Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
< August 13 August 15 >

August 14[edit]

Category:Lists of women models[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:Lists of female models. There's a mixture of opinions expressed but very few for keeping the category at the current title. If "female" is a problem then it should be addressed at a high level in the category tree. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lists of women models to Category:Lists of female models
Nominator's rationale: Per the larger category structure, "female" should be used over "women."  Mbinebri  talk ← 23:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Lists of women in modeling, again as I have said countless times, some women find the term female to be dehumanizing. I am aware that because some people here think it is a non issue, but fortunately I actually have taken part in these discussions with other women. Some women do not like the word "female." While I don't think all categories already named female should be changed, changing a category named "woman" to "female" would probably upset some of the women users and would be seen as a passive aggressive action. I also don't care for people dismissing my opinion by saying that these women are probably in a minority, which means in other words "they don't matter." --Henriettapussycat (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per naming format of Category:Female models and most other subcategories. This one is probably speediable under criterion C2C. Young female models can also be non-women, as pointed out by Stephen below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Unless Category:Male models and its subcategories are dehumanizing, I don't see any reason to change the pattern of Category:Female models and its subcategories. We also don't want to be recategorizing BLPs for young models as the come of age. —Stepheng3 (talk) 03:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware there was already a pattern, and it makes sense in that context. But questioning this idea that I have put forth is a bit annoying, because every man I've come across does this. I, myself, don't care either way whether people call me female or woman, but there is a vocal group of women who do.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to forgive me, but anyone who campaigns "countless times" for one side of an issue is never unbiased, no matter what they say. I personally would just have you vote your opinion rather than claim to represent a non-present group of people. Could some women find using "female" dehumanizing or see a change as passive aggressive action? Obviously. But I would say anyone who does so is misinterpreting this as a feminist issue when it should only be an encyclopedic one, and in an encyclopedic context, there is no reason to get upset over the word "female."  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I won't forgive you because there was no reason to make that rude comment. My comment was addressed to User:Stepheng3 and was based on other conversations I have had on WP in similar situations that did not involve you. I also said I was not biased on the issue of women, of course I'm biased on women's issues, duh, I've got a vagina. But again, no need for you to be rude to me, because I didn't insult you to begin with. I am not upset with the word, as I said above, but I have friends that are. These people are "non-present" due to rules on canvassing, but I don't consider this topic to be important enough to canvass in the first place. Also I did not consider this a feminist issue, and did not bring feminism into the discussion, but if you would like to talk about feminism you can join Wikipedia:WikiProject_Feminism, because we feminists are always looking for more people to brainwash. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep women is the prefered usage to female. The rest of the cat structure should be renamed not this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Women" is the preferred usage according to who? Has there been some previous consensus regarding this?  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given WP:Cat gender I question whether we should have the male/female categorization of models at all. The guideline says for example that "separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed". Why do we have separate categories for female models and male models if we don't need them for actors and actresses? —Stepheng3 (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Stepheng3 the simple answer is because it only explicitly bans actors and actresses. For some odd reason it has not been applied to any other similar field. Not even to comedians, who can be said to be basically actors who fully specialize in making people laugh. If there was any place where the no sep actors and actresses should apply it would be there, but we still have a women comedians cat. I tried to fix it, but like others before me was stopped by those who chose to ignore policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Female is the counterpart to Male, and for simplicity includes minors as well - calling little girls women only invites their exploitation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2011 (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:Wikipedia centralized discussion archive[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia centralized discussion archive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Had only one member, and the centralized discussion subpages are much more numerous (here). As such, the use of the category is limited until either there is an effort to list all members (if desired) or, as I think is more appropriate, deletion considered. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • well, it seemed like a good idea at the time.I thought this category might come in handy, but i guess that in the end it didn't get much use. I understand the concern. feel free to discuss this item however you may wish. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2011 (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:Characters in written fiction[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: Speedy rename C2C per Category:Fictional characters by medium. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Characters in written fiction to Category:Literary characters
Nominator's rationale: Rename per Category:Literary character stubs, the sibling Category:Film characters and the parent category Category:Literature. First, there is no category for "written fiction," it's literature. Second, as the stub and film cats suggest, there is no need to state that it's "fictional" if it's a "character" in "literature." If this nom is successful, I'll speedy the other Characters in written fiction cats accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2011 (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:Utah Navajos[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Utah Navajos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I've been thinking about this for quite a while; I don't think "Utah Navajos" is a sensible category; otherwise, we'd have to make up categories for "Arizona Navajos," "New Mexico Navajos," and "Non-Utah-Arizona-New Mexico Navajos" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with nominator's rationale Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the intersection of state and Native American group can get way too complexed, we could probably argue for nearly 50 for Cherokee. However, the way cats work, we would only need to AZ and NM cats, you do not create a "container for not" cat, you just leave those not covered so far in the subcat structure in the parent cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Navajos are not defined politically. There may be some advantage to "Rename" to make the inclusion criterion: articles regarding the reserve in Utah.Curb Chain (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the point: there is no separate Navajo territory in Utah; it's all NNG jurisdiction. In fact, there's no separated Navajo territory anywhere on the planet. (btw, Navajos are defined politically: Navajo Nation — the one and only) :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:58, 15 August 2011 (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.

