Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< December 7 December 9 >

December 8[edit]

Category:Albums produced by Yes[edit]

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: already deleted by User:Stifle. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Albums produced by Yes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Precedent (see this one et al is that albums shouldn't be categorized by producer in entirely self referential cases like this. They've only produced their own albums.Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Chicano rappers[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Chicano rappers to Category:Mexican American rappers
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with other categories for Mexican-Americans, and most readers won't understand "Chicano" without having to look it up. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Makes sense. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. "Chicano" still has some currency, but "Mexican American" is the standard term, and that's what we use in Category names. Cgingold (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bridges in Europe[edit]

Category:Bridges by continent[edit]

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. Tiptoety talk 19:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bridges by continent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Only one entry. No need for a new by continent breakout of bridges since we already have them by country. Only two categories here for one article. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments & Question: I can see how this could be a useful grouping strategy for Bridges by river and Bridges by country categories, and it's also worth noting that we have a fairly well-developed category structure in Category:Categories by continent. But I'm reserving judgement for now, and I'd like to see what the category creator has in mind. However, I'm afraid I'm baffled by your remark "Only two categories here for one article." What were you referring to, VW? Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there is Category:Buildings and structures by continent (although to judge from Category:Buildings and structures in Canada, Canada is part of no continent) and I submit that a bridge is a structure. Occuli (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:Bridges in Europe to Category:Buildings and structures in Europe, delete Category:Bridges by continent (which would then be empty). (Although there is the better-developed Category:Church buildings by continent which seems analogous.) Occuli (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many of these "XXX by continent" categories have me baffled. I can understand having these for things that are continental by nature. Rivers would be an example. Rivers are found in just one continent and often flow through several countries. It makes sense to organize rivers by continent, and have the category contain articles about rivers instead of having them further broken down by country. Doing so would help browsing, and would also help organize the rivers by a defining quality. What I don't understand is having subcategories of numerous subjects which have already been organized by country also placed in container categories by continent. This, in my view adds almost nothing. I find it hard to believe that people will need to pass through subcategories by continent on their way to browse things by countries. In other words, the only reason to have continent categories is because there is continent articles and/or subcategories, which would otherwise have no home or are continental in nature. This is certainly not the case with bridges by country, but it does make sense for bridges by river. There is little harm in doing so. They add minimal clutter. So ultimately, my opinion is that I don't care if they remain even if poorly populated. If they do remain, we should not force everyone to pick a continent on the way to picking a country. Both "XXX by country" and "XXX by continent" should be in the same XXX category. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but only as a parent category to Category:Bridges by Country, which should similarly be a parent category. It might also be a parent to [[:Category:Bridges by river in <Continent>]], but that should only be used where rivers flow through (or on the border of) two or more countries. If a river is entirely within a single country, the parent shoudl be the country category. Nevertheless, I am wary of articles about bridges, because they tend to collect succession boxes. However, that then implies that articles should be created on all the NN bridges that intervene between those that are notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bridges by traffic[edit]

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 to Category:Bridges by mode of traffic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bridges by traffic to Category:Bridges by type of traffic Category:Bridges by mode of traffic
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is ambiguous and imprecise. I'm not happy with my proposal either since this is an interesting category. It is more about what the bridge was designed to carry. Clearly water is not traffic, but Category:Aqueducts is a sub category. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bridges by mode of traffic? --NE2 23:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That probably is the best choice so far. Changing nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Albums produced by Ronald Isley[edit]

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: Both deleted by stifle, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Albums produced by Ronald Isley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Only ever produced Isley Brothers albums, redundant.Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albums produced by Rudolph Isley[edit]

Category:Albums produced by Rudolph Isley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Only ever produced Isley Brothers albums, redundant. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Facelifts by year[edit]

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) 21:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It took you hours to make a category?Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was a joke. (I found it pretty funny.) The total output of Fletcher's "countless hours of hard work and negotiation" was 35 bytes in a single edit. Mulligatawny (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Not a defining characteristic. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since I started looking at the subject from here on the CfD page, I actually thought it was a list of celebrities. If the category survives, it needs disambiguation. —Mulligatawny (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Philosophical comics[edit]

