Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 29: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Line 205: | Line 205: | ||
==== Category:Former Towns of RSK 1991-95 ==== |
==== Category:Former Towns of RSK 1991-95 ==== |
||
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
|||
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.'' |
|||
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''listify to [[Towns in the Former RSK]]''' --[[User:Kbdank71|Kbdank71]] 16:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:[[:Category:Former Towns of RSK 1991-95]] - {{lc1|Former Towns of RSK 1991-95}}<br /> |
:[[:Category:Former Towns of RSK 1991-95]] - {{lc1|Former Towns of RSK 1991-95}}<br /> |
||
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' {{{3|This category is a nonsenical offensive POV, the same category was already two times (speedy) deleted and now the same vandal using his sockpuppets creates it again. [[User:No.13|No.13]] 09:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)}}} |
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' {{{3|This category is a nonsenical offensive POV, the same category was already two times (speedy) deleted and now the same vandal using his sockpuppets creates it again. [[User:No.13|No.13]] 09:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)}}} |
||
Line 309: | Line 313: | ||
* '''Delete''' as more or less useless; e.g. a hypothetical category [[:Category:Cities and towns in the former Austria-Hungary]] presumably wouldn't offend anyone, but what purpose would it serve? Talk of "legality" is completely off the mark; when it comes to secession, one either pulls it off and gets an international recognition - or doesn't. It doesn't matter; illegal things exist too. I'd say "listify", but it's already done: [[Towns in the Former RSK]]. [[User:GregorB|GregorB]] 14:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC) |
* '''Delete''' as more or less useless; e.g. a hypothetical category [[:Category:Cities and towns in the former Austria-Hungary]] presumably wouldn't offend anyone, but what purpose would it serve? Talk of "legality" is completely off the mark; when it comes to secession, one either pulls it off and gets an international recognition - or doesn't. It doesn't matter; illegal things exist too. I'd say "listify", but it's already done: [[Towns in the Former RSK]]. [[User:GregorB|GregorB]] 14:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div> |
|||
==== Incorporations ==== |
==== Incorporations ==== |
Revision as of 16:41, 6 August 2007
July 29
Category:Forgotten Corner of Cornwall
Category:People from St Helier
- Category:People from St Helier - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale:
Category no longer has any pages within it.RichardColgate 20:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and repopulate It's empty because you emptied it immediately before making this nomination. Such attempts to preempt discussions on this page are very bad form. Wimstead 21:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment was part of extensive sub-categorisation of Category: People from Jersey have now sub categorised by religion, educational establishment and profession, peviously this was one of only four sub cats. Is was never really relevant as nearly all people born in Jersey are born in St Helier since that is where the maternity hospital is.RichardColgate 21:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- These categories are not based on where people were born. That is why the names were standardised as "People from" rather than "Natives of". Greg Grahame 11:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and repopulate - Around half the population now may certainly have been born in St Helier at the maternity hospitals. Historically, of course, most people were born in the family home. Then there's the case of the current Connétable of St Helier Simon Crowcroft, who is arguably from St Helier, although he wasn't born there. Or a C19th Connétable of St Helier, Sir Robert Pipon Marett, who was a St Pierrais by birth. Man vyi 05:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and repopulate Greg Grahame 11:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and repopulate per those above. Johnbod 13:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Ok per Man Vyi and Greg Grahame I shall repopulate as another basis for sub-cat i.e. which parish people from Jersey are based in. I withdraw the request for deletion.RichardColgate 04:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and repopulate. I support the above clarification that this is where they are FROM and not necessarily where they were BORN. EdJohnston 03:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Category:Maya Master
Category:Big-bust models and performers
- Category:Big-bust models and performers - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Delete this category has arbitrary inclusion criteria akin to the Category:Men with unusually large penis, except here there's not even a guidance as to what chest measurement or cup size is the standard that must be met. It's trivial and not really encyclopedic - we do have a list, which can capture the, ahem, various dimensions and source them, the category is otherwise superfluous. An upmerge may be ok, if we're sure that all these models and performers are really of the "adult model" genre. Carlossuarez46 18:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is apparently the 3rd go around for this cat: first debate resulting in deletion; it was re-created, a circumstance not discussed or considered at its second debate that reached no consensus. Carlossuarez46 21:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Arbitrary inclusion criteria.Epbr123 18:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Rename or Delete because of the category's current misuse. Its current use as a category for big-busted models has arbitrary inclusion criteria. Epbr123 18:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -Ebyabe 18:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Folks, the inclusion criteria have nothing to do with measurement. They're "This is a list of women known for modeling or performing in big-bust entertainment." You're mis-reading the title. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- What is the distinction between models in big-bust entertainment and models with big-busts? How does Kelly Brook fulfil the criteria, for example? Epbr123 18:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Big-bust is a genre of erotic films and magazines, in the same way that Bondage pornography, or Altporn, or Big Beautiful Woman is a genre. It is typified by pornographic magazines such as Busty Beauties, Juggs, and Score, and the erotic but not (at least not always) pornographic films of director Russ Meyer (see Russ_Meyer#Big_breast_fixation.2C_or_the_Meyer_physical_archetype, and books such as Meyer, Russ (2000). A Clean Breast : The Life and Loves of Russ Meyer. El Rio, TX: Hauck Pub Co. ISBN 0-9621797-2-8. , Woods, Paul A. (2004). The Very Breast of Russ Meyer. London: Plexus Publishing. ISBN 0859653099). Canonical examples of models and actresses who specialize in this genre are Minka (porn star), Maxi Mounds, Ashley Juggs, Tawny Peaks, Kayla Kleevage, Chelsea Charms, others - you will notice from visiting our articles that they appear in features based on breast size fetishism, and often even choose their stage names based on breast euphemisms. To answer the distinction question, Dolly Parton is probably the canonical example of an actress with a big bust who does not appear in big bust entertainment. I can't speak for Kelly Brook -- it's a category, anyone can add entries to the category incorrectly, that's not a call for deletion of the category, any more that someone putting an incorrect statement in an article is a call for deletion of the article. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- There are at least 30 articles in the category which don't match that criteria. It does appear as though the category is being used for any model with a big-bust. The criteria for inclusion in the category should at least be made clearer. Epbr123 22:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Big-bust is a genre of erotic films and magazines, in the same way that Bondage pornography, or Altporn, or Big Beautiful Woman is a genre. It is typified by pornographic magazines such as Busty Beauties, Juggs, and Score, and the erotic but not (at least not always) pornographic films of director Russ Meyer (see Russ_Meyer#Big_breast_fixation.2C_or_the_Meyer_physical_archetype, and books such as Meyer, Russ (2000). A Clean Breast : The Life and Loves of Russ Meyer. El Rio, TX: Hauck Pub Co. ISBN 0-9621797-2-8. , Woods, Paul A. (2004). The Very Breast of Russ Meyer. London: Plexus Publishing. ISBN 0859653099). Canonical examples of models and actresses who specialize in this genre are Minka (porn star), Maxi Mounds, Ashley Juggs, Tawny Peaks, Kayla Kleevage, Chelsea Charms, others - you will notice from visiting our articles that they appear in features based on breast size fetishism, and often even choose their stage names based on breast euphemisms. To answer the distinction question, Dolly Parton is probably the canonical example of an actress with a big bust who does not appear in big bust entertainment. I can't speak for Kelly Brook -- it's a category, anyone can add entries to the category incorrectly, that's not a call for deletion of the category, any more that someone putting an incorrect statement in an article is a call for deletion of the article. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- What is the distinction between models in big-bust entertainment and models with big-busts? How does Kelly Brook fulfil the criteria, for example? Epbr123 18:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I knew this would show up here today, right after the penises...KEEP - for all the same reasons it was kept the last time. This is not a category for performers with large breasts. It is a category for performers within the specific big bust genre. Otto4711 19:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- How is the specific big bust genre defined? Epbr123 20:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- By examples and consensus of experts in the field. That's the only way genres are ever defined. For example, there is usually a consensus that there is such a thing as horror films, and science fiction literature, and in each case there are canonical examples that everyone agrees typify each, and a pattern that others follow. This is one of those categories, except these are performers that tend to specialize in this genre, so specific parallels would be Category:Horror film directors and Category:Science fiction writers. Please see my comment above for specific examples and more. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- True it is not named Category:Big-busted models and performers, but the current name is ambiguous. If this is for the genre that is clearly defined, then maybe a different name? Vegaswikian 23:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- How is the specific big bust genre defined? Epbr123 20:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- How about Category:Big bust genre models and performers? Specifies that it's for genre performers rather than just for models with big 'uns. Otto4711 15:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Could work. But it does not explain why Carol Doda was not in the category. Makes one wonder if there is way too much over categorization if editors don't know about all of the possible category choices. Vegaswikian 18:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- How about Category:Big bust genre models and performers? Specifies that it's for genre performers rather than just for models with big 'uns. Otto4711 15:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I fail to see how having had plastic surgery is grounds for notablityRichardColgate 21:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Otto & AnonEMouse above, noting with slight surprise Otto's respect for genre boundaries here, when he has so often been completely dismissive of much better-established ones in other debates. But there we go. Like Vegaswikian, I would favour a rename.Johnbod 21:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yes, by all means make this about me. Otto4711 01:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, Epbr123, and RichardColgate (plastic surgery, lol. good one, RC.) 72.76.78.127 23:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not an encyclopedic category.- Gilliam 06:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 11:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep There is nothing arbitrary or subjective about it. There is such a thing as a Big-bust genre both in the U.S. and in Japan. A model or performer either works in that genre or she doesn't. How funny does a person have to be to be included in Category:Comedians? That's a subjective question, and it has nothing to do with whether a performer belongs in the category or not. A performer's either a comedian or not. Same with those who work in the big-bust genre. Dekkappai 16:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see why any of these categories could be regarded as trivial except for the wish of many people to trivialize the subconscious underpinnings of human sexuality as not worthy of encyclopedic attention. I consider such an attitude both unenlightened and arrogant. __meco 16:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but rename to "Category:Big bust genre models and performers" to avoid categorisation of articles not fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Garion96 (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As arbitrary and trivial. I am delighted to be considered "unenlightened and arrogant" by people who spend their time on the such interests as this! Postlebury 10:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per AnonEMouse & Dekkappai.Powergirl 04:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per AnonEMouse and Dekkappai. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per AnonEMouse and Dekkappai. --David Hain 19:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as ambiguous and POV. If kept, at least rename to Category:Big bust genre models and performers and see if this fixes the content issues. If not it should be renominated and then deleted. Vegaswikian 00:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete ambiguous, subjective cat. Wryspy 04:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is a valid genre, and the people engaged it it are fairly well defined. DGG (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. This category is being used on any article about a famous person with a "big bust" (it's very ambiguous) and it's arbitrary and trivial. --Leon Sword 02:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Category: Information economics
I'm nominating Category:Information economics for deletion. The category only has one article in it besides the main article; and the main article is misleadingly and confusingly named, per the comments at Talk:Information economics. Jeremy Tobacman 12:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The main article and the single member use the term to refer to different topics. Johnbod 19:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Category:Universities and colleges in Abia State
Category:Men with unusually large penis
Category:Former Towns of RSK 1991-95
Incorporations
Category:Soviet propagandists
Category:Russian propagandists
Category:Users with BLOCKPROOF