Fishes -> Fish[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 for now to match the other categories without prejudice to a broader nomination to address the whole issue. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Category:Armored catfishes to Category:Armored catfish
Category:Cartilaginous fishes to Category:Cartilaginous fish
Category:Chilodontidae (fishes) to Category:Chilodontidae (fish)
Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fishes to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fish over redirect
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:Moschus[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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Moschus to Category:Musk deer
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per the main category, musk deer. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:58, 14 August 2011 (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:Metaphorical darkness[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Metaphorical darkness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No main article and the contents seem more-or-less random. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – When I created it, I expected there to be much more content than there actually turned out to be. I was expecting there to be a Category:Evil or something similar and I was going to put in songs about metaphorical darkness. (In case anyone is wondering, metaphorical darkness refers to any use of darkness that does not literally mean a lack of light.) McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Using Mclay1's criterion, I could put feces, depression, poverty, poor, nudity, nakedness, religion, Christianity, islam, and terrorism into this category.Curb Chain (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how faeces fits at all into the definition; the same with many others of those. However, what's your point? McLerristarr | Mclay1 13:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me propose a counterpoint: Can you define "metaphorical darkness" as what is, not what it is not, and can you provide examples?Curb Chain (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • From Oxford Dictionaries Online: "wickedness or evil"; "unhappiness or gloom"; "secrecy or mystery"; "lack of spiritual or intellectual enlightenment; ignorance". McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And who is to judge what is wicked, evil, unhappy, gloomy, secret, mysterious, ignorant, or irreligious?Curb Chain (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My verification of your claim that Oxford Dictionaries Online defines "metaphorical darkness" as "wickedness or evil"; "unhappiness or gloom"; "secrecy or mystery"; "lack of spiritual or intellectual enlightenment; ignorance" failed, as there was no definition of it, only "darkness" was defined as such. So now we have a situation where we have to define what would metaphorically represent "darkness". Could you give examples?Curb Chain (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously metaphorical darkness is not in the dictionary because it's not a word. Literally, darkness is the lack of light so any other uses are metaphorical. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So is it a neologism? If you made this word up, we shouldn't have it in an encyclopedia.Curb Chain (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What word? It's two common English words. Everyone knows the word darkness and I'd be very surprised if someone didn't know what the word metaphorical meant. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So it's not a word, just one describes the other. So then, once again, can you give me examples?Curb Chain (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are some examples already in the category. Examples: evil, sadness, gloom. However, I was more intending this category to include songs, poems, etc. about darkness in general. I created it after listening to the song "Beware of Darkness" by George Harrison but then found there was no article on it. Awkward. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you are telling me you are defining this category?Curb Chain (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE as many of Curb Chain's examples are just as valid as the creator's own. Plus, per WP:OR, what does it matter to readers if someone thinks these things are metaphorically "dark"? I don't even think this meets the criteria for a valid list, let alone category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is subjective all over the place. This also seems more appropriate to a dictionary or thesarus than to an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2011 (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:Prehistoric musk deers[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: Speedy rename C2A. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Prehistoric musk deers to Category:Prehistoric musk deer
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The correct plural for the word "deer" is "deer", not "deers". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:50, 14 August 2011 (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:The Beatles studio albums[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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Beatles studio albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Categories under Category:Albums by artist (and e.g. Category:Albums by year or Category:Albums by record label) are assumed to be studio albums. Albums by artist are only diffused to compilations, live albums, remix albums, soundtracks, and video albums.) Categorizing by artist and studio album is unnecessary and would empty every subcategory of Category:Albums by artist. There is also no parent scheme of Category:Studio albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed – upmerge to Category:The Beatles albums (it is irritating to have to rummage through subcats to find where all the albums have gone). Occuli (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge As the nom just below, I have no idea why dividing Beatles albums into studio, and then the record label is required. Below, the claim is that Capital Records released albums in north america, but where is the cat of the record-label that released the UK albums?Curb Chain (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is it. The other category below is for the albums only released in the US initially. Cjc13 (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2011 (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:The Beatles Capitol Records albums[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Beatles Capitol Records albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme for the intersection of artist and record label--this will create far more problems than it could conceivably solve. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as creator) – What problems? It exists to diffuse the category Category:The Beatles albums so as to separate The Beatles' 12 UK albums from the North American ones. If you have a problem with the name, Category:The Beatles North American albums would do, although I used the current name to eliminate the need to add Category:Capitol Records albums to each article. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – this is a trivial intersection ... no-one says, 'ah yes, the 6th Beatles Capitol Records album'. "to eliminate the need to add Category:Capitol Records albums to each article" applies equally to any intersection whatever one might care to make. Occuli (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is in no way a trivial intersection. Albums and record labels most certainly go together but the point is that The Beatles albums are often split into the UK albums released by Parlophone and the US/Canadian ones released by Capitol. It makes sense to group the 12 "canon" albums so the others need to be group somewhere as well. And, yes, many people say "ah yes, the 6th Beatles Capitol Records album" because many people are familiar with The Beatles' North American discography. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see the need to rename albums according to where they were released. People can simply refer to albums as the 6th Beatles album released in north america. I can't see how someone would categorize albums by the label. In any case, we are using categories to compartmentalize related items, we don't do it by what they are called.Curb Chain (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What they are called? I would have categorised the American albums into the compilations category but many Americans seem to think their albums are more important than the other foreign compilations. I was just trying to sort everything neatly. McLerristarr | Mclay1 13:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The simplest way to sort things out in Categoryspace is to use the official names areor the most common names. It's just confusing to make separations according to one user's taxonomy.Curb Chain (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomCurb Chain (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These albums released in the US were similar to the studio albums released in the UK but had different tracks on them. To avoid confusion it seems a good idea to have a separate category for them. These US releases are sufficiently different to have separate articles from the UK releases. Cjc13 (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and upmerge to Category:The Beatles albums and Category:Capitol Records albums. Subcategories such as this are not standard practice and I'm always loath to treat the Beatles as a sui generis case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The problem is that in US these are considered original releases but in the UK these are considered compilations of previously released tracks. It does seem to be a sui generis case, as it is rare for UK and US album releases to be so different. An alternative is to rename the US releases to show their distinctness from the UK releases. Other countries such as Australia have used the UK versions. Since the CD releases around 1990 the UK albums have been available in the US. Cjc13 (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a simple question to solve: Are all the songs in US release previously released songs in UK Beatles albums? If so they are compilations, and should be upmerged into Beatles's compilation subcategory; if there is even just one song that was never-before released, then it should be a studio album. There is no reason why Beatles should be sui generis.Curb Chain (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another option is that an article could just go in both categories if there is a conflict as to which it belongs in. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To include them with the UK studio albums would be confusing, as the UK releases are now considered the definitive list of studio albums. These albums do need to be included somewhere amongst the albums of The Beatles. Cjc13 (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And that statement is confusing, itself: How are they the definitive list of studio albums?Curb Chain (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The UK list forms the basis of reissues since around 1990 when the albums were released worldwide on CD. The Beatles discography article refers to them as the core albums. Cjc13 (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a adjective to "albums", not a prefix to "- albums". What I'm trying to say is that "core" in that article is used to describe exactly that when the albums wherewere reissued, thethey used the music from those albums. It's no official term of "Beatlesology". And in the article, it says that this excludes mashups, which are songs equally artistic as the "original" songs themselves. We don't categorize such mashup albums differently for ANY artist, so we don't need to make a complex category tree for the beatles.Curb Chain (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with Curb Chain that this "definitive list of studio albums"-business smacks of Beatlesology. There is no "official" or "definitive" list. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But there are 2 lists of releases, a UK list and an American list, with 2 separate templates. That was why 2 separate categories were created. Cjc13 (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced we need to carry the subdivision down through categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Into which category should these albums go? It is a choice between Category:The Beatles compilation albums (which has a separate template that does not include these albums) or with the UK studio albums, which would confuse non-American users. It seems more helpful to put them in their own subcategory whatever it is called. Cjc13 (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, one option would be to place them in both. I don't think that would create any major difficulties and would accomplish the same thing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with the creator; the Beatles' albums on their US/Canadian label can be thought of as sufficiently distinct to warrant a category. You could, for example, have an article about merely these albums as a set. