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:Rename. Bring into line with the team's page name as well as other such categories for Mexican League players. Dewelar (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2010 (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:Delete - per WP:OC#ARBITRARY. There's nothing official about either of these "clubs", they're just artificial milestones that someone at some point decided were significant. These are two of any number of these sorts of statistics (see Template:Major League Baseball records), only one other of which (500 home runs) has a category. Baseball players tend to accumulate a lot of categories already. Similar categories for other such "clubs" were deleted. Both are listed in articles about the accomplishment. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In baseball, this is a notable club of its own. This is not like someone arbritarily saying "2746 strikeouts" and making their own club. Dew Kane (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't clubs at all. That's just journalistic shorthand. I'm not suggesting that the achievement isn't notable; those who have achieved them are listed at the articles. And really it is pretty much the same thing as saying "2,746 strikeout club". It just so happened that someone at some time decided that "3,000 strikeouts" was significant but no one else decided that 2,746 strikeouts was. Why 3,000 strikeouts and not 2,000 or 2,500 or 4,000 or any other such number? Why 300 wins and not 200 or 250 or 350? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to inclusion on Wikipedia, outside sources are everything, and this is the way the outside sources have defined it. Just like living to 100 is defined as being a centenarium, but reaching age 87 has no defined status. Dew Kane (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which doesn't make the selection of 300 or 3,000 any less arbitrary, regardless of how many sources refer to them. It would be just as arbitrary had whoever back in the day said "2,000 strikeout club" and sources wrote that instead. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is indeed arbitrary, but nevertheless is notable because these are arbitrary statistics that have been adopted by baseball "insiders". But that's why we have lists for certain things, and these lists both already exist at 3000 strikeout club and 300 win club. This way we can retain the information and yet still abide by WP:OC#ARBITRARY. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:43, 20 September 2010 (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:Merge - only in very rare instances are prisoners categorized on the basis of the prison in which they are incarcerated. I checked about 10% of the prisoners and detainees by nationality tree and found only one other example of prisoners by prison (with mention in the prison's article of its particular "infamy" as a facility for political prisoners). Currently there are two other US-based categories, for prisoners at Alcatraz and prisoners at the country's only federal Supermax prison. The question is whether being held at Fort Marion was defining of its prisoners. There is the additional issue of this category's being restricted to Native American prisoners and whether that makes for an arbitrary inclusion standard. From a big picture perspective I tend to think that "Prisoners by prison" is a bad idea for a category tree because prisoners can be and are transferred from one facility to another and could thus collect a number of these categories, and so lean toward deletion/merger on that basis, but I don't really know enough about the specific prison in question to make a final judgment. If kept it will need to be renamed to correct the capitalization and if it is to remain for only Native American prisoners that should be reflected in the name as well. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Category:Native Americans imprisoned at Fort Marion. I just read the pertinent sections of what amounts to the main article for this category, Castillo de San Marcos -- about the periods of US history when it was known as "Fort Marion" and was the prison of choice for Native Americans who had been captured by the US Army. And they weren't just imprisoned there -- it served as what we would now term a reeducation camp. No question in my mind that this is a valid category. Cgingold (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per Cgingold.--TM 20:28, 19 September 2010 (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:Double upmerge. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge. Single member category, with no other networks having similar categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even were there were to be three slogans for NBC, (Said wryly: which I guess might include those of the National Biscuit Company.) Category serves no categorical purpose. --Bejnar (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2010 (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:Delete - per long-standing consensus against categorizing people based on the creative projects for which they perform. See recent deletion of Muppet writers category. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A real group of people engaged in a notable project. Dew Kane (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That they are real people is not in question. That the Muppets are notable is not in question. Can you explain why these three categories should be treated as exceptions to Wikipedia:OC#Performers_by_performance, unlike the hundreds of similar categories that have been deleted? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This relates to a company rather than just a TV show or film. Cjc13 (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of which one, possibly two, are reposts of previously deleted categories. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the Disney category as a whole, not the subcats. I would be okay with merger suggested below of Muppet and Sesame Street performers. Cjc13 (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2010 (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:Discuss. For the sake of completeness, since all of the other similar categories are currently under discussion. At first glance this appears to be the same as categories for films featured on any number of other horror host-style show, which based on current discussions seem to be headed toward deletion for the most part. However, this is actually categorizing films released on DVD by Cinematic Titanic, possibly making it more akin to a Category:Films by producer category or even a "video album" or "concert video" category. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. I originally created this based on Category:Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes (which was, then, "Mystery Science Theater 3000 films"). Cinematic Titanic is, in many ways an extension of MST3K since it features all of the original cast in a riffing atmosphere again. Further, many of these films have been plucked from obscurity, and their notability is inherent in the fact they have been featured in CT. Redfarmer (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 07:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – it is an incidental characteristic. Something in 'video albums' is (or should be) an article about a video album, not about an album that was subsequently re-packaged and re-issued by someone. Eg we don't categorise Pride and Prejudice as a Penguin paperback (I hope). Category:Cinematic Titanic films should be a list. Occuli (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All of the other hosted shows are losing their categories. DixieDellamorto (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2010 (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:merge. — ξxplicit 08:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 07:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as appearing reasonable. Does this mean flags will be in both parent cats? — Becksguy (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – both parent categories are small and sexuality flags in due course. Occuli (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- though as transgender is more a gender identity than a sexual one, the transgender flag article should likely only be merged up into the LGBT symbols parent (not the sexuality flags parent). Wikignome0530 (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2010 (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:Iraqi Freedom or Enduring Freedom veteran politicians[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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 20:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Trivial intersection. TM 01:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename - Seems notable (politicians who have served in a particular war), though a simpler category name ("American politicians who served in the Iraq war" or some variant) might be a less awkward name. In the media and popular culture the war has generally been referred to as the Iraq war, rather than its official "Operation ______" names. Wikignome0530 (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - categorize them as veterans and as politicians but not at the intersection of the two. Category asserts a connection between "Foo war veteran" and "politician" which may or may not be factual. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Are You The Cow Of Pain?. This is a composite category without an adequate connection between the two parts, hence non-defining. --Bejnar (talk) 05:00, 14 September 2010 (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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 20. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)