Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 14: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:00, 15 February 2009

< February 13	February 15 >

February 14

Category:The AN designation system

Propose renaming Category:The AN designation system to Category:Joint Electronics Type Designation System

Nominator's rationale: There are hundreds of pre-existing articles that need to be categorized under this designation system, but the existing category name is an unofficial one. Previously nominated for speedy renaming, but that failed; I don't know why. 70.251.251.175 (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the speedy discussion, it failed since it was not a valid speedy candidate. It did not meet any of the required conditions. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, taking a fresh look at it, I see that there were six criteria. I don't remember seeing those when I made the nomination. I had a really tough time navigating the naming nomination process starting from the CfD page. 70.251.251.175 (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom -- according to the main article AN (army-navy) was a previous name for the system, thus obsolete rather than unofficial. The category is at present a small one, but perhaps the nominator can start categorising them. Thisn can be begun at once, using the existing name, as these will be moved wholesale to the new one by the closing Admin, assuming the nom is accepted. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete, yes, probably. The current name is as specified in the request. Since the articles that are in the category are still current, I feel the current name is more appropriate. My main concern is properly contextualizing these articles. As for the existing category name, it would probably be better off deleted than renamed. I'd move the three current articles to the new system category, so the renamed old category would be empty, but usable; that's a lousy situation to start with, but add to that that the exact naming of the obsolete system is questionable, and I think the appropriate thing to do is just to delete mention of the old system until naming issues are settled elsewhere. I have no stake in that discussion at all. 70.251.251.175 (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The category is small but used to have tens to hundreds of entries that were relevant. Unfortunately, most of them were links to redirect pages. I do plan to add back the targeted articles, but feel it won't really be worth my time unless this name change goes forward, so I'm waiting for the name change to begin work. 70.251.251.175 (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT people by political orientation

Included in this group nom are:

Category:LGBT people by political orientation(edit talk links history)

Up until very recently (a week ago), the only two categories in this tree were "LGBT anarchists" and "Gay neo-Nazis". The rest of them were created in response to a question at Category talk:LGBT people by political orientation that was made by an indef-blocked user - who was blocked for their homophobic remarks and actions. I have no doubt these cats were made in good faith, but I argue that they are not encyclopedic and don't follow Wikipedia guidelines. (see this discussion re: their creation.

For one thing, the community decided to delete the two categories Category:LGBT Democrats (United States) and Category:LGBT Republicans (United States) back in September - see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 23#Category:LGBT Democrats (United States). The main argument then (and now) is that Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Special subcategories says "Dedicated group-subject subcategories ... should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created." None of these categories qualifies as a group-subject category, and any intersection of sexuality and/or gender identity with a particular political party can best be dealt with in a section of that party's article.

Delete as nominator. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nominator. There's really not much more to say than: "Dedicated group-subject subcategories ... should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, out of preference for keeping individuals categorized into separate LGBT and poltical party categories. Well intentioned I'm sure, but I don't see where segregating (insert poltical party here) into their own enclave/ghetto serves the political party categories well, and vice-versa -- do not see where segregating LGBT people who happen to be (insert political party here) into their own enclave/ghetto serves the LGBT category well. If we were to carry this to its extreme conclusion, we would have categories like "LGBT libertarian vegetarian pro-cannabis twenty-year-olds" etc. a Libertarian is no less Libertarian for being LGBT, and an LGBT person is no less LGBT for being Libertarian. (my 2 cents) Outsider80 (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I created most of them, but this was largely due to an error in judgment among other things.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cracking

Propose renaming Category:Cracking to Category:Software cracking

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Proposed name is clearer and it would also match the main article Software cracking. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British people of mixed Latino/Hispanic-European Ethnicity