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or upmerge if needed). We categories albums by artist, and albums by label, but never the two together.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. An alternative is to rename this category as something like Category:American versions of The Beatles studio albums. Cjc13 (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about Japanese versions of [insert american artist here] albums? Should we created a "whole" category tree for this so-called distinction?Curb Chain (talk) 04:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In nearly all cases, alternative versions do not have separate articles so this issue does not normally arise. For instance, are there any articles for Japanese versions of albums? I think not.Cjc13 (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This sets a bad precedent even if limited to alubums. I hate to imagine what would happen if we let it spread to books. There is no reason why Category:The Beatles albums can not directly hold albums. There is no reason to vdiffuse everything down another level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does seem to be a unique situation. Can anyone come up with a similar case where the alternative versions have articles? I am not aware of any cases. Cjc13 (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are articles; [1],[2], describing Capitol Records policy towards The Beatles and they could form the basis of a Wikipedia article on the subject. Cjc13 (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete We do not have "Led Zeppelin Atlantic Records albums"; recording label and interpret must be seperated.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 15:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not have "Led Zeppelin Atlantic Records albums" because unlike The Beatles there are no separate articles for the Led Zeppelin American releases. Cjc13 (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2011 (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:Sunbeam Records artists[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sunbeam Records artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: redlink record label —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems at least two different Sunbeam Records exist, neither of which has an article, and this category conflates the two. The lack of an article alone is enough to call for a delete here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The case of at least two things with the same name and neither having an article is the classic example of a categorizing mess that we should avoid.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2011 (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:Greek mythology in popular culture[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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Greek mythology in popular culture to Category:Greco-Roman mythology in popular culture
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Largely overlapping categories. Goustien (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2011 (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:Texas A&M University colleges[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 per original nom without precedent for a broader nomination. Category:Colleges and schools by university is a messy parent category but the original nomination is closest to the nearest to a standard. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Texas A&M University colleges to Category:Texas A&M University colleges and schools
Nominator's rationale: The university is organized into 8 colleges and 2 schools, not 10 colleges. NThomas (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought I gave up. The whole set of colleges and schools of universities cats is just too hard to find. I decided to wait or let someone else do it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did not realize there was a relevant parent cat, partly because it is underpopulated even for the US. I will see if I can move the sub-cats that exist that should be there that are not, this will make a full scale revision easier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2011 (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:Black Jews[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:Jews in the African diaspora. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Black Jews
  • Nominator's rational The guidelines on categorizing say we should not categorize by race. Thus we have Category:African-American Jews and categories by ethnicity, but we should not have this race-based category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename Category:Jews in the African diaspora to match article History of the Jews in the African diaspora. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to Jews in the African diaspora. Obviously, we do not delete categories that have an assortment of good subcategories and articles that should be grouped together for navigation by the reader. Nominators should spend more time looking for alternatives to deletion, which is simply disruptive. Hmains (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Jews in the African diaspora per reasons above --Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article African diaspora says it is about the movement of Africans to other parts of the world. Some of these categories are about Jews who live in Africa, so this does not seem to be a very good way of linking these various categories toegher. I also think that at a minimum if we do keep this category we should ban bio articles in it. The subcats work with bio articles, but I do not think the parent cat does. It should have articles or groups of people, religious movements, and also the sub-cats that can contain bio articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would the new category also have a notice that it should not comtain bio articles directly. This seems to be the general way with caqtegories with names like this. We have articles on the theme itself, and subcats that have bio articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2011 (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:LGBT suicides[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:LGBT suicides (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Cat appears to fail multiple tests: WP:OC#EGRS, WP:OC#NARROW, and WP:OCTrivial. Rostz (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too small of an intersection to support it's own cat.