Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 7

< July 6	July 8 >

July 7

Cannonball Adderley

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both into Category:Cannonball Adderley albums, convention of Category:Albums by artist. I don't see going any further as helpful. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Something Awful

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article and an image. Everything else that used to be in the category has been merged, removed, or deleted. No longer useful. --- RockMFR 20:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wryspy 03:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Milwaukee area radio stations

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 19:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Milwaukee area radio stations to Category:Radio stations in Milwaukee

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with other geographic radio station categories. JPG-GR 18:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose That would be a change of scope, as this category covers the whole metro, and possibly a wider area. Jamie Mercer 11:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jamie Mercer. Vegaswikian 07:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films about bowling

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Films about bowling to Category:Bowling films

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to match other subcategories of Category:Sports films. PC78 18:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent of deleting about vague film "about" categories. Wryspy 03:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think this one's better kept, unless you want to delete Category:Sports films along with all it's other subcats. PC78 11:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Jamie Mercer 12:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Christmas Hymns

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete, empty --Kbdank71 19:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Christmas hymns, However, if it's still empty at the close of discussion, we should just delete it. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment isn't it duplicating some songs in Category:Christmas carols? Is their a distinction between a Christmas carol and a Christmas hymn? Lugnuts 17:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no clear distinction between a carol and a hymn, and the fact the cat is empty.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andrew. Wryspy 03:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Pokémon families

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 18:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: It was agreed by Wikiproject Pokemon that this category be deleted. It does not fit into the existing organizational scheme. Zxcvbnm 14:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here is the discussion for those interested. I think renaming to Category:Pokémon evolutionary lines would make the most sense, however the wikiproject is under the assumption that those 18 articles are going to be deleted/merged. I'd say that this nomination should be withdrawn. If the 18 articles are deleted, then we will have an empty cat. And if it stays empty for 4 days, an admin can uncontroversially delete it under WP:CSD C1. I think deleting the category before the articles are deleted is out of process, and would therefore, as of right now, support a rename or urge the nominator to withdraw the nomination.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary cat. Wryspy 03:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The articles are not gone yet. The category even makes it easier to merge these article because we know which ones exist. It will be deleted in 4 days if remained empty. As such, there is no reason to delete. By the way, don't tell me I'm biased, I proposed this whole merge. :) --Teggles 00:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Arrondissements of Guyane

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Arrondissements of Guyane to Category:Arrondissements of French Guiana

Nominator's rationale: Rename, in English as per category:French Guiana. Dominictimms 12:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:I'm a Celebrity, Get Me out of Here!

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Don't need a cat for every person who's appeard on a gameshow. Lugnuts 09:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here! participants. For whatever reason, we treat reality show participants differently than we do actors, probably because in many cases the reality show appearance is what the person is most notable for if not their only notability. In the absence of some reason to treat this show differently or a wider discussion of the standard, rename and relocate under parent Category:Participants in British reality television series. Otto4711 14:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see why you need articles for people that are only notable for gameshow appearances. List them on the page itself instead.--Zxcvbnm 14:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an argument for deleting the category but is instead related to notability guidelines. As long as reality show contestant articles pass notability and exist there need to be categories for them.

Rename to Category:I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here! participants and relocate per Otto4711, and filter out the articles of presenters etc. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 16:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These people (who were considered celebrities before appearing on this show) have still made many guest appearances on many shows. Categories for all of these guest appearances would quickly become cluttersome. I therefore advocate deletion. (List articles would be much more appropriate for this type of thing.) Dr. Submillimeter 18:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per the Doctor. Sorry Otto, I can under that reality shows are different when it comes to TV because most contestants are only notable because of their appearances on these shows. However, this show is different. It takes people who were already notable, "celebrities" if you will, to be the contestants on the show. People like Uri Geller and Downtown Julie Brown are not notable because they "guest starred" on a reality TV show, they were notable before that, and this just adds a trivial entry to these individuals' category boxes.-Andrew c ^[talk] 19:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem with deleting the specific category. Each of these people is a participant in a British reality television series, which category presumably is not going anywhere any time soon. So each of them could be added to that parent category, meaning that deleting the specific category does nothing to reduce the overall number of categories and merely substitutes a general category for a specific one. When we decidd to get rid of the specific series categories for actors it was because doing so would have an actual impact on their category lists. That rationale doesn't hold here. Otto4711 01:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete performer by performance category per many, many, many precedents. Wryspy 03:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Episode articles not asserting notability