Category:British people of mixed Latino/Hispanic-European Ethnicity - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete This is a case of overcategorisation per WP:OC#CATGRS. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems problematic at first glance, but I'd like to see a substantive discussion before I reach any conclusions. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - I was struggling to find the notification template message. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a triple intersection - We have Booian people of fooian descent. Recent CFDs have suggested that categories such as "mixed race people" should be deleted. Mixed race people will sometimes have two or three categories of this kind. Having checked several of the pople categorised they seem to be British people of Latin American descent, but are usually categorised as of fooian descent (foo - here - being a single Latin American country). Note in Britain "Latin American" is the usual general term for Mexico and all countries to the south. "Latino" is only used in the context of people in USA. Any not already categorised as belonging to a particular Latin American country should be placed in Category:British people of Latin American descent, a category that should be used only for (1) those whose origins are uncertain (until sorted) and (2) People with two or more different Latin American ethnicities. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Peterkingiron's thorough analysis. Should Category:People of mixed Latino/Hispanic-European Ethnicity be added to this nomination? It has many of the same problems, primarily that it is a category for "mixed descent". –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Markets in the United States

Category:Markets in the United States - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Multiple Split or Delete Markets is completely ambiguous. What is the common thread between a flea market, an historical landmark, a farmers market, and a seasonal wholesale market. Rather then jumping the gun here and deleting I believe that we may actually want to retain some form of this by splitting into a larger number of categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but purge -- The category should be provided with a headnote defining its scope more clearly as dealing with open-air or covered markets, where retailers operate from small stalls. The historical landmark might properly appear if it has (or has had) a regular market. Farmers markets are a sort of revival of traditonal markets and might properly appear, but a tower block in Las Vegas full of jewellery shops is stretching it a bit too far. I am never clear what flea markets consist of except that they do not usually intentionally sell fleas. Highway 127 seems to be (according to ancient classification) a fair rather than a market. Fairs were originally wholesale markets held over a period of a few days once (or a few times a year), but this refers to Great Britain in the medieval and early modern period, not to USA today. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not address the ambiguous nature of the name. Based on your comments, a rename to Category:open-air markets in the United States would be more appropriate followed by a purge. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
above discussion does not take into account that this is part of a series Category:Markets by country and a category structure. Hmains (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Miscellaneous psychiatric disorders

Category:Miscellaneous psychiatric disorders - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is another "remainders" or "miscellaneous" category that groups things in a category scheme that are not otherwise categorized in other subcategories. This is an inappropriate way of categorization because there's nothing that ties the grouped articles together, apart from the fact that they are disorders that are "not otherwise specified". The articles could be upmerged to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Mental illness diagnosis by DSM and ICD. (This category is quite similar to a similar category that was deleted.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because "miscellaneous" categories should be avoided. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as nom. However the abbreviations in the target need expanding. Or is this for mental disorder NOT specified by DSM and ICD (whatevet these abbreviatiosn mean)? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe they are specified by DSM and ICD. I know DSM has a "not otherwise specified" category in it, which these may be a part of. Agree that the target category could use clarification. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permission

Category:Filming location permission - Template:Lc1

Category:Filming location permission at government sites - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small categories with unclear names, purposes and growth potential. If there are sufficient articles on various state or national film offices then categorizing them as film offices (if they aren't already) is a good idea but these two cats just don't make sense. The government sites category is especially poor because AFAIK state film offices aren't only concerned with filming at "government sites". Otto4711 (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star Wars filming locations

Category:Star Wars filming locations - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - having had some portion of a film, even one as popular as a Star Wars film, is not a defining characteristic of a location. If this scheme were fully implemented, imagine the category clutter on an article like Ealing Studios (currently included here) or any other film studio article. Otto4711 (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Undefining and extreme overcategorization. As for imagining a full implementation of this scheme, Otto is spot-on; indeed, imagine the category clutter on an article like United Kingdom, in light of the fact that this category even includes Tunisia as a filming location. Information about filming locations belongs in the main article about Star Wars or in a List of Star Wars filming locations. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both the above. This simply is not a sound basis for categorization -- much better suited to a List, if anything. Cgingold (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European football (soccer) players