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. (What, no "Marmaduke"?) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Philosophical comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Original research. Calvin and Hobbes had some philosophical gags, as did Peanuts, but I still think that's OR. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Caribbean Community (organization)[edit]

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 and repopulate. Essentially what happened is someone manually changed Category:Caribbean Community (organization) to Category:Caribbean Community (organisation) out of process, i.e., without bringing it here. Perhaps this change is ultimately the correct thing to do, as discussed below, but we need to have a proper discussion on it if we're going to do it. So this change is without prejudice to a new nomination to propose moving Category:Caribbean Community (organization) to Category:Caribbean Community (organisation). Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Caribbean Community (organization) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete It is empty. CaribDigita (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"z" is perfectly ok in UK English too (see OED); it was my suggestion & I use UK English. I suspect the CC countries use a mixture of Englishes myself. I'd say move the articles back. Johnbod (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Rename, and Populate. --Bejnar (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Populate --It looks as if the closure was done on the last CFD incorrectly. Do we have any West Indian Wikipaedians who can advise us on the preferred spelling in West Indian English. "s" is the preferred British English spelling, though "z" is also used sometimes. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Open formats closed by software patents[edit]

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. Kbdank71 15:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Open formats closed by software patents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - As previously noted on category's Talk page on 30 Nov 2008: IMHO, the naming of this category as "Open formats closed by software patents" is highly POV. It seems to promote a particular definition of "open" and "closed" and a particular perspective regarding patents that appears to fit with someone's personal agenda but that are far from universally held understandings of what these terms mean. In fact, I see no actual purpose to the creation of the category other than the desire to promote that point of view. The intent appears to be to label anything that is rumored to have patents that apply to it as being "closed". The intent also appears to be to say that some formats were formerly "open" before some evil patent assertion happened to them. But "open" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone, and certainly there are many people who would not consider something "closed" just because someone has a patent on it. And the fact that there might be patents that applied to some of these formats was never a surprise to anyone -- that was well understood and considered perfectly OK when some of these formats were created. (See, for example, the open standard page and the Talk:Open format page for a further discussion of the definition issue.) A more neutral, more accurate name would be something like "formats that may require patent licenses to use in some places", although I doubt anyone would be very interested in maintaining a category with that name. Deleting the category seems to make more sense. This is a relatively new category (created 16 Nov 2008), and there are only a few (8) articles listed in the category. The category also has verifiability problems, as putting something into the category involves judging that it is (or was) an "open format", that some "software patent" applies to it, and that these patents have resulted in the format becoming "closed" -- all three of those elements involve terms that are difficult to reach agreement on the definition of, and even if that issue can be dealt with, there would need to be some verifiable source to state that a format fits those definitions (which seems to be lacking here). Note, for example, that the article on Software patents currently starts with the statement that "Software patent does not have a universally accepted definition". Additionally, there are significant problems about global versus local perspective - since patents have only country-specific rather than global application. Mulligatawny (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was surprised by "patents have only country-specific rather than global application". Patents may be issued locally, but a number of treaties give them international affect (not effect), and the types of patents listed here are clearly filed everywhere they can be. I suggest that instead of focusing on the possible ambiguity of the defining terms in the category, that editors examine the content of the category and see if there is a non-trivial intersection among the articles. If that is found, as I believe it will be, then there will be a basis for a renaming, if necessary. --Bejnar (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please note that the global/local aspect was only one remark at the end of a much longer and more extensive argument. It wasn't even there in my first draft. Regardless of what you think of that one aspect, the category has serious POV and vagueness problems. —Mulligatawny (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that any category can have grey areas with respect to classification; however, I don't find the same degree of vagueness here that troubles you. (1) Software patents: Yes, the article on Software patents currently starts with the statement that "Software patent does not have a universally accepted definition". However most terms are subject to the charge that they do