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: Non-defining characteristic. TM 21:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense. GenQuest (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Boston Medical Center appears to be the teaching hospital of Boston University. Accordingly it would seem this should either be merged to Category:Boston University faculty or made a subcategory of that. The headnote on the category - that it is for notable physicians - should be edited, non-notable persons would not have articles and could not appear in a category. The universities law department already has its own faculty sub-category, so that the retention of the present category should not be ruled out. My only query is the use of the word physicians, when at leat one of those listed is a surgeon. I am British and I am aware that American nomencature differs from British. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would all staff physicians be teaching physicians? 76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very much like performer by performance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. This is more like faculty by university categories. Being on the staff of a hospital is not a "performance" it is a long term career. Hwever I think that the medical center is integral enough to BU that we can consider all staff there faculty, and thus classify them as such. If we get a larger category, we could split this out, but it is not worth it with this size.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:10, 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 C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To follow all other categories that are by "genre" of music the word band should not be used, such as in Category:Rock music groups, Category:Heavy metal musical groups and so on. (Note: 89.37.179.39 has already begun editing the pages that this category was/is used in. So by the time people look at this it most likely will not have any shown. I think there are around 120 pages that it was/is used in.) Xfansd (talk) 19:10, 2 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Seems like an unnecessary eponymous category that is unlikely to have enough related content for its own category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Apart from the main article, there is nothing but a stub for the airfield whence the program operated, and that article would probably be better being merged to the place where the airport was. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:46, 3 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.
Category:"Weird Al" Yankovic songs about television[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 & delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The intersection of artist with theme about song seems like a trivial and dangerous precedent--upmerge to parent cats. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick check indicates he has apparently done enough "work" within the described parameters to justify a category such as this, I think. GenQuest (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insignificant intersection. Even if kept, the title would need to change since the majority of these songs are not concerned with television but with television shows. But even that wider scope doesn't really do the trick since some of these songs are not even about the tv show itself. I don't think Bedrock Anthem (lyrics here) is a song "about television" or even "about a television program". From a reader's perspective, I see no benefit in isolating all these songs in a subcategory of Category:"Weird Al" Yankovic songs. Pichpich (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see little benefit to sub-divide "songs by performer" categories into subject categories. If we are going to subdivide songs by performer, it should be along general lines of how songs are classified, not into categories that only apply to that one performer. Remember, there is no upper limit to acceptable size of a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:13, 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.
Nominator's rationale: No basis for category. See WP:Cat gender. Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: This cat is really not needed. Category:Actors is enough GenQuest (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete, at worst merge to Category:Actors. The problem is that certain females prefer to be called female actors, rather than actresses. The result is that the category tree is somewhat muddled. This requires a general decision on WP policy on this issue. Since men rarely play female roles and vice versa, this is a profession where (perhaps exceptionally) the gender of the professional makes a significnat difference. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference, however, is that men and women don't fundamentally do the job in a different way — and while you're correct that men don't commonly play women or vice versa, it can and does happen (Lady Bracknell in The Importance of Being Earnest, frex, is frequently, although certainly not always, played by a man; Linda Hunt garnered an Oscar nomination for a role where she played a man; drag queens and drag kings can also be considered actors in a way; etc.), and the only real barrier to doing so is audience and performer expectation rather than anything that would inherently render it impossible or impermissible. Accordingly, this would be a case of gender separation for the sake of gender separation. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:10, 11 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 to delete; no clear consensus on renaming. A fresh nomination may be needed to sort out the name. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This categorizes entertainers by having appeared on a variety program; it's not defining. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator should stop trying to set records for deletion by volume and just occasionally try to understand the subject matter he seeks to delete.
This is not at attempt to "categorize entertainers by having appeared on a variety program", it is quite clearly defining. The Comic Strip was a well-defined comedy group of six core members that had a huge influence on British comedy through the '80s and '90s. Although not as long-lived as Saturday Night Live, their influence was certainly comparable. This was in no way a "variety" show (and such ignorance highlights the nominator's repeated disregard for WP:BEFORE, to the extent of not even bothering to read articles before deleting them). The members of the Comic Strip had a far more substantial relationship with the group than just odd appearances in a show (I wouldn't claim that the regular, but non-core, actors like Robbie Coltrane belong in this cat).
User:Andy Dingley, don't write things like "The nominator should stop trying to set records for deletion by volume and just occasionally try to understand the subject matter he seeks to delete." It's rude and it's usually a mistake to presume you have information about the level of knowledge another user has. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename as this is apparently a well-known (in Britain, anyway) show; and the cast, characters, skits (sketches) and pop-cultural idioms should have a category to help those researching such. GenQuest (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The name is good as-is. They weren't episodes, they were ad-hoc films, and very defining of the genre. Shame it seems a lot of folks here didn't get to see them. By splitting it further (comedians/TV/ etc) I'm afraid it just becomes more confusing. Ephebi (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is functioning as an actor by performance category. We do not do such categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:15, 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.
