Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 22



Media subcategory cleanup

 * 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: suggestion endorsed. Perhaps because of the lack of participation here, a "test nomination" should be run by nominating a few of the "media" categories that are thought to be most prominent among them. Then if suddenly there's a wave of resistance to the change, we won't have wasted our time nominating all the categories. After the test nomination closes, we can go from there, perhaps with a more expedited process—we could temporarily incorporate this change into the speedy criteria, for instance. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Media" categories and what do about them.
 * This is really a mess. The short version is that we have categories for media (in the sense of mass media and publications) relating to topics (e.g. Category:Cue sports media, Category:Media based on video games, and so on - some are narrow, some broad as to definition of "media" and whether it's "about" or "based on" or both, but that can be handled on a case-by-case basis). The problem is that we also have lots of categories, seemingly mostly populated by use of Media, that refer to Wikipedia files ("File:..."). Most subcategories of Category:Video game media are of this latter type, for example (that directory itself, however, also includes VG journalism, a great illustration of why this vague categorization isn't working).  This is just far too ambiguous and confusing (and could get even worse, especially with a topic like video games, where it could be mistaken as a reference to CD-ROMs, DVD-ROMs, cartidges, etc. - distribution media.)


 * I broadly propose that all of the categories of the Wikipedia files-categorizing sort be renamed to versions with "images" instead of "media" in their names, except for those (very, very few) that actually also contain non-image media, such as sound files, in which case "files" would be used (any "files" cat. could theoretically have "images" and "sounds" subcats., though I think this unlikely to occur often, even in graphics- and sound-heavy topics like video games). The Media template would be updated to use "images" by default and "files" with a parameter switch. Or use two templates; doesn't really matter. In cases where a category is populated with both files and mass-media items, it will be split, with the mass-media items' category retaining "media" (or if only one item of a type is present, just upmerge it).  We could "ban", in essence, the use of "media" at all, but this is unnecessary given that the vast majority of readers and editors understand "media" as first and foremost a term for publications and broadcasting (it's a "primary topic" in WP:NC terms), and WP already has a term for the images-and-audio meaning of the word, embedded in the very URLs of the items in question: "file".


 * If a consensus arises to go this route (or a similar one), we could officially nominate, with Cfr and all that, every affected category, but per previous discussions here (one within the last week or so) about CfD efficiency, that might well be overkill. (To be clear: I'm certainly not volunteering to spend all day doing that rather pointless repetitious tagging and listing.)


 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. My preference is for "image" except where cases of a broader "file" are necessary, but I don't really care that much as long as "media" is reserved for off-Wiki meanings and the self-referential categorization of WP files is clearly distinguished. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 23:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support nomination. Using the same word to mean two very different things is a recipe for confusion, and this proposal offers a simple solution for distinguishing the two. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 28 December 2009 (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:Alfachalix

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * alfachalix


 * Nominator's rationale: Not english. Only contains Chalix category, which is also up for Cfd. WOSlinker (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. It might be a user category, but if so there's no indication (at least in English) of how it might assist collaboration between editors, which AFAIK is the purpose of use categories. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Both cats seem to be very weird, a bit of a lookaround regarding it seems to indicate it's some web portal of some sort or an open source OS, neither of which happen to exist in any real sense. Basically it's spam, badly constructed spam but spam nonetheless. treelo  radda  14:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Google, the text in the category means "Here You can see more about this category." Helpful!  Delete this one, and let's consider the child category below. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Save us from this monstrosity. Debresser (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2009 (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:Chalix

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * chalix


 * Nominator's rationale: Not english. Only contains user pages and categories into non-existant categories. WOSlinker (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Appears to be a user category, but there's no indication (at least in English) of how it might assist collaboration between editors, which AFAIK is the purpose of use categories. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Google renders the text as "Operating System Open Source in Portuguese of Brazil Current Version 3.0 Fully tested and functional launch in January 2010.

