Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 28: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:30, 28 December 2006

< December 27	December 29 >

December 28

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Sports teams in Phoenix, Arizona

Merge into Category:Sports in Phoenix, convention of Category:Sports in the United States by city. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Tuviya 19:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philadelphia Whites players

Category:Philadelphia Whites players into Category:Philadelphia White Stockings players

Merge, Both were created for the same team, I nominate using the latter as this is the team name used by official records. Neonblak 17:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Very Important Persons

Delete Blatant POV--Gkklein 16:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as category with subjective inclusion criteria. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, seen it before. >Radiant< 17:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedily if, as Radiant said, it's already been through this process.) Clearly a category with no objective criteria. --TheOther Bob 17:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created the category, please explain why irrelevant. King of Anonymity 17:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define a 'very important person'? It is impossible to define this without mnaking some kind of subjective decision as to who and who should not be considered 'very important'. Proto::► 17:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete excessively broad, undefined category that requires heavy POV. Doczilla 18:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did want to place myself in the cat.Baka man 19:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Tuviya 19:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fooian films

Category:Wisconsin films to Category:Films set in Wisconsin and Category:Films shot in Wisconsin

Category:Idaho films to Category:Films set in Idaho and Category:Films shot in Idaho

Category:Films featuring Brighton, UK to Category:Films set in Brighton, UK and Category:Films shot in Brighton, UK

Category:Montana films to Category:Films set in Montana and category:Films shot in Montana

Split and Rename - these are the only sub-cats of Category:Films by location with a "Fooian films" name. If "Films set in Foo" and "Films shot in Foo" are the prefereable constructions then the cats should be split and named appropriately. Of course if a combined "Foo films" is preferable then all the others need to be nominated and renamed. Otto4711 15:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Split and rename, per nom. I created Category:Films by location and it seems like a reasonable thing to do. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Victoria'a Secret models

Delete, as a repost of Category:Victoria's Secret models, see June 9th discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At one point (June 15, 2006) Cindy Crawford belonged to well over 100 categories, the most in all of Wikipedia. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Soap Opera characters

Merge / Redirect into Category:Soap opera characters. I think a redirect is needed in this case. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vanity Fair's International Best Dressed List for 2006

Delete as copyrighted published list. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as cruft and trivial. Rossrs 13:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a gossip column. 67.117.130.181 13:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure. I'm on the fence, I guess. I opened the category and thought it was appropriate since it is a documented list and there is a relevance to fashion history. However, I can also see the flipside of the argument, that it would be or could be superfluous to have category listings for each year or something or other. That said, I won't be devastasted if the category gets trashed. I leave it to the better and higher authorities. --Ashley Rovira 13:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! I change my mind totally because it falls under the category of Published List, as stated before. Thanks for clearing it up. It is a copyright violation. I'm sorry.--Ashley Rovira 14:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As the original creator, you can just tag it with {{db-author}}. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how it's more of a copyvio than a list of 2006 Oscar winners, but as a published list it's not such a good category for other reasons. 67.117.130.181 15:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brahe

Delete - This appears to be an ad hoc category containing any individual with the name of "Brahe" (not just people related to Tycho Brahe) as well as a couple of articles on places where people named Brahe lived. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 12:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear see Brahe, these do refer to a specific pair of families unless I missed a few (which might have been misplaced). Possibly should be renamed. Suggest discussing it with the category creator. 67.117.130.181 13:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Combining two unrelated families with the same surname in one category is not useful. I would advocate creating two separate categories, but it does not look like the relations of Tycho Brahe need to be linked via a category (as they can be linked more easily and more meaningfully through the articles' texts), and I am not entirely convinced that a category for the Swedish family is useful. Do other Swedish nobility get family categories? Dr. Submillimeter 14:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the article says they're related. And yes, Category:Brahe is a subcat of Category:Swedish noble families. 67.117.130.181 15:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Methodism in the United States