Category:European football (soccer) players - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete This is a subcategory of Football (soccer) players by nationality, which implies that European is a nationality. This is obviously not the case. It doesn't clear out "Category:Football (soccer) players by nationality" either, because all the subcategories of "Category:European football (soccer) players" are also in "Football (soccer) players by nationality". This category doesn't seem to serve any purpose. Aecis·(away) ^talk 18:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was created solely to place the European football players by nationality categories in the Football (soccer) in Europe category tree. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Be that as it may, it is completely redundant with "Football (soccer) players by nationality" and serves no purpose. Even if it should exist, it is in the wrong category tree, since European is not a nationality, and I see no reasonable alternative tree to put this in. Aecis·(away) ^talk 22:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please see my comment below. Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but maybe remove Football (soccer) players by nationality as parent. The purpose is as BF says. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removing "Football (soccer) players by nationality" is just about the worst option possible. The basic structure of such categories is "<occupation> by nationality". See for instance Writers by nationality and Architects by nationality. If "European football (soccer) players" should exist at all, it can only exist as a daughter category of "Football (soccer) players by nationality". Deleting the parent while keeping the daughter is absurd. Aecis·(away) ^talk 22:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The sole purpose of this category is to place the "[Nationality] footballers" categories into the "Football (soccer) in Europe" category tree; however, the "[Nationality] footballers" categories are already in the "Football (soccer) in Europe" via the "Football in [Country]" categories. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant to C‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Football (soccer) players by nationality King of the North East 23:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This would be a legitmate parent category (and an appropriate subcategory of the suggested target) if the target was purged of all European countries and renamed "Football (soccer) players by continent". Sicne there are European, Asian, African, etc. competitions having such a category might be logical. However, I am not familar with the tree in question, so no vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would only endorse such a solution if it is implemented across the board, so if we split every "<Occupation> by nationality" category by continent first. I see no reason to treat football as an exception. Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 00:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Afghans

Category:Fictional Afghans - Template:Lc1

Category:Fictional Danes - Template:Lc1

Category:Fictional Finns - Template:Lc1

Category:Fictional Norwegians - Template:Lc1

Category:Fictional Romanians - Template:Lc1

Category:Fictional Scots - Template:Lc1

Category:Scottish comics characters - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Left over from CFD 2008 September 23. My reason for this nomination is the same as my reason for supporting deletion at the September '08 CFD:

Defining the nationality of a fictional character is often problematic and/or requires original research (see esp. the comments by jc37 and Hiding [at the September '08 CFD]). Moreover, these categories group fictional characters on the basis of an in-universe characteristic that ultimately lies at the whim of the character's creator, and the creator may deliberately or inadvertently change this characteristic over time and/or across works. Lists are a viable alternative, but even they should be limited to significant intersections (e.g. "Russian supervillains in American comics" may be a distinct subject of academic or popular interest, but "Thai supervillains in Colombian comics" probably is not).