I am preparing a manual to leave here in winkipedia." So, yeah, spam.  Delete them. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * delete. Or merge to . Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * contains articles. The nominated cat contains two pages in Userspace.  Why should they be merged? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Twas a joke, my good man. (All the Gauls' names in Asterix end in -ix.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It could save the bots some work, since the job would presumably be done by Fulliautomatix. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That loud noise heard over the South-Eastern U.S. around 3 A.M. local time this morning was the sound of humour going right over my head. I don't normally watch The Simpsons, but I've earned a "D'oh!" for that one. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can blame it on the 3AM bit. Fulliautomatix. Heh. Now I want to create a bot and name it that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No-content, non-English, crapish category. Sorry for being blunt. Debresser (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2009 (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:Nashville Star seasons

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * nashville star seasons


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Uncategorised category containing only one article, Nashville Star (season 6). there appear to be no other articles on seasons of this show, so there is nothing else with which to populate the category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete but with no prejudice against a recreation if- and only if- someone writes articles on more seasons. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2009 (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:Nobel Laureates associated with the University of Copenhagen

 * 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: Listify to List of Nobel Laureates associated with the University of Copenhagen. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * nobel laureates associated with the university of copenhagen


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Uncategoriused actegory which consists of an unlinked list of laureates. There are no other sub-cats of for Nobel Laureates by university, and doing so would cause huge category clutter on the articles of the prize-winners. If this category is kept, it needs a cleanup, some parent categories, and some articles in it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Listify This is one case where a list would do better--indeed the so-called category seems to actually be a list.   DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. postdlf (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Listify as per ample precedent of 8 articles of the type List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of .... Debresser (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2009 (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:Neutral countries

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * neutral countries


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. It's unclear what the inclusion criteria are for this article, but it appears to be roughly "countries which in 2009 are not part of a military alliance". Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the evident variability of the concept of "permanent neutrality", isn't it inevitable that the inclusion criteria for such a category will end up being either WP:OC or WP:OC? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * Delete -- A country neutral at one period may be a belligerent at another. "today" is merely a random point in time.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: On the basis of the above, we'd have to delete an enormous number of categories. The fact that a category has to be maintained does not make it deletable. What should happen in my view is that the category should specify inclusion criteria (e.g. not part of a military alliance and/or has issued a declaration of neutrality), have a Category:Formerly neutral countries with container category, and then where necessary have subcategories in that, e.g. Category:Neutral countries in World War II and whatever else is needed. Or, rename the entire thing somehow. The points being, it's not a trivial intersection, and the fact that it isn't static in time isn't relevant to anything. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 23:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Permanently neutral states, which is the concept the category actually intends to capture— those states which have adopted an official policy of neutrality for all present and future wars and conflicts, as opposed to those which are neutral in a particular war or conflict. I would not start to categorize by neutrality, belligerence, or alignment as this will rapidly clutter articles for countries like France which have participated in scores of conflicts over the centuries.- choster (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think that choster's suggestion of a rename to is a good one, and well-reasoned. However, I'm quite sure that it really works, because the degree of neutrality of these states is quite varied.  Switzerland is probably the most clearcut example of permanent neutrality, but Irish neutrality is more nuanced, and the wikipedia articles notes that "It is inaccurate to describe Ireland as a neutral state in the same way as Sweden or Switzerland, it would be more accurate to describe it as a non-aligned state which takes conflict participation on a case by case basis." Three of the countries in this category (Ireland, Austria and Finland) are member states of the European Union, and as such have some limited degree of military alliance with other member states (there's a lot of argument about how much).
 * Delete: Tendentious category. No clear criteria for inclusion/exclusion. "Permanently neutral" requires a degree of foresight only G-- possess. I would have no problem with "Currently neutral", so long as everyone agrees with my decisions as to which countries are neutral and which are not. Acad Ronin (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, but you don't quite meet my threshold of neutrality.  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as too complicated and dynamic for simplistic categorization. Its parent, Neutrality (international relations), first defines the term in relation to particular wars, and then goes on to explain the nuance involved in neutrality as a foreign policy, and/or neutrality as the avoidance of alliances, all of which strikes me more as a debatable characterization rather than a concrete true-or-false fact.  The article then separates lists of countries "recognized" as neutral from those that merely "claim" neutrality, and those that were formerly neutral.  It then throws a couple other monkeywrenches in the concept with the issue of whether EU membership precludes neutrality and neutrality to forestall invasion.  This category's simple label of "neutral countries" papers over those differences and shades of gray, pretending that this is a much more concrete classification than it really is.  I'm skeptical of the ability of any more specific categories to be accurate and maintainable; "permanently neutral," as noted above, is no more verifiable as a statement of fact than Category:Absolute truth.  postdlf (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * delete per nom, postdlf, and others. Much, much too complicated an issue to be covered in an in-or-out category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Term is undefined; the proposed definition unclear and prone to change. Debresser (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see where this is coming from. Turkmenistan was recognized as neutral by the United Nations in 1995 ; with a resolution of the General Assembly.  If similar resolutions could be tracked down for every one of these countries, it might be justifiable.  In the end, though, this is a matter for the Neutrality article- to which I have added that reference.  Leaning towards delete it, the list on that article is sufficient.  Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2009 (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:Ballahoo class schooner

