Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 27

< July 26	July 28 >

July 27

Category:Mohakash Barta

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) 01:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Possible stub article written as an empty category. Possibly non-notable. Ian Cairns (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as category does not appear to serve any purpose. Alansohn (talk) 01:01, 3 August 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:Tara Porichity

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) 01:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is at best an article written as an empty category. Possibly non-notable by WP standards? Ian Cairns (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 29 July 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:Sun-Festival

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) 01:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a mis-named article (missing 'Bangladesh') written as an empty category Ian Cairns (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 29 July 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:Astronomy Olympiad

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) 01:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a mis-named article (missing 'Bangladesh') written as an empty category. Ian Cairns (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 29 July 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:TheGrandAmanin

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Vanity cat --EEMIV (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've slapped a speedy tag on it, for vandalism. Not sure if that'll work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete asap - user category. Occuli (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 29 July 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:Fads

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 all.

'Fad' is a vaguely defined and non-defining concept. As such these categories serve merely to group unrelated articles on an arbitrary and subjective basis. Various items or concepts may well, from time to time and by certain individuals, have been described as 'fads'. It may also be that the fact that this description was so applied can be appropriately sourced. However the fact remains that the term itself suffers from a fundamental defect - is not capable of any objective definition. As such these categories constitute a subjective criterion, a clear violation of WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE and WP:CAT.

