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 the first, merge' the second to it. –
FayenaticLondon 21:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, only one article each. No merge needed, both articles are sufficiently categorized already.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose. From the {{Campaignbox Fitna of al-Andalus}} it looks as if the category content can be expanded, and the conflict is probably extensive enough for more content to be generated in due course. My sole reservations are about the availability and quality of sources for the period (being far from my area of interest, I cannot judge either way) and probable lack of interest by the community in expanding this any time soon.
Constantine ✍ 22:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)reply
That's true, but if indeed "Fitna of al-Andalus" is the proper name of the conflict, then I don't see a problem with its naming and with having categories for it.
Constantine ✍ 08:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)reply
It's pretty pointless to have two categories for two articles, that doesn't help navigation at all.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)reply
KeepCategory:Fitna of al-Andalus; merge in the other and populate. According to
Fitna, it is an Arabic word for sedition, but it appears to be used for civil wars within Islam. It is quite appropriate to have a category for a war.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 13:56, 26 March 2016 (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:Non-laugh track sitcoms
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; a list has now been created.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic of ANY of these shows. Additionally, are shows filmed in front of an audience "non-laugh track"? What if the live laughter is "enhanced"? Are cartoons "sitcoms"? SummerPhDv2.0 13:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)reply
There are more sitcoms that have a laugh tracks than sitcoms than don't, in spite of the recent trend of non-laugh track comedies. For that reason, I believe it is relevant enough to be a category.
In defining the absence of laughter in a sitcom, there might be the need to use other concept. I see how the "non-laugh track" label leaves aside the sitcoms that are recorded with the laughter of an audience.
The article for the topic does't provide a concept for that either. Maybe the category should be named Non-laugh track or audience laughter sitcoms or Sitcoms without embedded audience reaction or laugh track or something like that?
The "cartoons" in this category are better defined as "animated sitcoms", because they have all the characteristics of a sitcom, but are an animated show. Again, there's a considerable amount of this kind of shows that have laugh tracks, so the shows that don't are distinctive.
This doesn't seem to be a
Wikipedia:Defining characteristic of these shows. Describing Futurama to someone, I can't imagine calling it a "non-laugh track sitcom". I'd probably say it's a cartoon about a guy who gets sent to the future, by the guy who did the Simpsons. Further, to weed out all of the bulk of the cartoons, we need to
decide which ones are sitcoms and which ones aren't. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Listify: This is definitely encyclopedic; some people seek out non-LT sitcoms, and having this be a DVD/Blu-ray audio option is a selling point they use in the marketing materials (M*A*S*H without the LT is amazingly better!). However, because there are no clear inclusion criteria, and coming up with a complicated one would be required – one that people would ignore if it were on the category – this will work much better as a
stand-alone list article. The list consensus discussion will probably come to the conclusion to put animated shows in a different list, I would think, but I'm not psychic. —
SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I agree with
SMcCandlish ☺. Making the whole thing a list seems like the best idea for now, seeing that we don't have much information right now. Maybe in the future TV experts will theorize about this and come up with a concept.
Gonzalogallard (
talk) 00:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Not a defining characteristic.--
Darksheets52 (
talk) 19:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Listify per the reasons offered by SMcCandlish. If there are readers who search for this thing, they could use a list similar to the more inclusive
List of situation comedies.
Dimadick (
talk) 09:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete we avoid categorizing by lack of a charecteristic at all cost. Plus this is not a defining feature.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:57, 26 March 2016 (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:BDSers
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.
Propose renamingCategory:BDSers to whatever BDSers is an abbreviation of.
Nominator's rationale: There is no explanation of the meaning of "BDSers", not on the category page nor in any of the articles listed in it. The abbreviation must either be explained somewhere or the category should be renamed to the unabbreviated form. There might even be a need for an article about it.
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk) 06:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Agree, it is not at all clear what this category is for, something to do with Zionism or anti-Zionism?
Wayne Jayes (
talk) 07:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Move to
Category:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, per the sleuthing above (or something more specific if we need both a category for the movement and a subcat for people involved in it, which seems like excessive hairsplitting to me, unless the main category overflows with bio articles. —
SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment I would only expect members of the organizing Palestinian BDS National Committee to be in this category. If the scope is broader (and apparently it is broader, considering that Desmond Tutu is also in this category), it should become something like
Category:Supporters of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. But then, is this defining enough?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete We avoid categorization by support of a particular idea.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 06:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Right, that's what I was considering too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:05, 28 March 2016 (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:Explosive ROF
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 nominated. –
FayenaticLondon 21:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a set category, so it should be plural, I'm not sure what the proper plural would be. The article is
Explosive ROF. Is "Explosive ROFs" the correct plural?
