Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 6

< August 5	August 7 >

August 6

Category:First world countries

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. Courcelles 00:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is too open to interpretation and POV-pushing. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The whole concept is a misunderstanding. The term "Third World" was invented by analogy with "third party", that is a person who is a victim of conflict bewtween others, in this case the Communist East and Capitalist West. Which of these two was the first party and which the second depeneds on your viewpoint in the east or west. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:41, 6 August 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.

Category:Economic documentaries

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. Courcelles 00:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Economic documentaries to ~~Category:Economics documentaries~~ Category:Documentaries about economics.

Nominator's rationale: Correct use of the word "economics". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Rename to Category:Documentaries about economics. I've worked extensively in the documentary category and have been creating categories for documentary films by topic using this construction, as have others. I do see at least one production in the globalization sub-cat which is a TV series rather than a film, so I suppose we can't use Category:Documentary films about economics, which would normally be my preference. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 7 August 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.

Category:Modern Creative ensembles

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 all. Courcelles 00:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, unless Speedy delete is possible: apparently I missed this one when I started WP:CFD/Category:Modern Creative musicians (which has since been closed with a consensus of delete). There is no corresponding Wikipedia article; Modern Creative was deleted following AfD discussion.Gyrofrog (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding Category:Modern Creative composers, delete for the same reasons. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per previous discussion on the similar categories. AllyD (talk) 19:56, 6 August 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.

Category:Straatligkinders albums

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. Can be recreated if we have articles again, but while we don't, no need for the category Courcelles 00:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category is empty; it contained two non-notable albums by a barely notable band, Straatligkinders. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, are you saying that the category is empty because you emptied it? If that's the case, please restore the contents -- removal of legitimate contents is contrary to the CFD process, as it says right there on the CFD template. (But good on you for notifying the category's creator about this CFD.) Furthermore, unless I'm mistaken, there's no valid rationale for deleting an albums-by category that has articles in it, just because one editor or another doesn't think a particular band is notable. If the albums don't meet WP:Notability the articles should be deleted -- then the category can be dealt with. (So please, don't be putting the cart before the horse.) Cgingold (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles Bloeisels and Sweef Soos 'n Vuishou have been merged into the band article. I thought about categorising the redirects but I wonder how well-known the band is beyond Klerksdorp. Occuli (talk) 23:24, 6 August 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.

Category:Laws of Shabbat

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. Courcelles 03:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Laws of Shabbat to Category:Laws of Shabbat and Jewish holy days

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Shabbat and Jewish holy days have very similar laws. They will probably always be discussed as a unit. This name change will enable the category to be placed under Category:Jewish holy days. --Eliyak T·C 15:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Education please. Are there special laws that occur on holy days that are not Shabbat? Or do certain Shabbat laws only apply on holy days? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Essentially, there are 39 categories of activities prohibited on Shabbat. These same categories generally also apply on holy days, with the main exceptions being that food preparation and moving objects between legal domains are permitted when done for the sake of the holiday. Most holy days also have some laws that are specific to each one, for instance the laws of the sukkah and four species on Sukkot, and the laws of the seder on Passover. --Eliyak T·C 06:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since combined inclusion criteria are not really a good idea, I am leaning against this proposal. The differences on holy days can be included in the articles and if we have a category for the holy days, Category:Laws of Shabbat can be a subcategory. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I could see that working. --Eliyak T·C 05:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the preceding discussion. ~~I'll add this to the holy days category.~~ Strike that. These are already included by way of Category:Shabbat Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 13 August 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.

Category:Living animals

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. Courcelles 01:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thankfully this is a very recent creation, so there are only 2 articles in it at this point, but it could easily grow into the thousands. I really don't think we want to get into the category maintenance issues that would inevitably arise if this category were to be retained. The only reason, as far as I'm aware, that we maintain Category:Living people is because of WP:BLP issues. I'm pretty sure such concerns don't apply to living animals (but think of the potential for lawsuits: "It is common knowledge that Koko is a slut and often embarasses her human friends with obscene gestures.") -- so there is simply no good rationale that I can see for keeping this category. Let's nip this in the bud. Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – although BLP might apply to Sabi (dog) as she has been met "in person" according to the article (and is said to be a bitch). Occuli (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to quibble, but I believe she is said to be "a real bitch"... Cgingold (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - useless. We already have categories related to extinction. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This appears to be the animal equivalent of BLP, currently containing one dog and one racehorse. I suspect it could be populated with 100s or even 1000s of articles, but I do not think we need the converse "dead animals"; and if we do not need that we do not need a living category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 6 August 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.

Category:Rolling Stone Magazine's lists

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: Relisted to 15 August. Courcelles 03:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Two entries don't make a list; these are easily found by typing in the name of the article themselves. Modor (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I found a 3rd RS list. I am a little surprised that (a) there are not more such RS lists; (b) there is no Category:Rolling Stone. It seems to me that 'Rolling Stone' is a defining characteristic of a Rolling Stone list and so the category should renamed either to Category:Rolling Stone lists or to Category:Rolling Stone somethingElse. Occuli (talk) 12:05, 6 August 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.