--Xdamr^talk 22:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Contents by definition are subjective, POV, OR and OCAT. We are discussing the 2000s category below, but lets have the bigger discussion. If you look at the contents, how can something be a fad when most of the world has not even heard of it? Something that was a failure is not a fad. I fail to see how most of these would be considered as fads by most editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that when I was tagging these, I noticed that toys are listed even when they were popular decades after they were considered fads. Clearly showing that the entries in these categories are random and most likely OR. As to toys, one can further argue that toys by definition will be very popular when released and then commonly drop off in popularity. So this would make most toys a fad. Clearly not very defining for that entire class. Calling 3-D films a 1950s fad would better be stated as experiments in technology that were less then perfect. Is my 3-D TV set a fad? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – hopeless. Bell bottoms for instance. Wonderbra ... apparently a 70s and 90s fashion but only a 90s fad. Occuli (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have an issue with a particular entry, why not simply discuss or remove that one entry without eliminating the entire system. Alansohn (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have an issue with most things in the category and most things not in the category. Occuli (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So we have books, newspapers and magazines that discuss specific fads and associate them with specific decades on the other on the one hand as an argument for retention. On the other side we have "hopeless" and an undefined "issue with most things in the category and most things not in the category" (which I assume means that there are issues with particular entries, a "problem" that can be easily addressed). You haven't mentioned any guideline or policy to justify your amorphous gut feeling here, but how would that override the reliable sources that show that the combination of fads by decade captures a defining characteristic regardless of your impressions of particular entries. Alansohn (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitary inclusion/exclusion criteria would be the policy. One publication's '60s fad' is another's '60s classic'. It's not defined and it's not defining. Let's take the E-Type. If I can find one publication which describes it once as a 'fad', does it go in the category? If I find another publication which says it was not a fad but an essential part of the human story, do we take it out or start the rival Category:Things described somewhere as not being fads? Occuli (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, you will not object to my removal of articles that I don't consider to be correctly included. Even if that leaves some of these categories empty? BTW, if I wanted to play the WP:ILIKEIT card, I might be able to justify these articles as fads, but that is not an acceptable criteria for deletion discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being a principled inclusionist, I work by developing a basic set of principles and applying them using reliable and verifiable sources as my guide, adding tens of thousands of sources to articles and carefully considering the potential sourcing of any content that appears questionable. In the few minutes I have spent searching, I have found books, magazines and newspaper articles numbering into the thousands that cover fads by decade and I've already started adding details in such articles as slotcar racing, which had not been listed in the 1960s afds category. The sad thing is that being a deletionist simply requires saying IHATEIT, demanding deletion of categories (articles, images, templates, etc.) you don't like, without lifting ones fingers any more than necessary to type "DELETE". If you solely aim to make a WP:POINT in Wikipedia, as you threaten, by imposing your biases and simply deleting content that can easily be supported by sources, all you will have accomplished is further disruption. Alansohn (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Coverage of fads is a widespread subject in the media, and reliable and verifiable sources support the descriptions of these phenomena as fads. The article "RELIVE THE 3D THRILL!!!AFI Revives the '50 fad" in The Washington Times defines the 3D film as being a fad of a rather specific decade and this article in The New York Times labeled the phenomenon by stating that "The popularity of the 3-D fad in the 1950's faded so fast that Alfred Hitchcock's only 3-D feature, Dial M for Murder, was rarely shown except in the conventional two-dimensional format." Sure, we can hear ad nauseam that these films existed in other decades, that the technology might one day be perfected, that sources can be ignored at CfD, among other explanations, but the sources for this cardinal example of non-definingness offered in the nomination show that this and other fads are defined as such by the media. Moving ahead ten years, this article describes the lava lamp as "the 1960s fad fixture featuring gently undulating globs of glowing goo". Another decade later, Kelly Boyer Sagert's book "The 1970s" devotes a section to such distinctive fads of that decade as the mood ring, the pet rock, streaking and CB radio. Reliable and verifiable sources have no problem defining these things as fads and associating them with decades. We can use these same mechanisms to provide a means of grouping articles by a strong defining characteristic and allow these to be used as an aid to navigation by readers. Alansohn (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well sounds like a case to listify and source per WP:CLN. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Funny. I read WP:CLN and it tells us to have both a category AND a list. Nothing there about deleting defining categories. Alansohn (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Funny, you're still reading CLN wrong. It never mandates the existence of both a category and a list, and it offers guidance on when one is superior to another. Otto4711 (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Bizarrely, it specifies that lists are always better than categories, a great argument for shutting down the entire category system. Even in the limited situations where a list might have a minor advantage over most other lists, CLN never mandates that the corresponding category should be deleted. To quote directly from the source's mouth "Therefore, the 'category camp' should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the 'list camp' shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other.". Alansohn (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Please copy and paste the exact text that "specifies that lists are always better than categories". Otto4711 (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        See Wikipedia:CLN#Disadvantages_of_categories and Wikipedia:CLN#Advantages_of_lists. Notice the number and strength of arguments for why categories suck as a system. At least we agree that CLN offers an explicit statement to not "tear down Wikipedia's category system" and absolutely nothing that describes why this particular category should be deleted in favor of a list. Alansohn (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah. So there is no specific text that states that lists are always superior to categories and you are being less than truthful again. And certainly I agree that neither the list system nor the category system should be "torn down" in favor of the other. That does not by any reasonable understanding mean that categories can't or shouldn't be discussed, nor does it mean that believing in a particular instance that a particular topic would be better served by a list than a category is invalid. Otto4711 (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        "Less than truthful" is a rather shameless personal attack from an editor with a rather sad history of chronic incivility. Is there any category that is not better served as a list, and why is this relevant only to this category and not all of them, say Category:LGBT-related television episodes? Can you point to the policy that allows deletion based on "a particular topic would be better served by a list" or is this just a personal IHATEIT opinion? Picking and choosing arbitrarily which categories are kept and which are deleted solely based on personal bias without any reference to any guideline or policy to justify deletion is what turns this into a game, not a formal process based on principles. Alansohn (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Phony claim of personal attack? Check. Phony claim of incivility from an editor who has no problem being uncivil when it suits his purpose? Check. Phony "IHATEIT" claim, compounded by my not having expressed an actual opinion on the categories yet? Check. Phony "arbitrary" claim? Check. You forgot to call the process "disruptive" though, so I'm afraid you can't be awarded full points, but you do get extra credit for hauling in the completely irrelevant LGBT TV episodes category. Otto4711 (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments on the #Category:2000s_fads CfD below. What's more, all of these categories are collections of items which have nothing in common other than the fact that they may (but more likely not) be described subjectively as a "fad" somewhere. What's next, Category:Things that are exciting? Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 21:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While you feel that these fads "have nothing in common", the reliable and verifiable sources show that they do. Alansohn (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The thing that they have in common is that they have all (or at least some of them have) been described in a particular way. The term with which these things have been described is inherently subjective, and therefore the category is no more meaningful or useful than Category:Things that are exciting, a category which could be equally reliably sourced. If you disagree, then please suggest a suitable (objective) criterion for inclusion. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 21:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasoning and sources cited by Alansohn. "Fad" certainly seems like a "defining" quality for a significant number of entries, and categorization is a useful thing for anyone interested in studying the phenomenon. (I'd also note that a Google Books search <subject:"Fads"> turned up hundreds of books on the subject.