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Support: Yes, this the standard way to pluralize initialisms. —
SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Peterkingiron: What do you mean by "WP does not like abbreviations"? Abbreviations are perfectly fine in article names, when they represent the most common usage. And when an article name uses an abbreviation, it's usual for the category name to follow.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)reply
"Explosive Royal Ordnance Factories" would be a very odd construction, it is the thing they make that explodes, not (hopefully) the factories that make it. More normal grammar would be "Royal Ordnance explosive factories". For the avoidance of doubt, I am neutral on the issue of expanding the abbreviation.
SpinningSpark 10:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Support per nom and keep abbreviation per main article.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:26, 2 April 2016 (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:Ring of Fire companies
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. –
FayenaticLondon 21:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category has nothing to do with the
Ring of Fire, or with any other meaning listed in
Ring of Fire (disambiguation). Supposedly it's a U.S. ATF designation for these companies, but the phrase "ring of fire" is not found in
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, so I'm not sure that this is particularly defining. It is mentioned in some of the articles that are in the category. If this is a significant thing that is just not well covered in Wikipedia and someone wants to suggest a rename rather than deletion, I could be game.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete, absent compelling reason to keep, or a good move suggestion. Seems to be law enforcement/national security jargon or slang; not useful as a category name here, and possibly PoV pushing, like categorizing countries here as "Axis of Evil nations" just because Dubya called them that. —
SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - Not POV pushing or a hoax, but a well-known United States ATF designation for these companies, as discussed extensively by reliable, high-quality sources
[1],
[2],
[3], . I'm not sure why our article on the ATF does not contain the phrase, but that's not a compelling reason to me to delete it. It IS mentioned in all of the related articles, as well as in the
Saturday night special article (which is a broader term for junk guns, whereas Ring of Fire specifies a specific few companies that were responsible for producing the greatest quantity of such guns).
The Master---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)reply
@
The Master: hi, just a question. Would this be a designation that the companies involved would be proud of, or would they not want it publicized? In other words, is the designation intended by ATF to be some sort of badge of shame? If it's positive or neutral, I could see there might be more of a case for keeping it. But if it carries a negative stigma, it's more iffy. Thanks,
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)reply
As you have (probably) guessed the term carries a negative connotation. However, I believe that a category carrying a negative connotation in itself isn't really a reason to delete it so long as it is verifiable as well as categorically definitive. We do have other categories that could be considered negative by the subjects, but so long as the category is a defining characteristic it is encyclopedic.
The Master---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)reply
No, I agree with you that that alone is not determinative, but I think it's something to consider. If negative, I think it focuses the mind more to ensure that the characteristic is defining. I honestly don't know enough about this designation to say one way or the other. My initial sense was that it probably is not, but I'm no expert in the subject. If kept, I think we should have some sort of disambiguation perhaps, like
Category:Ring of Fire (ATF) companies, just so it's clear these are not companies that are somehow connected to the
Ring of Fire. Even
Category:Ring of Fire firearms companies might be enough. Thanks for your comments and response.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I think a rename would be good and I see the confusion potential with the actual Ring of Fire. I guess I won't cry too much if it's just deleted though. :)
The Master---)Vote Saxon(--- 13:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete This is confusing guns with the companies that make them, and beyond that, I find the given sources less than persuasive that this is a defining characteristic of the companies.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 06:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete, dubbed / known as / described as is not defining enough.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:23, 4 April 2016 (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:Optical devices
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.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Optical devices is the broader category. Not all optical devices are instruments. The categories are correct as they are. There is no need for an article on optical devices in general. The redirect to
optical instrument isn't really appropriate, but I can't think of a better target offhand. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Srleffler (
talk •
contribs)
Comment I think
Optics is probably a better target for the redirect.
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk) 08:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose. In engineering parlance an optical device is a fundamental component (e.g., laser diode, opto isolator, photo diode) whereas an optical instrument is a system that employs optical devices (e.g., light meter, laser pointer).
Lambtron (
talk) 12:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge. Lenses are a device, but not an instrument per se. Many instruments contain lenses (telescope, microscope, binoculars, camera) but the components of an instrument are not necessarily themselves instruments. I also suggest that
category:optical components could be created as a sub-category of
category:optical device which would largely become a container category if its current contents were emptied into its sub-categories.
SpinningSpark 13:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)reply
That's a good suggestion, regardless what happens with this merge proposal.--
Srleffler (
talk) 05:08, 25 March 2016 (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.