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:WP:SMALLCAT that doesn't aid navigation by being split off from its parent cat, and isn't very likely to be expanded.
The BushrangerOne ping only 21:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge as proposed. The distinction exists but it's not that important and it doesn't justify isolating these two articles in a subacategory where they'll be harder to find.
Pichpich (
talk) 04:21, 7 September 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:YouTube to TV
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 only one member in the category and although it's conceivable that this category could grow, I don't think this would constitute a defining characteristic, especially if the origin is restricted to YouTube and not other web content platforms. If kept, the name has to change. I would propose
Category:Television series first broadcast on YouTube.
Pichpich (
talk) 20:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete, mainly on the basis that there probably aren't enough of these at the moment to justify a category. Even if there were, it would need a better name, like the one suggested by the nominator.
Robofish (
talk) 01:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. A better name can be found if there come to be multiple articles that fit this idea, and the wonder is we do not even have to say "delete without prejudice".
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 23:44, 10 September 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:Andy's Summer Playhouse staff/alumni
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 The category is named after a youth theatre in New Hampshire. While I'm sure every participant and every teacher has fond memories of their experience there, it does not constitute a significant part of their career and in fact
Andy's Summer Playhouse is only linked in one of the 33 biographies in the category currently. (The exception is
Elizabeth Orton Jones but Andy's Summer Playhouse was a significant part of her life and this was noted in many sources) If kept, the category should at least be renamed to avoid the slash, for example
Category:People associated with Andy's Summer PlayhousePichpich (
talk) 20:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete, essentially per nom. The fact that this isn't mentioned in most of these biographies shows that it isn't significant enough to categorise them by.
Robofish (
talk) 01:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete this does not seem to fit the standard for use. I shudder to think what some people's category counts would be if we categorized them by ever small playhouse they worked with ever.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 23:46, 10 September 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:Jiangxi politicians
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 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:United States military sex scandals
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.
Delete - I think "
scandal" is probably too subjective for categorising by. And looking over
Category:Scandals, reminds me other recent CfD concerning "alleged" police brutality. I think a group nom may be a good next step in the near future. - jc37 20:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge per JPL. While "scandals" may be POV, it's what these are called in the sources; if sources are "POV" that's not something we can help. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 15:25, 12 September 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:Films directed by Robert Abel
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 to match the corresponding article
Robert Abel (animator). It's standard practice to add the disambiguation in the category title even if
the other Robert Abels have not directed films.
Pichpich (
talk) 17:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Even though the rationale is sound, I don't think it's needed. The other Robert Abels are an author, cricketer and NASCAR driver. In the unlikely event one of them directed a film, then yes, the rename would be needed. Or the other rationale of another Robert Abels being a film director, but I think it's explained by the hatnote on the category. LugnutsAnd the horse 18:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Support - the category doesn't tell you which Robert Abel it was otherwise. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 21:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Even if you see the catmore link? Are you still confused then? LugnutsAnd the horse 17:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)reply
You can't see the catmore/catmain when the category is at the bottom of a page you're reading. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 07:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Support – it is standard practice to add the disambiguation in the category title, as it removes the need to agonise over the likelihood of other Abels ever directing films.
Oculi (
talk) 23:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Support this is a good idea. Category names should match article names, thus it should follow the precendent of the article name in disambiguating.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:09, 11 September 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:People from Sassocorvaro
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:Merge Sassocorvaro has less than 3500 inhabitants so the category is likely to remain quite small. The article will be easier to find in the larger category.
Pichpich (
talk) 17:07, 4 September 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:Notable immigrants to Chile
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 Obviously, the use of the word "notable" in the title is a fatal flaw as it renders the category completely subjective. There's nothing to merge since the articles are already in the appropriate "Foo emigrants to Chile" category.
Pichpich (
talk) 16:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:Immigrants to Chile, to which I have just added this category ... but do it it manually, so that articles are diffused into any subcats. This category is superfluous, because only notable people have biographical articles on Wikipedia. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 15:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure my sentence was that clear but I oppose the merge because the articles are already diffused in the appropriate subcategories.