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Me defining a fad would be subjective, but reliable sources defining them are fine for me. Some may cross into other decades, others may be fashion which changes quickly and can also be in the 1970s fashion category. There are whole books of fads. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well sounds like yet another reason to listify per WP:CLN and source. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A source defining it as such is still subjective, and therefore hardly "defining"! (From WP:CAT: "Do not create categories based on incidental or subjective features"). I repeat my challenge from above; what would an objective criterion for inclusion be? I'm looking for one that doesn't rely on the existence of sources as an inherent part of the criterion. (If it does, I would be happier to see this moved to Category:Things described as fads.) Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 07:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where I assume it will join Category:People described as vegetarians and Category:Television episodes described as LGBT-related. Subjective is when you or I make an arbitrary determination. There is no issue with "subjectivity" when we use the reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim, as we have to do with all Wikipedia categories. As all categories require sourcing, and it can't be done in the category listing, Vegaswikian's argument is to delete the category system in its entirety, as the argument amounts to a demand to delete all categories, with no direct relevance to this one. Alansohn (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I said, this type of argument is in favor of a list. Clearly looking at the entries shows that inclusion is POV, arbitrary, OR, subjective, not supported in the article and clearly not meeting the definition as provided in fad. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - (My move suggestion was meant tongue-in-cheek.) Re-read the quote from WP:CAT again; "do not create categories based on ... subjective features". It's not prohibiting you or I from making subjective decisions; instead, it's explicitly prohibiting us from creating categories that rely on a subjective feature as the criterion for inclusion; there would be precisely the same issue with Category:Good-looking women or Category:Scary films (or my whimsical example of Category:Things that are exciting). There's a difference between needing a source as evidence that something is true, and needing a source as an intrinsic part of the "defining" feature. This category currently falls into the latter; there is no objective way (sources aside) of definitively stating whether an item is or isn't a fad; this is in contrast to, say, Category:1960s fashion. The existence of a reliable and verifiable source does not mitigate the fact that the defining feature is inherently subjective. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 07:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(I posted this below, but since they've all been nominated I thought that I should include it here as well. Please don't view this as trying to shout down the opposition, or anything like that)
A fad is defined both on the category page, and in it's own Wikipedia and Wiktionary entries, which shows the whole line of argument regarding a lack of definition is a straw man argument. This whole series of nominations seems to be a classic example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior. These categories are not doing any harm, and therefore should not be deleted. Unless it can be shown that some harm is being caused by the existence of these categories I don't see the need to discuss this any further.
— Ω (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Don't worry, these are supposed to be debates!) You mean this: "A fad is a practice or interest followed for a time with exaggerated zeal"? How long does something have to be followed to be counted? Exactly how much zeal is required? I see no evidence of "I don't like it", and for reference, by stating "it does no harm", you've fallen into precisely another pitfall: WP:NOHARM. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 16:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It may not be a scientifically well defined term (which, incidentally, seems to be intentional on the part of corporate marketeers), but by definition it is defined. If you're not satisfied with the definition that Wikipedia/Wiktionary provides, then you could always look up fad at Dictionary.com or in a paper dictionary
    Bringing up WP:NOHARM allows me to note that this is a Category which we are discussing here. The governing policy at Wikipedia:Category deletion policy seems to purposely and significantly differ from the primary Wikipedia:Deletion policy policy. Unfortunately, since the Category deletion policy appears to not be as well developed, there is some ambiguity here. The Category policy seems more analogous to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion then to the article policy (...it's actually somewhere in between the two). The point here being, WP:NOHARM is a valid "argument not to make" for an article deletion policy (since "harm" is often not obvious in the article space), it is not a valid point to bring up here because we're discussing categories.
    Anyway, it appears to me that these are being nominated in order to make some sort of WP:POINT, which I only vaguely understand. I have to admit that I only discovered this discussion ongoing after finding that the Culture of the 1980s page had been deleted with similar rationale. This seems to be a case of political correctness run amok. Popular culture, trends, and fads, do tend to be difficult to pin down win a verifiable manner, and they do tend to (currently) be anglo-centric. I don't see that alone being a valid reason to prevent their being discusses in encyclopedia articles. What is the whole reason for removing articles dealing with cultural memes?
    — Ω (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course there's a hand-waving dictionary definition (I have no quibble there). But how does one take that definition and apply it to objectively categorise something as either "fad" or "not a fad"? If any two people (in general, not just editors) can reasonably disagree about whether a particular item is "a fad" or "not a fad", then it's clearly a subjective feature, which is explicitly discouraged by WP:CAT.
      I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that we can ignore certain WP:AADD arguments simply because this is a category rather than an article (in fact, WP:AADD explicitly includes categories in the first sentence). Either way, it's quite clear that the nom set out a perfectly reasonable rationale for deletion (whether or not one agrees is a different matter); I can't see how you can interpret it as WP:POINTy! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 17:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - As editors, we should never do anything based solely on our personal opinions, since that is Original Research. You obviously don't like fads and pop culture (which, incidentally, is a view that I happen to wholeheartedly share), but who cares what you or I may think? our opinions don't amount to a hill of beans.
        The reason that I find all of this to be WP:POINTy is precisely because of the above. Aside from the fact that you or I may have issues with pop culture or mass marketing, what is the problem with either articles or categories which discuss or categorize the topics? I discovered these pages and this discussion because of an interest that was created in my life, and it would have been nice to see some material here, even poor material, rather then a deleted page and CFDs for the related categories (which I had to dig in order to locate, by the way). There seems to be some sort of "PC" bias occurring here, and it bothers me... so, maybe WP:POINT isn't exactly correct, but it's the best thing that I can use to describe what I see. Regardless, I do not see anything other then "I don't like it" rationals being offered, so far. If it were up to me my decision would be to keep the categories.
        — Ω (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure how I could have been any clearer! This is a category with a subjective criterion (no objective definition has yet been proffered), and therefore this violates WP:CAT. Nothing to do with liking or not liking, or making a point, or "political correctness" (can't see how that's even remotely relevant; do you mean "objectivity"?). Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 18:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Things that are or were "fads" is not subjective. You or I may not agree with some items, but so what? Content disputes should be resolved on talk pages, through discussion and consensus, not by deleting the content (at least, generally speaking...). This line of reasoning, that "there is no objective definition", is nothing more then your own original research. People talk about fads, and they are discussed on talk shows, and written about in the popular press, all of the time. There are scholarly works on trends and fads, and there are literally billions of dollars spent yearly on identifying and creating new trends and fads. The only conclusion that I can draw in the face of the television, radio, internet, etc... advertising bombardment which we all endure on a daily basis is that there is some sort of WP:POINT, "political correctness", or WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue at work here.
        — Ω (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If you really believe there is a suitable objective definition (i.e. one that leaves little reasonable room for debate when considering individual entries), then feel free to suggest one. That would probably change my mind on this issue.
        Incidentally, you're misapplying the term "original research". WP:OR is when one introduces their own thoughts or material directly into an article. It doesn't apply to one's editorial preferences and decisions. Indeed, WP guidelines are supposed to reflect the average of such personal beliefs. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 18:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well... there's the whole problem right there. We fundamentally disagree on the role of editors... so, with that... I have nothing left to contribute here.
        — Ω (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All A historical/societal human construct.--The lorax (talk) 01:35, 4 August 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:Beet the Vandel Buster characters

