From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 2 March 4 >

March 3

Category:WikiProject That '70s Show Related Articles

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 as WP:CSD#G8 (dependent on deleted parent). Tonywalton  Talk 15:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:WikiProject That '70s Show Related Articles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Since Wikipedia:WikiProject That '70s Show was deleted back in 2007, this category should not exist either. Diverse Mentality 23:35, 3 March 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.

John Gotti

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) 21:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:John Gotti ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Associates of John Gotti ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - two small unnecessary eponymous categories. The three people are adequately linked through their individual articles. Otto4711 ( talk) 23:33, 3 March 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:Penn & Teller

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 14:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Penn & Teller ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - bulk of the category is articles for performances that P&T performed, which we don't use as a basis for categorization. P&T's article interlinks these articles, as does a template. Category is not needed. Nominated twice previously, once closing keep (rather marginally IMHO) and once closing no consensus. Otto4711 ( talk) 23:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep no new arguments presented which have not already been discussed in previous nominations. Tim! ( talk) 17:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Are you suggesting that consensus, which moved from "keep" in the first debate to "no consensus" in the second, can't change? Otto4711 ( talk) 18:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Not really if you fail to make any new arguments. Tim! ( talk) 17:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Perhaps some have less calcified opinions and are able to rethink them more easily than others. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:29, 9 March 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:Jade Goody

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: Die Jane-Goody-category! DIE!! OK, that's enough cruel derision. Delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Jade Goody ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary small eponymous category, mostly improperly capturing performance by performer entries. Subject's article serves as an appropriate navigational hub. Otto4711 ( talk) 23:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Such cruel derision! I'm thinking of switching sides out of sympathy. Cgingold ( talk) 19:36, 9 March 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:Andy Kaufman

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) 08:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Andy Kaufman ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small unnecessary eponymous category. Two entries are improper performance by performer entries, two are characters he played which also implicates performance by performer. Kaufman's article serves as an appropriate navigational hub but someone can make a template if they want (although a template shouldn't be required to delete the category). Otto4711 ( talk) 23:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Several of the articles definitely should not be included in the category, which leaves very little material to justify an eponymous category. All of the material is adequately linked from the head article. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 20:55, 8 March 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:Xuxa

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 14:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Xuxa ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category, also unnecessary eponymous category capturing exactly one article that isn't performance by performer. The main article serves as a reasonable navigational tool but if someone wants to make a template that would be delightful (although deleting the category should not depend on the creation of a template). Otto4711 ( talk) 23:09, 3 March 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:Chris rubino

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: Wrong forum - no such category exists. Non-admin close. Cgingold ( talk) 21:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Chris rubino to Category:Chris Rubino
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To Correct Capitalization. Westcoast100 ( talk) 22:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - no category exists at either name and I have doubts that Chris Rubino will turn out to be notable. Even if he is, he certainly doesn't warrant a category. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I second Otto's remarks, but I think the nom actually wished to rename the article (which was at Chris rubino). Occuli ( talk) 23:57, 3 March 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 starring Clint Eastwood

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 14:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Films starring Clint Eastwood ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Clint Eastwood ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There has long been consensus to delete categories like these that categorize "films by actor". Many have been deleted in the past, but I don't think WP has seen a Clint Eastwood one before. Deleting the "films starring" category will leave Category:Clint Eastwood with only Category:Films directed by Clint Eastwood, so it too may be deleted if the first one is. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:30, 3 March 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:Goodson-Todman game shows

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 to Category:Mark Goodson-Bill Todman Productions game shows. Kbdank71 14:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Goodson-Todman game shows to Category:Television series by Mark Goodson Productions
Nominator's rationale: Most other production company categories seem to use "Television series by ____", although we use a separate qualifier for game shows, "Game shows by _____" would make sense too. I would also suggest using "Mark Goodson Productions" since that was the most recent name of the company. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I just looked through Category:Game shows and it's subcats and have just one thing to say: ugh! I think that a new naming standard (where one hardly exists) is something worth discussing. In particular, while the membership of Category:Game shows by producer naming "sort of" matches the other subcats of Category:Game shows, the names of the production companies (as noted by the nom) need to be "fixed" for accuracy. - jc37 10:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Mark Goodson/Bill Todman Productions game shows for now at least. (See my comments above.) It seems to be the name that (most) of the shows were produced under. - jc37 10:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
    If we're going that way, there should be a hyphen not a slash. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
    I was just going by what I found in at least one reference. However, I personally don't care if it's a slash or hyphen. - jc37 12:25, 7 March 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:Organisations in Karnataka

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 (no comments but a relatively uncontroversial change, I think). Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Organisations in Karnataka to Category:Organisations based in Karnataka
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with other "Organisations based in..." categories, for example those in Category:Organisations based in India by state. DuncanHill ( talk) 17:26, 3 March 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.

