Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 13



Category:Latin American and Chicano Nationalism

 * 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. the wub  "?!"  11:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * latin american and chicano nationalism


 * Nominator's rationale: The articles in this category are mostly unrelated. ARENA (radical right) with Bolivarianism (radical left)? La Raza (mestizo) with the Etnocaceristas (indigenist) and Falangists (hispanophile)? All those organizations have very little do do with each other, the groups listed in this category are too diverse to be categorized under one umbrella. Mixcoatl (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete What La Raza has to do with Peronism is beyond me other than some Anglos think we all look and think alike. Nationalism within one country or another and social movements/groups in another is a bit of a stretch, one would think that La Raza and Chicano groups that are "nationalist" are some sort of irredentist faction in the US - the notion that these groups are often formed by people who risked their lives to leave Mexico, or their descendents, to advocate for union with Mexico is more than bitterly ironic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * keep what they state they have in common and do have in common is 'nationalism', which can come in many forms, from left to right. This is clearly shown by the articles and by the nationalism article.  Hmains (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What nation for nationalism, pray tell... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Carlossuarez46. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:African American Lives (television series)

 * 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. the wub  "?!"  11:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * african american lives (television series)


 * Nominator's rationale: this series only has two parts...i can't imagine the necessity of having a cat for them. emerson7 18:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:License plates

 * 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. the wub  "?!"  11:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:License plates to Category:Vehicle registration plates
 * Nominator's rationale: The main article for this category is found at Vehicle registration plate, so I guess the category should follow suit. Having a category with spelling of license when a large portion of the English speaking world uses licence presents its own problems, using Category:Vehicle registration plates will negate this problem. Russavia (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * support rename of category, and articles as well for standardization, the names are all over the map. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Kevlar67 (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Major label debut albums

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 20:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * major label debut albums


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - seems rather a trivial attribute by which to categorize. Otto4711 (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete what's a major label is entirely subjective especially as we deal in notability not "majorness" (majority?) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Overcategorization by trivial intersection -- combining "majorness" of label with "debut"ness of album. --Lquilter (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Mitchell and Webb

 * 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. Kbdank71 16:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * mitchell and webb


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - previous CFD closed no consensus, with closing admin noting If this is to be seen as comparable to Category:Monty Python, then those who support keeping need to clearly define its inclusion criteria. No such definition of the category's inclusion criteria has been offered. This is performer by performance overcategorization. The items included in the category are: Get a Mac (an ad campaign in which the duo performed); Imagine That (sketch) (a series of sketches they wrote and performed); Magicians (film) (a film in which they performed); The Mitchell and Webb Situation (a TV show they wrote and performed); Peep Show (TV series) (a TV show in which they performed and contributed material to); That Mitchell and Webb Look (a TV show they performed and wrote); That Mitchell and Webb Sound (a radio show in which they performed); The Surprising Adventures of Sir Digby Chicken-Caesar (characters they performed); The Two Faces of Mitchell and Webb (a stage show they performed). OCAT guidelines are clear. We don't categorize performances on the basis of who performs them. We do not appear to have a Category:Television shows by writer structure. We do not appear to have a Category:Comedy sketches by writer structure. These items are all linked extensively through the main article and through a comprehensive navigational template. Otto4711 (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Query How does Category:Laurel & Hardy compare? Category:Morecambe and Wise? Performer by performance is (surely) putting a performer X into a category Y based on a performance (eg Sean Connery into Category:Dr No). This is putting a performance by M & W (eg The Mitchell and Webb Situation) into Category:Mitchell and Webb. How is The Mitchell and Webb Situation over-categorised when it is only in 2 parent categories? ('Over-categorisation is also known as category clutter'. 2 is not a clutter.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We would not put Connery in a Dr. No category, and we would also not put Dr. No (film) in Category:Sean Connery if it existed. If consensus is Category:Sean Connery films is overcategorization, then using Category:Sean Connery to categorize Connery films defeats that consensus. Similarly, we would not categorize Magicians (film) in Category:Mitchell and Webb films and so categorizing it in Category:Mitchell and Webb sidesteps that consensus. I have not looked at the two categories you reference but regardless of those two categroies and their contents, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a justification for this category. Otto4711 (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.

