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 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:Primrose International Viola Competition prize-winners
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.
Keep Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both, and none is given. DGG ( talk )
Reply You may not agree with the reason, but I did give one. The rationale stated in the nomination is "per WP:OC#Award_winners", which reads "People can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives. In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm fine with deleting this, how can this possibly be a speedy? It's not empty, so C1 is a non-starter, and it's not up for re-naming, so neither is C2. None of the general criteria seem to fit, either. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename per nom. In this case, all the trains are intra-state (And if they were not, they'd be international before becoming interstate), but the convention should be followed. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Places associated with the Burke and Wills expedition
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.
What's this even doing in the Category namespace? It's nothing like a category at all! In fact, I could easily believe it was intended to be created as a list in the first place. Listify it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split: Articlise the list as nom; Rename category to Category:Burke and Wills expedition, which is a significant enough event in Austrialian history to need a category. Possibly, add the new category to all the articles in the (new) list. I suspect this is a case of a new user failing to understand how to add articles to categories correctly. I do not think there is enough content to warrant a separate category for places from the expedition generally. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Partial support. I think that the idea of a Category:Burke and Wills expedition is a good one, but I'd be wary of adding that category to all the articles in the list. I'm not sure that it would be a defining characteristic of all these places, and more importantly it would overwhelm the category with geographical articles, undermining its usefulness as a device for navigating between the key articles on the expedition. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: There are only two quality classes for images, "valued" and "featured"—both of which already appear in Category:Wikipedia images directly—so this category cannot have more than two members for the forseeable future. "Selected" is a designation for images used by portals, but it is not an assessment of quality so much as of relevance and significance to the subject of the portal. (Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}.) –BLACK FALCON(TALK)05:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice the selected pictures category, but it doesn't belong in this category since "selected pictures" is not an image quality class. That a picture is a "selected picture" just means that an editor decided to use it in a portal because it was relevant or significant to the subject of the portal; it is not an assessment of the image's quality. In the end, the category could house only the two categories for valued and featured pictures. –BLACK FALCON(TALK)22:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The school brands itself as "IPFW" for athletics purposes; see its official site at gomastodons.com. Also, ESPN (and presumably other sports media) use "IPFW" instead of the full school name. Dale Arnett (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What convention are you talking about? I see only 1-2 abbreviations among the 200 on the first page, and it is they who should be renamed, as I explained in my vote here below. Debresser (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per guideline of not using abbreviations in category names. Note that this guideline is not some obstruse and theoretical mindbog of some editor, but is being used in Cfd discussions every few days. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that category isn't quite as clean as I thought, but it is absolutely longstanding convention to use Institution short name + Institution team nickname for collegiate sports. I'm quite familiar with the general proscription on abbreviations, but it is not the sole governing guideline. WP:COMMONNAME also applies here, and the full name of the institution is essentially never the primary form used either in reliable sources or in everyday speech; pick your college sports authority (ncaa.com, nytimes.com, espn.com, cbscollegesports.com, etc.) and see how often "UCLA Bruins" turns up as opposed to the "University of California, Los Angeles Bruins." This is, in fact, true of all sports, and requiring the maximum level of disambiguation would be an unwelcome innovation— there is really no confusing Category:Florida A&M Rattlers for anything else, just as we can use Category:Boston Red Sox not Category:Boston, Massachusetts Red Sox and Category:Hanshin Tigers not Hanshin Electric Railway Tigers.- choster22:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coomment There are 233 sub-categories of Category:College athletic programs by college. I count 20 of them using an abbreviation in the names, which is 8.6%. That doesn't sound to me like a convention, and in any case the convention against using abbreviations in category names still stands. Wikipedia is written for a general audience, not for the narrow subset who follow a particular sport intensively enough to recognise all the abbreviations. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are we looking at the same category? Fifteen of the nineteen teams under "A" alone use the team name. Again, we are not willy-nilly assigning abbreviations, but using the team name. It's not the UND Fighting Irish, it's the Notre Dame Fighting Irish. Why suddenly the need to expand this to University of Notre Dame Fighting Irish?