Category:Universal CityWalk Orlando

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. Courcelles 00:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not worthwhile tagging all businesses that are in a certain venue. No evidence this collection is anything more than a directory--nothing special or notable about the collection itself. We have lots of malls and other multistore complexes, seems like an unmaintainable and generally bad idea to keep itemization of locations of each store. DMacks (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the presence in or absence from Orlando's CityWalk of Burger King or Starbucks is not defining for these chains. Occuli (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – this is a slippery slope if we allow it. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a gross misuse of category space, the result of which would be to add to every retail company a category for every lcoation where they had a shop, converting the article on the company inot a store directory. We surely cannot allow that. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:49, 6 August 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.

Category:European Greens–European Free Alliance

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. Courcelles 00:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:European Greens–European Free Alliance to Category:The Greens–European Free Alliance

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose matching name to article name: The Greens–European Free Alliance. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match main article. jonkerz ♠ 00:39, 9 August 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.

Category:Step Up

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. Courcelles 00:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Step Up to Category:Step Up (film series)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose matching name of category to main article Step Up (film series). Step Up is ambiguous. I also have no problem with deletion as an alternative. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small category with little or no likelihood of expansion. Template already links the articles together. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – it is not all that small. Step Up 2: The Streets was 2008; I expect Step Up 3: The Boulevards is being filmed (in Paris or Milton Keynes) as we write. Step Up 3D is 2010 and I have it on good authority that Step Up 4D is in the offing. Occuli (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's as small or smaller than the examples used as examples of small categories at WP:OC#SMALL. It has seven articles (including a thoroughly unnecessary article for the series), fewer than the number of Beatles' wives and equal to Liz Taylor's husbands. Assuming any more Step Up films are even in the pipeline, given that there's a lag of two years minimum between films the likelihood of immediate growth seems low to the point of zero. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant question is whether a characteristic is defining or not. Category:Prime Ministers of East Germany has 5 members. Any article on 'Step Up Revisited' will mention Step Up, so it's defining. And we do categorise films by series, and not 'people by spouse' (although we have, regrettably, things like Category:Jackson musical family, into which spouses could be crammed). Occuli (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename, per Occuli.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:49, 10 August 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.

Category:Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club

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 all. Courcelles 00:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club to Category:Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs

Propose renaming Category:Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club coaches to Category:Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs coaches

Propose renaming Category:Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club players to Category:Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs players

Propose renaming Category:Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club seasons to Category:Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs seasons

Propose renaming Category:Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club navigational boxes to Category:Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs navigational boxes

Propose renaming Category:Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club templates to Category:Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs templates

Nominator's rationale: The club has re-branded itself as Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs. LunarLander // talk // 00:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This should have happened at the start of the year, good on you LL for getting the process underway. Mattlore (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support What Matt said.Jeff79 (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks fellas LunarLander // talk // 21:57, 7 August 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.

Category:Charities accused of ties to terrorism

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. Courcelles 00:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Categories should be based of factual, verifiable evidence, not accusations. Furthermore, by whom are the charities being accused, and are such accusations notable? Cs32en Talk to me 00:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't argue with any of the nominator's points. This is possibly encyclopedic information that can't be well captured in a category. We need a list where the allegations can be identified, sourced, and discussed. Defining "terrorism" is difficult enough, let alone "ties to" it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with nominators statements, but not sure that deletion is the answer. Per Good Olfactory, listify, where referencing is more easily demanded, sounds a good way to go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – there is List of charities accused of ties to terrorism which demonstrates clearly the advantages of such a list over a category. Occuli (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons that have already been discussed. Evidently there's no need to listify. Cgingold (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – too easy to be accused once by a non-notable entity. If there is an actual court case and a charity loses its official status, then we can have Category:Charities convicted of ties to terrorism or something like that. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I think the Islamic equivalent concept includes anything that promotes Islam, so that this is not necessarily a contradiction. However, we do not allow "accused" categories (due to libel laws); it would be individuals, not the charity that would be convicted, so that we cannot have a "convicted" category. The only way of dealing with this is to have them categorised as designated terrorist by a certain government organisation. Anything else is almost certainly a matter of the editor's POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Many organizations in this category fall under Category:Organizations designated as terrorist. That is, accused of (or suspected, or alleged) by the government (usually that of United States). Governments don't need to abide with WP:BLP and simply tar and feather unwanted individuals and organizations. Don't insist on any due legal process, or any evidence - there's none. It seems that delete votes are now overwhelming; all right, delete, but re-categorize under relevant "designated as terrorist" cats when appropriate. That is, if the U.S. govt and court systems say that Global Relief Foundation is a terrorist organization, mark it as Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States government. Don't leave it uncategorized as if it was a bening real charity. East of Borschov 08:50, 8 August 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.