 * 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: Nomination withdrawn since category was populated. I'd like to add that this category is a legitimate part of a category structure. Debresser (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ballahoo class schooner


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Contains only the head article Ballahoo class schooner. It appears that there are no other article on this class of vessel. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hang on there, there is only one article because the category was only created a day or two ago. There are 18 vessels in the class and although most are of minor interest, a handful are likely to have something about them worth a paragraph/short article. I am currently working on the Cruizer class brig-sloops (40 down and 60+/- to go) and won't get to the Ballahoo class for some time, but that's no reason to get rid of it. I recently worked on the Cuckoo class schooners, preparing articles on several. Patience please, Oh BrownHairedGirl. :-) Acad Ronin (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply Categories exist to assist in navigation between the articles in that category, but if the only article there is the eponymous head article then it's only a nuisance to readers, by inviting them down a dead end. It's great that you are going to write the articles, and once they exist you can recreate the category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Provisional keep: Nomination has jumped the gun, even for speedy deletion, unless some other deletion rationale than "empty" is provided. Two days is too short. Delete if no additional articles appear within a reasonable period of time. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 23:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Category is now populated, so nomination withdrawn. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:15, 28 December 2009 (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:Present disestablishments

 * 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) 08:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: In executing this CFD, I discovered that the category was generated by the year_end field in Template:Infobox former country, which produces Category: disestablishments at the end of the article. In Warsangali Sultanate, that field was incorrectly entered as "present" to indicate that it was presently disestablished, rather than with the specific year that it was disestablished, thus adding the Category:Present disestablishments link to the article.  postdlf (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * present disestablishments


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Uncategorised category contains only one article. I have no idea what "Present disestablishments" is intended to mean.  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into Category:Former countries in Africa -- The one article appears to relate to a former sultanate in British Somaliland. This state is no longer fucntioning (presumably) hence "disestablished".  I presume the choice of this term indicates that the author hopes it may be re-established; certainly there is a current claimant to the throne listed.  My target would be an appropriate category for this article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Article can be recategorised as per Peterkingiron. Debresser (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2009 (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:Mountains of the Basque Country

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * mountains of the basque country


 * Nominator's rationale: No idea what to do with this orphaned category. Basque Country is a dab page, but I dunno which one applies here. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: All of these mountains are already classified geographically. We don't classify geological features by cultural regions ("Lakes of the Pennsylvania Dutch area", etc.). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 23:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per SMcCandlish. Debresser (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2009 (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:Cause of death unknown

 * 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 delete as recreation of a page that was deleted via deletion discussion —  ξ xplicit  20:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * cause of death unknown


 * Nominator's rationale: "Generally bad idea," hopelessly incomplete, previously deleted unanimously, not useful, since in practice it means only that the cause of death isn't reported, not that it isn't known Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2009 (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:Dayton Flyers men's basketball head coaches

 * 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 as empty. —  ξ xplicit  08:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * dayton flyers men's basketball head coaches


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Duplicate category of Category:Dayton Flyers men's basketball coaches. Newsboy85 (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as duplicate. Alansohn (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and populate, as part of the organizational structure 'Category:College men's basketball head coaches by team in the United States'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradjamesbrown  (talk • contribs) 21:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good argument, but there is also that discussion to take into account. See the previous nomination. Debresser (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, as pointed out here by Geologik, I don't think ANY of the categories for head coaches need to exist - the schools generally all have categories for coaches in general, and subdividing like this seems pointless. Newsboy85 (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They've all been listed for merging here. postdlf (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per my comments in the other one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep exactly as per Bradjamesbrown, since Category:College men's basketball head coaches by team in the United States is well-established and is entirely a container category (i.e., there are no article entries there, only subcats., but every qualifying article should be under that category, just not directly. —  SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 11:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: I am guessing that this category, and the non-head coach articles, would end up in Category:University of Dayton faculty or something, if the previous related CfD below is successfully in removing Category:Dayton Flyers? —  SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 13:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The one coach that previously populated the head coaches category is already categorized with 10 former and assistant coaches in Category:Dayton Flyers men's basketball coaches. That, in turn, is in Category:Dayton Flyers men's basketball, which includes players, facilities, awards and the program itself. That category is part of the root Category:University of Dayton. It's already subdivided enough, hence why I put these two up for deletion. Newsboy85 (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete because:
 * this category is empty, so qualifies for speedy deletion regardless of its merits if populated
 * Any head coaches which do appear can be categorised in Category:Dayton Flyers men's basketball coaches and in Category:College men's basketball head coaches in the United States
 * As noted above by Postdlf Category:College men's basketball head coaches by team in the United States and it all its sub-categories are the subject of an upmerger proposal at CfD Dec 30 -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 31 December 2009 (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:Dayton Flyers
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 (still empty at close). Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * dayton flyers