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This only has a single article, so it is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – single list is adequately categorised elsewhere. Occuli (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Eusebeus (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:25, 2 August 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:GetBackers characters

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This only contains a single article, so it is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Category:GetBackers as well. Occuli (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary. Eusebeus (talk) 14:23, 30 July 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:Adventure sports

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; Category:Extreme sports under a different name, which has been previously deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Basically a clone of Category:Extreme sports: a category has been deleted twice for POV and OR concerns. Indeed, Adventure sport is just a redirect to Extreme sport. What is the distinguishing characteristic of an "adventure" sport such as Mountainboarding versus the apparently unadventurous ho-hum world of, say, Mountain climbing? To answer my own question, I believe that its the perception that a sport is perceived as more new or "edgy" than others, which are not defining characteristics. What of extremely dangerous but apparently "conventional" sports such as Big wave surfing and many others? This is Category:Extreme sports under another name and should suffer the same extreme fate, I believe.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Extreme sports, which is the redirect destination for the parent article adventure sport. Alansohn (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But Category:Extreme sports would just get speedied, for the second time, as a recreation of a deleted category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 3 August 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:United States budget

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States budget to Category:Budget of the United States federal government

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Makes it clear that it's a government budget. —Markles 18:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:United States federal budgets to match title of parent article United States federal budget. Alansohn (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:United States federal budget (singular) to match title of main article - 5 or so articles cover individual annual budgets, the rest are more general. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 29 July 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:Maritime Records

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 uncontested nomination. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete this eponymous category for Maritime Records. Its only article is the parent, an unreferenced stub for an indie label formed three years ago, of dubious notability. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 27 July 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.

People by occupation by Canadian province or territory, group 2

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: This list is of people by occupation by the province they ~~perform~~ have performed that occupation in. What is of note with respect to provinces is that these academics, judges, lawyers, and politicians ~~are~~ have been active, in their occupation, in the province in question, and not that they happen to come from a particular province. (As a follow-up, I will checked these lists to see that individuals here have not been listed simply by the province they grew up or resided in at some point.) Mayumashu (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Renames; Do Not Depopulate if Not Active to standardize the name. I strongly disagree with the notion that individuals not currently an active academic, politician, judge or lawyer in the province in question, per the standard that we are tracking whether someone has had a defining connection between the place and post, not if they currently active. Alansohn (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename – I expect the nom means 'are or were active'. Occuli (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Apologise for the incorrect wording Mayumashu (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support on same terms as Alansohn. Orderinchaos 10:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was mentally preparing to point out exactly this "active in" vs. "from" distinction, when politicians and lawyers finally came up, if the nomination had been in the "from" format — but kudos to Mayumashu for catching that distinction right off the bat. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. Debresser (talk) 21:24, 2 August 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.