Pichpich (
talk) 00:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete -- I would normally have supported BHG, but her target
Category:Immigrants to Chile is in fact really a container category for Immigrants to Chile by country of origin, with only two articles directly in it.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge and then diffuse where neccesary. Immigrants to x is not a container category per se. We do not diffuse all immigrants, only when there are enough to justify doing so. At least in theory our small x emigrants to y categories are because at present most people who emigrated who have articles in wikipedia have not been categorized based on this. Thus, immigration categories are at present in build mode.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. As nom points out the articles in this category are already difussed in the proposed merge target so this is not necessary. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 19:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
Oculi (
talk) 11:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete since as has been pointed out there is no need to merge.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 19:49, 24 September 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:AfC Defcon
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:Upmerge as it's unlikely that this category will ever grow. There's no sense in isolating this template in its own little category.
Pichpich (
talk) 16:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge I created this category and got the purpose of it wrong. I agree per nomination for the merging of this category.
John F. Lewis (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added 16:30, 4 September 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:Outdoor sculptures by Tony Smith
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 to the wider scope. While the sculptures currently in the category are indeed outdoor sculptures, Smith did not exclusively produce public art. If some of his "indoor" sculptures ever get articles, we probably wouldn't want a separate parent category. Moreover, Smith would be the only one with an "outdoor sculptures" category which may make it harder for readers to find the category.
Pichpich (
talk) 15:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
That would have to be
Category:Works by Tony Smith because there's no "Artworks by artist" scheme (and I don't think it's a good idea to start one).
Pichpich (
talk) 21:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom; I would be surprised if no versions of these are not/have never been exhibited inside.
Johnbod (
talk) 23:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename for standardisation. There are two works with images at
commons:Category:Tony Smith which were photographed indoors, but they do not have articles yet. I have added the nominated category to
Category:Outdoor sculptures in the United States, and it can stay there even if it gets renamed, as long as there are no articles on Smith's indoor sculptures. If such articles are ever created, I would have no objection to re-creating a sub-cat for his outdoor sculptures, to keep a place within
Category:Outdoor sculptures. –
FayenaticLondon 14:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Well I think I would; the idea that large sculptures produced in small editions (as Smith's mostly are) are specifically created to be either inside or outside works is pretty dubious imo.
Johnbod (
talk) 20:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename to standardize. We do not try to describe scultures in category names as this does.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:13, 11 September 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:Olympic 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.
Rename. Obviously this category has to be renamed. I would much prefer the nominator’s alternative suggestion of
Category:Olympic Games in film, which would allow entries like
Olympic Games (film) or
Pentathlon (film) to continue to be in the category because neither are “about THE Olympic Games," but fiction based on the Olympic Games (as are most other members of the category).--
Richhoncho (
talk) 19:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename; I would favour the narrower name
Category:Films about the Olympic Games, excluding
Olympic Games (film) which is only a local kids' athletic competition named after the main event. I would add a category explanation to include films in which a notable part is set at the Olympic Games, including
Pentathlon (film) which apparently starts and finishes there. –
FayenaticLondon 14:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. Very witty. The Pentathlon plot does indeed start and finish at two different Olympics, but the plot also covers, Gold medals, East Germany, Neo-Nazis, Terrorism, Alcoholism, Los Angeles, Peace Rallies, Rabbis, Olympic trainers - if the plot synopsis was longer I am sure the film could be categorised as being "about" many many other things. I am convinced that "about" is not the way to go on these sort of categories. Equally, if we allow anything to be added that mentions in passing Olympic Games we might as well just delete the category for all the encyclopedic worth it would have.