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per discussion, all content recategorized, category deprecated. Newsboy85 (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If it is empty, that is a speedy. But that discussion seems far from over... Debresser (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems over to me -
 * "I'm going to go ahead and put the UD category back on the articles. I'll also clean up the subcategories system for the UD articles. Thanks for your contribution, as it did point out to me that some cleanup was necessary, but it's just too early to be subdividing in this way. Newsboy85 (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)"
 * "Well I am happy to see you saw my point as I saw yours, I think it's a fair compromise.--Levineps (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)"
 * The points after that were actually made earlier by another editor, and that passage was the last on this subject. Newsboy85 (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2009 (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:English football (soccer) clubs 2009–10 season
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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:English football clubs 2009–10 season. On a side note, I think users may want to consider what SMcCandlish has said. It's important to realise we are creating categories that will be referred to be people who are not "from" the area referred to in the category. For that reason, it may be time to start seriously considering changing category names so that they can be clearly understood by English speakers around the globe, not just in the locale to which they refer. There's no consensus to go this direction here, but it's something to consider for the future. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:English football (soccer) clubs 2009–10 season to Category:English association football clubs 2009–10 season, per Wikipedia's naming of the sport as association football. We don't have Category:2009 in football (gridiron) or Category:2009 in football (American), and this sport should follow the same convention. I'm aware that there are hundreds of categories I could have chosen, but I've nominated one to get an idea of how to approach it. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related discussions. WFCforLife (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename but to Category:English football clubs 2009–10 season. In England, the unqualified term "football" always means soccer.  If any other sport is mean, it is Amercian football, Rugby football, Gaelic, Austrialian-rules, etc.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per Peterkingiron or as follows. The parent seems to be Category:English football club seasons by year.  The gloss "(soccer)" is unnecessary when accompanied by "English".  Another possible might be Category:English football season 2009–10 by club. Sussexonian (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename Wikipedia clearly stipulates that localised language should be followed. Debresser (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with dropping my initially proposed "association", and renaming as Category:English football clubs 2009–10 season. WFCforLife (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per original nomination, since both codes of rugby are also football and also common in England; it's better to be a little long-winded than ambiguous. That said, it would be better to rename to nominator's re-nom, than to leave as-is. If renamed my preferred way, it should also be done this way for Australia and other countries with notable rugby league and rugby union action, but not for those without two codes of football. —  SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 11:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Australia is slightly different, because there are four sports that are regularly called "football". Confusingly, one of those is Rugby League. But in England the ambiguity is in fact with the word rugby. See the BBC Sport homepage, Sky Sports homepage and ITV Sport homepage for examples of unqualified use of football where all the codes you have mentioned are referred to at the same time. Conversely, the [British governing body of Rugby League does not use the word "football" to describe its own sport (except in its own name), and it's the same practise with England's Rugby Union governing body. Hope that helps, [[User:WFCforLife|WFCforLife]] (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I follow, but in the end I am skeptical that just using "football" here helps our readers (even if adding "soccer" doesn't either!). We cannot presume that they are British and understand the nomenclature in question before reading one or more articles that explain it to them. If other CFDers, after reading my concerns, still have no issues with the level of potential ambiguity and confusion here, then I'll go with that flow.  It's not a huge deal to me, I just prefer clarity at the expense of extra characters most of the time. But it admittedly isn't a particularly trivial number of extra characters in this case. —  SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 13:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a fair comment. I'd prefer to drop the "association", but per my original nom, I've no objection to it being there if the closer deems it helpful. WFCforLife (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename. I'd say go with just Category:English football clubs 2009–10 season, since pretty much everything under Category:Football in England uses just "football". For consistency, however, I suggest renaming all sibling categories similarly as well. Jafeluv (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:English football clubs 2009–10 season per above. – PeeJay 20:55, 11 January 2010 (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:United States Supreme Court opinions by justice
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:United States Supreme Court opinions by justice to Category:Lists of United States Supreme Court opinions by justice
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to match and clarify contents. I originally created this category, but it's since been edited by others, so I couldn't just speedy it.  postdlf (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment -- To me as an Englishman, this whole category tree seems to be a gross case of overcategorisation. Surely it is Supreme Court decision that matter, not which justice delivered what opinion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comment suggests to me that you haven't actually looked at the contents of these categories. They are not for categorizing articles on individual Supreme Court opinions (such as Roe v. Wade) by any justice who authored an opinion in that case; such categories have always been properly deleted.  Rather these are for categorizing lists that group opinions by each justice (such as 2004 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Antonin Scalia), which include majority opinions, dissents, concurrences, in-chambers opinions, and opinions relating to orders.  Hence the rename.  postdlf (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to better describe the category's contents, and per the convention of other categories of list-style-articles ... as well as per the nominator's helpfully clear reply to Perkingiron, which clarifies things nicely. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Rename to a bit more clearly describe the contents of the categories. Alansohn (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being dumb, but I still don't understand what these categories are about. And it still sounds as overcategorisation/WP:BIAS to me. Debresser (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at its subcategories, and at the lists contained therein. Tell me what you see.  postdlf (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2009 (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:The Jarmels songs
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 nominator. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  20:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * the jarmels songs


