Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 13

< June 12	June 14 >

June 13

Category:Semi-instrumentals

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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The very existence of this category is original research since there is no clear definition of this term in the real world. The definition of instrumental as given here and generally understood elsewhere is broad enough to cover any examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgm (talk • contribs)

I have moved this from User Categories for discussion, as it clearly should go here. --Bduke (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2008 (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:Wildlife sanctuaries of Maharashtra and Himachal Pradesh

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.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wildlife sanctuaries of Maharashtra to Category:Wildlife sanctuaries in Maharashtra

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Natural features and protected areas are in the political subdivision. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wildlife sanctuaries of Himachal Pradesh to Category:Wildlife sanctuaries in Himachal Pradesh

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Natural features and protected areas are in the political subdivision. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just joined these two nominations together, as they raise the same issue.Peterkingiron (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REname as nom for consistency, assuming that was the outcome of recent nominations for other Indian States. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2008 (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:Pendulum singles

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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - duplicate category exists and is correct per WP:SONG#Categories. Also, header of Category:Songs by artist states: "There is also consensus that no artist should have a 'singles' category, with all songs released as singles merely listed under the artist's songs category." Category should probably have been moved, but a duplicate was created and so now one needs to be deleted. The category in question is now empty. – Ikara ^{talk →} 23:42, 13 June 2008 (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:Perennial candidates

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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This strikes me as too subjective for a category: at what point does one cross the line into "perenniality"? Probably should be converted to a list article. Cgingold (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2008 (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:Films based on novels

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.

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Duplication of long-standing Category:Films based on fiction books. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the fiction books cat and then delete per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete per Lugnuts – Ikara ^{talk →} 16:35, 14 June 2008 (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:NBA Game Log Templates

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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category was recreated here: Category:2008-09 National Basketball Association game log templates. It probably should have just been renamed, but now one of the categories needs to be deleted. X96lee15 (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2008 (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:Protestant views of Mary

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.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulation and not much room for expansion within WP:N. Flex (talk/contribs) 15:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Enigma ^message 15:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, I can see the arguments from both sides. Enigma ^message 14:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Theological views of Mary so it can be populated with Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Islamic views of Mary too. —Angr 16:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any particular reason to do so, when there's already Category:Mariology and Category:Roman Catholic Mariology? Bencherlite^Talk 16:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Ambrosius007 and I are currently discussing the point of Category:Mariology, since he keeps taking articles out of it. (Note, for example, that Mariology, which one might expect to be the lead article of Category:Mariology, is not actually in the category at all. In fact, at the moment, there are no articles in it at all.) —An gr 17:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be an appropriate and sufficiently large sub-category of Category:Mariology. (Upmerge to the parent as an alternative, otherwise the articles lose their Marian categorization altogether). Bencherlite ^Talk 16:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This Category, created only today, is a growing category and should stay. It has already a lead article (Protestant views of Mary) and four supportive articles, which is more than many under populated categories
It adds to the body of knowledge of Wikipedia.. The Category Protestant views on Mary includes an growing number of articles on the Protestant views of Mary. (Outstanding are articles on Zwingli and other reformers, Protestant Marian art, veneration in the 16th and 17th century and others).
The Category:Protestant views of Mary is the pendent to and equivalent of the Category:Roman Catholic Mariology (should be “m”)
The Revision history of Protestant views of Mary of the Category shows that contributor Flex first attempted to downgrade the category before he proposed elimination,

cur) (last) 15:50, 13 June 2008 Flex (Talk | contribs) (1,522 bytes) (cfd) (undo)

(cur) (last) 15:49, 13 June 2008 Flex (Talk | contribs) m (71 bytes) (Quick-adding category "Mariology" (using HotCat)) (undo)

(cur) (last) 15:49, 13 June 2008 Flex (Talk | contribs) m (47 bytes) (Removed category "Christian theology" (using HotCat)) (undo)

(cur) (last) 11:36, 13 June 2008 Ambrosius007 (Talk | contribs) (79 bytes) (←Created page with 'This category contains Protestant views on Mary Category:Christian theology')

This request from Flex is not totally surprising in light of his earlier attempts and accusations, asking for the elimination of the articles Martin Luther's views on Mary‎ John Calvin's views on Mary‎ and Karl Barth's views on Mary‎ via a merger, to which nobody has responded. ( See Talk:Protestant views of Mary ) Personal feelings about a subject matter or contributor should not be the subject here. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the article Protestant views of Mary is a worthwhile article, but at least the articles on Calvin's and Barth's views of Mary should be merged into it as they are little more than original research citing primary sources with sometimes dubious interpretation (coupled with largely redundant text found in the biographical articles on the individuals). I suspect that, without doing any violence to the verifiable or substantive import, an article on the view of Zwingli or Bucer or Beza could likewise be merged to a phrase, sentence, or paragraph (with a citation to a reliable secondary source) in that main article. If you search the literature on this topic, I think you'll find very little detailed treatment. That relative dearth of material is a good indicator that Mary is not a significant topic in the thought of, say, Zwingli. Hence a small mention in the main article should do nearly any of them justice. Luther may be an exception.

