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. --Xdamrtalk 03:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No clear inclusion criteria. What exactly is a "partial" ballad and how can that possibly be sourced? Very unclear characteristic. — Σxplicit 19:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting. I get it, it's a song with slow and fast parts, with the slow parts bring defining (supposedly). Has to be a tempo change, not just the loud/quiet/loud thing which has become part of rock music. It's fun to think about, about I've never heard of Partial ballads as a term to describe these songs and unless one can come up with a parent article with RS, there shouldn't be a category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and create article. The term exists. Debresser (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? My Googling did not reveal this to be a widely used term. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Most of the songs in the category are already included in Category:Pop ballads or Category:Rock ballads. The term "Partial Ballad" does not seem to be used in any article in Wikipedia. Cjc13 (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:No Consensus.
I must confess to having precisely zero knowledge of or exposure to this field, but it seems that in spite of previous cfds in this area there is significant controversy over this particular nomination. That being the case, and lacking the expertise to judge the arguments presented, I'm afraid this will have to close as a No Consensus.
Nominator's rationale: Similar to the previous Cosmic Era and Correct Century/After Colony/Future Century nominations and in keeping with WP:WAF were we should maintain an out-of-universe perspective, categories should be named after the name of the respective series instead of the fictional time lines the series are set in. --Farix (Talk) 17:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the same reasons in the two nominations cited. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It might not be apparant to westerner's but Universal Century is a metaseries itself, and the name is used to refer to the metaseries in a lot of publications(In Japanese, of course). It is very different from the pass nominations, since those are relatively small series save for cosmic era, which also only have 2 anime. The categories include articles of a large array of series, including anime series:MSG, Z, ZZ, CCA, 0080, 0083, 08MS, Igloo, F91, V and later this year, Unicorn and many more manga, novel and game series along with a live action movie. Universal Century includes half of the franchis' anime and over 70% of model sales. Since there is a specific series called Mobile Suit Gundam, calling the category by this name would be really confusing. I would support the After War rename, since it only contains 1 anime and 1 manga. And also, do we have to have a battleship category? aren't those vehicles as well? The last item I am concerning is the war category, since most are not notable, it should be deleted. No reason for having a category with only 1 or 2 article(I know One Year War is kinda notable, but cannot really think of any other). —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 02:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an alternative out-of-universe name then? Because we definitely can't use an in-universe term per WP:WAF. --Farix (Talk) 13:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest since Universal Century is used for the franchise, it is real world perspective enough. Say, the title Mobile Suit Gundam is fictional enough. If we look at the official site at the top banner links, Universal Century is used when other buttons states "G Gundam" "Gundam W" and "Gundam SEED".(And the nice o "Other series"). In the "Other Series", we also have "Other Universal Century series". I would say it is real world perspective enough if you are not asking for too much, since we have a source(though primary, it is still a source) stating it as a common name for the series. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 13:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is a grabbag nomination. Alot of nonUC Gundam series are also called "Mobile Suit Gundam", so you've just made a hash out of dividing things, since everything will naturally be dumped into the renamed UC categories without distinction, but you haven't nominated the After War categories for deletion, so why do you want to muddy up the issue on what goes into the Universal Century categories by making the new names apply to every single Gundam? 76.66.193.221 (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (perhaps Category:After War mobile suits should just be deleted, though, as it's an empty category) - a lot of non-UC series have "Mobile Suit Gundam" in their titles, true enough, but they all have more to their titles than just that (e.x. Mobile Suit Gundam SEED, Mobile Suit Gundam 00, etc.). This doesn't present any type of problem in article names and contents, so why should it be any different for category names? 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because normal viewers would be confused. Universal Century includes "Mobile Suit Gundam", "Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam", "Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ", "Mobile Suit Gundam: Char's Counter Attack", "Mobile Suit Gundam 0080: War in the Pocket", "Mobile Suit Gundam F91", "Mobile Suit Gundam 0083: Stardust Memory", "Mobile Suit V Gundam", "Mobile Suit Gundam: 08th MS Team", "Mobile Suit Gundam UC"(Unicorn), "MS Igloo". Except for the first series, all of the latter series except MS Igloo are like series from a different timeline, they all have more to the title. I do not understand why would it be strange to use a compilation name of the series just because it is a fictional word. "Mobile Suit Gundam" contains 100% fictional items as well, if a series title could be used, why the compilation title cannot? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 01:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused... are you suddenly arguing in favor of the change? There's no reason not to refer to each series with its full title insofar as categories are concerned (so long as there are enough related articles to justify the use of a category); in any case, they should not be categorized under "Category:Mobile Suit Gundam" unless they are directly related to the series Mobile Suit Gundam (otherwise, they would simply be categorized under Category:Gundam). 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I am commenting on why it should be Universal Century instead of Mobile Suit Gundam. You said other series have more to their titles, but other Universal Century series also have the same "more to their title", thus placing them in the Mobile Suit Gundam cat is rather confusing for others who are trying to read through the cat to find information. There are a lot of viewers who do not know there are different timelines/universes in the Gundam series, to them, Mobile Suit Gundam and Gundam is pretty much the same thing. On the other hand, "Universal Century" is a legitimate out-of-universe compilation name for the meta-series. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 07:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give examples of such series with identical titles? If it's something like anime series with X title and its manga adaptation with the same title, that really doesn't worry us - in that case, the same category would be used for both of them (and they should probably be covered in the same article); this is standard procedure for anime and manga articles. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am stating Mobile Suit Gundam is a single series, and the compilation name is Universal Century. The proposed renaming stating MSG is enough to cover all UC titles uses the argument of they all carry the name MSG in it is faulty since other series also contain the name MSG(and some UC series does not). Someone counter argued other series carry MSG but with more to the titles, this is also faulty since UC series also contain more to their titles. So the problem now would be having bunch of UC articles that should go into the UC category but not the MSG category. Unless various cats are created for different series, or they would be very confusing to regular(non-fan) readers as to why all of them are in the MSG cat while other similarly name series like MSG00 is not. Also, nobody answered me about why the out-of-universe compilation name Universal Century should not be used. The rationale of the nom is that Universal Century is in-universe, I have proven that it is indeed used as the compilation name. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 18:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Keep. --Xdamrtalk 03:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I re-created this category because I restored the Patrick Star article, so I categorized it with this category; see Talk:Patrick Star. The restoration of the article was short-lived as another user reverted it to a redirect to a "main characters" page. The Rugrats babies all have their own articles, and their own character category as well. I don't want Wikipedia to imply that Rugrats is a more major show than SpongeBob SquarePants, 'cause it isn't. I have a suggestion to make: restore the articles for all the other main SpongeBob SquarePants characters (i.e. Patrick Star, Squidward Tentacles, Sandy Cheeks), and tell that other user to stay out of it unless he wants to improve the articles. Marcus2 (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small category that, given the resistance to additional individual character articles, has limited growth potential. The existence of articles and a category for the Rugrats characters has no bearing on this discussion. It may be that they should all be merged to a single character list as well. The existence of the animated series super-category doesn't mean that every animated series should have its own category. Otto4711 (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A wildly popular show for which there is strong reason to believe that more articles are forthcoming, despite the resistance of a small, but stubborn, resistance movement. Alansohn (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn, please don't make personal comments about users who you perceive as disagreeing with you. Thanks. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:54, 13 August 2009 (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:Liberal Democratic Party of Russia members[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 20:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A party member is not necessarily a politician. Rename the other two categories to match these instead. Colchicum (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rename Party membership is defining outside of being a politician. If it's not defining for some individuals, remove the category from the article, don't delete the whole category. Alansohn (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 20:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A party member is not necessarily a politician. Rename the other two categories to match these instead. Colchicum (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as above and eliminate non-politicians. Occuli (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for some of these parties, becoming a member is a big deal. CPSU for sure. Don't know about this one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rename Party membership is defining outside of being a politician. If it's not defining for some individuals, remove the category from the article, don't delete the whole category. Alansohn (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support rename. Consistent with other similar categories. Jafeluv (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Online newspapers and digital newspapers are almost exactly the same thing, so there is no need for two categories. (However, I would not object if it were merged the other way around, i.e. digital into online.) King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. --Xdamrtalk 03:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename to specify appropriate country. Eastlawtalk ⁄ contribs 02:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded. Only has one category. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a significant feature of a city; and also ambiguous as different countries will have different versions of zoning restrictions (whatever they might be).
While we are in this zone, does anyone share my view that Zoning and its category should be renamed to something more generic and less US-specific? The UK term would be something like Land use regulation. Occuli (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's not a lot of value in categorizing cities by the presence or absence of zoning regulations. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. --Xdamrtalk 03:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Possibly a POV category. There is no clear definition of a slow jam and it has different meanings to different people. Most—if not all—songs in this category don't mention the song being a slow jam at all, which only contributes to original research. — Σxplicit 01:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Almost all of the articles in the category are unverified to be slow jams. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I ran across this category numerous times while reviewing articles included in the music videos category. From what I saw there was no pattern indicating what was or wasn't a "slow jam". No coherent inclusion criteria for the category. Otto4711 (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sounds like a traffic-related term. 'Cities with slow jams in unrestricted zones'. Occuli (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2009 (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.
