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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Non-notable neologism, no main article. Pnm (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I fail to understand what an arts festival and a DVD magazine, the entire current contents have in common. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the case here, actually. The "accepted sub-categorization scheme" exception applies to cases where every or almost every element of a set (ideally, a finite set) is expected to have a category – e.g., Category:Flags by country. In the case of Category:Comparisons, there is no fixed or defined population of topics that would form the basis of a scheme of {Topic} comparisons categories. That being said, mathematics is a subject with a significant and broad scope, so I don't think it's correct to dismiss the category entirely. Also, if there is no consensus to keep it, it would need to be upmerged rather than deleted. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I found one more article to add, bringing the total to three in the category itself and seven more in its subcategory. That seems enough to head off arguments based purely on numerics (as the nominator's is). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would not say "comparisons of mathematical software" is a "mathematical comparison", but more of a "technological comparison", so i don't think it strictly belongs there... This would leave only 3 articles (should ideally have 10+). However i think this would not matter if the category under discussion was renamed to Category:Mathematics-related comparisons? Brad7777 (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I may add that "mathematical comparison of algorithms" could contain interesting pages comparing the complexity and the practical efficiency of various mathematical algorithms. But for most algorithms, such a comparison would be original research and thus has not (yet) its place in Wikipedia. — D.Lazard (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as rather vaguely ambiguous. At the very least rename. Any equation is a mathematical comparison, just for one example. See Comparison, and Comparison (mathematics) in particular. - jc37 19:46, 27 January 2012 (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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The studios are also used to make TV programmes. Some editors are removing the category because a "programme" is not a "film". The use of "productions" covers them both Iantresman (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The category structure for Category:Films by studio shows the format of "Studio name" films. The editors removing TV productions from the film category are correct in their edits. Therefore, the category is correct. It would be better to have a category for TV productions as well and the productions category would be the parent of both the film and TV ones. Lugnuts (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2012 (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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The studios are also used to make TV programmes. Some editors are removing the category because a TV "programme" is not a "film". The use of "productions" covers them both Iantresman (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The category structure for Category:Films by studio shows the format of "Studio name" films. The editors removing TV productions from the film category are correct in their edits. Therefore, the category is correct. It would be better to have a category for TV productions as well and the productions category would be the parent of both the film and TV ones. Lugnuts (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm running into a problem, having now created Category:Pinewood Studios TV productions. I now find that there are made-for-TV films. Do I tag them twice, as they are both a film and TV production? What about a mini-series, or a TV movie broadcast as a mini-series? Who decides whether a mini-series is also a movie? Then there is the BBC and Channel 4 (both TV stations) that make films that are designed to be shown both at the cinema and on TV. It would have been much easier if there was just one tag, Category:Pinewood Studios productions. It seems to me that we are primarily interested in whether something was made wholly or in part at Pinewood Studios. Suggestions? --Iantresman (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tag the made-for-TV films in both, mini-series in TV, movie broadcast as mini-series in both, and films made by tv for tv and cinema in both. To decide which category they belong, you can only decide by what is referenced on the page. Film fans want the seperate film category, so this has to be worked around, not ignored because of a minority of productions that can go in multiple categories... 188.223.18.19 (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2012 (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:Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2012 (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:Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge. No main article. Seems to be the same scope. Pnm (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Only one article, and an only partially related subcategory which has other, more appropriate parent categories. Pnm (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an increasingly important field in small-scale robotics, art and hobbyist electronics. It is not an empty category and even if it were, the point of deleting empty categories is to delete those that are empty and with no likelihood of expansion, not those that are currently small. If the nominator thinks that Physical computing as a concept should be expunged from Wikipedia, then they should begin by deleting the eponymous article. Even better would be to read some of the ample references available to support its notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The category is up to four entries. Is that all there is? The definition in Physical computing is not very precise. I'm not trying to expunge physical computing from Wikipedia. I've no idea why you would have thought that. – Pnm (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2012 (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:Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To follow the main article. Bangkok Metro is the name of its operating company; the system is properly known as the MRT. Paul_012 (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per speedy renaming criterion C2D. Tim! (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2012 (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:Speedy rename C2A. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2012 (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 as there's nothing in it to merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category already existing in the name universities and colleges in tamil nadu Balaji (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Universities and colleges cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2012 (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:Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This appears to be a C2D speedy case, as the main article of the category is at Open source video game. However I believe it might require discussion, as there are a number of subcategories following the (horrible-looking) "Free, open source" category, and thus issues of scope might arise... The BushrangerOne ping only 02:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment free and open source are not equivalent. So, each category would need to be examined for things that are free but not open source. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and purge. That a video game is free seems unworthy of categorization; we don't categorize that things are not free, or by how not-free they are. So I would rename this to be more inclusive of open source games that are not free, and not worry about free games that are not open source.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The category should probably be renamed to Category:Free video games instead. In the rest of Category:Free application software the naming convention is to use "Free." Or possibly, we should consider using "Open source" or "FOSS" instead, for the whole tree. It seems wrong to use "open source" for video games and "free" for all other software, when they're referring to the same distinction. – Pnm (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"FOSS" is definitely better, if used as an acronym; otherwise "open source" would be better. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category and (despite the edit summary provided by the creator) improperly capitalized title. Most articles in this category are also categorized under "Pulmonology and respiratory therapy organizations", which is now a subcategory of this one. The previous situation (with "respiratory therapy" as top cat) was simpler and if the category creator has any problem with the name of that category, it could be renamed. Guillaume2303 (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Additionally Pulmonology and respiratory therapy organizations needs to be renamed to Pulmonology and respiratory care organizations or more appropriately Pulmonology and Respiratory Care organizations. I read the article manual of style related to article titles, and it seems that since Respiratory Care and Respiratory care would mean two completely separate things, when discussing the profession "Respiratory Care" is most appropriate, even according to wikipedia's manual of style. That being said, Respiratory Therapy and Respiratory Care are two separate, though very related topics. As far as the topics currently included in this category, feel free to help me add articles to the category, it is pretty cumbersome to make edits fast enough to sate the delete-fiends. | pulmonologicaltalk • contribs 02:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see you also redirected "Respiratory Care" to "Respiratory therapy" and "Respiratory care" to Pulmonology". I suggest you"re being a bit too subtle here. A better solution clear to everybody should be possible. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Speaking in public (whether for fame or fortune or because of evangelism) is not a notable trait of people, because it's done by most notable people: other than some mimes and criminals who chose to remain silent, perhaps, it may be done by nearly all notable people, be they athletes, actors, singers, politicians, academics, business leaders, religious leaders, etc. Since it's not a notable trait or meaningfully distinguishing (see some of the subcategories, that arguably may be), it should be deleted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed all that is needed is a description on this category page saying: This category is only for people who make a living by public speakingBrad7777 (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete changed my mind Brad7777 (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
somewhat opposed This seems at the moment to be mostly a container category for the categories of people who do make their living by making speeches. It's less clear to me that some of the people directly categorized belong here; Dale Carnegie, for example, seems to me to belong in Category:Public speaking as a pedagogue rather than as someone known for his oration. Mangoe (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, arguably some of the subcats are meritorious; the 67 pages (as of now) in the top category seems to negate the inference that it's a container category but more of a dumping ground based on any author's predilections of adding the category to any bio he/she chooses. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Brad7777's comment suggests that there is the basis of a genuine category here. The question is what it should be called. Teachers, clergymen, actors, and politicians all make their money at least in part by speaking in public, but there is a class of people who make their living by giving public lectures, after dinner speeches and the like. Actors also act; politicians make decisions by voting in divisions; teachers also set and mark their pupils work; the clergy also give pastoral care. Suggest -- Category:Professional public speakers. It will still need a capnote as suggested by Brad7777, possibly with further explanation that it excludes these other professions. Any other suggestions? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
if that were made - any one who gets paid for speaking in public belongs; the pay-for-lecture circuit is filled with those folks (just view the list of people who'll go Down Under for $ to speak): [1]. No doubt, similar lists could be accumulated for nearly any country and we'll just add this meaningless category to all those biographies. Absolute category clutter without value. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment They should be placed in the subcategories where possible; which do have value. By keeping Category:Public speakers, the benefit is that it allows editors to "dump" people into this category if they are not able to find a more suitable subcategory. Subcategories should be made as appropiate ( ~ if atleast 10 people could go into it). At the moment regarding the 67 "miscellaneous" pages, im sure this could be diffused. I'm happy to get on and go through them. I don't think renaming it would help but I think linking more subcategories from category:People by occupation is the right way to go, eventually changing this category into a container category ( ~ with atleast 10 subcategories... so that all "required" subcategories are made). Until then though, we just gotta deal with the waves! Brad7777 (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete many people who become famous for other reasons then go around speaking in public. This is a category that will attract famous people because lots of them speak in public for a living. It is not a worthwhile category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as just one of many illustrations, it appears in 2010 Mitt Romney's main form of actual income was from public speaking, but no one would think of him as primarily a public speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto nearly all other candidates for president of the US, most ex-presidents, PMs, etc. worldwide, many ex-sports stars, and on-and-on. Not useful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if lecturers are part of this category tree, should we not also put professors in the category tree?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Public speaking is instrumental to so many occupations that this category cannot help but become a catch-all for virtually any occupation that involves making presentations or giving speeches. Even limiting the category to people who make a living from public speaking or who are notable for their public speaking activities, and using the narrow definition of public speaking provided in the article, would leave the category open to, among others: actors; lawyers (in the case of jury trials); lecturers; motivational speakers; politicians; salespeople; stand-up comedians; television presenters; and professors – who often are notable for their research but make a living from teaching, since works such as "Biology of adenovirus vectors with E1 and E4 deletions for liver-directed gene therapy" and "Can closed timelike curves or nonlinear quantum mechanics improve quantum state discrimination or help solve hard problems?" tend to not be written with The New York Times Best Seller list in mind. -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:40, 31 January 2012 (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.