Delete all (or very, very weak listify) as nominator. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Establishing the nationality of a fictional character is not usually problematic, it is usually fairly straightforward. There may be problems in a few cases, but there can be problems with all attributes of fictional characters, and the nationality of some real people. "These categories group fictional characters on the basis of an in-universe characteristic that ultimately lies at the whim of the character's creator, and the creator may deliberately or inadvertently change this characteristic over time and/or across works" is an objection to all categorisation of fictional characters. You could run into problems deciding which lists are notable or not. PatGallacher (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to your assertion that "establishing the nationality of a fictional character is ... usually fairly straightforward", I would like to refer you to one of the examples offered by User:Hiding in the 23 September 2008 discussion. In most cases, nationality is attributed to fictional characters based on where they are known (in the fictional universe) to have been born and/or lived.
  With regard to your other point, my comment about categorization on the basis of an in-universe characteristic is not an objection to all categorization of fictional characters, but rather an objection to most categorization of ficitional characters on the basis of an in-universe characteristic that is, more often than not, incidental to the identity of the character (e.g. if the setting of a fictional work is France, most of the characters will (by default) be French). These are, after all, not real people, and should not be treated as such for purposes of categorization.
  Finally, with regard to lists, could you please clarify your comment about "deciding which lists are notable"? If a particular intersection (e.g. Vanatuan supervillains in Zambian comics) is not significant, it shouldn't exist as a list or a category. Thank you, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all since these are not significant intersections. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - Nationality is a defining characteristic for fictional characters much as it is for real people. As I have said on many previous occasions, if the author has identified the nationality or ethnicity of a character, that's sufficient basis for categorization. As to the deletion of dozens of other similar categories in the Sept. 23, 2008 CFD -- that was a complete travesty. It was a massive listing of all manner of categories -- so many that the list had to be hidden from view. I skipped right past it, never even realizing what was at stake -- and I wasn't alone. Moreover, because of the confusing array of different sorts of categories that were included, it was very poorly argued in terms of the validity of this particular type of category for nationality. Most of the arguments pertained to the sorts of issues that arise with respect to characters in comic books, but were generalized as if they applied to all fictional characters. It's worth noting that the deletion of Category:Fictional Americans was overturned at DRV shortly thereafter. For a much more focused and better argued discussion that is directly relevant to this CFD, I strongly advise one and all to read the adjoining CFDs from October 21 for Category:Fictional Americans by state and Category:Fictional Americans by ethnicity, where there was a very clear concensus for keeping all such categories. Cgingold (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion of Category:Fictional Americans was overturned so that it could be a parent category for the various subcats; the DRV did not overturn the CFD outcome.
  As for the assertion that "nationality is a defining characteristic for fictional characters", could you please explain how (presumed) American nationality is defining for any of the characters listed at List of Tru Calling characters, for instance (it's the first characters article I encountered via Special:Random)? American, Afghan, French, Italian, etc. nationality is almost always absolutely incidental to the identity of characters in a fictional universe that is set in the United States, Afghanistan, France, Italy, etc., respectively. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- ethnicity of a fictional character seems as notable as that of a real person. If the author does not make the person's ethnicity clear, or it is an insignificant characteristic, there is a simple solution: do not apply the category. I assume that the category should not normally be applied to British people in Britain, described in a fictional work by a British author. However, it might still be useful as a parent for fictional British estate agents, even if the novel is about Britain. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since your argument is essentially the same as put forward by Cgingold, I would like to direct to refer you to the same comment and question that I posted in reply to Cgingold. Could you clarify how your argument applies to the examples given there? Thank you, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Characters in written fiction by nationality

Propose merging Category:Characters in written fiction by nationality to Category:Characters in written fiction

Category:Chinese characters in written fiction to Category:Characters in written fiction

Category:French characters in written fiction to Category:Characters in written fiction

Category:German characters in written fiction to Category:Characters in written fiction

Category:Italian characters in written fiction to Category:Characters in written fiction

Nominator's rationale: Per precedent of CFD 2008 September 23. My reason for this nomination is the same as my reason for supporting deletion at the September '08 CFD:

Defining the nationality of a fictional character is often problematic and/or requires original research (see esp. the comments by jc37 and Hiding [at the September '08 CFD]). Moreover, these categories group fictional characters on the basis of an in-universe characteristic that ultimately lies at the whim of the character's creator, and the creator may deliberately or inadvertently change this characteristic over time and/or across works. Lists are a viable alternative, but even they should be limited to significant intersections (e.g. "Russian supervillains in American comics" may be a distinct subject of academic or popular interest, but "Thai supervillains in Colombian comics" probably is not).

–Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical note for the closer: Categories contained in the "[Nationality] characters in written fiction" (at present, there are only three) should probably be manually removed rather than upmerged. They are all already in the Characters in written fiction category tree via Category:Characters by novel. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - Rather than repeat myself, please see my comments in the adjoining CFD (above). Cgingold (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Same question, then, as above. :) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all but they may need to be merged with Fictional Chinese people; Fictional Germans; etc - see next item above this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Musical radio programs

Propose renaming Category:Musical radio programs to Category:Music radio programs

Nominator's rationale: User:Softlavender came to me with this rename. Per Softlavender the a rename looks good for "grammar, syntax, meaning, and to match its subcategories" but then I had a look at the article "The Beatles" and I see Category:1990s music groups conflicting with Category:English musical groups so I don't what the correct form is. It would also be interesting to see if there are many other conflicting category names for music/musical out there.--Commander Keane (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to other uses/misuses of the word "Musical" in categories, but when I read or hear the word "Musical," it implies to me stage or film musical; or secondarily a contraption that plays music — a music box. I really had a hard time getting my head around what "Musical radio programs" meant, because it implies something like show tunes. Not to mention, as noted, it conflicts with its subcategories, all of which use the phrase "music radio programs." Softlavender (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dominican Flags templates