Delete - This category is an ad hoc category encompassing articles on people and articles on various denominations of Methodism. This category fails to organize articles in any useful manner, and the designation of what or who is historical may be vaguely applied. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 12:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the category for edited language responding to the above criticism, further clarifying the usefulness of this category, especially as a subcat of Category:Religious history of the United States (just as Category:History of Catholicism in the United States is also a subcat of this cat, as well as Category:Jewish American history and Category:History of the Latter Day Saint movement. Indeed, Methodism plays/played as important a part in the religious history of the U.S., if not more so [in some ways], than any of these). Thanks.Pastorwayne 13:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "history of X" structure to categorize people and things in general is problematic. The categories generally tend to sweep up any person, any place, or any thing that appears to be "historic" according to someone's point of view. However, if the categories are restricted to articles on historical events or categories that describe the general histories of a broad topic (such as "History of X"), then the categories are useful. In this light, the articles on people and Category:History of Catholicism in the United States, Category:Jewish American history, and Category:History of the Latter Day Saint movement need clean-up, but they do contain articles on general histories or historical events (such as Know Nothing, History of the Jews in the United States, and Amboy Conference). In contrast, all the articles in Category:History of Methodism in the United States only contains articles on people (which are covered in categories on Methodist bishops) or denominations of Methodism (which can be covered in a category on Methodism). These articles are better organized in other categories; an ad hoc category only dilutes the effectiveness of the category system. No articles on Methodist events or articles on general methodist histories currently exist. Therefore, the category serves no purpose and should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 14:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There are plenty of articles about the History of Methodism in the U.S.A.! There are being categorized properly, just as are those about the History of Catholicism or any other religion. No, not all articles about Methodism are about its history (so should thusly NOT be included in this cat, but instead in the cat Methodism, as they properly are). But for those articles (and possibly subcats) having direct relation to the history of Methodism in the U.S.A., this is an altogether appropriate and helpful, even needed, cat. Thanks. Pastorwayne 15:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Family Guy actors, Category:The X-Files actors, Category:Murder, She Wrote actors

These presently contain every actor that has appeared in a single episode. That's quite a lot, and not a defining characteristic. Per the standards, we should rename those categories to "cast members", and prune the excess. >Radiant< 11:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "XX recurring actors" or "XX cast members" to prune it to the main cast. Actors who were in one episode don't need yet another cat at the bottom of their articles. Character actors could end up in the same situation as Cindy Crawford whose article at one point had over 70 cats because there was one for every clothing company that she had modelled for. If a person appears in only one episode, their actual involvement may have only been for a couple hours to a day. I don't feel that is a large enough involvement to justify them being identified with the show in this way. Dismas|^(talk) 12:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and prune — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miltopia (talk • contribs)
Keep or rename and prune. Tim! 14:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Schools in the MEC sports conference

Over categorization. Maybe as a list. Also it is more of an article rather then a category. Vegaswikian 07:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video game covers

Rename to Category:Computer and video game covers to match naming conventions. -Sean Curtin 07:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video game mascots

Rename to Category:Computer and video game mascots to match naming conventions. -Sean Curtin 07:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Rename per nomBaka man 19:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer game design

Rename to Category:Computer and video game design to match naming conventions. -Sean Curtin 06:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - agree with nominator

Category:People with Poland Syndrome

Poland syndrome is a rare congenital defect. There is only one entry in this category, and I see no growth potential beyond that. szyslak (t, c, e) 06:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people with disabilities

Category:American people with disabilities to Category:Americans with disabilities

Rename. The term "American people" is unnecessarily wordy, when "Americans" alone will do. I wonder if the phrasing of the current title is based on a literal reading of "person-first language", in which some variant of "person" or "people" must appear no matter what, even if it's unnecessary. szyslak (t, c, e) 06:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete altogether. Characterizing individuals by disabilities is inappropriate and not as neatly defined as one might think. How many senior citizens have handicapped license plates? Does Paul Newman have one? Do we even know? He is old now, after all. Define "disability". Do we include Tom Cruise and Cher because they're dyslexic? Doczilla 07:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we have subcats, to specify which particular "disability" the people in question have. It is not useful to just say someone "has a disability", but more people would argue we should say Tom Cruise is dyslexic, or George Lucas is diabetic, or Max Cleland is an amputee. Though there are a few individual articles in this cat, I think they should be recategorized or removed from this category. szyslak (t, c, e) 11:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diabetes is a disability? Almost everyone has some physical problem. How about arthritis? How about severe allergies? 75.10.32.110 19:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black Ice Hockey Players

Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Black ice hockey players. If kept, we should create Category:Ice hockey players by ethnicity. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 04:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, racecruft. There are any number of sports the demographic of whose participants does not map to the population as a whole, no need to single out ice hockey, or black people, or the intersection thereof. -choster 15:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Administrators open to recall‎