not have a "universally accepted definition". Take a look at the article Software patents under the European Patent Convention for discussion of that grey area with respect to software patents. (2) Open software: The word ""open" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone" is true. "Open source software", on the other hand, is pretty clearly understood."The Open Source Definition (Annotated)" (3) POV: Mulligatawny indicated that having this category "seems to promote a particular definition of "open" and "closed"". Since open source software is covered above and does not seem to be inherently POV, lets look at "closed". Closed would seem to mean "no longer licensable as open source". Again, I miss the POV nature of that. (4) Actual articles in category: Looking at the members of the category, all is not rosy. MP3 (MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3) is not software, but is a "standard", neither is it really a format, although recordings meeting the standard are said to be in "MP3 format". (Notice the confusion in the open format article between format and standard.) It is not clear whether the original software produced as a "reference simulation software implementation" was open source or not. It was developed by a consortium. Looking at the other entries, none of them are really formats, they are all standards. (5) Open standards: So the question would devolve to what is an open standard. To quote the Wikipedia article that means "royalty free"; however, the two international standards organizations that require their standards to be open (the IETF and ITU-T), use definitions of "open standard" that allow "reasonable and non-discriminatory" patent licensing fees. Nevertheless, there is no inherent POV there. (6) Closed standards: Mutatis mutandis, closed standards would then be ones that require a negotiated (i.e. discriminatory) or unreasonable royalty for use, or ones which have other significant legal barriers to use. Again where is the POV? (7) Actual articles in category, redux: (a.) H.263 was originally an ITU-T standard and hence an "open standard" under their definition. Adobe created a format (Flash Video) using that standard. The format was a proprietary format (Although it appears from the Flash Video article that that is no longer true.) Since creation of a proprietary format from the open standard did not prevent others from using that standard (with their own formats), the standard wasn't closed by Adobe with its Flash patent, nor by others in creating their own proprietary codecs under the standard. There does not seem to be any evidence that H.263 itself has been closed, although it was used as the basis for MPEG-4 Part 2 which is closed, according to Microsoft's Ben Waggoner who is quoted in that article as saying "I was involved in many digital media projects that wouldn't even touch MPEG-4 in the late '90s to early '00s because there was going to be a 'content fee' that hadn't been fully defined yet." (b.) MPEG-4 Part 2 does not appear to ever have been an open standard. (c.) H.264/MPEG-4 AVC is an ITU-T standard and hence an "open standard" under their definition, even though there is a reasonable non-discriminatory fee for usage. It was attempted to be closed by Qualcomm who claimed that one of their patents had been incorporated in H.264. An initial ruling went against Qualcomm, but the case is not yet final. If Qualcomm wins then this would be an appropriate member of this category, without any particular POVness. (8) Conclusion: It would seem appropriate for an article to be indexed under this category for it to have a discussion of the "closing" by software patents in the article, the way that the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC article does. I did not examine the remaining five articles to see what the original status (open or not) of each standard was, nor whether the standard had been "closed" by an assertion of patent rights. Someone should do that. However the category itself does not seem to be POV, nor to be seriously vague. It might be appropriate for "formats" to be replaced with "standards" in the title, and the word "software" could be dropped from the title as unnecessary surpluage. (9) Note: The distinction between "standard" and "format" should be addressed in the appropriate article(s). --Bejnar (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for studying the topic and commenting further. At the very least, I would suggest renaming the category to avoid using what I believe are loaded and vague terms that have insufficiently broadly established definitions. I suggest that the word "open" does not necessarily always mean that no patent licensing requirements will apply to something (e.g. the IETF and ITU-T examples). I also suggest that opensource.org may not really be a very objective place to go when looking for the most broadly agreed definition of "open source" — that appears to be an organization that exists partly in order to promote the use of a particular definition. You seem (from your H.263 and H.264/MPEG-4 AVC examples) to accept that patents and proprietary/revenue-generating products can sometimes apply to something without it necessarily being considered "closed", as long as the ability to use a format is somehow reasonable. But you seem to equate "open format" with opensource.org's definition of "open source", so I wonder if a thing can be neither "open" nor "closed" but fall somewhere in between. Overall, to depend on definitions of both "open" and "closed" to define a category, not to mention trying to figure out what a "software patent" is, seems very questionable to me. Anyhow, if you won't agree to deleting the category (which is still what I suggest is the best thing to do), how about renaming it to "standard formats with patent licensing requirements"? I think that would largely remove the vagueness and POV aspects. —Mulligatawny (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Strikes[edit]

