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. Black Falcon(
Talk) 17:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Follow the main parent and we probably need to consider renaming another group of categories to include the higher government entity.
Vegaswikian (
talk) —Preceding
comment was added at 01:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Clear case of rename.
Viceregent 15:17, 14 February 2008 (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.Conscious (
talk) 20:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Same problem as below.
Pascal.Tesson (
talk) 22:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete the category and merge/delete most if not all of the articles on individual comic book issues. Individual comic issues are very rarely independently notable and the articles on these individual issues certainly don't appear to be (not to mention that they violate
WP:NOT#PLOT as being little more than plot summaries with no real-world context or information).
Otto4711 (
talk) 22:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. Some articles may need merging.
Viceregent 23:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - all articles save one (that I must have missed) have been deleted. Last remaining article is prodded for notability.
Otto4711 (
talk) 01:15, 19 February 2008 (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.Conscious (
talk) 20:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Author requested deletion. However, for most of these articles, no other category seems appropriate. I have no problem with the deletion per se, but the necessary cleanup must come before deletion.
Pascal.Tesson (
talk) 22:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete the category and merge/delete most if not all of the articles on individual comic book issues. Individual comic issues are very rarely independently notable and the articles on these individual issues certainly don't appear to be (not to mention that they violate
WP:NOT#PLOT as being little more than plot summaries with no real-world context or information).
Otto4711 (
talk) 22:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete. Same rationale as above.
Viceregent 00:00, 14 February 2008 (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:Self-Hating Jews
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: This category will cause endless
WP:BLP problems. The term "self-hating Jews" is propagandistic and is not remotely neutral language. There is also already edit-warring with entries beong added and removed.
Peter cohen (
talk) 20:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Nomination withdrawn since the category has been deleted whilst I was composing the above.--
Peter cohen (
talk) 20:16, 12 February 2008 (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.
Members of the Xth Ministry in Canada
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/listify.
Kbdank71 15:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Agree, though there is already consensus.
Viceregent 00:02, 14 February 2008 (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:Melchizedek (band) albums
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,
C1 - empty category. Black Falcon(
Talk) 17:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Band and album articles were all [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melchizedek (band)|deleted] as non-notable.
Jfire (
talk) 18:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Category not needed with no band or album articles. --
BelovedFreak 20:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete these should be speediable, but four days' wait is mandated.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 20:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete, as of now there are no articles in the categoriy, so it serves little purpose.
Viceregent 00:03, 14 February 2008 (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 based on board games
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. Black Falcon(
Talk) 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I doubt there will ever be more than one film in this category, and that's the
Clue (film). •
Supāsaru 18:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm surprised someone has not added
Jumanji (film), base on the board game in the book.
Flibirigit (
talk) 18:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The film
Jumanji is about a magical board game, which is a bit different. The
Clue movie uses a set of characters, weapons and locations of a pre-existing real-life game. It's kind of like making a movie called "Snakes and Ladders: The Movie". •
Supāsaru 20:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete suffers from the same problems "films about" categories have: how much about the subject must it be and who tells us that it's at least that much about it. There was a chess game playing an important part in the first Harry Potter movie, e.g.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 20:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete, as per Carl46. You could apply the same rationale to
The Seventh Seal.
Lugnuts (
talk) 08:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete since the article is already listed in both categories.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:37, 17 February 2008 (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.
San Diego Gulls
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:move/merge as nominated.
Conscious (
talk) 20:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Propose renaming merging four categories to match the title of the corresponding team articles.
Nominator's rationale: - This nomination renames to first two categories according to new articles for those teams, add essentially merges and renames the WCHL and ECHL players categories, since they were the same team that switched leagues.