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 16:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Episode articles not asserting notability to Category:Unreferenced episode articles

Nominator's rationale: Rename, The template which adds articles to this category has been renamed from {{episode-notability}} to {{Unreferenced episode}} per TFD and DRV discussion, so the category should also be renamed accordingly. Tim! 09:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Factual references do not necessarily establish notability. I'm not sure of the whole history of the larger dispute here, but look forward to learning more. --Jack Merridew 10:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- All episodes have at least one reference... the episode itself... which is a verifiable source. Matthew 10:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is a good argument against a rename as the issue is one of notability; all episodes have an implicit primary source — which is not sufficient to establish notability. --Jack Merridew 09:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - much clearer title and in accordance with recent discussion. Addhoc 10:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jack. Per the Episode Guideline, the issue is one of notability before one of references. The category should reflect that. Eusebeus 10:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - On the grounds that an episode article with a single reference would no longer fit that new category title, but that single reference doesn't necessarily have to establish notability. Notability is established by reliable sources, but reliable sources don't necessarily establish notability. It's based on the information. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate name. Just to make things confusing, I prefer Category:Episode articles lacking reliable references, mirroring Category:Articles lacking reliable references, the category for {{Primarysources}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support this alternative name too. Tim! 09:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename - Lacking information on notability is not the same as lacking references. For example, if someone writes an article on Anonymous Show: Episode 5 and simply lists the cast and crew for the show with references, that article has references but fails to explain the show's notability. However, if someone writes an article on Anonymous Show: Episode 6 and explains how an actor won an Emmy for his revolutionary acting in the show but fails to cite any sources, then that article successfully states why the show is notable but fails to cite sources. This should be a sufficient explanation for why this category should not be renamed. Dr. Submillimeter 18:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose / Alternative name to "Episode articles not establishing notability". Regardless of the template that adds it, the intention is to track episode articles that don't establish their notability. -- Ned Scott 20:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support Ned's alt name — issue is notability which some citations may claim to establish when they really do not. Do not support MIB's alt name. --Jack Merridew 10:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification; I would not support a rename of this category to MIB's alt name, but do see his cat as a reasonable parallel category serving a different purpose. --Jack Merridew 09:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Current title pushes the POV that episodes are not notable. Referencing is policy, not a mere guideline. The name should reflect policy, not POV. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't verifiability a policy? I don't see verifiable evidence that all episodes are notable, except your word and that isn't reliable to me. You're assuming that just because notability itself isn't a policy, you don't have to follow it (nice work for an admin), but the fact that notability is based on two very respected policies doesn't come out in your argument. You need verifiable evidence for whatever you put on Wikipedia, and it has to be reliable. Simply stating "it's notable because it's an episode" is not verifiable, and definitely not reliable. Maybe you should work to abolish the notability guideline. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- REFERENCING IS NOT THE SAME AS STATING NOTABILITY - I gave an example up above of how the two are different. If assessing notability suffers from POV problems, then maybe the category should be deleted, but it certainly should not be renamed. Dr. Submillimeter 16:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mostly per Dr. Submillimeter. Being referenced and being notable are not the same thing. The main problem with these articles is that they are not notable, and this is demonstrated by the lack of reliable sources. As this is the major concern, the category should be named Episode articles not asserting their notability, since this is the crux of the problem. If people want to whine about how it's not descriptive enough of why they're there, then name it Category: Episode articles that an editor feels do not assert notability, do not have reliable sources, have original research, often have long plot summaries that could be considered a copyvio, and probably do not have use an image that violates policy. That would cover all of the bases, I'm sure, and would therefore appease everyone. I ^{(said) (did)} 00:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Subways

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 16:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Subways to Category:Metros

