'Roman Catholic' in them for consistency and clarity, no matter how the reader reaches these categories. Hmains (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that overlooks that we have the Category page to give full information, and the ability to direct to a main article from the Category page; as well as the readability issue. There is no great virtue in having verbose category names. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Category names are what readers mostly see, not text once they bring up the page the category page. This is why names are so important that they get debated; little introductory text does not. Hmains (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's basic to the way WP is organised, though: follow the link for details, as and when you need them. Put good information and details in one place. Your argument also applies to replacement text in piped links ... Charles Matthews (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is an issue that has been around for a while. I guess the way it was working was that archbishops was OK on its own if there was no chance for there to be an archbishop for a second religion in the place. This has resulted in inconstant application of names to categories. This also results in category names that are ambiguous, another problem. The current structure also supposes that every reader know that the dominant religion is in an area to determine what denomination the archbishop is a member of. I think we should leave these alone and start renaming all of the others to match the for Ctageory:Foo archbishops of fooreligion this is not ambiguous and makes the contents clear to every reader. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom & commonsense. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Italy is an overwhelmingly Catholic country, ergo all its bishops will be Catholic unless otherwise specified. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 30 September 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:1632 character articles[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, please tag Category:1632 series characters and nominate it if desired. Kbdank71 14:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:1632 character articles to Category:1632 series characters
Nominator's rationale: This self-referential category is populated by {{1632 characters}}, which automatically categorises any page on which it is transcluded into both of the categories listed above. This means that every article in Category:1632 character articles is also in Category:1632 series characters. The category descriptions identify them as "tracking" categories, but it's unclear how one differs from the other. In any case, project-specific categories belong on talk pages. Thus, at minimum, this category should be made a talk page category and renamed to Category:1632 series character articles; however, there does not seem to be a WikiProject. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:1632 series: I really do not see why we need more than one category for this literary enterprise. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both and all other subcats to Category:1632 series. It's very difficult to grasp the cat structure since Category:1632 series characters is both a parent and child of Category:1632 character articles. Occuli (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - One of the biggest problems with developing these articles was how to refer to it's ensemble protagonist... which numbers a great many tens of Grantville's townspeople. So, at the genesis, the one was to cover major characters, the other repeating supporting characters, most of which because of notability guidelines, would have been redirected pages solely--both to aid expository and synopses writing whilst still referring to in-universe characters via hyperlinks to pertinent data on repeat characters.
  • Hence the template listing such redirect to sections would enable a list generation of what has been covered and what wasn't in the so called tracking or list category. (Apologies for not db-authoring this soonest)
  • Some short time after that, using templates to access the character list articles obviated the need for cluttering up main namespace with redirect type references and keeping all such character hyper links in universe.
  • Hence while some additional redirects may develop, and a major character article or two might develop, only editor friendly redirects are likely to expand either category contents going forward. {{16char}} and friends are just too darned useful to need such. // FrankB 19:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom... Klunking up the main series category with content articles is NOT a good idea, so oppose merging both to 1632 series which is more in the nature of a project category... and no, the project is lacking a project. I'm hoping someone with the time will come along and start one some day. // FrankB 19:21, 27 September 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:EST and The Forum in popular culture[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: deleted by author. Cirt (talk) 07:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:EST and The Forum in popular culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - categorizing things on the basis of specific things that they parody seems like a really poor basis for categorization. I know we've previously deleted a category for songs parodied by Weird Al and this strikes me as being similar. Imagine how many categories that could end up on Saturday Night Live or The Daily Show. The lead article and the template cover the territory. Otto4711 (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - The category is useful for sorting a series of articles along a tight theme. The category is most certainly not simply about parodies, but also includes other articles about subjects influneced by this phenomenon in ways other than humor/satire/parody. Cirt (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relationship between many of these things does not go beyond some reviewer's being reminded of est while watching the episode. There is no indication, for example, that the producers of Six Feet Under had est in mind when creating the episode The Plan. Nor does there appear to be any relationship between est and the novel The Program other than Erhard being quoted in it. Of the rest of the contents, with the exception of The Wiz they simply parody est or its seminars, usually as a subplot of a larger film. There is no tight connection between these things, any more than there's a tight connection between Norma Rae and Willy Wonka because they are both set in factories. The connection won't be lost with the category anyway. All of these things are discussed at length in the main article and linked by a template. Otto4711 (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main article establishes relevancy, and in time more detail will be filled in in the other