Category:Olympic Games in film is more definative, but I daresay a better solution can be found. I do like your suggestion of text in the category, but who reads it before the edit war about what should be included? --
Richhoncho (
talk) 12:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment: The category definition can at least be invoked to settle an edit war on an article. How about
Category:Films set at the Olympic Games, with the same explanation as I suggested above? –
FayenaticLondon 14:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Response. I would not oppose Films set at the Olympic Games, how does the nominator feel about that? Does it fit with other film categories? it's "x about y" that I object to, meaningless, open to the widest possible interpretation and undefining in context for categories. Molehills about 20 feet high! --
Richhoncho (
talk) 14:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename Having read the above, my first choice would be the slightly clunky
Category:Films set at the Olympic Games. It narrows the scope a little bit and to a certain extent, it clarifies it (in the sense that there's a limit to how bad of an edit war people can have about where a film is set). My second choice is
Category:Films about the Olympic Games whose scope is quite clear but also much narrower and in a sense less interesting. Third choice is
Category:Olympic Games in film which is so broad and vague that the category would be drowned in films that include a scene where someone watching the pentathlon on TV. 00:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Rename per nom. This category is supposed to be a subject, not a setting cat.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:14, 11 September 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:Anti-Islam
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:mergeCategory:Opposition to Islam to
Category:Anti-Islam. There was a strong consensus in favour of merging these two categories, but no clear consensus in favour of which direction the merge should follow. So the outcome which best reflects the discussion is to proceed with a merge, and let further discussion reconsider the name if desired. In the absence of agreement, it seems to me that the most persuasive argument was that to adopt the format of the other sub-categories of
Category:Opposition to religion, which is "Anti-Foo". Please note that since there is no consensus for this particular name, editors should free to immediately nominate
Category:Anti-Islam for renaming, whether on its own or as part of a wider group nomination to include
Category:Anti-Christianity,
Category:Anti-Judaism etc. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 16:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Either "no such thing" (what is "an/the anti-islam"?) or needs some noun. A simple adjective or adjectival phrase is a bad name for a category.
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 14:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge to Category:Opposition to Islam. These two categories are impossible to distuinguish from one another, and adding category blurbs instructing that one or the other is to be interpreted as Islamophobia and discrimination, prejudice, etc. is nothing but terribly confusing (see talk page and edit history of both categories, i.e. Category:Opposition to Islam(
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)). There is an existing hierarchy,
Category:Opposition to religion, wherein Islam has its place along the other major world religions. If a subset is needed for particularly vile and unreasoned opposition (e.g. persecution), that might be created as long as it's not a re-creation of the recently deleted
Category:Islamophobia. But first thing's first. Let's get rid of the nominated category. __
meco (
talk) 16:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Right, they, too, should be renamed. There is no such religion as "anti-Christianity" and I've never heard of anybody who says "I'm an anti-Buddhist".
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 15:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Good points. I'm less concerned with the name; I'm more concerned with the merge. As an amusing note,
anti-Christianity shouldn't be confused with a supporter of the
anti-Christ. Perhaps "anti" is indeed too strong for the general categories.
Jason from nyc (
talk) 16:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep as it is in line with the naming of the similar categories for other religions. I'm open to a general renaming, but until then we should try to keep the category names consistent. Also please note that
Category:Opposition to Islam is intended as a non-offensive (but obviously very confusing) replacement for
Category:Islamophobia so they should obviously not be merged. //
Liftarn (
talk)
Intended? By whom? __
meco (
talk) 13:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename, but to what? It would have to be to something that conveys the appropriate meaning, not simply usurping neutral terms which has been attempted with the present category as well as
Category:Opposition to Islam, as the edit histories of these two categories shows without the shadow of a doubt. __
meco (
talk) 11:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Good question. Originally it was called islamophobia, but since not all islamophobes embrace the term I guess it's out of the question. Something like "anti-Muslim sentiment" could work. It shows the distinction from being against Islam, but is still neutral enough to be accepted. //
Liftarn (
talk)
Keep. I agree that this should be merged with
Category:Opposition to Islam, but I think 'Anti-Islam' is the better title and the merge should be in the opposite direction: that category should be merged into this one. Whichever way it goes though, we don't need both categories. The description text on
Category:Opposition to Islam attempts to separate them by stating that that category is for 'prejudice or racism against, hatred or irrational fear of Muslims', while this one is for 'non-racist criticism of the religion of Islam'. But I think that's splitting hairs, or at least making a distinction that's too subjective for the blunt tool of categories: there's no objective way of determining whether a particular manifestation of anti-Islam behaviour was motivated by racism or not.