Nominator's rationale: Possibly more universal. Simply south 09:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Dominictimms 12:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 23#Category:Subways and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 2#Category:Subways. Renames have been debated twice on this category with no consensus to rename. Dr. Submillimeter 18:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The first discussion was on totally different terms of reference, so it isn't really relevant. The second overwhelmingly favoured renaming, and the only reason that it didn't lead to change was that there were doubts about the best name to choose. Support for the current name was very low indeed, too low to suggest that retaining it is sound. Postlebury 02:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Metro systems per the November 2 2006 discussion. "Metros" is ambiguous as it could refer to metropolitan areas. Postlebury 02:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How would Category:Metro systems be different from Category:Rapid transit? About the only clean and unambiguous name, if editors feel that Subway is confusing in someway, then an unambitious choice would be Category:Underground rapid transit or something similar. Vegaswikian 06:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Renameper Postlebury to metro systems, or rapid mass transit 70.51.11.252 04:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Why change away from a perfectly well established American meaning that is known and used around the world? Metro is not a common name in all parts of the world for a subway. In addition Category:Metros is ambiguous since to Americans it likely will be assumed to be articles about the car. For the British readers it could be taken as covering a British car. Metro (disambiguation) simply has too many meanings to use it in a category like this. A subway is a specific type of mass transit, so combining it with the other types means loosing information that people expect to obtain from the category groupings. Since the article covers the topic, specific categories are needed to contain the various types of systems. Vegaswikian 06:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Vegaswikian's comments on how the meaning of "subway" has already been established all around the world is not quite correct. For example, in the Untied Kingdom, a "subway" is an underground walkway, not an underground train system. (This brings a strange new meaning to the Subway chain of restaurants in the United Kingdom.) Dr. Submillimeter 06:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, there are always exceptions and the British use of subway for an underground passage is a well know one. Of course the Subway motif used in the Subway restaurants was the NYC Subway system. So anyone who visited those shops was exposed to the use of Subway as used in this category. Not sure if that style was used around the world or not. Please notice the word I proposed above for a better compromise if this really is going to be renamed. Clearly a British based choice. Vegaswikian 19:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as nominated: I don't think I've ever heard the term "Metro" used in a US context. I suspect that most USians are only familiar with the term (if at all) because of the '80s hit The Metro (song). (I also know it because I read a lot of BritFic and watch BBC shows, but I'm not a typical USian. And I was also under the impression that it was a nickname for some specific systems, not a generic term.) Metro is a redirect to Rapid transit. I'm inclined to like Category:Rapid transit for that reason, but I may be biased, since my local system is Bay Area Rapid Transit. In any case, I strongly oppose the suggestion that "Metro" is more universal, but do not oppose a rename to something that is determined to be more universal. Xtifr _tälk 21:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' the Washington, D.C. subway is called the Washington Metro. So it *is* used in the US, in the nation's capital in fact. 70.51.11.252 03:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category: Underground rapid transit systems in order to avoid regional bias in naming. Both subway and metro redirect to rapid transit, so some variation on that term would be best for consistency's sake. -Sean Curtin 01:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Underground rail transport - This also avoids the regional bias in the naming while stating very specifically what these systems are: underground light rail and heavy rail systems. (However, I worry about the fact that some systems are not fully underground.) If this discussion closes as "no consensus", I will renominate for further discussion if necessary. Dr. Submillimeter 08:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Undeground rapid transit systems 132.205.44.5 22:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Benjamin Orr albums

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 16:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There is only one album by the late Benjamin Orr, thus a unique category for him is pointless. Z00ropean 04:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Category:Albums by artist structure. This is one of the few times on WP that a category with one entry can be kept. See the Lily Allen albums discussion from a few days back. Lugnuts 08:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. Dominictimms 12:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. JPG-GR 18:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per conventions of Albums by artist, and Lugnuts. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Ash Ketchum's friend's Pokémon

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Crufty category, makes no sense why one would want to know this, and soon to be empty. Zxcvbnm 03:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary. --- RockMFR 05:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Really unnecessary. If somehow a barrage of "keep" voters appear, then Rename to "Ash Ketchum's friends' Pokémon". --Teggles 01:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom --Piemanmoo 00:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films about skateboarding

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Films about skateboarding to Category:Skateboarding films

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to match the other subcategories of Category:Sports films. PC78 02:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Hero races

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Good-faith contribution by relatively new editor, but alas this category is subject to WP:OR/non-NPOV since there are no concrete and objective criteria for inclusion. --EEMeltonIV 01:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fictional characters are not divided into "hero" and "villian" categories because the term suffers from POV problems, because the characters are often too complex to be placed into such straightforward categories, and because characters often switch allegiances. Dr. Submillimeter 18:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Looking through the cat was interesting thought. It was filled with the "good guys" from cartoons from my childhood. However, multiple genres are spanned, and there is no clear inclusion criteria, plus there is ambiguity not only with "hero" but "races" as well. What is meant by that anyway? -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion of January 4th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, prior discussion. Wryspy 03:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.