The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. There is only 1 article in the current category, and with a bit of a broader category name, the category could be more usefull be having more articles, like the article Murder of Michael Causer. Cheers Law Lord (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth would articles on individual victims of hate crimes in Foo be "required" to be placed in the LGBT history of Foo? An article that is actually about hate crimes in Foo would, but not the individual victims (or perpetrators). Murder victims should be in the murder victims category regardless of motivation and not all hate crimes victims are killed. Since not all victims of anti-LGBT violence are LGBT, LGBT victims should be in an LGBT people of Foo category as well. Otto4711 (talk) 00:58, 15 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Technical nomination to affirm an out of process merge. As far as I could find out, there was only one article in the category before the merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 7 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unnecessary redundant cat created by notorious (and blocked for sockpuppetry) bad cat creator. If kept, should be renamed Category:Cities of the Pacific Northwest. (which should only contain the Cities of Oregon, Cities of Washington, etc. categories, thus seems unnecessary) Katr67 (talk) 18:15, 7 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.
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.
Oppose Renames Here we are trying to wag the dog again. U.S. Open must be disambiguated because there are two different tournaments, U.S. Open (golf) and US Open (tennis), that have equal claims to the title. The Australian Open tennis tournament, one of the four tennis Grand Slam events, is a far better known and global event that rightfully "owns" the title, while Australian Open (golf) is a comparatively minor regional event. If there is a genuine feeling that there is some confusion as to what sport the Australian Open refers to, the proper means to deal with this is to discuss this at Talk:Australian Open, see if there is consensus to disambiguate the name, and then revisit the issue here only after the title of the parent article has been changed. Without following this process, we only create unnecessary disruption by having the category title conflict with the article title. As to the inevitable argument that we need to be clearer with categories, there is no confusion with the article title, and the titles set there in the real world should override any efforts at adding confusion in the narrow world of CfD. Alansohn (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the example, (curiously all the Victoria places are named after Queen Victoria, the first item on the list), but what other categories for Australian Open would appear in the DAB category ? Cjc13 (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By that reasoning Category:Super Bowl, amongst many others, needs to be changed. Where are the confusions ? What maitenance problems has it caused ? If you look at the Category:Australian Open, it would be obvious if an incorrect item was included. The Australian Open (golf) does not have a corresponding category. The three categories listed above are the only ones that start with Australian Open, with the last two categories being subcategories of the first. What categories are they going to be confused with ? Cjc13 (talk) 10:39, 9 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename noting however that "congregations" seems to be the term this church uses, that there is no other category for articles on them & that the long Trinity United Church of Christ (Obama's old one) covers everything except the building. Several articles show no evidence they are affiliated with this church in fact. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 10 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The main article, Frontside Promotions, (which I afd'd) has no sources. Most articles in cat, don't mention Frontside, and none that I've seen, have third-party cites about it. What they appear to do for artists (such as generating web traffic), isn't very notable, and we shouldn't be listing every company an artist uses the services of. The very name, "Frontside artists" appears misleading to me. There's no indication they have any signficant exclusive relationship with these artists, and no independent sources to say anyone would consider themselves a "Frontside artist". They're trying to equate themselves with a record label, which is inappropriate. Rob (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this earlier and thought it was surely CFD bait, but got distracted. Definitely a delete; we most certainly don't need a category for each individual artist promotion company in existence, particularly given that many bands work with a dozen or more of them on different marketing campaigns, in different markets, in different phases of their careers, and on and so forth. WP:OCAT. Bearcat (talk) 06:31, 7 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category; only had four articles that have already been upmerged to parent cat. No need for such a breakdown when main cat is about the "company" of Sci Fi (now Syfy) -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 06:06, 7 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:Fictional characters with genius-level intellect
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category seems vague. Although 'genius level' seems specific, the term genius is an adjective widely applied in fiction without any actual portrayal of a specific measurement. Further, because many of those in the category are collaboratively written, various writers may be inconsistent in their portrayal, applications of 'biographical fact', or by changing the 'facts' about that character. Although this seems like a 'characters with X Power', it's more like 'Characters who've had an adjective used about them.' I cant' recall ever hearing that the Brain took an IQ test or discussed it in real terms. ThuranX (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Information Since nomination, it has come to my attention this is the recreation of an already deleted category, and thus qualifies for Speedy Deletion. ThuranX (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did G4 speedy delete the category for a time, but have since restored. The original discussion was over two years ago, and continuing the debate here is the best option to determine whether consensus has changed on the issue. Thank you. — Satori Son13:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See no reason to delete If the word "genius" is used in the fiction, that is enough of a criteria for us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)