Robofish (
talk) 01:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)reply
That's why we base it on what reliable sources say. //
Liftarn (
talk)
Delete the category claims that the Spanish inquistion is "anti-Islam". This seems odd when it focused more of its energies on crypto-Jews than Muslims. This is functioning as a super container category to link things which really are only vaguely related.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment if you want to suggest a merger, you should nominate the potentially merged category pages to allert people to the fact that they are under discussion.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Hmm.. I've never seen that practiced before. Is that common? (Never mind, for now, whether it would be useful). __
meco (
talk) 09:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment When a page is being merged into another page, that page is usually tagged. Since above people have suggested merging pages into this page, it seems that such mergers should be tagged.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 16:32, 18 September 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:Red Wanting Blue
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 via author's concurrance (G7).
The BushrangerOne ping only 21:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a band with no albums articles, no songs articles and no band member articles. Definitely fails
WP:OC#EPONYMOUS and
WP:SMALLCAT.
Pichpich (
talk) 14:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete I am the creator. I created it in error while trying to create a Wikimedia category. I tried to delete it but couldn't (evidently). Fine with me. If more articles eventually emerge it can be recreated at that time.
Smm201`0 (
talk) 15:03, 4 September 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:Songs about 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.
It should also be noted that fiction/novels are not categorised by this sort of category. However, there are a few lists by theme at
Category:Lists of novels.
Richhoncho (
talk) 13:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete - not a very useful way of categorising songs; these songs have essentially nothing in common with each other except in the loosest sense.
Robofish (
talk) 01:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete this strikes me as a classic example of indiscriminate knowledge gathering.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:19, 11 September 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:Ambassadors of France to countries in Africa
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 merge C2C.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 15:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Speedy merge per C2C - non-standard breakouts that should be noncontroversially merged. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 18:00, 4 September 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:People from Sandy, Oregon
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT All have four or less entries
...William 12:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose The policy cited is for categories with no potential for growth; these categories may certainly grow as additional bios are expanded. Additionally, having four or even three members of a category seems robust enough even without growth. --
Esprqii (
talk) 19:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
No, they probably won't grow.
WP:COMMONSENSE - if a town is below a certain size there are not likely to be many bios from it. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 21:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Support all except Rogue River and Estacada. Four is enough, I think, but those three and down should be merged. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 21:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
To complicate matters, the Rogue River one is down to three because one article made no mention of the town.
Pichpich (
talk) 22:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Support at least for the most obvious cases. It's a little hard to draw a line but certainly those with only one or two articles should be upmerged. I would prefer merging all of them but if there's a consensus to spare the ones with three or four biographies, I'll go along.
Pichpich (
talk) 22:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge all per nominator. Categories are primarily a navigational device, and splitting up a category into lots of small sub-cats like these impedes navigation. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 10:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge all per nominator.
Oculi (
talk) 12:12, 23 September 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:Gary Johnson
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, defaulting to keep. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 09:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Only four articles (one about his political positions could be added as well), but easily navigable through a footer. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 07:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep Discouraged doesn't mean forbidden. The argument about navigating via a footer fails
WP:CLN which supports navigation via multiple methods. LugnutsAnd the horse 18:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep, as there are three articles primarily about this person, and the other two currently in the category have a strong enough connection to stay. –
FayenaticLondon 08:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep -- There is just enough to warrant having a category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep as creator. There are enough articles for this category.--
TM 16:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete to small to justify an eponymous category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 23:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep - borderline case, but I think there are enough articles here to support a category.
Robofish (
talk) 01:01, 9 September 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:Doctor Who companion media
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:Merge. There is no explanation of what is meant by "companion media" and there are no other parents of this category.