– Lionel (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category also some identification problems. Several people are said to have committed suicide due to this, but whether they actually would self-identfy as such is difficult to determine, especioally since they are dead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As indicated by Johnpacklambert too difficult to assess correct inclusion/exclusion. And what is the extra value for WP? -- SchreyP (messages) 09:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – there are also a lot of non-people in it, suggesting the name is not ideal. (The non-people could be put in Category:LGBT suicide as these articles are closely related to LGBT suicide; whereas the category is for people who were LGBT and happened to commit suicide.) Occuli (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/Retarget I'm far from in agreement on much of the rationale offered, EGRS states cats "should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right," which is quite obviously the case. However, Occul's point about what's actually in the category is excellent, and I think broadening the category to the larger topic of LGBT suicide appears sensible and on-point, I would support the removal of the final letter s from this category name as a result. --joe deckertalk to me 17:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename to LGBT suicide, but state in the inclusion criteria that the intersection must be relevant. That way, we keep a category for an encyclopedic topic that has been written about in numerous sources, and readers can easily navigate between related articles, but we don't include, say, Virginia Woolf (or Jim Jones, who is in the category now but should be removed). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Too small of an intersection to support it's own cat--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2011 (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:Convention centers in Montana[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Convention centers in Montana to Category:Convention centers in the United States
Nominator's rationale: One-page category. Suggest upmerge to Category:Convention centers in the United States Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Two, now. And as soon as Great Falls Civic Center is completed, it will be three. The problem is that there are few Wikipedians working on Montana articles, and almost none working on Montana architectural articles. So the going is slow. - Tim1965 (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, "Convention centers in Montana" has as many articles as "Convention centers in Connecticut," "Convention centers in Colorado," "Convention centers in Nebraska," "Convention centers in Utah," and "Convention centers in Washington, D.C.", and more than "Convention centers in Kansas," "Convention centers in Rhode Island," and "Convention centers in South Carolina." If we're to be consistent, let's delete all categories below some arbitrarily chosen number above one. - Tim1965 (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Let's delete all categories that don't have three pages or two subcategories. The rules for categories state that a category that doesn't have three pages or two subcategories should be deleted. This breaks the rules; and wasn't even alphabetized properly Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What rule says that? I don't see any such rule at Wikipedia:Categorization. Please point to it (I can't find it). Furthermore, it makes no sense that every category should have two or three subcategories. Pages, maybe. But not subcategories. And if we are talking pages, and if the rule is two pages per subcategory, then subcategory "Convention centers in Montana" meets that rule by having two pages. I don't know what you mean by alphabetization. That's a coding issue on each individual page and subcategory, and occurs automatically depending on how the category is coded (properly or improperly). But because editors are miscoding categories on pages is no reason to delete the subcategory; it's a reason to go back and edit the coding on the pages. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Regardless how many articles it contains, this category is part of a pattern that can seen by looking at its parent category: Convention centers in the United States, which is also a container category that is not to contain any articles directly. Hmains (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mains, it's not a complete list. There aren't categories for all 50 states; and since many of the state categories contain (or would contain, if created), five pages Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was a complete set for 50 states and there is no requirement in WP that all categories be accounted for to keep an overall category pattern in place. Some states are so rural and some convention centers so unimportant that they may never have convention center articles. This is completely irrelevant. Also irrelevant is the number of articles in a category that is pattern. Instead of trying to delete/disrupt WP, you could positively help by writing convention center articles and creating convention center articles and categories if you are so concerned with the subject. Hmains (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is also no rule that categories must be deleted if they don't contain a certain number of articles. There are stated exceptions, such as part of a pattern. Go read. Hmains (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, you are grammatically incorrect/incoherent. It can't be a pattern unless all 50 (plus DC) have categories created. I believe that the exception should not be invoked in this case; the general rule is much more applicable. You mentioned that several rural states don't have articles; Montana (one of the of the least densely populated states in the country) would seem to qualify as one of those. Furthermore, the accusation of disruption is completely out of bounds. If I believe a category to be deletion worthy, I am well within my rights to delete it and it is not my responsibility to create and identify additional articles Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Progress is being made, no need to stunt it. PumpkinSky talk 12:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The target category is only to have subcats, not articles, so we can not merge there. If about 10 states have 3 or fewer articles, I wonder if maybe we need to rename this so it covers more things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John, you have a good idea, in part because I think there's a definitional issue here. In rural areas, a moderately large hotel will call itself a "convention center." That's not the same as a stand-alone convention center like exists in Washington D.C. Some multi-purpose buildings are