CfdPolyglots

 * 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. Kbdank71 20:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * polyglots


 * american_polyglots


 * brazilian_polyglots


 * british_polyglots


 * chilean_polyglots


 * canadian_polyglots


 * czech_polyglots


 * danish_polyglots


 * french_polyglots


 * georgian_polyglots


 * german_polyglots


 * greek_polyglots


 * hungarian_polyglots


 * indian_polyglots


 * hungarian_polyglots


 * italian_polyglots


 * mexican_polyglots


 * polish_polyglots


 * romanian_polyglots


 * russian_polyglots


 * spanish_polyglots


 * swedish_polyglots


 * welsh_polyglots


 * Nominator's rationale: The category, and its subcategories are redundant and not relevant. While the article List_of_noted_polyglots is valuable, these categories seem to be completely random. Far from including people noted for their polyglotism, we see random persons such as Swedish playmate Victoria Silvstedt, Spanish actors Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem, Spanish footballer Cesc Fabregas. The list could go on for ever. None of these people are famous for polyglotism, nor it polyglotism anything that makes them special. As a matter of fact, in most European countries it is more noteworthy not to be a polyglot than to be one. Knowledge of English is very widespread throughout the world, same goes with Spanish and French, together with Italian and Russian in Europe. Speaking as a half-Swede, I can guarantee that at least 90% of all living Swedes having an article on themselves on Wikipedia would qualify for this category - yet only three are listed... I don't see the point of a category that includes more people than it excludes, is completely random and in no way list people famous for the content of the category. JdeJ (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The point above became a bit too long, so just to clarify. In most countries I can think of, these categories equal categories named "People who went to school", "Swedish people who went to school", etc. JdeJ (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, Ideally I think these categories could be useful if applied only to people who are notable for knowing several languages, but as it stands now, they are close to useless. Good Ol’factory (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. What's the minimum threshold? Two languages? Three? Just doesn't seem like most of these people are famous for their polygotism.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & Mike Selinker, and how proficient must one be to add a language to one's count? I consider myself bilingual (English-Spanish) but would have little difficulty understanding spoken or written Catalan, Italian, and Portuguese as long as the topics don't stray into the esoteric, but I wouldn't count myself a speaker of 5 languages. I would venture to suspect that most native Spanish speakers would be able to understand an communicate in several other Latin languages, and most Danes/Swedes/Norwegians can probably communicate in each others' languages, many Ukrainians/Belarussians are sufficiently proficient in Russian to be considered fluent, so tens or hundreds of millions of people could be polyglots by some definition or another just by natural closeness of languages - without going into those places where second or third language education is universal or required for non-speakers of the official language (Switzerland, Belgium, India, Ireland, Indonesia, Russia, for example). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - While I am fairly dubious about these categories, I think this discussion would benefit from the participation of people who support them, so I have  Cgingold (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The parent category says it is for people "noted for polyglotism" so Martin Czehmester, a porn actor who speaks 5 languages, does not belong - that is not what he is known for. Myself I would think about 10 languages a minimum level - most academic linguists reach that sort of number.  If these categories were cleared out of actresses who claim to speak two languages well, then they should be kept; otherwise delete. Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I considered that point when nominating the categories, but the linguists noted for their polyglotism are already found in the article List of noted polyglots. The problem here is that the vast majority of the entries are similar to your example - porn starts, playmates, actors, footballers, royalty... JdeJ (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is indisputably a trivial characteristic. It suffers problems of vagueness, too, but its primary problem is the non-defining nature of the category. --Lquilter (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Cult video games

 * 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. Kbdank71 20:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * cult video games


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - for all the same reasons similar categories for cult films, TV shows, etc. have been deleted. Specifically, subjective inclusion criterion. Otto4711 (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep although it can be a challenge to set clear criteria, it is without a doubt an excisting phenomenon, and thus should be included. GameLegend (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per precedent. -Sean Curtin (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange

 * 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. the wub  "?!"  11:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange to Category:Companies listed on the Australian Securities Exchange
 * Nominator's rationale: As of December 2006, the Australian Stock Exchange merged with the Sydney Stock Exchange, creating the Australian Securities Exchange. As such, this category should be renamed inline with the new name. Russavia (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Question - is the Stock Exchange category being used to capture companies that are listed on the Securities Exchange or is it a historical category? And if historical, is there encyclopedic value in the categorization or would a list be better? Otto4711 (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is for current listings on the ASX, it seems no-one has yet gotten around to updating as yet. Companies are added to the cat automatically by use of Template:ASX --Russavia (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * All righty then, rename per nom, possibly speedy. Otto4711 (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (Speedy?) rename per Australian Securities Exchange renaming. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.