Category:Works originally published in legal magazines[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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Throughout the categorization tree of academic journals we call peer-reviewed academic periodicals "journals", not magazine and legal periodicals are categorized as "law journals". Rename requested to bring this category in line with the rest of the categorization tree. (As an aside, I would appreciate any opinions on whether the subcategories are actually necessary or should be merged into this category). Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:41, 2 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.
Category:Works originally published in economics magazines[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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Throughout the categorization tree of academic journals we call peer-reviewed academic periodicals "journals", not magazines. Rename requested to bring this category in line with the rest of the categorization tree. (As an aside, I would appreciate any opinions on whether the subcategories are actually necessary or should be merged into this category). Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:29, 2 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.
Category:Arjen Anthony Lucassen former bands or projects[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge Delete. "Former" is not typically used in categories, and the term really doesn't even apply in this case as any project by Arjen Anthony Lucassen would continue to be one regardless of it being active or not or his role in it. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the deletion of both and am changing the nomination to reflect that. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:11, 2 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. (And I can't help but think first of Blake's 7 when I see "Star One"...) The BushrangerOne ping only 04:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Star One" is highly ambiguous, per the hatnote at the main article. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:34, 4 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is a generic term; the proof of this lies in the multitude of examples within the category. Tony(talk) 14:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Category:ATA or Category:AT Attachment More commonly used than the fully expanded form, like Category:SCSI. As the AT in ATA comes from the IBM PC/AT, we can argue whether it should be "Advanced Technology Attachment", "Advanced Technology attachment". "Advanced technology attachment", "AT Attachment" or "AT attachment", but using the initialized form neatly avoids that problem. —Ruud 20:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, this category covers subjects related to both Parallel and Serial ATA. Category:AT Attachment, as argued at the previous CfD, seems a more appropriate choice in that case, although I fail to see why having a disambiguation page at ATA would prevent us from also having a category named Category:ATA. —Ruud 01:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that categories be named for their "main article", or even that a "main article" exist. In fact, "eponymous categories" are described as a common, but by no means universal, occurrence (see WP:EPON: "Often an article and a topic category will share the same name..."). We really have two "main articles" here, despite what the category text says. The category should instead state: "The main articles for this category are Parallel ATA and Serial ATA." That can be fixed by a simple edit. (In fact, I would just "be bold" and do exactly that right now... except that in the middle of this category rename discussion it could be considered abusive or pointy.) Note that both of those derive from the "AT Attachment" protocol, "Parallel ATA" being a retronym for that (introduced when SATA came along). We should reorganize those articles, with a separate article called "AT Attachment" (for the command and response protocol), then Parallel ATA and Serial ATA can just describe their respective physical through transport layers. But that is a separate issue. Category renaming is difficult and lengthy; we should not have to go through it again once that reorg is done. Jeh (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AT Attachment is the name of the relevant standard, and a better name for the category. Does anything think the arguments against this at the last CfD made any sense? Dicklyon (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looks like Dick's and Ruud's suggestion is the most practical. Tony(talk) 01:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "AT Attachment" as that is the correct (and proper) name of the protocol and the standards that describe it. No, this is not a generic term. Before Serial ATA came along (and merely "ATA" devices where thenceforth referred to as "Parallel ATA" it was the name of the standard. It is still the proper name of the standard and both Serial ATA and Parallel ATA derive from it. So, please do not think that it should be "downcased" to "AT attachment". Jeh (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about you guys make these article clearer then. It's another symptom of elitist writing in WP articles in this field. A non-expert reader can't even tell whether it's generic. Bad. And tool does not make it clear. Tony(talk) 04:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what "tool" refers to, but anyway... you should probably raise that issue on the Parallel ATA article's talk page. For our purposes here, "AT Attachment" is the correct name for the category and the correct representation (title case). Look at the standards docs referred to in the Parallel ATA article, please. Jeh (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the common form is "AT Attachment", but IDE (meaning Integrated Drive Electronics or Intelligent Drive Electronics, depending on who you ask) is more common than PATA/Parallel ATA... so if this covers IDE & SATA, it should just be called Category:IDE and SATA. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please, no. The main article was either "ATA", "Advanced Technology Attachment", or "AT Attachment" depending on who had renamed it most recently, but never "IDE" or "Integrated Drive (anything)". Now is not the time to change to a term that is not at all supported by the standards documents, no matter how much it is in common use. With the introduction of the "Parallel ATA" term, "IDE" is on the wane anyway. Jeh (talk) 09:50, 2 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.
