Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 4

< January 3	January 5 >

January 4

Category:Hip hop ballads

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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 12. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. It's a category that simply WP:OR. No exact def of what's a "hip hop ballad". BoredOnWiki (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- if we can have Category:Pop ballads, Category:Country ballads, etc, what's wrong with Hip-Hop ballads? They're both defined terms, so keep as part of the established scheme of breaking down Category:Ballads by genre by, well, musical genre. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:27, 8 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.

Category:International lawyers

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, meaninglessly vague and over inclusive. The term "international lawyer" has little, if any, meaning in the legal industry, and it is unclear what the words themselves mean. The category description page states that it's for "all lawyers who have actively been licensed and actively practiced law on behalf of clients in multiple countries simultaneously. For example, a lawyer who is licensed in both the US and Britain and simultaneously practices for clients in both countries would qualify for inclusion." First, this definition is OR, in that it isn't established elsewhere as the exclusive or even likely meaning of "international lawyer." Second, it isn't necessary to be licensed in multiple countries to represent clients in multiple countries, either because those foreign clients have business in your home jurisdiction, or because you're assisting foreign counsel (I've personally done both as a litigator only licensed in New York). Third, all of the notable large law firms will have international clients, so this is not a significant fact. Perhaps we could discuss a possible rename and pruning to something like Category:Lawyers licensed in multiple countries, if we think that fact is worth categorizing. postdlf (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nor is there a single legal system in "Britain", staying with the given example, with major distinction between English law and Scots Law. But is there value in a category of this name, but limited to practitioners of the fields specified in the International law article? AllyD (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Practitioners in private international law (or any other kind of international law) will be qualified and licensed in their home country, and should be categorised there. If licensed in two (or more) countries, they should be categorised in each. The suggested rename will not work if it has to be split, as it will create a multitude of triple intersections of Foo-land with boo-land and lawyer. I thereofre strongly suggest that we should not go doewn this route at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments above, & because it is not defining for most of these - Robert W. Wood (attorney) is notable, if he is, as a writer on purely US tax law, William Sampson (lawyer) was a lawyer in Ireland & then in America. Many of the others seem active in human rights law, for which we don't have a category, but perhaps should. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Lawyers of international law. At least part of these lawyers would fit into that category. Debresser (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what "lawyers of international law" is supposed to mean. I can tell you I never encountered such a phrase in private legal practice, nor in the international law classes I took in law school. postdlf (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Most of the specialists in the field of International law were also in Category:International law scholars; I've added a few more for whom the latter category seems appropriate, to reduce any damage from deletion of Category:International lawyers. However as others noted above, that leaves a significant number in this category who are practitioners of international law in human rights; so should appropriate categorisation for them be addressed as part of this CFD? AllyD (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A category focusing on human rights lawyers (however that is defined) would be a completely different category than this one. So whether that gets created is entirely outside of this CFD. I'm generally wary of categorizing lawyers by subject area. Not all lawyers only do one thing, and with probably few exceptions, such as patent law in the U.S., there aren't clear formal distinctions for different practice areas. Categorizing a lawyer by one or a few subject areas could omit that they have handled other kinds of cases, and it would be folly to try and categorize every kind of subject a lawyer may handle. But I would expect the careers of human rights lawyers to be rather focused on that, so it might be an appropriate focus for a category, provided you could verifiably and coherently define it. postdlf (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per postdlf's comments about lawyers working in multiple fields. Categorising lawyers in this way looks like a bad idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 10 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.

Category:Presidents of the Burundian Senate

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 per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Presidents of the Burundian Senate to Category:Presidents of the Senate of Burundi

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main articles Senate of Burundi and List of Presidents of the Senate of Burundi. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator, like Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_3#Category:Presidents_of_the_Gabonese_Senate. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I don't like these adjectival forms in categories. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:28, 8 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.

Category:Space telescopes

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Space telescopes

Rename to Category:Space observatories. Things like the Kepler mission are not telescopes. Cospmi (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Kepler is a space telescope, with a photometer as the instrument used to measure what the telescope collects. As for the more general question of whether all space observatories are space telescopes (they are not, gravity wave observatories are not telescopes), I suggest making a supercategory at Category:Space observatories. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I agree with anon. above. There's no need to throw out the baby with the bath water. Thanks. – RJH (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose How did this even come up? — Aldaron • T/C 18:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Cospmi (talk · contribs) appears to be a new user with alot of experience... perhaps someone who has changed their username without their old history being attached? 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per opposing comments above, with which I agree. Debresser (talk) 14:45, 5 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.

Category:Albums produced at The Lodge studio

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. An album is defined by the musicians, the producers, the material they record, and so on, but not by the location of recording. In any case, many albums are produced in multiple locations, though not often in quite as many as Car Wheels on a Gravel Road.
I can find only one other category of albums-by-recording studio, Category:Albums recorded at Electric Lady Studios. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep If way more than 2 albums are added, then it should stay. Not needed as is Bananas21ca (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the category should be empty as neither of its articles mentions the Lodge. Also there is no article for the studio (unlike Electric Lady Studios). * Correction - there is The lodge recording studio, which perhaps does offer a ray or 2 of hope. Occuli (talk) 21:45, 4 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.

Category:Bible Memorization

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. Article in category space that was a speedy as A1, A3, A7, G2 and who knows what else. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Stub article in category space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not even an article, only a definition -- not a proper stub really. Who is Tom? Peterkingiron (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe he's a pal of Bob? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, POV, N, the list of acronym problems this would have as an article is quite long. Get rid of it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By the way, I think it's okay to just move the page to mainspace and prod it in cases like this. "Tom" probably refers to Tom Meyer, by the same user. Jafeluv (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, prods. Then the author contests the prod, and then this exercise we're already in right here happens over at AfD. Since we've started this, easier to just clean up the mess here than turf it off somewhere else. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I meant to include "in the future" in that sentence somewhere... Of course, this case should be decided here. Jafeluv (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without a backwards glance. Occuli (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete how is this even a category? Bananas21ca (talk) 19:08, 4 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.

Category:Speculative technology

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 since creator has agreed with — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete, unless somebody can figure out what this category is for. Sci-fi? Technology research? Machines which engage in philosophical conjecture? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A categorization system? ;-) Vegaswikian (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I get it- it's supposed to be a category for technology that has been proposed, theorized about, etc. but is not practically constructable, but not sci-fi. In other words, Dyson spheres, but not Death Stars. Do we need it? No opinion as of yet. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete (I added the category); the category name is POV-ridden (as someone commented when I applied the category to a page); I have created another category Hypothetical Technology, with some introduction.Havanafreestone (talk) 13:44, 4 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.