One shouldn't think of major U.S. college sports programs in the same way as a university faculty or research program. The major programs are, for good or ill, institutions in and of themselves, covered widely in mass media, and attracting many millions of fans with no ties whatsoever to the institution— in this respect, they no doubt differ from university sports in most of the world. But it also means that the team name will be by far the most common name found in reliable sources, and the name by which most people who would be interested in the topic would look for them by. Again, the team known as the "Fresno State Bulldogs" would essentially never be cited as the "California State University, Fresno Bulldogs," just as the proper name for the newspaper is The Stanford Daily not The Stanford University Daily (or The Stanford (University) Daily).- choster23:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IPFW? Really? I follow college sports fairly closely, and that acronym meant nothing to me. Yes, it's Notre Dame Fighting Irish- UND is normally used to refer to the University of North Dakota; but that is a strawman at any rate as no one has proposed renaming a category to "University of Norte Dame Fighting Irish". Categories do not need 'alphabet soup' introduced to them. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Because you've never heard of it" is never a valid argument at WP. My point is that we should use what the university uses, because that is what reliable sources use.- choster (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I've never heard of it" is a horrid reason to delete anything. I'm not advocating deleting this- no one is. We avoid acronyms in categories because they are ambigous, and they don't make obvious sense. Here's all my comment meant; "I've been following U.S. college sports for over two decades, I've heard of this school multiple times, and IPFW didn't mean anything to me." Besides, on a consistent basis, we have been expanding acronyms in categories, even those used far more widely than this one. See this discussion where we expanded an acronym despite the acronym being fairly clear, and definately in more common usage than the full-version. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, there can be no abbrevations whatsoever. This is indistinguishable from the countless categories with "A.F.C." in their names— we permit it because it is part of the organization's official name, and because the contents of the category are unlikely to be mistaken for anything else.- choster (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I dislike the "A.F.C." and "F.C." abbreviations, but they do at least hav the merit of being used in squillions of articles and categories, and thereby becoming familiar to the reader. However, IPFW is rare enough in article and category names that anyone encountering it will be puzzled unless they are already familiar with the topic. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those refs are all well and good, but wikipedia is written for a general audience, not for specialists who follow a particular topic in sufficient detail to be familiar with such abbreviations. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP may be written for a general audience, but most of the people who are interested in college athletics will be used to seeing short versions of school names, even if they may not be familiar with a specific school. I feel so strongly about the use of short names that if there's ever an umbrella nom for changing to full school names, I'd vote to delete the entire college athletics category structure. — Dale Arnett (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Clarification: I meant that I'd rather see no college athletics categories at all than see a wholesale change to full school names. — Dale Arnett (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not convinced that dropping the school name in favor of an abbreviation is a good thing. While it makes for a shorter name, it does not help the average reader and is ambiguous unless you now something in advance. So this would appear to be a poor choice for the category name. I would suggest that we consider renaming some of the other school categories that have abbreviations. Some, like UCLA, are well enough know that maybe they can stay, but I'm not sure that the majorly are well enough known to justify an exception. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename per convention, and in light of his extensive list of work outside this series that someone could write articles about. It may be useful to contain this category as a sub-category of Novels by Ed McBain, but that's a moot point until quite a few more articles get written. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename This series is not yet numerous and notable enough to distinguish it from other works by this author (so far either non-existent or non-categorised as such). Debresser (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: A similar template was deleted 2 years ago at Christmas time. Some of these episodes have little to do with Christmas. Skinner's Sense of Snow is about a snow day before Christmas break, not actually Christmas. Kill Gil, Volumes I & II has Christmas in the beginning of the episode, but goes through the course of a year during the episode. She of Little Faith is only very partially about Christmas, most of it being around Lisa being a Buddhist. There really isn't a point to have this category. CTJF83chat20:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary category for a non-distinct and unrelated series of episodes. In case anyone brings it up, there is a category for the Halloween episodes, but unlike the Christmas episodes, they are a defined and distinct series of episodes that are promoted differently than other episdoes. -- Scorpion042220:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scorpion, am I being dense? I see a list of the Treehouse of Horror episodes, but I don't even see a specific category for them, all the ones I've spot-checked are only categorized by their respective seasons. In fact, I think THAT category might ought to exist, but this category is undefined and unnecessary. Delete it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are correct, my mistake. I mixed the category up with the list. There used to be a category for treehouse of horror episodes, but it was deleted. My point is that you can't compare the two. -- Scorpion042219:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Archaeological sites in Israeli occupied territories
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.
