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) 01:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The main article for this category is Interpretation (philosophy), and Interpretation (a disambiguation page) alone is ambiguous. Normally, this would be a WP:CFD#C2D speedy rename, but the category creator has informed me that he opposes any attempt to rename the category, so I bring it here for community discussion. (As a category, I think it's verging on associating various topics based on the shared word "interpretation", but if philosophers group all of them together, then I suppose a category could if named properly.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one is intending to "ghettoize"; we just need to acknowledge that there are meanings and uses of the same words outside of philosophy and have our category system reflect that. There's only very rarely a good reason to have a category name and the name of its corresponding article differ. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged. I'm sure it's all in good faith. However, I have observed several instances where the goal seems to be to separate the general reader from the philosophy department by portraying terminology which is of general use as philosophical jargon. Greg Bard (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the thing is that here Interpretation is not about the philosophical jargon. Interpretation (philosophy) is. Most people probably are not referring to the philosophical concept when they use or think of the word. Philosophers might say that they are using it in that sense whether they know it or not, but that's not really how WP works since it's not exclusively a philosophy wiki. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, point COMPLETELY missed. This is exactly the problem I was talking about. No, G.O. it's not a "philosophy wiki" *sigh*. You are quite a philosopher apparently, you know, all using "arguments (philosophy)" to make your case and all. Greg Bard (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
rename to match parent article.---Lenticel(talk) 03:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename it is inappropriate to have philo take over priority over language interpretation/translation. 70.49.124.157 (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator to match parent article and avoid ambiguity. If the head article is renamed, then the name of this category can be revisited, but per many precedents category names should be no more ambiguous than the head article. In many cases, categ names are disambiguated even when the head article is the primary topic, because of the difficulties involved in monitoring ambiguous category anmes. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/WP:SNOW. Categories and articles should have matching names. I honestly don't understand the objection here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:14, 1 February 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) 16:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Assuming this category is desired, it surely should be titled in English, not a mixture of English and French. R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:01, 25 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) 20:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The subject of the category "progressive rock suites" is a user creation and has no criteria for what constitutes a "prog rock suite" of music. There is no supporting Wikipedia page for "progressive rock suites" which contain valid references declaring what that term means. From the way it's being thrown onto Wikipedia pages it appears to be simply "long songs" from artists who may be linked to the progressive rock genre. Although, in some cases, these long songs are not even progressive rock songs themselves. Besides WP:NOR and WP:V... it is just a fanboy's POV list. Mr Pyles (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; purely subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:19, 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.
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 position categories, and delete "players" category. There is clear discomfort over the concept of segregating players by the triple-intersection of gender/sport/position. I'm less clear from reading this whether the concept of Category:Men's basketball players would pass a CfD. It might. But "Male" basketball players is such a small category now that I'm deleting it with no prejudice against the creation of Category:Men's basketball players.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Men and women do not truly play their positions or the game differently. Women's basketball, which is somewhat of a different sport with different rules, is already subcategorized. TM 18:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all up to non-gender parent categories per nom. Differentiating between genders is an unnecessary filter. Guards have the same responsibilities whether they're male or female, as do forwards, centers and players in general. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Agree - I have never understood why someone felt the need to create gender-specific basketball position categories. Rikster2 (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. This is clearcut case of categories which should be segregated by gender, per WP:Cat gender, which says As most notable organized sporting activities are segregated by gender, sportsperson categories constitute a case where "gender has a specific relation to the topic". As such, sportsperson categories should be split by gender, except in such cases where men and women participate primarily in mixed-gender competition. Basketball is not a sport where mixed-gender competition is common, and the article women's basketball also shows that the gender segregation even extends to women playing with a smaller ball and different court markings. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for common sense, so let's apply some here. Common sense suggests that where a sport is widely played by both genders, but in separate competitions, gender is central to the topic and the two genders should be categorised separately to least some degree. Having one category called "basketball players" and the other called called "women basketball players" is a form of ghettoisation which creates the false impression that women playing the sport are some sort of minority anomaly. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: per User:BrownHairedGirl. Basketball competitions are separated by gender. This makes gender an important defining characteristic for players. There are enough articles about players to further break down these categories to avoid making them unwieldy. --LauraHale (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is already Category:Women's basketball players which differentiates female players. The issue I have is that positions cut across all kinds of barriers between players who don't face each other. Position categories apply to players from high school to the Spanish league to the NBA - and none of those players compete against each other either. As a comparison, the category Category:Association football goalkeepers doesn't differentiate gender either. Why? Because it's the same position being played. Lisa Leslie and Shaquille O'Neal are centers. Jennifer Rizotti and Chris Paul are point guards. Period. My concern is that we'll start to split categories like Category:Basketball players from Pennsylvania and Category:American expatriate basketball people in Germany by gender unnecessarily. Rikster2 (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rikster2's concern is already covered by WP:CATGRS, which says that in regards to the "ghettoization" issue, an ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree. If a category is not otherwise dividable into more specific groupings, then do not create an E/G/R/S subcategory. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Help me understand why NOT segregating positions by gender leads to ghettoization - sounds like equality to me. If your issue is with the category "Women's basketball Players" then suggest something new with that category. I'd be open to that. To be honest, female players are categorized as players from Country X/State X anyway so I'm not sure that category is needed either. I just don't see any difference at all with guards or forwards or centers between the sexes. Rikster2 (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it. It says nothing about position-specific categories and in fact the current convention is that they are not currently segregated (see my associated football goalkeepers example above). Rikster2 (talk) 23:03, 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.