17th and 18th century company categories

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: keep Erik9 ( talk) 00:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Companies established in 1637 to Category:Companies established in the 17th century
Suggest merging Category:Companies established in 1645 to Category:Companies established in the 17th century
Suggest merging Category:Companies established in 1673 to Category:Companies established in the 17th century
Suggest merging Category:Companies established in 1695 to Category:Companies established in the 17th century or Rename to Category:Companies established in the 1690s
Suggest merging Category:Companies established in 1704 to Category:Companies established in the 1700s
Suggest merging Category:Companies established in 1706 to Category:Companies established in the 1700s
Suggest merging Category:Companies established in 1711 to Category:Companies established in the 1710s
Suggest merging Category:Companies established in 1715 to Category:Companies established in the 1710s
Suggest merging Category:Companies established in 1717 to Category:Companies established in the 1710s
Suggest merging Category:Companies established in 1720 to Category:Companies established in the 1720s
Suggest merging Category:Companies established in 1723 to Category:Companies established in the 1720s
Suggest merging Category:Companies established in 1724 to Category:Companies established in the 1720s
Suggest merging Category:Companies established in 1727 to Category:Companies established in the 1720s
Suggest merging Category:Companies established in 1728 to Category:Companies established in the 1720s
Suggest merging Category:Companies established in 1730 to Category:Companies established in the 1730s
Suggest merging Category:Companies established in 1735 to Category:Companies established in the 1730s
Suggest merging Category:Companies established in 1740 to Category:Companies established in the 1740s
Suggest merging Category:Companies established in 1742 to Category:Companies established in the 1740s
Suggest merging Category:Companies established in 1743 to Category:Companies established in the 1740s
Suggest merging Category:Companies established in 1747 to Category:Companies established in the 1740s
Suggest merging Category:Companies established in 1748 to Category:Companies established in the 1740s
Suggest merging Category:Companies established in 1749 to Category:Companies established in the 1740s
Nominator's rationale: Merge -- These are very small categories mostly with one article. I think categorisation by decade should be sufficient. I am not yet sure how much furhter to take this forward. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

note 1720s iteme not tagged yet, but will be; more to come soon for earlier centuries too. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Comment – there are complications with intricate templates and it also links up with eg Category:1727 establishments so some further upmerging would be required. Occuli ( talk) 16:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep why condense things like this to remove information? They may have one article now, but may grow, and will no doubt be recreated when another article fitting the bill is written. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • keep This change would go against the entire category tree of which these are ultimately sub-categories: Category:Establishments by year. I see no 'establishments by decade' structure. Hmains ( talk) 03:38, 4 March 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:Articles containing English language text

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 14:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Articles containing English language text ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This is the English Wikipedia, so I don't see the relevance of having a category for articles with English language text since 100% of the articles here are supposed to be written in English anyway. I understand that the category is connected to the {{ Lang}} template, but categories should only exist for languages besides English. – Dream out loud ( talk) 15:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Note there is no CfD notice on the category page. Rich Farmbrough, 10:04 4 March 2009 (UTC).

