From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 13 May 15 >

May 14

Category:Xxx films

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 15:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Xxx films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unneeded category for a film "franchise" with only two films. Both articles are linked to one another. The category name is also somewhat ambiguous, since it could be interpreted as meaning "xxx films" in the pornographic sense. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I was going to say 'keep' - we do need a category for x-rated films, but this has nothing to do with that. Otherwise as per nom. Twiceuponatime ( talk) 11:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I think categories that are in some way redundant with wikilinks in the article might be OK per policy? But this does call attention to some naming inconsistency. Looking in Category:Film series one finds film series named Foo, Foo films, Foo (films), Foo film series, Foo (film series). It doesn't appear there's a guideline and this is as good a time as any to discuss one; I've started one at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Film_series. Шизомби ( talk) 15:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - small category with little or no likelihood of expansion. While some film franchises certainly benefit from categorization ( Category:Alien (franchise) or Category:Star Wars), if there are not and will never be more than a handful of articles relating to the film franchise it doesn't need a category. Otto4711 ( talk) 18:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete completely unnecessary for a short film series. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 23:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It seems odd to me that a movie that's part of a film series would not be categorized as part of a film series. This would be more problematic for those film series that have categories but no article for the series overall. It's true also that these are not particularly large categories, though they may hold more than just the movies in the series and include articles about characters, locations, etc. It's true they may not grow, or grow by much more. WP:OC#SMALL does say small categories may be acceptable if they are "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme." I do hope there will be more discussion about this at the Style Guide I linked above, perhaps I would change my mind. Шизомби ( talk) 18:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Шизомби ( talk) 18:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (nominator). "Series" in this context is defined by the OED as "A set of radio or television programmes [or films, we could add] concerned with the same theme or having the same range of characters..." While this definition doesn't eliminate the possibility of a two-item "series", in my opinion it strains the meaning about as far as it could go to call 2 a "set". I think in a technical sense two films can constitute a "series", but in the sense of requiring a category to group them, even if there was an overall scheme? No. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2009 (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:Mutant X

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Mutant X ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small eponymous category with no likelihood of expansion. Otto4711 ( talk) 21:01, 14 May 2009 (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:Food and drink articles needing photo

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: Administrative close: speedily deleted by another editor and withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Food and drink articles needing photo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category has been superseded by Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of food. The {{ WikiProject Food and drink}} template has been updated to add articles to that category. Discussion at Template talk:WikiProject Food and drink concurs with this proposal. Tim Pierce ( talk) 16:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Support. -- Funandtrvl ( talk) 18:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Support - I would have just tagged it with a {{ speedy}} since it had been superseded by the new cat. -- Jeremy ( blah blah) 19:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I didn't realize that speedy deletion might apply in this case. I've requested it. Apologies for making the process needlessly complicated. Tim Pierce ( talk) 01:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Withdraw -- speedy deletion is complete. Tim Pierce ( talk) 02:48, 15 May 2009 (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:Rosenborg B.K.

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Rosenborg B.K. to Category:Rosenborg BK
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The shouls not be dots in the article name. The articles name is Rosenborg BK. The subcats Category:Rosenborg B.K. players and Category:Rosenborg B.K. managers should also be renamed. Rettetast ( talk) 14:39, 14 May 2009 (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:Americans accused of spying for the Soviet Union

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. Arguments for deleting here are particularly compelling and most of the arguments for keeping here are particularly weak. (Yes, I can count. No, it's not how consensus is determined.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Americans accused of spying for the Soviet Union ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No uniform standard for what constitutes an accusation of espionage. Category has been used to propagate baseless McCarthyist accusations. Greg Comlish ( talk) 14:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Part of a larger scheme, Category:Accused spies, which includes multiple layers of subcategories. Which doesn't make it alright, of course, but if the problem is the vagueness of "accused" then the whole scheme is equally problematic and should be dealt with all at once. Postdlf ( talk) 14:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – the parent Category:Accused Soviet spies needs a rename (at least). Agree with Postdlf that the whole tree needs attention. Occuli ( talk) 15:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The category shows definite bias, but I strongly suggest that it should be kept for practical reasons, since experience shows that biased editors will simply stuff unconvicted people into Category:Soviet spies, as a small but very actively committed group of editors has been doing since 2004, going by "interpretations" of the Venona archives propounded largely only by historians Haynes & Klehr. I would support deleting the parent category " Accused Soviet spies" because the inane wording suggests that they were spies who were accused, rather than people accused of being spies. PasswordUsername ( talk) 19:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep everything Category:Accused Soviet spies (because it is significantly populated by ~40 articles), but delete several subcategories like Category:Americans accused of spying for the Soviet Union per nominator, because these sub-cats are populated only by a few articles. If we delete Category:Accused Soviet spies, everything should be moved to parent Category:Soviet spies. Biophys ( talk) 19:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Fine, let's keep it too. Biophys ( talk) 17:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • keep Category:Americans accused of spying for the Soviet Union which is what is under discussion here. Populated by 66 articles directly and several subcats. The cat makes no judgment as whether they were truly spies or not; it simply says they were accused, which can be factually documented. In fact, part of the history of this era is that many of accusations were simply wrong, the product of fear and opportunism--making the accusers in the wrong, not the accused. Historical fact should not be dismissed by later prettying up, especially not in a neutral WP. Hmains ( talk) 03:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Question What constitutes a valid accusation of spying? Should we add Dwight D. Eisenhower to the category because of baseless accusations by the John Birch Society? Is this category supposed to function as an megaphone for any fringe group no matter how baseless? Greg Comlish ( talk) 15:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment: The Accused Soviet spies category sets as criteria