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 to Category:Strikes (martial arts). Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Strikes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Point well taken. I'm amending my proposal accordingly. Cgingold (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Chaotic articles categories[edit]

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, categories were empty more than 4 days. G8 also applied as they were dependent on a redlink project. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:NA-importance Chaotic articles[edit]
Category:NA-importance Chaotic articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category used by non-existent wikiproject Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:NA-Class Chaotic articles[edit]
Category:NA-Class Chaotic articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category used by non-existent wikiproject Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:List-Class Chaotic articles[edit]
Category:List-Class Chaotic articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category used by non-existent wikiproject Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:C-Class Chaotic articles[edit]
Category:C-Class Chaotic articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category used by non-existent wikiproject Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Chaotic articles by quality[edit]
Category:Chaotic articles by quality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category used by non-existent wikiproject Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:FL-Class Chaotic articles[edit]
Category:FL-Class Chaotic articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category used by non-existent wikiproject Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Unknown-importance Chaotic articles[edit]
Category:Unknown-importance Chaotic articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category used by non-existent wikiproject Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Unassessed Chaotic articles[edit]
Category:Unassessed Chaotic articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category used by non-existent wikiproject Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Template-Class Chaotic pages[edit]
Category:Template-Class Chaotic pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category used by non-existent wikiproject Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Stub-Class Chaotic articles[edit]
Category:Stub-Class Chaotic articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category used by non-existent wikiproject Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Start-Class Chaotic articles[edit]
Category:Start-Class Chaotic articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category used by non-existent wikiproject Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:B-Class Chaotic articles[edit]
Category:B-Class Chaotic articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category used by non-existent wikiproject Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:GA-Class Chaotic articles[edit]
Category:GA-Class Chaotic articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category used by non-existent wikiproject Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:A-Class Chaotic articles[edit]
Category:A-Class Chaotic articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category used by non-existent wikiproject Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:FA-Class Chaotic articles[edit]
Category:FA-Class Chaotic articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category used by non-existent wikiproject Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Low-importance Chaotic articles[edit]
Category:Low-importance Chaotic articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category used by non-existent wikiproject Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mid-importance Chaotic articles[edit]
Category:Mid-importance Chaotic articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category used by non-existent wikiproject Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:High-importance Chaotic articles[edit]
Category:High-importance Chaotic articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category used by non-existent wikiproject Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Top-importance Chaotic articles[edit]
Category:Top-importance Chaotic articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category used by non-existent wikiproject Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: I've grouped all of these categories in one section, pending probable removal from this page. It would appear that they have all been empty for more than four days, thereby making them elibible for Speedy Deletion. I would recommend replacing all of the CFD notices with {{db-catempty}} , which will both expedite their deletion and allow us to reduce the clutter on this page. Cgingold (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All unless we can get a very quick explanation of what purpose this is supposed to serve. Alansohn (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Protest tactics[edit]

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; no merge. Incidentally, category was not tagged for CfD, but since the consensus was keep, no harm done this time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Protest tactics into Category:Activism by method
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I don't see any distinction between these two categories, though if there's a way to maintain both names while combining the content (a category redirect?) then that ought to be the preferred resolution. TheEditrix2 10:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merging - Protests are one form of activism, but not all activism involves protesting. Also, Category:Protest tactics is a listing of articles each about a specific kind of tactic, whereas Category:Activism by method is a grouping of sub-categories sorted by type. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merging - chalk and cheese. Category:Activism by method should be an umbrella category containing only subcats. The articles at the top level of Category:Activism by method should be returned to Category:Activism if a method cannot be discerned behind the activism. Occuli (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merging for the reasons just given. I wouldn't say it's chalk and cheese, but it's chalk and crayon. - Jmabel | Talk 18:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the above reasons. N.B. Is the nominator aware that no CFD notice was placed on either of the Category pages? --Bejnar (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Strike[edit]