Merge (WCHL) and (ECHL) categories as listed. Oppose renaming of first two: how is differentiating them by year any better than differentiating by league?Skudrafan1 (
talk) 18:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Yes, it should read "Category:San Diego Gulls (1995-2006)." It is convention to name the category the same way as the article for consistency. Article names were discussed at
Talk:San Diego Gulls. "WHL" and "IHL" are ambiguous terms, whereas dates are not ambiguous and consistent.
Flibirigit (
talk) 18:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I see. My argument, though, is that other teams which existed in the
IHL (1945-2001) as well as other leagues are not disambiguated by years unless they also parcipated in the other IHL (
IHL (2007-) -- which I believe only applies to the Kalamazoo Wings. I think using the years when it isn't absolutely necessary only leads to confusion when people try to add players to the categories. I'll withdraw my oppose, but I won't support. Call it a stubborn compromise. :)
Skudrafan1 (
talk) 19:06, 12 February 2008 (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:Sympathy for the Record Industry
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. Black Falcon(
Talk) 19:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename and purge - the material doesn't warrant a category for the record label itself, so purge those couple of articles that aren't artists and rename per
Category:Artists by record label.
Otto4711 (
talk) 17:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Oops. I accidentally created the target category in the nomination process, so now technically this is a merge.
Otto4711 (
talk) 17:25, 12 February 2008 (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:Scottish patriarchs
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. Black Falcon(
Talk) 19:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: No inclusion criteria given for this category, it is unclear what exactly constitutes a "Scottish patriarch". Appears to have been created to contain ancestral members of the Bruce family, by
Wikiaddict8962 (
talk·contribs).
Delete as a category with no clear parameters for inclusion.
Jonathan Oldenbuck (
talk) 12:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - this category seems far too vague to adequately maintain. --
BelovedFreak 20:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Weak delete - while the category may be notable in a different form, as of now there is no reason to keep this.
Viceregent 15:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - per nom and is not likely to be populated. --
Alan Liefting-
talk- 20:14, 16 February 2008 (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:Environmental threats
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. (as a side note, not related to the closing, but just because I like giving my opinion whenever possible: I don't think any of these options presented (merge, keep, or rename) are good. "Threats" is subjective, "issues" is too broad, and merging will further fill a category that is already too large. In fact, by renaming, someone is just going to come around in 6 months or so and nominate it to rename back to threats saying we should call a spade a spade, and will probably wind up being merged. But that's how CFD works sometimes, for better or worse. Thank you for listening; please have a nice day) .
Kbdank71 14:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Leaning toward merge to
Category:Environment - "Issues" is a broad and IMHO wishy-washy term. The contents of this category could probably be redistributed amongst the many other more precisely named subcats of the parent, so merge it there for redistribution.
Otto4711 (
talk) 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep or rename to "environmental issues" per above. This topic is very notable in the 21st century and is on the minds of scientists, politicans, artists, activists etc.
Viceregent 00:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep, possibly renaming, but really I think the current name is fine; lots of article & category names might be felt "emotive" by various people, & I don't believe this is POV at all.
Johnbod (
talk) 17:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Specifically, what articles currently in this category could not be categorized in
Category:Environment or an existing subcat? Couldn't pretty much everything in that category be characterized as an "issue"? Why not strive for precision instead of lumping articles into a generic category?
Otto4711 (
talk) 17:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)reply
That is exactly what keepers are doing! They might all be issues (there is already a controversies subcat) but not everything in the parent is a threat. If someone suggested a name less liable to POV accusations, but retaining the idea of harm, I would vote for it.
Johnbod (
talk) 20:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep and rename to
Category:Environmental issues per nom. First, there's a very real need for a category of this sort, because there are already 38 sub-categories cluttering up
Category:Environment (along with 139 articles). Dumping the contents of this category would only add to the clutter. We should be endeavoring to improve navigation by organizing those sub-cats more coherently -- not making matters worse, ferkrisake. I would move 8 of those sub-cats into the renamed category, leaving 30 sub-cats that don't come under the heading of "issues" -- and I would use the sortkey to place this category in the grouping that precedes the alphabetical listings.