  1. Articles which have English text qua English text, i.e. where the language of the quoted text is important rather than the content may be find this cat useful.
  2. Any system automatically invoking the family of categories risks invoking this one. Having it here avoids red-links and enables it to be patrolled if needed.
  3. Moving between wikis, having this cat present may prove helpful.
Rich Farmbrough, 15:24 3 March 2009 (UTC).
  • Delete per nom; there seems nothing obvious linking the 4000+ articles in this category not otherwise satisfied by the 2.7 million not (yet) here. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
    A cursory glance shows that nearly all have foreign language titles. Maybe they have {{Lang|en}} when they should have {{Lang-en}} making this a cleanup category. It is, incidentally, a hidden category. Rich Farmbrough, 10:01 4 March 2009 (UTC).
    A goodly many have English titles and how this category is manifest is not clear either. Since Occuli seems to have found that Lang-en is being used the "clean up" reason to keep seems to be unneeded. It also has little to do with defining its subject, as cats ought. A.F.C. Telford United where the lang-en template translates the team's motto is an example. The value of various other languages' categories I suppose is due to the possible non-showability of the characters, but that doesn't really convince me. However, for English it's a forgone conclusion that those would be shown on the user's screen or else the whole article would be screwed up visually. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – I had a look at several yesterday and was baffled. Aegrotat however (which uses {{ Lang-en}}) suggests that the name needs to be something like 'Articles containing non-English text with an English translation' (which would exclude most of the 2.7 million). Occuli ( talk) 14:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Seeing this category made me laugh. Every article should be in it. Even if it suppose to have some function for transwiki functions or whatever, at only 4,059, I can't see this being useful at all. However, if it's kept, let's at least rename it to Category:Articles containing translated material (getting the name from the description, "This category generally is made up of articles containing an English translation of non-English text", which actually sounds like it could be used for something. What? I don't know. And obviously all translations must be from non-English text. That's implied by "translation".) Voxii ( talk) 23:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete, unless it can be renamed to clarify a purpose which doesn't include every article in en.wikipedia. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:45, 8 March 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:Puns

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 14:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Puns ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm nominating this category because of popular demand for a discussion about it. (Well, OK, Occuli has mentioned it in passing a couple of times in recent days, but he's such a stud I consider that popular demand.) Anyway, I'm proposing deletion because it is categorizing otherwise unrelated articles by a shared feature of their name. As has been pointed out in the past by a brilliant editor (no, not me, but I understand why you would think that)—categories group articles, not words. Categorizing an article title as a "pun" is categorizing the words in the article name, not the subject of the article itself. In this sense, the category is similar to deleted categories for oxymorons and double entendres. (Incidentally, seeing what editors actually think qualifies as a "pun" brings new meaning to the phrase "lowest form of humor". "The Spy Who Shagged Me"? A pun?) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Good Ol'factory? Hmm... – Black Falcon ( Talk) 08:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
I have to admit that I blindly walked right into that one .... Blindly, yes; but anosmically, no. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom.- choster ( talk) 18:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • It crossed my mind that I should perhaps reverse my earlier position and argue in support of keeping this category -- you know, just to shake things up. But I find that I am unable to do that -- Punctilious fellow that I am -- so what the hell, let's make it unanimous and delete on the same basis as I argued for Cat:Oxymorons. Cgingold ( talk) 19:56, 6 March 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:Red Western

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 to Category:Red Western films. I checked the article, Red Western (which is a redirect to Ostern). The article is a mixture of Red Western and Ostern (which the article states is the same and different). Hence, I'm not taking the article into account. Kbdank71 15:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Red Western to TO BE DETERMINED
Nominator's rationale: This category is a subcategory of Category:Western films by genre (nominated for renaming below) and Category:Soviet films, so it should be at least be renamed to Category:Red Western films (1st preference) or Category:Red Westerns (plural). However, one complication is that this category contains a mix of Red Westerns and Osterns, so maybe Category:Ostern and Red Western films is more appropriate. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 00:10, 3 March 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.

Subcategories of Category:Western (genre)

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 all per nom. The deletion of Category:Western film actors and Category:Spaghetti Western actors, if desired, should be considered separately to determine consensus. Erik9 ( talk) 00:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a follow-up to my nomination of category 'Western' at CFD 2009 February 5. The rationale for renaming was:

The current title [Category:Western], which lacks a parenthetical disambiguator, is quite unclear. It could plausibly be understood to refer to Western culture, the Western world, the Western Hemisphere, etc. It is with good reason that Western is a disambiguation page and the main article is located at Western (genre).

Most of the subcategories that only use 'Western' are similarly ambiguous. I am proposing two changes to the subcategories:
  1. Disambiguation: 'Western' → 'Western (genre)'
  2. Capitalization: 'western' → 'Western' (see usage in the head article)
Please note that I have deliberately left out of this nomination several subcategories of Category:Western (genre), including stub categories (I'll nominate them at WP:SFD if this nomination passes), categories where the potential for confusion is not as high ( Category:Australian Western films, Category:Neo-Western films, Category:Science fiction Westerns, and categories related to Spaghetti Westerns), and categories which have other issues ( Category:Red Western, nominated above). – Black Falcon ( Talk) 00:06, 3 March 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_March_3&oldid=1138392784"