But that's not a criteria being used. It's WP:OR more than anything else. And is primary sourcing really sufficient in those cases where the word is used? Further, not every use of the word, if seen in context, is enough. 'Yeah, he's a real genius' can be sarcasm or serious. It becomes WP:OR to determine whether a character is sincere or not in their use of the word. ThuranX (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fictional geniuses Whether it's a superpower, a job, or number of limbs, or a religion we have only one means to make determinations about these characteristics, and that is descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources about these characters. Rather than latching onto the awkward wording of the category, the question of this being a defining characteristic is the relevant question here. Given that greatly-superior intelligence is not an arbitrary feature applied to a character by its creator, this is indeed defining. A rename will address concerns regarding the use of "adjectives". The use of reliable sources addressed any claims of WP:OR and the "arbitrary inclusion criteria" has been resoundingly rebutted by overwhelming community consensus regarding Category:LGBT-related television episodes. As to the example offered by the nominator, This article in the Denver Post had no trouble describing how "Their efforts are led by Brain, a genius whose intellect is matched only by his ego", and the show's theme song states that "One is a genius; the other's insane / To prove their mousey worth / They'll overthrow the earth / They're dinky; they're Pinky and The Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain." This article from The Village Voice aptly described Kevin Spacey's role "As evil genius Lex Luthor" in Superman Returns. One would be hardpressed to argue that the characters Pinky and Lex Luthor were not given superior intellects as their character's defining characteristic. I sincerely pray that we won't hear the argument from retroactive continuity, in which the possible reimagining of a character is purported to undo any of their characteristics, which if it has any validity at all is an argument to delete the entire fictional characteristic structure and has no particular relevance to this category under discussion. Without objective standards based on reliable sources, all we have is an arbitrary decision to delete some categories and keep others. Alansohn (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So on the one hand we have hundreds of categories deleted for having arbitrary, vague or subjective inclusion standards. On the other we have a single category in which the community decided that the stated inclusion criteria were sufficiently objective. My, what a sweeping repudiation of the concept! Otto4711 (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, and as the sources demonstrate, the inclusion criteria here are not "arbitrary, vague or subjective". Given the broad precedent set with near-unanimous consensus on two occasions, squishily arbitrary inclusion standards are not an issue. Any response to the multiple reliable and verifiable sources establishing the characteristic as defining? Alansohn (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, it's one category kept vs hundreds of categories deleted. Maybe in Alantown that represents a "broad precedent" or a change in consensus, but across the border one example is not representative of a broad anything. As for the inclusion criteria, there are none on the category page and never were. And as always, a source calling a fictional character a genius serves to allow inclusion of the information in an article. It does not automatically qualify as a category, otherwise every sourced fact in every article would be eligible for a category. Otto4711 (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually live in Wikipediaville, where reliable and verifiable sources are the law of the land. The sources I have found have no difficulty in identifying any of the individuals included in the category as a "genius", and do so in a manner which shows that the media defines characters in this manner. Using depictions and descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources is the ultimate rebuttal to the claim that the category is subjective. If only bedrock Wikipedia policy on reliable and verifiable sources applied in Ottotown. Any response to the multiple reliable and verifiable sources establishing the characteristic as defining? Alansohn (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, hundreds of categories deleted, one category kept. Does not establish a change in consensus or, really, anything. My response to your tired RS argument is the same as it always is and will be. RS is not the standard for categorization, otherwise every verifiable fact in every article would be eligible for its own category. Otto4711 (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as those in that list, are considered in their series as a genius, they should be added. [1] It seems someone already deleted it, because they had another category with a similar title that once existed, and was already deleted by a few more deletes than keeps. DreamFocus20:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per deleters. Fictional characters are constantly being told they are geniuses; let's not encourage this belief. We don't have categories for real geniuses, so why for fictional ones? Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Alansohn, Dream Focus. Category:Fictional geniuses is a better title. I don't think that there really are many difficult borderline cases - fictional geniuses are almost always written as characters where the "genius-hood" is a strong defining characteristic.John Z (talk) 10:09, 11 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: To match the new name of the channel. Sub cats should be left alone until we know for sure those divisions will also be renamed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 04:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom as well. I agree with the assessment that we should wait on the other sub categories as Category:Sci Fi Channel (Australia).--DrWho42 (talk) 01:45, 8 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.
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.
Merge, prefer "climate change" though either term is OK. Unlike Debresser's opinion, I see no distinction between the contents of these categories as currently populated. Chutznik (talk) 21:56, 14 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.