As to the name... I've been actively pondering this for an entire day, scouting out the terrain and considering various options. To begin with, I've concluded that the current name is problematic because it's a slippery term that's difficult to define clearly enough to be applied with any sort of consistency. I considered a number of possible replacements, but finally settled on
Category:Environmental issues. It is perhaps somewhat bland, but consider the following: I ran a
Wikipedia "prefix search" for "Environmental issues" and discovered that there are three dozen separate articles running from
Environmental issues in Afghanistan to
Environmental issues in Vietnam. When all is said and done I believe
Category:Environmental issues is the best choice available to us.
Cgingold (
talk) 10:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator comment - The proposed new category name would be an extension of
list of environmental issues. This list page is for the higher level issues and is inapprop for pages such as
Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef, Environmental issues in foo etc. If added to
list of environmental issues these would add unneeded clutter to what is a well laid out page (IMHO!!). "Issues" is less of a target for POV attacks and is a more , ahhh, encyclopaedic word. --
Alan Liefting-
talk- 19:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm curious - specifically, what articles (other than such things as for example the woefully miscategorized
European Environmental Bureau which AFAIK is neither an "issue" nor a "threat") could not go into a more specific subcat of
Category:Environment rather than languishing in a bland "issues" category? What "issue" doesn't have some environmental component that couldn't land it in an Environmental issues category?
Otto4711 (
talk) 00:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I have correctly recategorised
European Environmental Bureau.
Category:Environment is the top level category for all articles pertaining to the environment. It should be kept for important articles and the 1000's of other articles should be placed in sub-cats. Have a peruse of
Lists of environmental topics for the huge number of articles that could be squared away quite nicely into an environmental issues category. I have recently culled this list from being a huge list of disparate links (see
Talk:Lists of environmental topics). --
Alan Liefting-
talk- 03:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I am not suggesting merging the categories and then just leaving the articles there. I am suggesting merging them so that the articles can be disbursed to more appropriate and more precise subcategories. Pretty much everything related to the environment could reasonably be considered an "issue." We should strive for the most precise names for categories rather than creating dumping ground generic "issues" categories.
Otto4711 (
talk) 17:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
There will be at least 16 sub-cats in
Category:Environmental issues, most of which would otherwise go straight into
Category:Environment along with the other 30 non-issue related sub-cats. Why on earth would you want to increase the clutter there, rather than taking a sensible step toward organizing those sub-cats and reducing the clutter, thereby improving the navigation for our readers? There seems to be some sort of perverse logic at work here that eludes my comprehension.
Cgingold (
talk) 03:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)reply
If you want to find a Pollution cat, "threats" is far more helpful than "issues". I don't like issues at all, at least as a category name.
Johnbod (
talk) 23:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
As I said above, I'm concerned that "threats" is a "slippery term that's difficult to define clearly enough to be applied with any sort of consistency." But if you can come up workable inclusion criteria I might reconsider, Johnbod.
Cgingold (
talk) 04:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator comment - I would define an "environmental issue" as "the negative effects of human activity on the natural environment." I feel that this is not a slippery term (or definition). --
Alan Liefting-
talk- 04:18, 19 February 2008 (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:Tourist Attractions in Zimbabwe
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. Black Falcon(
Talk) 17:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom.
Johnbod (
talk) 18:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom.
Viceregent 00:10, 14 February 2008 (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:Gay Neo-Nazis
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.
Kbdank71 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This is certainly an interesting intersection of orientation and political views, but it's relevance is questionable. I originally nominated this at speedy to change to
Category:Gay neo-Nazis; an editor suggested it should be brought here for full discussion and I agree that would be helpful in this case. If kept, capitalization issue should be corrected.