These are based on allegations from Soviet files released after the breakup of the USSR, the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the House Un-American Activities Committee or other federal agencies.

and Category:Americans accused of spying for the Soviet Union is a subcat of it (though we should add the qualifying description). All of these people are now pretty much dead, so it's not a BLP issue so much as a historical one (which, if anyone, actually helps highlight the paranoid lunacy of McCarthyite accusations). I would support delete, but doing so would require to get rid of the Category:Accused Soviet spies cat. next – and these names are only going to be recycled into the Soviet spies category, as reams of experience demonstrate. PasswordUsername ( talk) 23:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply
further comment: If it is a citable accusation, yes. Further, there is no valid reason to single out this American catgory when the Category:Soviet spies is populated both directly and in various subcats by country. Hmains ( talk) 22:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per my own suggestion above. PasswordUsername ( talk) 08:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete accusations categories are disfavored and who is doing the accusing here anyway? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - "accused of" is another way of saying "alleged" and we generally do not categorize on the basis of allegations. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but rename omitting "accused". I do not think that MacCartyism should be in point. The category should cover (1) those conviced of spying (2) fugitives from justice - since flight is a tacit admission of guilt. Some one merely accused could potentially sue WP for libel. Peterkingiron ( talk) 00:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment: Flight is not a tacit admission of guilt, though it may likely indicate it. That's why there is still a trial for captured fugitives. PasswordUsername ( talk) 04:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Whether this should be used for living people who have not been convicted might be questionable (each case would need discussion) is questionable, but the problem will gradually solve itself. DGG ( talk) 23:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • And where do you suggest drawing the line for accusations categories? Otto4711 ( talk) 21:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A strong defining characteristic that as always depends on reliable sources. Alansohn ( talk) 04:31, 22 May 2009 (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 about actors

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 to actors category per revised nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Films about actresses and Category:Films about actors
Nominator's rationale: These categories are sparsely-populated, it seems unnecessary to divide the topic by gender. — TAnthony Talk 09:25, 14 May 2009 (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:Documentaries about actors

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 to actors category per revised nom. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Documentaries about actresses and Category:Documentaries about actors
Nominator's rationale: These categories are sparsely-populated, it seems unnecessary to divide the topic by gender. — TAnthony Talk 09:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Merge but to Category:Documentaries about actors. Occuli ( talk) 10:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete suffers the same ills as most "films about" categories; how much "about" the subject matter must the film be and what WP:RS tells us that it's at least that much. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • You have it backwards; as you've structured the nomination, "documentaries about actors" would be deleted and everything in it would be moved into "documentaries about actresses". Merge, yeah, but the other way. Bearcat ( talk) 02:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as Occuli and Bearcat propose. It is not for the most part very difficult to determine whether or not an article belongs in this category.  Skomorokh  20:31, 18 May 2009 (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:Session wrestlers

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 15:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Session wrestlers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Session wrestlers by nationality ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American session wrestlers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Czech session wrestlers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. OCAT. This structure contains two articles plus the main article which has major issues including OR and reliable sources. The categories been around for a year so, so it does not appear likely we will see much growth. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I removed Nicole Bass from the American category since inclusion was not supported by the article text. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A fit of pique about the topic led to me create the nationality categories, but they are underpopulated and I don't anticipate they will be populated any time soon. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2009 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_14&oldid=1138392861"