articles as well from additional WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And should that happen, the article and template will still suffice to link them together, and if not then the category can be recreated. As it stands now it's not needed. Otto4711 (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully disagree, it is a useful and relevant way to organize related articles. Cirt (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - These articles have nothing to do with the category. I suppose one could create: "List of presentations parodied by x", or some such, but categories are a really bad way to do this. Especially since this could easily enter the realm of WP:OR. An interpretation of a scene from a parody is like a nose: most everyone has one. - jc37 06:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have given this some thought, and Otto4711 (talk · contribs) has a point - the category could always be recreated later when it is more evident that more articles are/will be present for it. In the interim utilizing the template and main article together as a form of structure is sufficient. Cirt (talk) 07:31, 26 September 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:Americans of German descent[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. Kbdank71 14:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Americans of German descent to Category:German-Americans
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I've tried to separate articles into these two categories for many months, but it's a Sisyphean task. People will always confuse them or add articles into both categories. So I think it's better to have just one category instead of two, maybe with some restrictions on the degree of descent (although that's a bit arbitrary). I usually prefer the naming sheme "Fooians of Booian descent", but this might be an exceptional case, because the term "German-Americans" is quite established and there are several "German-American" subcats. Wulf Isebrand (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge (including subcategories) -- This is another case of the Booian-Fooians which has been the subject of a great deal of work over the last few months. The problem is that a German American can be taken as an American of German descent or a German of American descent, whatever the category-creator intends. Category:Americans of German descent is clear and unambiguous. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge for clarity, as per Peterkingiron Mayumashu (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would also accept a reverse merge, the name of the category isn't the most important aspect to me. But note that the main article is German American. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I for one don t mind that the article and category pages follow different naming patterns - I prefer seeing cat pages more formally, explicitly, and unambiguously named and feel that this sentiment is generally shared by users (as indicated here in discussion at 'WP:Cats for discussion') Mayumashu (talk) 02:50, 24 September 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 16:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment either version is confusing. Does the existing category include Argentinians of German descent or just U.S. citizens? DurovaCharge! 21:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Argentinians?? It s supposed to list just U.S. citizens? Mayumashu (talk) 05:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Reverse merge (as above) -- Mayumashu has put a lot of work into sorting out these dual nationality categories, creating the standard as booian of fooian descent. WE should stick to that. If there are still cases that he has not found they need to be dealt with in the same way. I see no objection to the main article retaining its current form, as it will be obvious to readers what it is about, when they get there. A statemetn that it is the main article should be added to the category page (if not there already). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Category:American people by ethnic or national origin is predominantly of the form fooian Americans, and the terms are well-understood. (I don't think there is any persuasive precedent for renaming 'fooian American' subcats.) Occuli (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and per Occuli. I object in the strongest possible terms to what amounts to a frontal assault on the established naming convention for US ethnic categories. Regardless of the concensus that has developed with regard to similar categories outside of the United States, the very clear fact is that these (German-American, Japanese-American, etc.) are the accepted terms in this country. As such they should not be replaced merely because that formulation may not be widely used elsewhere -- any more than the US formulation should be forcibly imposed on categories for other countries. We have two different naming conventions in place for place names -- one for the US, and another for the rest of the world (more or less). This bifurcation is well-established and accepted -- and I don't see any reason not to apply the same principle when it comes to these ethnic descent categories. Cgingold (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Cgingold. Also, we should re-establish Category:Polish Americans and merge Category:Americans of Polish descent back in to the original category. Ditto with Category:Americans of Swiss descent. --Wassermann (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Also because "American of Fooian descent" seems to allow for far more trivial classification than identification as a "Fooian-American;" I personally abhor all such sub-nationality ethnicity categories as trivia and think they should all be listified. Short of that, anything to contain them is a good thing. Postdlf (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per above and also take the actions outlined by Wassermann. This is the only category scheme for immigrants to the US and their desendants that has been accepted for years by nearly all parties who take an interest in these categories. It conforms to local United States usage and should be supported without question. Hmains (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Hmains. I'm one of the people in the category, and I agree that in America, the Foo-American format is nearly universal, regardless of how Wiki handles the rest of the world. Merge Americans of German descent into German Americans, with German Americans the main title. BookhouseBoy (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge as a prelude to getting all these Fooian American categories renamed. This has become the normal style for categories and it's much clearer than the alternative. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:36, 30 September 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:Substance-related disorders[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 14:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Substance-related disorders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete (or possibly rename). This caught my eye to begin with because it's rather oddly-named. But the more I looked at how it's being used, the more I begain to wonder if it really serves a useful purpose. I was expecting to find a fair number of articles about specific disorders, but there's hardly anthing of that sort. I suspect the basic idea was to bring together drug addiction with alcoholism, but that could be dealt with more simply with a horizontal link (such as {{CatRel}}). In any event, as it stands this category is a jumble of articles and sub-cats that are already included in other pertinent categories. I'm not sure what would be left here if it was properly cleaned up/out -- but perhaps someone else can come up with a better name and turn this into a useful/functional category. Category creator stopped editing in September 2005 Cgingold (talk) 22:22, 18 September 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 16:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and expand. This category name is not arbitrary; it is specifically listed in DSM-IV Codes to cover all manner of substance abuse problems and this category should follow suit. Hmains (talk) 00:34, 27 September 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:Maties[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 14:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Maties to Category:Stellenbosch University alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename per usual naming conventions for Universities. Thomas.macmillan (talk) 18:57, 18 September 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 16:05, 25 September 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:Five Percenters[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:The Nation of Gods and Earths people. Kbdank71 14:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Five Percenters to Category:The Nation of Gods and Earths adherents
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article. I'm not sure if Category:The Nation of Gods and Earths members would be a better choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:27, 17 September 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 14:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ??? stands for 'a word or phrase to be supplied' (people being my suggestion, adherents and members being also suggested). Occuli (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I think that adherents is correct based on the category contents I'm not opposed to people if that is where consensus is. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • support Vegaswikian. the present name is thoroughly obscure and will be meaningless except to cognescenti. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:13, 25 September 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:Words of Turkish origin[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 13:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Words of Turkish origin to Category:Turkish loanwords
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename for conformity with Category:German loanwords, Category:Hungarian loanwords, etcetera. Stepheng3 (talk) 22:59, 17 September 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 14:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please close with no change -- Johnbod's point is a good one. BUT can some one find the right AFD list to put a note about this on, so that we can get comment from specialists? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The parent Category:English words and phrases of foreign origin uses the form "Fooish loanwords" for all categories except for this and for Afrikaans. While I do agree with Johnbod that there are some words in the category that do not meet the definition of loanwords, it is still accurate for the overwhelming majority of words listed there. Input from the Linguistics would be useful, and should be addressed to standardize all of the subcategories in the parent. Alansohn (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. For consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 17:41, 26 September 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:Alabama International Baccalaureate 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: rename. Kbdank71 13:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest renaming Category:Alabama International Baccalaureate Schools to Category:International Baccalaureate schools in Alabama
Nominator's rationale: Follows category naming conventions.Plasma east (talk) 13:49, 25 September 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:Fashion models by nationality[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 all, including subcats. Note to any wikiproject that may be upset due to any lack of notification: If you want, I'll reverse your project's subcat merge and we can open a full CFD for it. Just drop a note at my talk page. Kbdank71 13:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Fashion models by nationality to Category:Models by nationality
also merge the approximately 60 sub-categories to the appropriate Fooian models parent
Nominator's rationale: Merge - there is functionally no difference between being a "fashion model" and a "model" for categorization purposes. Fashion modeling is a redirect to Fashion photography and Fashion model is a redirect to Model (person). Maintaining this duplicative structure splits some already small categories into even smaller subcategories, many with only a single entry. Otto4711 (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge there are other types of models, which might be categorized by country as well. 70.51.8.158 (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That there are other types of models is why a reverse merge is untenable. All fashion models are models but not all models are fashion models. A reverse merge might put non-fashion models into fashion model categories. Otto4711 (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request relist rather than no consensus close if possible. Otto4711 (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 24 September 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 13:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Someone might want to let the Australian Wikipedians' noticeboard know about this, as it would involve one of their categories. --Kbdank71 13:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Oppose. Clearly the reverse merge is totally wrong, and that I Oppose since I don't see how a body parts model can be considered as a fashion model. My question would be, do we need to classify models by nationality below Category:Models by nationality by the type of model? They should already be classified in their articles by nationality. If there is a need for this level of classification then Category:Fashion models by nationality needs to