Snocrates 00:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - as a notable intersection of sexuality and political affiliation, especially given the historical and current attitude of Nazis and Neo-Nazis toward homosexuality. Same reason I gave
the last time. No opinion on the capitalization issue but changing "Gay" to "LGBT" may be in order in line with the parent
Category:LGBT people by political orientation.
Otto4711 (
talk) 14:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - this seems like a meaningful intersection given the fact that neo-Nazis are known to attack and harrass homosexuals (according to the article
Neo-Nazism). I would support renaming to
Category:LGBT neo-Nazis for the capitalisation issues and for consistency with other LGBT cats. --
BelovedFreak 20:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I have to disagree with the notion that no acceptable lead article could be written for the category.
Otto4711 (
talk) 22:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete Otto's argument that it's a meaningful subcat of
Category:LGBT people by political orientation simply serves to point out that all three subcategories should be deleted. In many ways, this is nothing but fun trivia and inclusion criteria are not entirely clear as the term "neo-nazi" is often ill-defined. Did
Martin Webster self-identify as a neo-nazi? (or for that matter as gay?) It's not entirely clear either that
Nicky Crane ever identified simultaneously as neo-nazi and gay since the article suggests he felt these were two separate phases of his life.
Pichpich (
talk) 23:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - This certainly points out what's theoretically difficult in categories that define people by predilection, belief, or attitude (I'm talking about the Neo-Nazi part). Intersections between occupation and identity categories (gender, race, sexuality as defined in
WP:CATGRS, and a variety of other identities as discussed periodically) often work because occupations are a major thing that people do with their time, a major identity they might have, a major way by which they are defined by others, a major impact on their actual lived careers (jobs they are offered or can take, discrimination within those jobs, etc.), and a major way that history will usually see people. So "LGBT scientists", "African American scientists", and "women scientists" are all subjects of study to a greater or lesser extent: They are biographical categories, topics within professional studies and occupational histories, and they are also significant research topics in various identity/area studies. But once you start thinking about identities intersecting with beliefs or attitudes things become a lot wishy-washier. "LGBT anarchists"? "Women atheists"? "African American socialists"? I'm uneasy with this because while we frequently achieve notability in one, or very few, occupations, we typically hold many beliefs that are defining: political beliefs of all sorts, religious beliefs ... so intersecting with our various defining identities explodes this type of intersecting category to a significant extent. --
Lquilter (
talk) 01:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Very eloquent. I share this ambivalence about the category. It certainly does get your attention (as in "you mean gay neo-nazis exist?") but it also highlights this apparent contradiction in a way that's bordering condemnation. I know I'm just speculating but if you're a gay neo-nazi, you probably have a fairly severe identity crisis and you're probably living these two lives in parallel, whereas this category more or less assumes that the two characteristics are a singular part of what defines you.
Pichpich (
talk) 07:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete - while I'm sure there are tabloids out there trying to making these conclusions, I fear this category will be misused. It is often not clear who is a neo-Nazi (those who are alleged often deny it) or who is homosexual (many people identify as bisexual). Accurately determining who is both could be quite difficult.
Viceregent 00:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep I see that
Martin Webster and
Nicky Crane are both mentioned above by someone arguing for deletion. But surely the facts that they were both ostracised by the far right and that the sexuality of the not-so-neo Nazi
Ernst Röhm was used to justify his murder make their sexuality of more than prurient interest?--
Peter cohen (
talk) 10:56, 19 February 2008 (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:Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy
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.
Kbdank71 14:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Contains only three articles and, considering that this controversy is since long over, is unlikely to get more populated.
Slarre (
talk) 00:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - overcategorisation. --
BelovedFreak 20:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep for now, due to spectacularly mis-timed nomination - they have just been republished in all the Danish papers.
Johnbod (
talk) 23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - there's nothing here that can't be linked through
Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy and, should some fresh controversy erupt necessitating articles other than the main one to cover it, they can undoubtedly be linked through the main article as well.
Otto4711 (
talk) 23:12, 14 February 2008 (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.