primarily sports arenas, but can host conventions of a type. Madison Square Garden comes to mind. A good definition (which, frankly, I am drawing a blank on) might encompas a broader category of places or structures. - Tim1965 (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John, I think the notion of the "Convention centers in the United States" as a container category needs to be abandoned. We can keep the categories for big states like California that have many convention-only halls, and delete the states with 3 or less. I'm probably against putting arenas in this category, because there already are categories for arenas Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone is for changing the way the national cat works, I would suggest a mass nomination of 20 cats. I know it is somewhat of a pain, but it will not be too hard since they all are subcats of one category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no justification for such a change, given the current world-wide category system including Category:Convention centers. Nominator just wants to change something or another. Hmains (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes there is, Mains. There is no reason we Convention centers in the United States should be a container category, when half the states' categories do not have enough pages to support being viable categories. Also, what gives you the right to first call me disruptive, and then put words in my mouth? John, should I do that now, or after the CFD ends? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:List of tuition free educational institutions[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:List of tuition free educational institutions to Category:Tuition-free educational institutions
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "List of" is redundant for list categories and is customarily omitted. The hyphen is needed for grammatical clarity. Stepheng3 (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom categories are not lists and not named as such, except when the category is a collection of lists and then it is named in the plural: 'Lists of whatever' Hmains (talk) 03:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename we only use "list" in a category name when it is a category of lists. This is a category that contains articles on such things and so the article should not confusingly say list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename improper name (as above)Curb Chain (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename , I inadvertently made ​​a mistake with the name. --MirkoS18 (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rethink or Delete "Tuition" is an ambiguous term and the article that used to be there is now at tuition payments. The other meaning of tuition is so near synonymous with education that the idea of a "tuition-free educational institution" is a contradiction in terms. With most countries in the world providing free education at at least some level, and many having previously provided it at other levels as well, this category could have a potential membership of every state school and non-fee charging university going, running in the 100,000s - that's far too broad a scope. In much of the world the default is free state provision and charging fees is the stand-out exception - counterpart categories aren't very workable in such circumstances. There are also some entries in the category that suggest confusion about what should be in here - the Free school (England) article is about a type of school called that as it's free from state control rather than the only non fee-paying school type here (and the other non-fee paying school types here aren't in the category). The Free University of Ireland is again outside of state control and charges small administration fees which the definition at tuition payments seemingly encompasses. Free Education for Everyone isn't an educational institution at all but an Irish pressure group opposed to tertiary fees. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that every public high school in the US is tuition free would indicate this category should be much, much larger than it is, because we have probably at least 1000 articles on US public high schools. That is not even getting into any other country, not is it getting into whether we should include things that were at one time tuition-free. That really gets fun when for many years the University of Missouri did not charge tuition, but overtime their fees creept up to eventually essentially be tuition. I have no objection to deleting this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rethink or delete - as Timrollpickering says, this terminology is baffling or meaningless to a non-American. If "Tuition-free" really is the correct term for the United States, then expand the category name to include "United States". - Fayenatic (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think what this category was meant to be was Tuition-free universities and colleges in the United States. Even there it is questionable whether we can limit the category as was intentded to those instututions that are currently such, and exclude those institutions that were such in the 1970s but are not today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2011 (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:Media in popular culture[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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Media in popular culture to Category:Creative works in popular culture
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge User:Stefanomione's "media" category to the parent cat. All of the source category's contents are creative works. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2011 (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:Media by war and by medium[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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Media by war and by medium to Category:Media by warCategory:Works about wars
Nominator's rationale: I suggest we upmerge another of these needless "x by y by x" categories by User:Stefanomione, for now. We can see later if the target cat should be renamed from "media by...," or merged with his "war by medium". Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Note to closing admin Stefanomione has already emptied and had speedied the previous target category. Changing target accordingly. I'll continue to work with him to see if we can circumvent the CfD process entirely, in cases where he is the category creator. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2011 (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/2011_August_14

Leave a Reply