Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 4

< September 3	September 5 >

September 4[edit]

Category:Women comics artists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Female comics artists and Category:Female comics writers, respectively. While there are other sub-cats of Category:Women artists that also use "women", in this particular case it just doesn't read properly or sound right to my ear -- because there are two consecutive instances of nouns (women & comics) that are both functioning as adjectives. Consequently, I think "female" would be preferable as it is an actual adjective. Note: Both of these categories were proposed for renaming as part of a large, group CFD in 2007 that did not consider the issue I've raised here, which is unique to these two categories. (Category creators not notified as they are not identified in edit histories.) Cgingold (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose nouns used as adjectives are increasingly common in modern English. The use of the word "female" in this context strikes me as "odd", probably in the same way that the two adjectival uses, of what are often nouns, struck the proposer. --Bejnar (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree with you that adjectival usage of nouns has become increasingly common. Not sure if you noticed the related CFD immediately below this one, as you didn't comment there, but in that case -- and in the vast majority of others as well -- I am perfectly happy to use the word "women" as a functional adjective. (I've created a number myself, such as Category:Women comedians & Category:Women classical composers.) The problem here is the use of three consecutive nouns, with two of them functioning as adjectives. That is certainly not something that has become commonplace in modern English. In fact, it strikes me as what might be called a grammatical neologism -- the sort of thing that we should do our best to avoid here on Wikipedia. Cgingold (talk) 08:26, 9 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:Polish female artists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 07:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Polish women artists for consistency. I came across this one in the course of populating Category:Women artists by nationality, where it's the only one of 21 sub-cats that uses "female" instead of "women". (Category creator not notified - no edits since June 2009) Cgingold (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Polish women artists. 'Polish female artists' sounds like an instruction. Occuli (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 13:26, 5 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:Films produced by...[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 Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_18. Ruslik_Zero 18:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Discuss - these are the only categories currently for individuals (at least the only ones following this naming format). Before this proliferates we should have a discussion as to whether this is a good idea. We do have analogous categories for a couple of other film professions, but in those instances (specifically directors) it is very unusual that more than one person is credited as the director. Whereas for producers it's not uncommon for there to be many more than one, not to mention the various sub-types of producer (executive, co-executive, co-producer, associate producer, etc.) that could conceivably be included and credited. Fully implemented this could lead to category lists cluttered with several Category:Films produced by Foo entries that don't offer much in the way of encyclopedic value. I suggest a rename of Category:Films by producer to Category:Films by production company with the appropriate restriction in scope and deletion of the individuals' categories with lists in their articles if needed. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think there is probably merit in the renaming proposal. As for the rest, I'd like to see what other editors think. To that end, and especially given that you're clearly interested in having such a discussion, I'm utterly mystified as to why you haven't notified the category creators, who may well have something of interest to say about these issues... Cgingold (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Recomend it's raised at the film project to help build a consensus (IE close this for now, and re-open in the future, if necessary). Lugnuts (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now until discussion can be opened at the film project and consensus reached. CfD is not the proper place to build consensus on policy. Redfarmer (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Films Wikiproject is not the arbiter of categorization policy and there's no reason why this shouldn't be discussed here like any other categorization scheme. This is exactly the place to build consensus on categorization policy and guidelines and it's best to do it while the category tree is in its infancy rather than ignoring it until it's grown to dozens or hundreds of categories. Consensus about categorizing creative product on the basis of almost every other kind of creative professional has been discussed here. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD does not build policy; rather, it enforces consensus previously reached. While discussion of consensus can proceed out of CfD discussions, it is not the proper place to bring an initial question of consensus. Redfarmer (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this simply is not true. CFD not only "enforces consensus" it is where consensus about categorization is reached. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please relist - thanks. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:24, 18 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:Cinematic Titanic 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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 12#Category:Cinematic Titanic films. — ξ ^xplicit 07:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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:LGBT flags[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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 12#Category:LGBT flags. — ξ ^xplicit 07:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:LGBT flags to Category:The parents

Nominator's rationale: Merge - small category with little or no growth potential. Three of the four are in Category:LGBT symbols already, itself hardly an overpopulated category. The other parent is Category:Sexuality flags. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:32, 4 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:Seba United FC Footballers[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. — ξ ^xplicit 07:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Seba United FC Footballers to Category:Seba United F.C. footballers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To fix capitalization and match the main article Seba United F.C.. Tassedethe (talk) 15:14, 4 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:Golden Dawn[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. — ξ ^xplicit 07:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Golden Dawn to Category:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Golden Dawn is ambiguous. Tassedethe (talk) 15:06, 4 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:Goldwater Scholars[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. — ξ ^xplicit 07:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is an undergraduate scholarship of $7500 awarded to ca. 300 people a year. It is in no way defining, per WP:OC#Award recipients. Tassedethe (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - this falls way short of Category stature. Cgingold (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per guidelines on award recipients and categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:30, 10 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:Government Agencies during World War II[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. — ξ ^xplicit 07:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Government Agencies during World War II to Category:Agencies of the United States government during World War II

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To fix the capitalization, and to match with the parent category Category:Agencies of the United States government. Tassedethe (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom for clarity and specificity Hmains (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. "Government" is not useful when not clarifying which one. Dimadick (talk) 13:23, 5 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:Compositions for cello and organ[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. — ξ ^xplicit 07:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is simply no reason for this category to exist: the sole article in it shares the name of the category, and should be upmerged to the two relevant categories for cello and organ compositions that I was about to add as parent cats for this category before I discovered that it just wasn't needed. Category creator not notified - has left Wikipedia. Cgingold (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom—all I can say is, very odd. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:31, 10 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:Wikipedia users who are against Flagged Revisions[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: speedy delete under G7. — ξ ^xplicit 19:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Accidentally created this redundant category. Please remove it... Gniniv (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is tag the category page with {{db-author}} to get it Speedy Deleted. Cgingold (talk) 08:02, 4 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:Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability[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. Ruslik_Zero 15:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge or delete. After a run of AFD's, we are left with a single article category that is unlikely to grow without a DRV to overturn some deletion decisions, something that has so far not been successful. Courcelles 04:24, 4 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:CcHost[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. — ξ ^xplicit 07:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small category with no growth after 18+ months. So future growth is probably limited. Articles are linked in the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:07, 4 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.