Tim! (
talk) 06:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Doctor Who-related media. I would have fallen for the same misunderstanding as Vegaswikian. I don't support
Category:Doctor Who media, as books & TV series are "media" but clearly they are primary sub-topics here and should not be moved lower down the hierarchy. I don't know of a very clear precedent for this sort of thing; Trekkies have
Category:Star Trek in other media but that's not quite right either. It's spin-off media, but we can't use that term because it's not media about the spinoff series from Doctor Who! The strong point of Tim's original suggestion is that this is a sub-cat for "other media", and we don't do categories for "other"; but it's well-enough populated to separate it from the top category, and I think using "DW-related media" might just work. –
FayenaticLondon 22:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisting to generate a further consensus at the proper rename target.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. My opinion at this time is that there is clear consensus to keep this as a subcategory. I made an early suggestion. However I am not stuck with that name. If there is a better name, I will accept the closers choice. I don't see the different opinions on a name as a reason for the closer to not pick one.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 22:53, 5 September 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:Glee (TV series) music
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: It is unclear to me that we should have a category that attempts to have all the music from Glee in it. Clearly, an album category is warranted. There's probably a value to a category that contains song lists and original songs like "
Get It Right." But I can't see a reason to have "
Don't Stop Believin'" in this category.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 04:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose: I frankly don't see the purpose in changing the category. The obvious reason to having "
Don't Stop Believin'" in the category is that the Glee version of the song went Platinum: it's the biggest seller of any Glee single, and it's something of an anthem for the show. To structure the categories so it can't be included would seem to subvert the entire purpose of having categories. (I don't believe "Cry" needs to included, but that's neither here nor there.) If the category changes to albums only, it orphans the song lists and the three original songs, and possibly the EPs as well.
BlueMoonset (
talk) 08:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
This is a different case, as a few songs have been originated by the show, charted, and in one case became a Gold record. If the albums are worth categorizing, then the original songs certainly are, and perhaps those few significant other ones (Platinum or Gold records) as well. I agree that the simple act of a cover and Hot 100 charting is not appropriate usage of categories, given that Glee has over 200 at this point.
BlueMoonset (
talk) 23:24, 6 September 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:Monorchid people
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, there really is no point in dragging out this series of discussions further.
BencherliteTalk 21:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is a category of people who have only one testicle. I don't think that's a worthwhile means of categorizing people. There are certainly BLP concerns here. We already have
Category:Testicular cancer survivors, which would cover a lot of the same ground.
Zagalejo^^^ 03:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
KeepThis category complements
Category:Castrated people, the existence of which also serves as justifying precedent and destroys the suggestion that 'BLP concerns' are incapable of being addressed. It is distinguished from the subject matter of cancer by causes arising
from injury and
from cryptorchidism.
114.73.68.157 (
talk) 19:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Quite so, which is why it demands its own category of recognition, distinct from
Category:Amputees and the one you have mentioned. To get rid of categories sends the wrong message of amputees, monorchids, castrated people, etc being not acknowledged, not counted, and not respected for their relative uniqueness and achievement of notability
Oxycut (
talk) 22:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is not here to
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, it's
not a soapbox, and it's not a place to "acknowledge" or "count" somebody for being unique. Categories are for things that are defining. This is not. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 02:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)reply
It's interesting that you would talk about respect, yet describe monorchid people as "soloballers" which hardly sounds respectful.
Pichpich (
talk) 00:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)reply
How's that disrespectful? I've ridden on a unicycle and never objected to being identified as a solowheeler. Offhand, informal or evocative terminology isn't an attempt to insult but it can aid identification and means of understanding for the uninitiated, that's all.
Oxycut (
talk) 01:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately he's dead but I would just like to imagine Bruce Lee's reaction when you come up to him and say "wazzup soloballer!". But to get back to the point, if you can't see how "soloballer" is wildly inappropriate, I'm not sure I can continue this conversation.
Pichpich (
talk) 01:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Bruce Lee gets even greater respect because of what he did, he did as a solo. Involvement in combat sports puts one at risk of going from a duo to a solo, and the fact of a person being solo is not just trivia. It's a risk factor which is the enhansed risk of going from a solo to
a nil. If you don't acknowledge Bruce's status as solo, it's a diminishment of the full developed character of his personhood and of the fullness of his achievement. That goes for any solo. What it bespeaks us to avoid is
duonormativity and
solo-erasure. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Oxycut (
talk •
contribs) 02:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Don't distort this. It's about having a testicle, and that clearly defines the individual as a
male. Where is this criteria of 'defining' pulled from?