People by occupation by Canadian province or territory, group 1

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: following up on the renaming to subcats of Category:Canadian sportspeople by province or territory (and as per Category:American writers by state, Category:American sportspeople by state etc.) This group has people by occupation by the province they are from, irrespective of where they perform this occupation Mayumashu (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, for clarity. Occuli (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I actually thought we'd already done writers, for some reason. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 2 August 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:Meteorology timelines

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Meteorology timelines to Category:Meteorological timelines

Also nominating:

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Currently, the naming in this group is inconsistent between "meteorology timelines" and "meteorological timelines", and there are some minor capitalization issues. While the capitalization issues would be speedyable on their own, the "meteorology" to "meteorological" change is not. I believe that "meteorological timelines" is probably more correct than the former. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename allJason Rees (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom and to reduce potential for confusion with Timeline of meteorology, a different creature. Occuli (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to more clearly describe the content of the categories. Alansohn (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. Debresser (talk) 21:22, 2 August 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:Association football penalty shootouts

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no need for a category for football matches organised by the method by which they were decided. Next you'll be telling me that we should have a category for matches decided after extra time, by golden goal, by silver goal, in normal time, by the flip of a coin, by rock-paper-scissors, etc. It's just not necessary. – Pee Jay 08:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 08:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – a penalty shoot-out is the single most defining and most memorable feature of such a game, as any England supporter will confirm. The other cases cited seem reasonable too (rock-paper-scissors and coin-tossing could perhaps be upmerged to something like 'Contests decided by a game of chance'). Occuli (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The games that we have articles for are notable games, and such games ending by shootout are a strong defining characteristic of these games, and an appropriate means for readers to be navigating across using the category system. Alansohn (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Football (soccer) penalty shootouts if kept, to match Category:Football (soccer) and its subcats Mayumashu (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment should those under Category:Football (soccer) be moved to Category:Association football as per it's parent article - Association football? --Jimbo^[online] 07:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a defining characteristic, these games really do have something in common. Not overpopulated either. Geschichte (talk) 09:41, 30 July 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.

Irish to Northern Ireland

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Northern Irish biologists to Category:Biologists from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish Christian clergy to Category:Christian clergy from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish classical musicians by instrument to Category:Classical musicians from Northern Ireland by instrument

Category:Northern Irish classical flautists to Category:Classical flautists from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish classical organists to Category:Classical organists from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish classical pianists to Category:Classical pianists from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish Roman Catholic priests to Category:Roman Catholic priests from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish academics to Category:Academics from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish astronomers to Category:Astronomers from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish barristers to Category:Barristers from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish bass guitarists to Category:Bass guitarists from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish civil rights activists to ~~Category:Civil rights activists from Civil rights activists~~ Category:Civil rights activists from Northern Ireland (Retroactively fixing obvious typo; this will be changed speedily.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Northern Irish dramatists and playwrights to Category:Dramatists and playwrights from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish educators to Category:Educators from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish essayists to Category:Essayists from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish farmers to Category:Farmers from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish female models to Category:Female models from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish film actors to Category:Film actors from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish human rights activists to Category:Human rights activists from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish illustrators to Category:Illustrators from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish independent politicians to Category:Independent politicians from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish male models to Category:Male models from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish male singers to Category:Male singers from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish multimedia artists to Category:Multimedia artists from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish murderers to Category:Murderers from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish people convicted of murder to Category:People convicted of murder from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish musicians by instrument to Category:Musicians from Northern Ireland by instrument

Category:Northern Irish naturalists to Category:Naturalists from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish neurologists to Category:Neurologists from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish non-fiction writers to Category:Non-fiction writers from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish novelists to Category:Novelists from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish novels to Category:Novels from Northern Ireland Note: open on a better name here

Category:Northern Irish novelists to Category:Novelists from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish novels by author to Category:Novels from Northern Ireland by author

Category:Northern Irish painters to Category:Painters from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish performance artists to Category:Performance artists from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish photographers to Category:Photographers from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish plays to Category:Plays from Northern Ireland Note: open on a better name here

Category:Northern Irish poems to Category:Poems from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish poets to Category:Poets from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish priests to Category:Priests from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish poker players to Category:Poker players from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish politicians by party to Category:Politicians from Northern Ireland by party

Category:Northern Irish science fiction writers to Category:Science fiction writers from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish science writers to Category:Science writers from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish screenwriters to Category:Screenwriters from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish sculptors to Category:Sculptors from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish short story writers to Category:Short story writers from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish socialists to Category:Socialists from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish solicitors to Category:Solicitors from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish songwriters to Category:Songwriters from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish stage actors to Category:Stage actors from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish stand-up comedians to Category:Stand-up comedians from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish television actors to Category:Television actors from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish video artists to Category:Video artists from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish women writers to Category:Women writers from Northern Ireland

Category:Northern Irish musical theatre actors to Category:Musical theatre actors from Northern Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This one and many others were not listed on the group nomination here. I'll start a discussion for the renaming ones here. I'll leave it to those who are interested to add the rest to this nomination. You can find a list of those left here.Vegaswikian (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom and precedent. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom except for the several including 'by' it should be 'Fooers from Northern Ireland by whatever' (subcat scheme for 'Fooers from Northern Ireland'). Occuli (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:21, 2 August 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:Human genes by chromosome