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 to Category:Strikes (protest) as a preliminary means of disambiguating. I acknowledge that there wasn't a clear consensus for this name, but there was consensus that it had to be renamed to something. So if anyone still protests (har-har) this wording, feel free to re-nominate with another suggestion. All can probably agree that this rename is not a perfect solution (perhaps this is a product of the category being a borderline categorization by shared name). Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Strike into Category:Strikes (protests)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I ought to have done a better job naming the category originally. Ah, well. TheEditrix2 10:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could be taken to Speedy Renaming to pluralize it to Category:Strikes. Alternatively, as the creator you could tag it with {{db-author}} to get it Speedy Deleted, and simply create the new category yourself. Having said that, I'm not sure it really needs "(protests)" added on, unless there's some other sort of strikes it might be confused with. Cgingold (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The main article is at Strike action, but that always struck me (no pun intended) as a bit clumsy. -choster (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - while I support the rename in principle I think the singular is better: Category:Strikes (protest). Otto4711 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose present renames I don't like "protest" - down the tree most of the articles are pure labour disputes. There is also an argument that sub-categories and types of strike, as are in the current category, should retain the singular (whether disamed or not), while specific occasions and other specialized articles should go in the sub-categories. Possible rename:Category:Strike (withdrawal of labour). Johnbod (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose current suggested name. I agree with choster that it needs disambiguating. I am unhappy with "protest" because while it does apply to labour strikes for such things as higher wages or paid holidays, they are more than just protests about low wages, they are a (hopefully) measured response in the negotiation process with management. I am okay about the plural "s", I don't think that strike is a mass noun. General strikes and other such political actions do fit the protest bill a bit better, but it doesn't work for the whole classification. To me "work stoppage" would be a better defining characteristic, i.e. Category:Strike (work stoppage) N.B. Is the nominator aware that no CFD notice was placed on the Category page? --Bejnar (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the CFD notice yesterday. Cgingold (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently this category is very close to being a grouping based on a common term (strike). Having said that, what these things have in common is that they are a form of protest. The current name really needs changing so we should do something. The opposition has to do with the options offered rather then the need for a rename. So I suggest going with Category:Strikes (protest) until something better is raised. Category:Strike (withdrawal of labour) does not work since all of the items are not labor related and adds in the US/US English problem. Also these are already grouped in Category:Labor disputes. So for now Rename to Category:Strikes (protest). Vegaswikian (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't withdraw your labour (even as a student) it isn't a strike, but something else. But most strikes can't really be called protests. Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So a hunger strike is not a protest? And trying to get better working conditions or better pay or benefits is not a protest? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, labour disputes are not protests, or rather, protesting is just a tactic in them, and at least in UK usage, a protest (walking round with placards outside the HQ etc) is a different thing from a strike. Hunger strikes are mostly protests, but as I keep saying, most strikes aren't. Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would really help if you (or anybody!) could suggest another word that we could consider using instead of "protest". Cgingold (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just coincidental that the same word, strike, is used in a number of different contexts. Even though it's not explicitly stated, the commonality is readily apparent and intuitively quite obvious. It's a little difficult to articulate, but I'd say what they all have in common is collective refusal to cooperate with a power structure. And that, of course, is a type of protest, which takes somewhat different forms depending on the context. Cgingold (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Social movements[edit]

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; no merge. Again, the category was not properly tagged for discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Social movements into Category:Activism by issue
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Again, there's no real distinction between these two categories, though if there's a way to maintain both names while combining the content (a category redirect?) then that ought to be the preferred resolution. TheEditrix2 10:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merging - Much as I pointed out above, not all activism takes place in the context of a social movement -- and not all social movements involve activism. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merging - completely different categories. Category:Activism by issue is properly set up as purely an umbrella category wherein activisms are allocated to subcats depending on type of activism, one of which is Category:Social movements, a type of activism. Occuli (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merging - Not sure these are being used well, but a social movement is broader than activism. For example, legislation may be the culmination of a goal of a social movement, but it is not activism. I don't think I'd generally include fiction writers as "activists" (at least not for their writing), but they can be very closely associated with a social movement. Conversely, there is activism that is not particularly identified with a social movement. For example, a protest at a university over particular university policies would not necessarily be associated with a social movement. - Jmabel | Talk 18:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the contents of each category properly belong in both categories...which is why I'm hoping there's a mechanism for maintaining both names while combining the contents. -- TheEditrix2 18:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I notice this is indented under my comment: is this a specific statement that my examples are invalid? - Jmabel | Talk 18:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Just a request that we consider the possibility of a category redirect, inasmuch as both categories seem equally valid, and the contents seem equivalent. I'm just sayin'.
Normally, CFDs are complaints about a category name. I'm not complaining here; both names serve a purpose. It's just that the contents appear to belong equally under both names, and it seems a bad long-term solution to manually maintain the duplicate effort. -- TheEditrix2 02:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose these are separate subjects that should be categorized separately. Any overlap would appear to require manual effort. Alansohn (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the above reasons. N.B. Is the nominator aware that no CFD notice was placed on either of the Category pages? --Bejnar (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Old Victorians[edit]