George W Bush has more than 50 categories and only one is his defining characteristic that he's been US President.
Oxycut (
talk) 02:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)reply
And yet we don't have
Category:People who are male, interesting that. Also you're still making
WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments - if there is any "distorting" it's coming from you. You are not helping your case here - you're only hurting it. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 03:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)reply
You just made an OTHERSTUFF argument about nonexistence of a category, without acknowledging that we indeed have male catgories for dancers, actors, comedians, athletes, etc . We have
Category:Tang Dynasty eunuchs. The issue of the testicle is not seen to be irrelevant, but strangely the standards are changed when the count is not as many as two and not as few as zero.
Oxycut (
talk) 04:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete - it's not clear the category serves any purpose other than trivia.
WP:BLPCAT applies, I think, in that just because someone has this condition doesn't mean it is relevant to their notability. No, it's not a religious belief or sexual orientation, but...it also isn't necessarily related to notability either. Frank |
talk 21:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)reply
You know, if you're going to call Hitler a role model, I'm not even going to bother responding to your other arguments.
Zagalejo^^^ 22:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Then count him as another head of state along with the martial artist, sportspeole, Senator, Opposition Leader &c that are in the group
Oxycut (
talk) 04:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete as being intrinsically a contentious categorization for which strong sourcing would be absolutely required, and is absent.
Collect (
talk) 22:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete typically, this is not a defining characteristic. It should be easy to understand that having only one leg often defines part of your life whereas having only one testicle (or one kidney for that matter) typically does not.
Pichpich (
talk) 00:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Why would you admit, then, that its even mentioned (not as trivia) that
Kerry Packer went solokidney and Senator
Frank Church went soloball. It's a big thing in a person's life and it can make the front page of the newspaper.
Oxycut (
talk) 03:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)reply
There's no such terms as "solokidney" and "soloball". Please see
WP:NEO and
WP:MADEUP. As for those things, there is a difference between worthy of mention and notable for/defining. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 03:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)reply
WP:BLPCAT admits things "relevant to [a person's] public life or notability" under a standard of "public self-identification" when it comes to religious adherence and sexuality— Preceding
unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Delete – not a defining characteristic, per Pichpich.
Oculi (
talk) 00:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Yes I hear what you're saying however we do have
Category:Quadruple amputees etc, which destroys any logic that the practice here has been
per your preference. What are your alternative and compromise suggestions in light of that?
Oxycut (
talk) 01:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Please read
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also being a quadruple amputee is immediately defining and an obvious disability. Having a single testicle is only something people know about if you tell them or they're your spouse. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 01:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Take the example of
Lance Armstrong. It's not -defining- that he fits within
Category:People from Plano, Texas because he's also categorised as being from two other places. Him being in
Category:American adoptees also in no way establishes his notability to have an article here. Him being a duo who got to place sixth at the Olympics in 1996 when aged 25 is not even half his story. The larger part is how he became solo and then achieved his greatest victories and then established the
Lance Armstrong Foundation which supports other solos. It's not trivia. In many public talks he has owned up to his solo status as a key part of his inspirational tale.
Oxycut (
talk) 03:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Yet for some reason, Lance Armstrong's introduces himself as "I'm Lance Armstrong and I'm a cancer survivor"
[1] not "I'm Lance Armstrong and I only have one testicle". (and I'm pretty sure he rarely says "I'm Lance Armstrong and I'm a soloballer"). Actually if you can find the words "we support solos" or "we support soloballers" anywhere in the publications of the Lance Armstrong Foundation (which by the way is not focused on testicular cancer only), I promise to reconsider. Frankly you're just trolling at this stage.
Pichpich (
talk) 03:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete—As I have stated in the Sept. 7 discussion on the duplicate
Category:Monorchism: "The fact that various men have been born with a single testicle, had one surgically excised for a variety of reasons (torsion, agenesis, herniae, etc.), or suffered scrotal trauma is not defining for those men. The strong BLP issues and RS issues associated with these three categories add additional problems."
Beeswaxcandle (
talk) 07:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete and salt. Non-defining. --
Nouniquenames (
talk) 01:28, 9 September 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.