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Human genes by chromosome to Category:Genes by human chromosome

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per consensus reached here. Boghog2 (talk) 06:26, 27 July 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:Symptoms of obsessive–compulsive disorder

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categorizing selected behaviours as "symptoms of disease or disorder x" seems like a bad idea to me, mainly because it's a rare situation in which a particular behaviour or symptom is unambiguously a sign of the disorder in all cases. More often than not, it takes a number of related symptoms to lead us to the conclusion that the person actually "has" the disorder. I may have intrusive thoughts, but that doesn't mean I have OCD. I may have depression, ADHD, or none of the above. Maybe my mind just wanders a lot. Some behaviours could have 100s of "symptoms of x" categories. In short, this just seems to be a bit OCD-centric. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a) None of the symptoms currently in the category are defining of OCD, when taken individually. Additionally, they are (mostly) the outworking of the disorder rather than treatable in themselves. I do note, however, that there is a template {{Obsessive–compulsive disorder}} that lists exactly these 11 symptoms. Following this through I find that there are also Category:Biology of obsessive–compulsive disorder & Category:Treatment of obsessive–compulsive disorder both containing the same single article. The parent category is Category:Obsessive–compulsive disorder. I suspect that these two categories could be added to the nomination, but am more concerned with the possibility of a proliferation of "symptom of condition" categories, which would not be a good thing. (Note that all the categories use dashes rather than hyphens). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the nom seems to be more about Category:Symptoms than OCD. There is Category:Symptoms of bipolar disorder as well for instance. (Category:Symptoms of swine flu would be a substantial category.) Occuli (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but one at a time, baby. I agree that if this category is deleted, the same rationale applies to other categories. I just chose this one because it was new. Category:Symptoms might work in general, but any Category:Symptoms of FOO is going to be problematic for the same reasons. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Beeswaxcandle. Categorization gone wild. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:20, 2 August 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:Knut Hamsun

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. Nature and direct bearing of contents do not justify an eponymous category - article is more than sufficient to allow navigation. --Xdamr^talk 21:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Great writer, but probably doesn't need an eponymous category, considering the two articles and the one subcategory. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many articles would it need? Geschichte (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think it has enough articles to warrant a category now. --Soman (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And more could be added if that's a requirement. Keep anyway because of vague nomination rationale. Geschichte (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is linking to Wikipedia:OCAT#EPONYMOUS, a guideline on categorization and overcategorization, "vague"? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate content to justify an eponymous category for navigation purposes. Alansohn (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not related to his works, just a Category:Articles having some relation to Knut Hamsun. This is task for the text, to bring such topics together. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small eponymous category whose contents have nowhere near the complexity that would require categorization. Main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub and the articles are interlinked through text. Otto4711 (talk) 22:22, 6 August 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:Controversial inscriptions

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:Inscriptions of disputed origin. --Xdamr^talk 21:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Controversial inscriptions to Category:Inscriptions

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Per extensive precedent not to categorize things as "controversial ys". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If the only reason to upmerge is the use of the word "cotroversial", then the obvious solution is to replace that by something better, e.g. Category:Inscriptions of disputed origin. Debresser (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Somebody would need to tell me why they are controversial. It's unclear from the category name, and I have no particular expertise in determining why they are "controversial". If somebody wants to do that, then they can do that. In the meantime, there is no need to keep an vague and inappropriately named category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge / Consider Rename This is a category of inscriptions of ancient origin, or not. They have long been the subject of disagreements in scholarly literature and in other reliable and verifiable sources, and should be grouped as such for navigation purposes. The alternate title of Category:Inscriptions of disputed origin or variations thereof would be worthy options to address the issue of grouping by a defining characteristic, while dealing with the issue of "controversial" being a bad word to use in categories. Alansohn (talk) 15:50, 5 August 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:Russia–United Arab Emirates relations

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 on keep vs. delete, so we default to the status quo—but Occuli's point about spacing is relevant, so without getting into the whole hyphen vs. en-dash debate, we can at least add the spaces around the en-dash so that the name conforms with WP:DASH. Thus renaming to Category:Russia – United Arab Emirates relations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a pointless category as there is only one page in the category, the main article. I have already upmerged the only page to Category:Bilateral relations of Russia and Category:Bilateral relations of the United Arab Emirates and now suggest deletion as the best option. Tavix | Talk 04:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The category is now populated. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A list of ambassadors is not needed in the category because it isn't bilateral. Tavix | Talk 04:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is bilateral. The appointment and posting of ambassadors is a major part of a bilateral relationship. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – if kept rename to Category:Russia – United Arab Emirates relations per the article Russia – United Arab Emirates relations and WP:DASH. Occuli (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is now populated, and rename per Occuli.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:58, July 28, 2009 (UTC)
Delete - small category with little or no likelihood of expansion. If there is a sudden explosion of articles about diplomatic relations between Russia and the UAR then the category can be recreated but a category for the lead article and the ambassadors? Unnecessary. I'm guessing this is part of the spate of bilateral relations articles and categories that caused such a dust-up a few weeks ago? Otto4711 (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OC#SMALL doesn't apply here, as it is clearly part of a larger categorisation scheme within Category:Bilateral relations of Russia. As the main categoriser in that particular category, and I don't like to blow my own horn (but I will now), this is one of the best categorised categories (Bilateral relations of Russia) within the foreign relations area of WP. Regardless of what the nominator thinks, ambassadors are a MAJOR part of a bilateral relationship, as are embassies, treaties, trade agreements, etc, all of which have a place on WP. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