exist and should not be deleted or merged. On the other hand if Category:Fashion models by nationality is OCAT then it should be merged per nom. I'm just not sure about the need. Then there is the impact of this decision. If we do this merge, we need to remember that all of the subcategories have been tagged but not listed in the nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe there is a need to classify some types of models by nationality, as with the existing Category:Adult models by nationality structure. My idea here is that there is no functional difference between "fashion model" and "model" as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I am unaware, based on my admittedly limited knowledge of the modeling industry, of a distinction drawn between a "fashion model" and a "model" within the industry. There are models who tend to be identified more with "high fashion" (haute couture) and others who tend to be identified more as "commercial" but in practice models can and do book jobs across the spectrum. Look at someone like Tyra Banks, who's modeled for everyone from Dolce & Gabbana to Pepsi. Since the project has indicated, through its choice of "model" over "fashion model" for the article name, that it prefers "model," it seems apparent to me that models by nationality should be kept and fashion models by nationality should be merged to it. I have no idea if we have sufficient articles on other notable types of models (body part, plus size, artists') to warrant splitting those up by nationality. Otto4711 (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont' Merge: "model" is too general and there are so many different kinds of models, that merging would really harm Wikipedia and its professionality. You can't put adult porn models together with high fashion models on one "models" list! Please think about it before you decide! Thank you. 85.127.171.58 (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adult models are already separated in the category structure linked above. Merging these categories would not affect that structure. Otto4711 (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This only affects the classification by nationality. There is not intent that I see to merge the categories that classify by the type of model. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. This is not a useful or manageable distinction in the category system. Postdlf (talk) 04:46, 1 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:Districts[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 13:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Districts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category, although superficially uniform, is merely a lumping together of disparate subdivisions, administrative and historical, which use the generic name District. The subcategories basically have no commonality. We have in place other structures which meaningfully organize the subhierarchies based on function. meco (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - overcategorization by shared name. Otto4711 (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - yes they are disparate, but they are united by all being called "district". I think this is petoentially a useful navigation tool for finding the right article, if one does not quite know what one is looking for. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These share nothing other than a section of their name - it's like having a category for people called Paul. The key article makes it very clear that the term "district" means completely different things in different countries. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Deletion rationale is not correct. Districts are clearly an administrative subdivision of a country. They are related Hmains (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Districts (local government areas) or Category:Districts (administrative division) or Category:Administrative districts. Districts is, in and of itself, ambiguous. This is clear from the hat notes in District. Also this name lends itself to have editors drop in any multitude of things named districts. Without a rename, this also would on the surface appear to be a logical parent for things like Category:Central business districts or Category:Financial districts. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A perfect example of overcategorisation. What does this add to Wikipedia? They don't even share a section of their name, since many are rough translations to "district" from other languages, and they mean completely different things in different countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 1 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:User templates using ParserFunctions[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: upmerge. Kbdank71 13:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:User templates using ParserFunctions

Per this recent discussion resulting in the deletion of Category:Templates using ParserFunctions. - jc37 08:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. - jc37 08:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, a fortiori. However, most of the members of this category seem to be userboxes, but not in the parent category; therefore Upmerge to Category:Userboxes. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:02, 1 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:Types of clothing[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. Kbdank71 13:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Types of clothing to Category:Clothing by type
Nominator's rationale: I can't see any clear and useful distinction. Beland (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - many may not need merging at all, and there are not too many to find the appropriate sub-cat, eg Category:Trousers and shorts, which in fact the 1-line baggy pants is already in. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The current set up is tolerable, though not greatly so. If UpMerged, then I support Category:Clothing as the target. - jc37 06:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: I've added an explanation on the other category page. Many readers may still be puzzled as to why there are separate categories for the lead articles and for sub-categories by type. My own preference would be a reverse merge to Category:Types of clothing, but I'm not here to disrupt the system. The whole of category:Types looks fairly pointless to me, but maybe there are good points about it that I haven't understood. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:26, 1 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:Fictional gardeners[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 13:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional gardeners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - single article is for a fictional botanist, not a gardener. There appears to be little likelihood of an explosion of fictional gardener articles. Otto4711 (talk) 06:10, 25 September 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:Australians of Bosnian descent[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. Kbdank71 13:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Australians of Bosnian descent to Category:OtherCategory