Propose renaming Category:Dominican Flags templates to Category:Dominican Republic flag templates

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Dominican" is ambiguous in the context of flags, as it could mean "of Dominican Republic" or "of Dominica". As a template category, I'm unsure if this should be "flags templates" or "flag templates". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. As for the other category, which I noticed is also tagged, I think "flag templates" is the correct form. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone created the target category since the time of nomination. I deleted it pending the outcome since it was under consideration. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:GUBU

Suggest merging Category:GUBU to Category:Political scandals in the Republic of Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is a silly category, really, and for all intents and purposes it is essentially a duplicate category; it's also a bit of a neologism. GUBU stands for "grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented." It was an acronym invented by Conor Cruise O'Brien. The article GUBU says "both it and the phrase are still occasionally used in Irish political discourse to describe notorious scandals". So why not just use Category:Political scandals in the Republic of Ireland, the parent category? If kept, we would have to expand the abbreviation to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented, which of course would leave us with a very POV-titled category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To state the obvious, this category is GUBU. And if we were to expand the initialism, the name itself clearly would be Grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented. I think that about says it... Cgingold (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:House of Moytoy

Category:House of Moytoy - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete This category corresponds to deleted article "House of Moytoy." That article (and snippets elsewhere) claimed that before the Cherokee indians developed their representative government in the early 19th century, they were governed by a royal family called the Moytoys, and that this family was partly descended from a Scottish family named Carpenter, one of whom went off to live in a cave.

Both I and User:Natty4bumpo (who has access to more material) have investigated this. We have found no historian or contemporary source to back up any of this this. Indeed, historians have written a great deal about the fragmentation and rivalries among the various Cherokee towns and regions prior to 1794. The only promoters of the "House of Moytoy" appear to be amateur genealogists who are in a hurry to connect their family tree either to Indians or to some kind of nobility. More detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Moytoy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moytoy I. WillOakland (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. After reading through the AFD and other material I have to agree: this category doesn't have a leg to stand on. And I couldn't help wondering if this strange effort has been well enough documented to characterize it as a hoax, which could potentially merit an article in its own right. Obviously not on a par with the Little Tree fabrication, but if it has received media attention perhaps an article would make sense, especially as it would help dispel future efforts to perpetuate the bogus story here on Wiki. Cgingold (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ohr Somayach

Category:Ohr Somayach - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcat. The supposed "network" the cat covers is only three institutions and two individuals, and the institution articles are probably short enough to be combined into a much better article. MSJapan (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Smallish institutions like this just don't warrant categories of their own. I'm not even sure there's enough material to justify a navbox template, but I won't exclude the possibility. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is a yeshiva, i.e. a college: see my comments in next discussion below this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rabbis of Ohr Somayach

Category:Rabbis of Ohr Somayach - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcvatting. Only one article in the subcat. There is no way the institution itself is old enough to have enough rabbis to merit a cat. MSJapan (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is certainly taking things too far. With the possible exception of some Vatican sub-cats (which is in a class by itself), this is the only category I'm aware of for clergy by institution. Cgingold (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Ohr Somayach is a yeshiva, which I understand to be a Jewish theological college, training rabbis (i.e. Jewish clergy). As such it is offering a degree-equivalent qualification. We have numerous categories of the Faculty of X University. This category is apparently an equivalent one. The article cited claims that it is one of the most important non-Hasidic ones. In principle this should be a clear keep. The problem is that the category has a population of one, who for the moment would be better in the parent. Accordingly Delete unless better populated during CFD period. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Films categories

Category:WikiProject Films categories - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete Only contains film stub categories, and as such is redundant to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Film stubs. WP:FILM already has ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Film category pages which is populated by the project banner; this extra layer of categorisation is unnecessary. PC78 (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Riot control weapons