one of the best categorised categories - a good chunk of this scheme looks to consist of categories that contain little more than the ambassadorial categories and maybe an article. It looks like back in June-August 2008 you went through a list of nations and created a Category:Foo-Russia relations regardless of whether there was anything remotely substantive about the relations between Russia and Foo or not. A single editor's intensive action in unilaterally creating hundreds of categories regardless of potential population hardly constitutes "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". Otto4711 (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the unilateral actions of an editor in creating content don't you? **Pffffft**, **roll eyes** and **yawn**. I have yet to see any recommendations by any other editors on how to link Ambassadors of Russia to the UAE with Russia-UAE relations, given that it is an integral part of the relationship. Or are people that ignorant of how these relationships occur, and given recent AfD missions by some, that seems to be the case. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an effective means of navigating through the categories and other content that are part of this relationship. Alansohn (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Create template (if necessary) then Delete. Categories of this size are not worth having. If there are 200 countries in the world and we had a category for every pair, it would be nearly 40,000 categories. It will be worth having articles: A-B relations; ambassadors of A to B; ambassadors of B to A; but we will never get much more. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since it's populated and bilateral, the nominator's argumentation seems invalid. Offliner (talk) 20:06, 2 August 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:Heads of state tried for major crimes

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Heads of state tried for major crimes to Category:To be determined

Nominator's rationale: To be determined; rename or delete. The general "gist" of this category can be understood by looking at its contents, but the name of the category is problematic. What constitutes a "major crime", and who decides? If the category is to be kept, we need a more precise standard. It could be Category:Criminally-prosecuted heads of state, but then that would take us away from the idea of these being only for "major" crimes. I'm not sure what other alternatives exist. Right now the category encompasses those tried for genocide and other large-scale atrocity crimes (e.g., Slobodan Milošević) to those charged (but not tried yet) of graft (e.g., Bakili Muluzi). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment shouldn't Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson be in there as having been tried by the Senate of the United States? What is this supposed to be categorizing - Doenitz and Pinochet are in, then former heads of state belong here too? Nearly every victim of a coup probably was tried for something even in a kangaroo court. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it seems that there is a starndard for what is a "war crime." Do you like the gist of that?

Note well, there is a Category:People indicted for war crimes and a Category:People convicted of war crimes but no Category:People tried for war crimes-- so I would propose this be made to fit one of these first two as a partent category. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 20:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And some are not for war crimes. If there's no war, there's no war crime, but it might be a crime against humanity, so some are for this. But some are not for things as major as war crimes or CAH—some are for, as Carlos suggests, trumped-up charges prosecuted by a new regime's kangaroo court. I'm starting to think that this is an ill-conceived category; I'm not sure what to do—perhaps given its small size deleting and starting over might be appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Looking at many of the entries, such as Louis XVI of France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – "People executed by guillotine during the French Revolution | Executed French people | Executed reigning monarchs | People executed for treason against France | Leaders ousted by a coup | Heads of state tried for major crimes | Murdered monarchs" – there's just a terrible case of overcategorization. Or look at R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No.2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which should at best be in Category:Augusto Pinochet (it is), but is not itself a head of state, for goodness sake! Meanwhile, neither Johnson or Clinton was ever tried for a "major crime", so they don't belong here. It's best to stick with convictions upheld on appeal. I'm pretty sure there's policy on that!
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify, then delete Too problematic for a category, & the "war crimes" parent is inappropriate - poor Lady Jane Grey! Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnbod. For the same reason I oppose listifying. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete This seems unsalvageable since "major crimes" is too hard to define. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:26, 4 August 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:2000s fads