Delete Actively unhelpful to the encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second nom. First nom - crz crztalk 04:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Immensely helpful to the encyclopedia, and entirely voluntary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Volunteering to feed the trolls is unhelpful. Referencing the actions taken regarding members of the category, please demonstrate the utility to the encyclopedia? Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - So trolls ousted User:Crzrussian? How about User:Friday? The simple fact is that the category works. It provides optional accountability to admins, and, from the looks of things, admins in the category tend to be less abusive than their non-categorized counterparts. It's a shame we can't expand it to everyone in some form. Finally, if you're an admin who doesn't want to "feed the trolls," the category is optional, so they don't have to worry about it. You have no argument here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - crz - since he was resysoped, his recall was a waste of time. Friday? Yes, those are trolls. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was a waste? I wouldn't say that at all. I'd say it worked perfectly. With User:Friday, it appears unlikely that the petition will succeed because of the circumstances, again meaning it worked perfectly. We're two for two, and early returns say the system works. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        And don't forget User talk:Bunchofgrapes/Archive Recall Petition. Three attempts in half a year is no avalanche. - crz crztalk 04:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd go so far as to say that you, Crzrussian, are a better admin for having undergone the process. You flubbed up, seriously, you were a mensch about it and gave up your bit, you learned your lesson and changed your ways, and I was extremely proud to have co-renominated you and extremely delighted when your nomination succeeded. Hipocrite: To call the likes of Bishonen, Bunchofgrapes, and FloNight among others, "trolls" may be just a bit off. Contrast how a fractious RfAr may have went instead. This process works. I find it interesting that this nom is coming up at this time, from this nominator... ++Lar: t/c 18:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares? With the cat or without it the people have chosen to be accountable in this fashion. If you get it deleted, you'll un-systematize recall and confuse the populace. This way at least there's a centralized record. - crz crztalk 04:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, only because it's voluntary. Tuviya 05:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perennially divisive topic and category; stepchild/second-bite-at-apple of the long dead failed project Wikipedia:Administrator recall. This category is flawed and troublesome for the same reasons as its predecessor. FeloniousMonk 05:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What predecessor? This category has no predecessor. I strongly oppose Wikipedia:Administrator recall since it is mandatory, and don't think you've made the link between that failed idea and this sucessful one at all apparent. ++Lar: t/c 18:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The administrators in this category have chosen to be in it, and welcome the opportunity to show that they are accountable to the community. I think any trolling can be dealt with simply by denying the recall attempt, or dealing with it in some other way. Most of us know a troll when we see one. szyslak (t, c, e) 06:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling is not the primary problem with the category; administrators in the category trying to lord it over those who are not is. The category sets up a situation in which administrators in the category are perceived as more "accountable to the community", as your own choice of words demonstrates, regardless of whether they actually are or not. That artificial arrangement is unnecessarily contentious and divisive; the project already adequately provides for administrator accountability, WP:RFC and WP:RFAR, and this category adds one more unnecessary layer. FeloniousMonk 06:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are far more sides to this issue than just trolling. When I addressed the trolling issue, I was primarily responding to nominator Hipocrite's points. Anyway... CAT:AOR is neither contentious nor divisive. Personally, I think it's fine for an admin not to be open for recall. It's purely a matter of choice. And I agree with you that our existing dispute resolution processes are adequate for dealing with truly bad sysops, as rare as such cases may be. However, I'll have to disagree with your statement that admins in CAT:AOR have any interest in "lording over" those who aren't. Let's not attribute ulterior motives where none are warranted. szyslak (t, c, e) 07:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and FM. The original proposal was bad, this is also disruptive. All admins are subject to community comment (via RFC). Whether the subject of an admin conduct RFC chooses to ignore the input, try to improve, or voluntarily request that their sysop flag be removed is their decision. Adding yourself to a category like this is nothing but false showiness. Anyone who uses admin powers will get lots of feedback on their actions if they do anything that other editors see as misuse of those powers. Does membership in this category mean that you will only listen to feedback from people who go through the "recall" procedure, and not to your fellow editors when they don't get the 6 required signatures (or whatever the system ended up as)? Guettarda 07:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and FM. Divisive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The category's usage implies to me that those who choose to place themselves in this category think that those who don't see themselves as being above the law, as it were. -Sean Curtin 07:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- These opinions are so wrong. Why don't you ask people what they're implying instead of imagining it? - crz crztalk 09:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The cat is disruptive nonsense, a fact that is not mitigated by its voluntary nature. As noted above, a mechanism already exists for resolving any issues that might arise with admins. Jim62sch 07:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep existing constraints on administrator action are not, IMHO, sufficient. And this category is a useful antidote. No evidence has been presented of either disruptive abuse or use to belittle those who avoid it. Eluchil404 10:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There may be benefit in some community-based deopping process, although I have yet to see a proposal that isn't all-too-easily abused by axe-grinders, trolls and troubleseekers. This category doesn't help. Additionally, the way it is worded it is meaningless, since an admin in this cat can still (by its wording) choose to ignore any and all motions for any kind of reason. >Radiant< 10:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I wouldn't want to be a part of it, mostly because I am a thick-skinned son-of-a-bitch, however it's less of a trouble ousting Rouge ops who are in the category, than going to ArbCom. Also, it is not the trolls who have a say in the process, but six administrators who think the administrator did not do his job nicely. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not "six admins" but "six users" who need to think he didn't do his job. >Radiant< 11:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not "six users" but "six users in good standing" as defined by the admin who has voluntarily chosen to place themselves on the board. Tuviya 12:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to keep it, so long as a decent numbers of admins choose to be a part of it. If one wants not to be in the category, one simply need not add themself into it. Luna Santin 10:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's voluntary. Saying it's divisive may indicate a guilty conscience. If someone wants to make himself actively accountable, why not let them? That doesn't make any sense. Note that nominator once tried to recall someone even. Over an AfD vote. Milto LOL pia 12:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nobody's forcing sysops to put themselves in the category. Proto::► 13:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete attempt to create a "POV fork" of rejected admin recall policy attempt per FeloniousMonk. And the Crzyrussian recall drama was unnecessary and pointless. If an admin wants to resign on their own initiative or at someone else's request, they can do it without the kabuki dance [1] (or not: [2] after the arb case kept moving anyway). 67.117.130.181 13:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Felonious Monk; further, the text of the category must be constantly policed to be sure that it isn't incrementally made less voluntary. I believe that the category is confusing to newcomers interested in adminship, and it is producing peer pressure to join. It has come up at some RFAs. There should not be two sets of rules, and the consensus of the project is that de-adminship matters should be addressed by the arbcom. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as we keep other user categories. Nobody forces anyone there, either; and I don't see how a cat containing just ~10% of the admins would create pressure. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 15:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, FeloniousMonk. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This category and its associated process are voluntary. Admins decide whether to join, how to set their renomination criteria, and what to do when those criteria are met. My own preference is actually for all admins to be subject to recall: not by ArbCom, but by the community which granted them their tools. Accountability requires not merely that admins earn the trust of the community, but that they keep it. Pending a more universal mechanism, though, this category is a useful experiment in community-based recall, as well as an admirable display of respect and openness on the part of its members. I commend them. Tim Smith 17:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as before. Nothing has changed since last time, except that we have another new recall under way, one that, if we can judge from the outcome of the two previous attempts, will be a harmonious process, unlike some other things around here. I admit bias, I'm clerking it, as I have twice before, so of course I think this category works and works well, for those that choose to voluntarily be in it. I continue to oppose making it mandatory although I understand not all agree, just as I oppose not allowing admins to organise themselves this way. If the category is deleted I will nevertheless continue to consider myself subject to recall, and will nevertheless continue to list my criteria for doing so on my user page. I think there is more divisiveness at this point from trying to agitate against admins voluntarily being accountable, than there is from admins voluntarily being accountable. Note further that this category got me an oppose in the steward election... well so be it. ++Lar: t/c 18:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People can put themselves in it if they want, and how to handle any petitions they get is entirely up to them. However, efforts to precisely specify the rules and procedures for dealing with recalls, in general, should be met with the strictest of opposition. I think I'll go edit the category a bit right now, in fact. -- SCZenz 19:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Days of our Lives characters

Merge both into Category:Days of our Lives characters, current / former. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - it is the most reasonable thing to do, especially since they recur all the time. Tuviya 05:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - sensible for simple enough reasons. Milto LOL pia 13:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional misanthropic character categories

Delete. Category is not specific enough and requires much POV invocation. You might listify because a list can be properly annotated with external links sourcing when each character was identified as a misanthrope. When a category includes everything from the Cylons' determination to wipe out the human race to Moe's surly attitude on The Simpsons, the category is excessively broad. Doczilla 01:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "Misanthropy" is far too nebulous a subject for categorizing real or fictional people. szyslak (t, c, e) 07:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not objectively defined. >Radiant< 10:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sheesh. 67.117.130.181 13:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 ====[[:Category:Sports teams in Phoenix, Arizona]]====
 :'''''Merge''' into [[:Category:Sports in Phoenix]], convention of [[:Category:Sports in the United States by city]].'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 18:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
+'''Merge''' per nom. [[User:Tuviya|Tuviya]] 19:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 ==== Category:Philadelphia Whites players ====