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: Withdrawn by nom
Propose renaming Category:Old Victorians to Category:Alumni of Victoria College, Jersey
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Loads of similar renames have passed through this hallowed page in the last few months - somehow this one slipped through unchanged. Grutness...wha? 08:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - see below. Grutness...wha? 23:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a school and I am not aware of 'loads of similar renames' relating to schools. Occuli (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops - my bad. It seems the mass renaming was only for universities and colleges, not for secondary schools. Grutness...wha? 23:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning toward rename: this is a tough one, because for categories we don't normally do redirects. People closely familiar with the topic would probably use the current category name; people who are not would find the proposed one more useful. Assuming that we have no reason to introduce a Category:Victoria College, Jersey, the rename would probably be a good idea, because someone navigating the category hierarchy might otherwise have a tough time finding this. - Jmabel | Talk 18:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Old Rhodians[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Old Rhodians to Category:Rhodes University alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standardization of university alumni names. Thomas.macmillan (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sociopaths[edit]

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) 23:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sociopaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Not an appropriate category. Is this for real persons, fictional characters, or both? The inclusion criteria states that it is for "people who suffer from Antisocial personality disorder", yet the only article in the category at present is on a fictional character (Azula). It appears, then, to in practice be a Foo in fiction category. Were it for real persons then it should be within Category:People by medical or psychological condition as Category:People with antisocial personality disorder. As it stands it is unclear what the category is supposed to include, and how one justifies including an article in it (APD as defined by whom? Diagnosed by whom?). In its present form it seems to be "fictional sociopaths, as determined by Wikipedia editors", which is inappropriate. IllaZilla (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. New entries that don't rise to the level of speedy deletion ought to be given at least 48 hours to see whether the originator actually works on the entry. If it remains unpopulated by anything useful after that point, then Agree. Give it the boot. --TheEditrix2 10:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Having had many interactions with the category's creator, I am certain it is intended to be a Foo in fiction category. That is the area in which he edits and he has created several such categories in the past, some of which have been deleted. The fact that the category is presently only populated by an article about a fictional character makes me more certain of this. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment: The creator has now added 4 more articles about fictional characters to the category, making it clear that his intention is for the category to be "Fictional sociopaths". As such, it is a recreation of Category:Fictional sociopaths which has already been deleted 3 times: once here, once here, and once under CSD G4. Given the clear intent of the creator and use of the category, I now believe that it should be deleted under CSD G4. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Because there are differing definitions of the term "Sociopath", there is no possibility of formulating and getting concensus on objective inclusion criteria for this category, which would inevitably be applied subjectively. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note prior CFD for fictional socipaths category. Postdlf (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Cgingold explained, the category has definitional problems; the word sociopath may also be deprecated in the medical literature. Just looking at the dab at sociopathy, it doesn't even seem the experts have figured out their categorization! For these reasons, the category lends itself to armchair psychoanalysis, bickering and confusion. I think Category:Lists of fictional villains likely serves the desire to categorize fictional bad guys and girls. Fletcher (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In the whole, this categorization requires amateur diagnosis, which is inappropriate and unsupported in the case of most real life persons. The only real people whose diagnosis might encompass this category wouldn't be sociopaths, but people with Antisocial Personality Disorder, so it is then a misnomer. When a misnamed category is expanded to assign something to both real people and fictional characters, it becomes tangled beyond use. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_8

Leave a Reply