Reply I understand the definition, but because there appears to be no general category for the occupied territories, there is nowhere to place this category in the category tree. I presume that's why you added no parent categories when you created it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Why would we even want to group archaeological sites in the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights all together? This is mixing non-political archaeology with contentious political pseudo-boundaries, which doesn't make much sense. Good Ol’factory(talk)03:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Make this into three separate categories- except for the politics there is little connecting these three regions. I agree with Good Olfactory that this category is undesirable, and I think it's ripe for NPOV. The only neutral solution besides delete is to make each region its own category, and re-evaluate as the peace process proceeds. Of course, this has issues with WP:OC#SMALL, but I'd rather break that rule than NPOV. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no reason to group these areas from an archaeological standpoint. They are only connected due to modern politcal events, and rather arbitrarily at that, and per Peterkingiron above, categories exist for each area already. -- Chefallen (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename to clarify that it is a user category. Alternatively, delete as trivia irrelevant to collaboration amongst editors, since every person on earth over the age of 20 survived the Cold War. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anyone that remembers the fall of the Berlin Wall, or, I'd go farther, anyone that was alive when Lithuania declared independence survived the Cold War. That's 90% of us that are old enough to use a computer- so about as useful as categorizing Wikipedians by species ;) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I dunno how a "digital subchannel" differs from any other digital TV channel, but unless there is some crucial distinction I am unaware of, the category is pointless. If kept, it needs parent categories --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a whopping ONE page in the category. BrownHairedGirl, here in Columbia, the real station broadcasts on say channel 10; then puts a radar or extra programming on 10.1, and then a looping weather report on 10.2, with channel 10.3 just existing. None of them are notable beyond a mention in the WIS article (And I notice 10.3 doesn't even merit that). Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fellows of the International Society for Computational Biology
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.
Comment -- Some academic societies give out their fellowships only selectively, e.g. Royal Society, Royal Historical Society, Society of Antiquaries. In those cases, being a fellow is a clear sign of notability. Do not know about this case. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is definitely a case of selective fellowships. These fellowships are a high honor, not something available merely via paid membership. (Disclaimer: I am the category creator.) Quantling (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We certainly have several categories for fellowships or membership of societies where this is a great honour. This is recent, but seems to be a great honour, so it should be kept. --Bduke(Discussion)08:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A google scholar search would seem to point towards the society itself being notable (although I didn't look at this part in great detail). Assuming that it is, I don't really see any reason not to have a category for their honorees. There seems to be a published document of who and who is not a fellow (at least at [1]; don't know if it is also in one of their journals), which should address practical considerations of whether such a category has some hope of being accurate. Kingdon (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is clearly a consensus here to keep, and I almost withdrew the nomination. However, it seems to me to be more useful for the debate to be closed as a "keep" rather than as "withdrawn", to leave a clear summary for the future of the thrust of the discussion, so I am leaving it open merely to allow that clear outcome. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Would it be possible to have "naming guidelines" (link?) added to the text on the category creation boilerplate? I remain surprised at how easy it is to blithely create any category page, and what a hassle it is to do anything about it afterwards. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. there doesn't appear to be a Florida Marlins wikiproject which could use this unparented category, and in any case the category has been applied to articles themselves rather than to their talk pages, which is where maintenance categories should go. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. On the other hand, I see here an initiative of an editor trying to actively improve articles. Perhaps keep this to that end? Debresser (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep I think in the long run, we will have enough examples in enough states to justify keeping the whole scheme, although not every architectural style would justify a state-by-state breakdown. I would favor renaming all such "Foo buildings in Bar" categories to "Foo architecture in Bar," as sometimes only an element of a building or non-building structures exhibit aspects of a style (e.g. Tower Bridge as Gothic Revival; Metro Center as Brutalist; Hunt's Tomb as Egyptian Revival) can exemplify a style, but that can wait for a later discussion.- choster (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of an overall structure organized by state for this defining characteristic. This is not the only Gothic Revival structure in the state and there is no reason to believe that this is the only article. Alansohn (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Single-article category with no parents until I added two. The page had been blanked, but not by the editor who created it, so doesn't qualify as a speedy. I have no preferences for what do with this, but if kept it should be populated. I will notify WP:PHILO. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different question than whether there is such a thing as non-Classical Greek philosophy. The fact that title is just a redirect to Ancient Greek philosophy (and that this category is empty) suggests not. postdlf (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And now no articles either. I doubt that there would have been many medieval Greek philosphers: they would probably have been theologians. There may be the odd modern one. Delete for now without prejudice to re-creation if required. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete per nom. One can only imagine a category for historic buildings of every small town- and St. Mary's is small. It would colapse under its own weight. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Hanno R. Ellenbogen Citizenship Award recipients
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Per WP:OCAT#Award_winners, "people can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives. In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category". The list already exists at Hanno R. Ellenbogen Citizenship Award. Please note that this category has no parent categories, and some will needs to be added if it is kept. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
You're the admin but I'd just let this play out now. G7 says "If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page or category page, this can be taken as a deletion request."; and neither C1 or C2 applies. Anyways, someone might wander along that knows what on Earth an 'Ina Installment' is, but that person is not me. No parent article to define the term, nothing on Google that is enlightening, I'd tentatively in the side of deleting this, but am open to someone educating me about Phillipine cinema. (signing late; I wrote this and forgot, sinebot didn't get it) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete, or Rename. Uncategorised categoryies whose content is a list, these two at least needs a cleanup, but I'm not familiar enough with subject matter to know what to do with it. I am very wary of using the category system to label things as "right-wing" or "left-wing", because the application and perception of those terms is subjective. Per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE we don't do subjective categories, so this one should either be deleted or recast to categorise the organisations by their field of activity. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This uncategorised category contains only one article, a draft in the userspace of the category creator. Per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS, we do not usually create eponymous categories for people, except where the main article on the person has grown so large that it has been split into a series of sub-articles. Since that does not seem to be the case with Bentham, I see no reason to believe that this category has any particular utility. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge, OCAT. Dividing the SCOTUS cases by year in this manner is a great detriment to navigation. It is necessary to be able to browse all of these articles alphabetically because case law articles are often extremely variable in possible titles, due to the often complex names of litigants, and to all the different ways in which litigant names can get abbreviated or shortened. Being forced to search through these by year as well as alphabetically is just not helpful, particularly given that well organized chronological lists exist, both by court term for the past decade and by case reporter volume for the entire history of the Court, and the fact that SCOTUS cases will be by far the bulk of entries in the U.S. case law by year categories. So anyone who wants to search in that manner can. postdlf (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. In general I dislike the current tendency to chop up all categories chronologically, because it can be a serious impediment to navigation, so I was initially inclined to support this proposal for upmerger. But now I'm not sure. Having spent a number of years working on issues where I needed to check a lot of UK law cases, I support the nominator's concern to ensure that cases are organised in a way which facilitates those who want to find a particular case. He is right that names of cases can be complex and variable; the order of parties can be reversed as one side appeals the other's victories to a higher court, and some of the parties can change their names (business merge or rebrand, people adopt a new name on marriage, parties can drop out or be joined to the case, etc). However Category:United States Supreme Court cases currently contains 1,823 non-list articles, with a further 35 in these two categories. That's ten pages of category listing, which strikes me as being a hard-to-use-tool if someone is looking for a judgment by imprecise name (e.g. "I think someone named Snodgrass was one of the parties"). In that case, searching ten category pages for "Snodgrass" is a pain-in-the-neck; I'd prefer one long list. However, one long list covering 200 years of cases would be unfeasibly long, so I don;t think that works, so some form of subdivision seems preferable. That could be by year, by decade, or by Chief Justice; but I don't know enough on the subject to decide. So I think the best thing is to ask WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases for input, which should have been done by the nominator. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think one of the goals in categorization should be to avoid forcing users to browse through too many different variables at once, and to instead give them multiple options by which to find articles or browse between related ones. The trick to that is different levels of generalization associated with each variable; here, case law by court only alphabetically, and case law by year only by country. And we already have lists of SCOTUS case articles by term, by Court (defined by the presiding Chief Justice, e.g., "the Roberts Court"), and by reporter volume; lists are the best way to organize the same data in multiple, highly picky ways. So my preference is to leave Category:United States Supreme Court cases undifferentiated chronologically. Browsing through ten alphabetically organized pages for a particular case name is a lot easier than having to click in and out of multiple year-specific categories (particularly with Template:CatAZ aiding the alphabetical search). But I'd consider subdividing by Court to be the lesser of the possible evils. postdlf (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are thousands of articles for U.S. Supreme Court cases and thousands more to be created. There are multiple structures and means of navigation, and grouping such articles by the year the case was decided allows readers to navigate across similar articles and to aid in finding the information they are seeking. Alansohn (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do it by court, Anyone who is looking for a specific case (aside: is likely using something besides Wikipedia.), will know the general time of the case, so divide them up by Chief Justice, and then put in brackets the years each category covers. This would produce 17 usable categories, instead of either 1 or 220 useless ones. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd prefer Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court, etc. At any rate, people actually do study and compare these cases by Court, and it is likely that someone looking for a case article will know under what Chief Justice it was handed down. So that makes sense and could be helpful. By contrast, individual years are not a helpful way to navigate and sort, particularly given that the Court's calendar is organized by term (from October to October), not by calendar year. The only time a specific year is really helpful is to distinguish between different opinions with the same case name and different opinions within the same case at different times. So I'd support creating that structure and merging the years (here, all Roberts Court years) there. But regardless, this discussion need more informed input for this from other SCOTUS project members; I think I'm the only one so far to participate here. And I'd like to again urge that no more of these -by year categories be created while this CFD is pending. postdlf (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate? You said that by term both is and isn't the best way to do it. Did you mean to say you thought by presiding Chief Justice would be confusing? If so, why? And why do you think by year is the best way? postdlf (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, like take the current court(by Supreme Court Chief Justice)- Souter/O'Connor are out while Sotomayer/Alito are in, so you did not have the same justices for each case. I think by year is the easiest since it's chronological, im not sure if theres a perfect system. There needs to be a better structure than the current system of just listing all the articles, when there is over 1000 articles.--Levineps (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though, when discussing the SCOTUS, the associate justices involved aren't considered that important. Most people even passingly familiar with the court would know the term The Warren Court. The current system is the most arbitrary of all, as the year a case is handed down is meaningless- the court matters; the author of the majority opinion matters; and the term matters. (SCOTUS terms are not set to the calendar year. They begin in October) The author would be useless, as it would produce nearly as many categories as we have now, and would manage to make finding a specific opinion more difficult. By court and by term, I think either is valid, though by court would be smaller, and I generally prefer fewer, somewhat larger categories when feasible. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: As already remarked upon by a commenter on the category talk page, the naming of this category makes it sound like the articles included in it are the worst list articles we have, as opposed to being lists of "worst" items. Proposed name would also more closely match the parent Category:Lists of superlatives. RL0919 (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep or slightly rename -- We have Category:People by school in England, which is an alumni category for Englsih secondary schools, including public schools and high schools. I do not know how the Taiwanese education system works, but if they have "senior high schools" there is no reason why there should not be an alumni category for them. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Original research. Also, we don't categorize songs by what genre they were covered in, nor do we categorize cover songs at all since nearly every song has been covered at some point. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)04:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the category name is also ambiguous. A well-sourced list of songs from one genre later covered in another might be interesting, if in fact there are references discussing such things. postdlf (talk) 10:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and encourage someone who knows the subject to create that topic as a well-researched list. At the very least rename the category to something more along the lines of Cat:Songs covered by country music artists to avoid the ambiguity. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:No consensus to delete. Precedent has been shown to exist. Deleting this while keeping everything else under Category:People by high school in the United States would make no sense, and deleting everything is not in the scope of this nomination. No prejudice against nominating the parent category with its children to get consensus on the issue. Jafeluv (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Defining people by schooling earlier than University is unnecessary, and (if fully implemented) would produce thousands of very small categories- in the USA there are 93,000 public schools, plus who knows how many private ones. Even if one in 10 is a high school, that's still ~9,000 categories based on a non-defining characteristic. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural question for those recommending deletion. Whatever the substantive merits of categorising people by secondary school, or in particular of categorising American people by secondary school, is it actually appropriate to pounce on one out of the 147 sub-categories of Category:People by high school in the United States with a general argument which could be applied to them all? Shouldn't this be done as a broader nomination advertised at WP:SCHOOLS etc, and consisting at least of several sample categories if not of the whole lot of them? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As pointed out above, this is not defining for most, if not all, of these individuals. If you are concerned about picking on this single category, then consider this a test case for an upcoming group nomination. As to the category, in the US, alumni is generally taken to mean a graduate. The introduction includes those who attended. That clearly challenges any attempt to justify keeping this as defining. How long did you need to attend the school for it to matter? I might have supported a listify, but the list is already included in the school article so we can simply delete the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This category, and the list of notable alumni in Palo Alto High School, do not include all the same entries. If this category is to be deleted, then the list should be updated to include all members of the category prior to the deletion, or else valuable information will be lost. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Under Construction football stadiums in England
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.
Comment. I wonder if these are better linked with a template? Then you can add various types of structures in one place and see the whole picture in one place. Given how often these change and the fact that the size can vary greatly over time, including down to zero, a category has some serious issues. So at this point, I'm leaning to create a template. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This category is per definition temporary. Although that alone may be a weak argument, I don't see much point in this category. Debresser (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Winners of the Grand Prix de Littérature Policière
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.
Keep a defining award that works even better, per WP:CLN, when both a list *AND* category coexist. The argument that "lists work much better" is not even worthy of being considered specious. Plain and simple, categories suck. If we were to actually allow judgments to be based on "lists work much better", we'd just toss the whole category system into the bit bucket as no category can do even a fraction of what lists can. Alansohn (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has this category been depopulated? The list is full of blue links, yet this category only has a single entry? I'm somewhat tempted to go through and add every article that ought to be in this category so we can see what it ought to look like, and then deliberate. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I learned something today. I had no idea either of those functions existed- though I shouldn't be surprised; this software has too many buttons! I don't want to be disruptive, so suffice it to say if we keep this category, we have a couple dozen more articles that belong in it. (In fact, I wasn't even trying to be. My thinking was that up above we have a category that could contain 50 or so articles, but only 3 that could go there actually exist, whereas this one never got the articles that exist that belong.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked at the list and a few of the articles and don't see a mention of the award in my small sample. So, if a number of articles don't see the award as important enough to discuss the importance, then the award is minor and the category can be deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Women arrested for electoral participation (United States)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Being arrested is not of itself a defining characteristic of someone. If the arrest leads to conviction and imprisonment, or torture or disappearance, then yes; but mere arrest is not so significant. A search of categories no others for people arrested or for arrests. ISTR similar categories being deleted in the past, but can't recall which. The category contains only one article, Susan B. Anthony, which appears to be already well-categorised. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the long run, those known for being activists are known for being activists and not necessarily for the consequences of their activism. If we leave aside the activism, this category is nothing more than a "mere" arrest as noted by the nom, which we do not categorize for.- choster (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but only per argument that there is only one article in this category that is already well organised, and that this category is not part of a similar structure. I disagree with the argument that this is non-defining. Debresser (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete per nom. A template navbox might be useful, but not this category. Also, this is surely not the only Peterson Family something could be written about.
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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 11. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)