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) 05:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category was recently tagged with G4 as a recreation from this old CfD discussion. The author User:Tigerghost contested the CSD nomination here, and I believe we need new consensus on this issue. Part of the issue in '07 was the decade having 2 years to go, and 20 months has elapsed since the last discussion. Procedural nomination. JamieS93 00:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A defining category that is part of a well-defined parent Category:Fads and the number of years left in the decade appears irrelevant. Alansohn (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (I was the one who proposed CSD this time.) The article has been deleted three times in the past, one reason being the lack of definition of "fad", or sources. This category is highly subjective, arbitrary, and fairly useless. For example, how are "iPod" or "social network service" fads? They haven't gone out of fashion yet. How about "Slumdog Millionaire" or "High School Musical"? All blockbuster films will be highly popular around the time of their release, it doesn't make them a "fad". Tigerghost suggested that "common knowledge" can be used to classify things as fads, but I disagree; that makes it a subjective criterion. Similarly, I'm sure we could find sources that declare almost anything popular as a "fad" if we look hard enough; that won't make this a useful category. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 08:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A fad is defined both on the category page, and in it's own Wikipedia and Wiktionary entries, which shows the whole line of argument regarding a lack of definition is a straw man argument. This whole series of nominations seems to be a classic example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior. These categories are not doing any harm, and therefore should not be deleted. Unless it can be shown that some harm is being caused by the existence of these categories I don't see the need to discuss this any further.
— Ω (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Category:1990s fads includes The Simpsons (some fad). I have no idea how one would populate Category:1990s fads in anything other than an arbitrary fashion so my inclination would be to delete the lot of them. ('Reliable sources' doesn't work for fads. It would be like a 'best-dressed man' category. There is no globally-agreed list of fads AFAIK.) Occuli (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inclined to agree; there is no meaningful (i.e. objective + sourced + useful) way to maintain any of these categories. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's impossible to determine exactly what a "fad" is for a whole decade. Also per Oli Filth. Tavix | Talk 22:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The above comments make a very clear case for this being arbitrary, POV, lacking objective inclusion criteria, and subjective. The straw man argument falls flat on arrival since it can be and has been amply demonstrated that most, if not all, of the entries fail to meet the basic definition of a fad as layed out in that article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:42, 5 August 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:Whitewater canoeing venues

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) 01:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Whitewater canoeing venues to Category:Artificial whitewater courses

Nominator's rationale: Rename I was curious as to what distinguished this category from Category:Rivers used for whitewater recreation. The answer: all articles in this category are for man-made courses. An interesting and defining distinction that is lost in simply calling them "venues." "Canoeing" needs to go, because some articles state that kayaking and rafting is also done. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Oops, I see that this category was created out of a CfD of Otto's just last year: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_14#Category:Whitewater_rivers_of_North_America. It doesn't invalidate renaming per nom, but does suggest that the other cat mentioned above, Category:Rivers used for whitewater recreation might just be a recreation of Category:Whitewater rivers of North America, deleted "under the theory that categorizing waters on the basis of activities... is overcategorization." (Though apparently not for one of my own faves, Category:Surfing locations, which was just kept at a CfD.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless South Korea, Wales, Argentina, and New Zealand are in North America, that seems unlikely.Though some 2/3 of the rivers in the category seem to be in North America, that seems due to underpopulation rather than design. Grutness...wha? 00:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename To match the title of the parent category and to more clearly describe the contents of the category. The old CfD only addressed capitalization and has no bearing on this CfD. Alansohn (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The old CFD addressed more than capitalization, as it resulted in the deletion of a category. Otto4711 (talk) 08:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The category that was deleted last year has nothing to so with the one under discussion here. The category under discussion here was renamed to address a capitalization issue. What relevance does the old CfD have to anything being discussed here? Are you proposing that we delete this category because the prior CfD resulted in the deletion of an unrelated category? Alansohn (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn, please check again and you'll see that the deletion of one of two CfDed articles, Whitewater rivers of North America, was not due to capitalization. Anyway, it doesn't matter: let's not complicate this routine CfD. Otto hasn't proposed deleting anything, and this CfD is for a semi-related name change only. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename – the old cfd does indeed have no bearing on this one (assuming this one is restricted to artificial constructions). Clearly 'artificial whitewater course' is a defining characteristic of an artificial whitewater course (unless the designer has a keen sense of humour and a heady disdain for future work). Occuli (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename, but would prefer Category:Artificial courses used for whitewater recreation or similar, to match the rivers category. I'd also suggest keeping the current category as a parent to both - though given that it will also include whitewater rafting venues, perhaps it would still need tweaking then... Grutness...wha? 00:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you check the previous CfD you'll see that there was a debate over the definition of whitewater as an activity rather than an extremely common physical characteristic of most rivers, with Category:Whitewater rivers of North America deleted because it failed to make that distinction. The longer Category:Rivers used for whitewater recreation looks as if it was so named to avoid the same pitfall.I would argue that we don't need to worry about adding the "used for recreation" phrase here, because unlike rivers, these courses are man-made structures built for recreational purposes only. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would also point to the lead of the main article Artificial whitewater as well as the title of List of artificial whitewater courses as an indication that Artificial whitewater courses appears to be a WP:COMMONAME. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough - I bow to the knowledge of you and those editors who've worked on the articles in this area (all the whitewater courses near where I live are natural ones, and I haven't had any experience in the nomenclature of artificial ones). Grutness...wha? 00:24, 29 July 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.