Your suggestion of Protestant Marian art could be a worthwhile topic and might fit this cat, but "veneration in the 16th and 17th century" seems like it should go at a higher cat level, not under Protestant views specifically. Hence it still doesn't seem to me that there are enough existing or potential articles that can go in this cat nor too much more that would be notable enough for its own article (cf. WP:OCAT#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth.

That other junk exists is not a good argument for keeping anything.

I am really baffled by your claim that I "attempted to downgrade the category" before doing a CFD. I simply tried to properly categorize it. Since there's a Category:Roman Catholic Mariology, Category:Mariology seemed like a more appropriate supercat, and since Mariology is a subcat of Category:Christian theology, I removed the latter per WP:SUBCAT.

Moreover, I again ask that you substantiate your assertion that I have made "earlier accusations" (but please do that on my talk page) so that I can make amends as necessary. I strive to be civil at all times. Moreover, I assure you that it is not my "personal feelings" about this subject or about you or any other contributor that impelled me to nominate this category for deletion; my true motive is given above.

As for the merger request on those other articles, don't take it personally (cf. WP:OWN). I just didn't (and don't) think those articles need to be independent of the main. --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:comment: It was argued above that one forthcoming article should be in a different cat: but "veneration in the 16th and 17th century" seems like it should go at a higher cat level, not under Protestant views specifically" The article in preparation deals exclusively with examples of Protstant Marian veneration. In my view, it belongs therefore in the Category: Protestant views of Mary Not a very large topic but an interesting one. Opposition based on the comment That other junk exists is not a good argument for keeping anything, speaks for itself. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it deals exclusively with Protestant Marian veneration, then the article title should reflect that, and I agree that it would be properly categorized here. If it is too small, however, it might be rightly merged into a larger article. As for "other junk exists" speaking for itself, I am unclear on your meaning. Do you disagree with the rationale in that link? --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 5 articles is enough for a category not to be "small" per WP:OCAT, as precedent has shown. I can't imagine why nominator thinks there is "not much room for expansion within WP:N". Johnbod (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See my reasoning above. (I have suggested that at least two of these articles, which are little more than original research from primary sources, should be merged into the main article. This is a debate for the merge discussion already under way, not this CFD, but it does have bearing on the proposed expansion of this category of article, which would likely be similar in content to the current articles.) --Flex (talk/contribs) 00:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why; for example Anglican controversies over Mary are not covered yet. The category is very new, & I see no reason why it should not expand. Johnbod (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicans are not technically Protestants. --Flex (talk/contribs) 23:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the survival or otherwise of this category must depend ultimately on how many articles are to survive. I have just voted for a merge of the articles on the views of individual theologians. If that happens there will be two articles, one being the present main article and the other on "ecumenical" issues. Both could conventiently be upmerged into Category:Mariology. However, that might be better named Category:Theological views of Mary. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if by any odd chance the separate articles dont survive, then it will be time to renom this category. DGG (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per Peterkingiron. --Flex (talk/contribs) 23:28, 15 June 2008 (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:Draft Busts

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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Useight at 06:16, 18 June, 2008.

Nominator's rationale: Calling someone a "draft bust" is often rather subjective. Additionally, there are BLP concerns. For example, there are often edits to Kwame Brown saying things like "He is the worst player in NBA history" or "He is known as the biggest bust of all-time." This category has no place on Wikipedia. Enigma ^message 15:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: While you may dispute Kwame Brown's status as a Draft Bust, Wikipedia is an information source. All of these players are considered Draft Busts by multiple sports Journalists. It is not subjective to assume that a player who is drafted first overall and fails to live up to the expectations of their career is considered a bust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianlainof (talk • contribs) 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This category has been created/deleted multiple times. It's simply too subjective. —xanderer (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subjective even when sourced. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and line of similar precedents as mentioned by xanderer. Specifically, "Sports busts" was deleted on 2005 AUG 3. "Professional Sports Busts" was deleted on 2008 APR 15. (Completely unrelated, but turning up in my search: "Female porn stars with natural busts" was deleted on 2007 MAR 15.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:30, 15 June 2008 (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:List-Class zoo articles

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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There is no List Class at assessment department. Instead there are article classes and a Featured List class. So I assessed the three remaining articles as Start and B classes, and nominated the category for discussion. I propose delete. Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:45, 13 June 2008 (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:Expatriate football players in Romania

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.

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Expatriate football players in Romania to Category:Expatriate footballers in Romania

Nominator's rationale: Merge, A user created a doubled cat but populated it. But footballer is more preferred instead of football player Matthew_hk t c 06:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and per Category:Expatriate footballers. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Enigma ^message 15:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per nom. There is also another subcategory of Category:Expatriate footballers that could use merging, and is there a general consensus on footballer/soccer player or is it determined per country? – Ikara ^{talk →} 01:55, 16 June 2008 (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:Fir0002 photos

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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Per precedent here, here, here, here, and here, personal image categories are not needed. If allowed would set precedent to keep a similiar type of category for every individual user. Galleries are usually found on user subpages, there is no need for a category to be made for each user's images. VegaDark (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent.--Lenticel ^(talk) 15:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Enigma ^message 15:58, 13 June 2008 (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:Beyoncé Knowles categories

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.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Beyoncé songs to Category:Beyoncé Knowles songs and Category:Beyoncé albums to Category:Beyoncé Knowles albums

Nominator's rationale: Per main cat. and article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom for consistency. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:59, 14 June 2008 (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.