Suggest merging Category:Riot control weapons to Category:Less-lethal weapons

Nominator's rationale: Almost complete conceptual crossover, and "Less-lethal weapons" is the slightly broader category covering everything in the smaller cat. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be kind enough to clarify what you mean by "Almost complete conceptual crossover"? (just in case it still eludes me after I get some sleep... ) Thanks! Cgingold (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Less-lethal" is fairly ridiculous. Whatever else happens, that name needs to be looked at. Otto4711 (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Less-lethal" is actually the term used in military and law-enforcement circles. I got 4,960,000 g-hits for the term. It sounds a little odd if you're not used to hearing it at work, but it is indeed the current term for weapons made to stop someone without killing them. 20 years ago it was "non-lethal," but some lawyers decided that was misleading since someone can still get killed with rubber bullets. So they changed it to "less", to imply that you still need to be careful with less-lethal munitions and can't just fire them willy-nilly. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Less-lethal weapons is a less ambiguous name and the common term ("non-lethal" is perhaps more common, but it's less accurate). Riot control weapons, on the other hand, has two possible meanings: (1) weapons designed specifically for riot control; or (2) weapons used in riot control. In the first case (this is how it's currently being used), there is "almost complete conceptual crossover" between the two categories, as MatthewVanitas notes. In the second case, it would virtually duplicate Category:Weapons, since any weapon could potentially be used to control or quell a riot. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes

Propose renaming Category:United States victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes to Category:American victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes

Nominator's rationale: Rename - "American" is the correct demonym. Not sure if this is speediable. Otto4711 (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is eligible for speedy renaming. Criterion #5 specifically excludes this type of change, and I don't think it's specific enough for criterion #4. In any case, rename per nom. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless the category is intended to include Canadians, Mexicans, and Brazilians. WP always uses the demonym "United States" because of this ambiguity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 21:23, February 14, 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, we don't. See, for instance, Category:American people. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 :'''Nominator's rationale:''' There are hundreds of pre-existing articles that need to be categorized under this designation system, but the existing category name is an unofficial one. Previously nominated for speedy renaming, but that failed; I don't know why.  [[Special:Contributions/70.251.251.175|70.251.251.175]] ([[User talk:70.251.251.175|talk]]) 22:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 ::As noted in the speedy discussion, it failed since it was not a valid speedy candidate.  It did not meet any of the required conditions. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 00:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
+:::Okay, taking a fresh look at it, I see that there were six criteria.  I don't remember seeing those when I made the nomination.  I had a really tough time navigating the naming nomination process starting from the CfD page.  [[Special:Contributions/70.251.251.175|70.251.251.175]] ([[User talk:70.251.251.175|talk]]) 02:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Rename as nom''' -- according to the main article AN (army-navy) was a previous name for the system, thus obsolete rather than unofficial.  The category is at present a small one, but perhaps the nominator can start categorising them.  Thisn can be begun at once, using the existing name, as these will be moved wholesale to the new one by the closing Admin, assuming the nom is accepted.  [[User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron]] ([[User talk:Peterkingiron|talk]]) 23:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 :Obsolete, yes, probably.  The current name is as specified in the request.  Since the articles that are in the category are still current, I feel the current name is more appropriate.  My main concern is properly contextualizing these articles.  As for the existing category name, it would probably be better off deleted than renamed.  I'd move the three current articles to the new system category, so the renamed old category would be empty, but usable; that's a lousy situation to start with, but add to that that the exact naming of the obsolete system is questionable, and I think the appropriate thing to do is just to delete mention of the old system until naming issues are settled elsewhere.  I have no stake in that discussion at all.  [[Special:Contributions/70.251.251.175|70.251.251.175]] ([[User talk:70.251.251.175|talk]]) 01:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 :The category is small but used to have tens to hundreds of entries that were relevant.  Unfortunately, most of them were links to redirect pages.  I do plan to add back the targeted articles, but feel it won't really be worth my time unless this name change goes forward, so I'm waiting for the name change to begin work.  [[Special:Contributions/70.251.251.175|70.251.251.175]] ([[User talk:70.251.251.175|talk]]) 01:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)