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Created this before I realised the Category: Australians of Bosnia and Herzegovina descent already existed.. batobatobato (talk) 03:37, 25 September 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:Retroactive continuity comics[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 13:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Retroactive continuity comics

Considering the commonality of retcons (Action Comics alone...), this is just too vague, and has a potential for extreme category bloat. - jc37 04:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. - jc37 04:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not much of a comics geek, so I can't be sure of this, but the impression I get is that this isn't so much meant for any comic series that ever had a retconned storyline, but for the much smaller but still significant phenomenon of comic books based entirely around creating a whole new retconned backstory for an established character or group. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, though. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bearcat has a good point. If kept can we do something about the clunky name. On the face of it, though, I lean towards deletion. Do we need a category for comic books based entirely around creating a whole new retconned backstory for an established character or group? Where do you stop? Heroes Reborn, Zero Hour, every zero issue of a DC Comic which thus followed, Man of Steel, Batman: Year One, Crisis, Infinite Crisis, Multiple Crisis, Minor Crisis, Oops where's me socks? and so on. Many comic books are created with the purpose of re-writing what has gone before. Especially nowadays, because it gets harder and harder to explain Iron Man's origin as being in the Korean War, or Superman's adventures in the Great Depression, or... Hiding T 09:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I had responded to this, but apparently it's lost to the ether : )
    Your comments are pretty much what I was attempting to convey. (My example referring to a time where (nearly) every issue of Action Comics had an "imaginary story".) - jc37 11:23, 1 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:Lists of comics characters[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 13:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lists of comics characters to Category:Lists of fictional characters in comics

Per WP:NCC concerning lists - That "...in comics" is generally to be used for fictional content, while "Comics x" is generally to be used for RL topics.

And "Fictional character" is the current convention throughout such cats (when another adjective isn't in place, such as publisher name). - jc37 02:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename - as nominator. - jc37 02:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aye. Hiding T 09:39, 30 September 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 works in popular culture[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:Creative works in popular culture and kudos for recognizing name and scope are not always the same (can someone add that to the pamphlet we hand out at the door for "CFD night"? What do you mean, there is no pamphlet?). Kbdank71 14:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional works in popular culture to Category:Works in popular culture

This follows the naming conventions of the subcats of Category:Creative works, and Category:In popular culture.

In particular, a "work" may not necessarily be considered "fictional". For example, a painting, a dance, a play, etc.

This also helps avoid the confusion between "works" and "fictional works". - jc37 02:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename - as nominator. - jc37 02:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - but possibly to Category:Creative works in popular culture. "Works" is a little ambiguous IMHO. Otto4711 (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't greatly disagree with you, but check out all the subcats of Category:Creative works. - jc37 17:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are two issues that need to be dealt with here: the name of the category, and also it's scope. It clearly needs to be renamed, but which name we choose depends on the scope. The category's creator appears to have ceased editing, but the original intent is pretty clear if you go by the original parent cats, which were Category:Fiction and Category:In popular culture -- by that set of parameters it should have been named Category:Works of fiction in popular culture. However, the scope of the category was subsequently changed, with the addition of new parent cats and, in particular, sub-categories that fall well outside the bounds of "fiction". If we decide that we want to be able to include all of the current contents (leaving out est and The Forum in popular culture) in a broader category, then I would agree with Otto that the proper name should be Category:Creative works in popular culture. We might, however, want to retain the original category (renamed, of course) as a sub-cat of the new, enlarged parent cat. Naturally, the contents will need to be divvied up appropriately. Cgingold (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "...the name of the category, and also it's scope."
    (This is in no way a comment on any specific person, but I just feel the need to stop a moment and cheer for the observation that name and scope may be different things, both often needing to be addressed in CfD discussions. It's so nice to see someone looking beyond "IWANTIT" and "But I think that something about the topic (or intersection) is notable (or defining), so there must be a category for it". Name, scope, and utility for navigation (among other things) - again, nice to see : )
    Anyway (kicks my soapbox to the side), I think that your suggestions can be done "after-the-fact".
    I'll support the rename proposed by Otto, with a weak oppose to using "creative", due to the apparent current convention of the parent Category:Creative works. - jc37 06:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as Category:Creative works in popular culture -- agreeing with Otto that "works" is insufficiently specific in this instance, acknowledging that this makes it inconsistent with other members of Category:Creative works. Also set up sub-cat category:Works of fiction in popular culture as proposed by Cgingold. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, either "Works of fiction in popular culture", "Creative works in..." or "Works in...", whichever has consensus. Hiding T 09:42, 30 September 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_September_25&oldid=1150984990"