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; rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and create Category:Films set on the Moon as needed. If a film is about the Moon—fine. If it's set on the Moon—fine. Both can be categorized. But if a film is only somehow vaguely or squishily "Moon-related", we shouldn't be categorizing it as such. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apollo 13 is a film related to the moon, but it is not set on the moon. Similarly, several moonshot/moon program films never get to the moon... 70.49.124.157 (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete how much about the moon must a film be and what reliable sources tell us it is at least that much? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:24, 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.
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:DeleteCategory:Article Rescue Squadron/Wikipedia deletion sorting and its subcats. Now that the template is deleted (and the deletion endorsed at DRV - something several commenters were waiting on). Essentially, categories missing their populating template. KeepCategory:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue for manual placing on articles, should the WikiProject members so wish. (The potential "valid purpose" noted by commenters.) Probably should be renamed from using the word "tagged", but let's leave that for a future nom. - jc37 18:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Now the {{rescue}} template has been deleted (which used these Categories) they are now redundant. Mtking (edits) 06:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Clear effort to liquidate Article Rescue Squad. There should be a site-wide RFC on this question. That a group of editors managed to delete a template after three tries in a contested deletion discussion is no mandate for this sort of action. Carrite (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is an effective tool in alerting editors to articles in need of improvement. While debate is ongoing regarding proposed changes to the Article Rescue Squadron, elimination of the tools associated with the ARS should not be removed. Ebikeguy (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all/Hold for now as empty categories per WP:CSD#C1. The {{rescue}} template which was used to populate this category was deleted 4 days ago, and unless it is restored the categories will remain empty. That deletion has not been challenged at WP:DRV, so there is no ongoing process which should prompt us to wait, and the categories have now been empty for the required 4 days. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment C1 does not apply to "project categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion". These categories are intended as temporary placeholders for articles subject to AfD discussions, so it's obvious that they may become empty when those discussions end. I have tagged them with {{empty category}} as suggested by the policy. Diego (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are no longer categories which "by their nature may become empty on occasion". They were populated by a template which no longer exists, so their emptiness is no longer occasional. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the template is now being discussed at DRV, I have changed my !vote to "hold for now", until the outcome of the DRV is known. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is being debated here. Diego (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment I have already declined speedy delete so this is not an option here. The reason it is rejected is that deletion is clearly controversial, as shown by opposes above. The consensus to delete the template was almost a no consensus and only just over the edge to delete, so this could easily be overturned. Also the category could be used directly without addition of a template. So that is why no speedy delete. So this means that the votes of BrownHairedGirl and Black Falcon can be ignored unless they change them. If people vote to keep the category, then they should also use it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any actions taken to implement a controversial decision will, inevitably, also be controversial; however, such controversy should be discussed and resolved without negating standard processes. As I see it, deleting a template-populated category whose template was deleted is not substantially different from deleting the template's /doc or /sandbox subpages – pages which merely are technical extensions of the template itself. The fact that the WikiProject can use the categories in another way is, of course, an altogether different consideration that may apply to the sorting categories (hence my "hold" vote) but not Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue, which can be valid only if tagging of AfD'd articles for rescue is resumed – i.e., if Template:Rescue is undeleted. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Article could be tagged for rescue regardless of whether the template exists; don't see a redundancy.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The tagging mechanism was to use the template. How exactly would they be tagged when the template is gone? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the template responsible for populating these categories has been deleted and the ARS has already moved to a different process at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list. The categories could possibly be used on their own without the template but such use would be subject to the same problems as use of the template. This isn't the place to have another discussion about whether such use is appropriate, we've had that discussion at TfD and the result was that it is not appropriate. Admittedly the TfD result has been appealed to DRV but it does not look as if there is any possibility of it being overturned there. Hut 8.5 12:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The DRV has now been closed as endorsing the deletion. Hut 8.5 17:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no wiki-rationale for deletion by the nominator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottawahitech (talk • contribs) 15:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should wait until the DRV on the template closes, but please see: "they are now redundant" (because they are categories populated by a template that was deleted). -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion May still serve a valid purpose. DreamFocus 17:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One doesn't need a template to use a category. The function of these categories is to assist article improvement and so deletion would be disruptive. Warden (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is use of this category by itself any better than the use of Template:Rescue? Hut 8.5 17:12, 4 February 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 other books-by-state categories exist that i know of. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per occuli. - jc37 05:44, 4 February 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) 20:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. True, the capital "L" should indicate to all that these are people from Lesbos and we're not talking about small-"l" "lesbians", but the modern meaning of the word "lesbian" and hence the ambiguity is probably a bit too overpowering here. I suggest we just rename this to "people from Ancient Lesbos" to mirror the parent category Category:Ancient Lesbos. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent cat.--Lenticel(talk) 00:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support overly ambiguous, categories that are ambiguous require constant patrolling, so should be renamed. 70.24.251.194 (talk) 09:01, 25 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.
Jrcla2 likes this.