 * Nominator's rationale: The group had just one hit song. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Per the structure of Category:Songs by artist ("Please note that all song articles should have subcategories here, regardless of how many songs the artist has recorded.").  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination (scratch head). Seems rather silly, but if them's the rules... Clarityfiend (talk) 08:48, 22 December 2009 (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:Robotic insects
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Robotic insects to Category:Fictional robotic insects
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Can we add "fictional", like the parents and, lest anyone think this category is for real ones? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, if the categorized items actually qualify (i.e. robots that are insectoid, not just small). Real ones are getting very close to plausible every day. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 04:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom for clarity. If and when someone does start making genuine robotic insects, and there are wikipedia articles on them, then we can create a new category for them. (Given the number of overpaid scientists employed to do useless and/or destructive things, SMcCandlish may well be right that the day may not be too far off). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename I'd expect real ones sooner rather than later, but fiction and reality ought to be clearly delineated. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per precedent to add the word "fictional" as needed. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2009 (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.

Energy in Illinois
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 categories only; without prejudice to their re-creation in future if they are warranted by existence of articles to go in them. (By the way, has anyone else noticed that a lot of categories seemingly get created just so that they can be linked to a corresponding commons category of the same name? A huge percentage of categories that go to CFD for deletion or renaming are ones that were named after commons categories.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * energy in illinois


 * Nominator's rationale: category created without any articles in it or any subcategories except some inappropriate redirects to Illinois — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also the subcategories:
 * energy companies of illinois


 * electric power in illinois


 * coal power in illinois


 * coal in illinois


 * fossil fuels in illinois


 * climate change in illinois


 * energy policy in illinois


 * and redirects
 * Energy in Illinois and Climate change in Illinois
 * and
 * companies of illinois by industry


 * which only includes Energy companies above.

*Invalid nomination: This is not WP:RFD, and it's not our job at WP:CFD to determine the "appropriateness" of redirects. Alleged "inappropriateness" of categorized content is not a valid reason for category deletion. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 04:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)  Nomination could have been clearer, then. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 09:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment: Edit summaries seem to indicate this has something to do with portal maintenance. It might be good to inquire with the creator of these things what they are for and by what point he/she expect to populate the categories with something. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 04:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The inappropriateness of the redirects is being argued at RfD. Even if the redirects were appropriate, most of these categories are empty and will remain empty.  Also, Climate change seems to have been deleted previously on or about 29 August 2009.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fair enough. I'm not entirely confortable with predictions that a category "will" remain empty, since several of these could be populated with multiple articles.  It's been almost a month, though, and this hasn't happened, so might as well delete them. The can always come back later if they are actually needed for real articles. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 09:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Since the subcategories are empty, they shoukd be sppedy deleted per WP:CSD. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per BrownHairedGirl above. If necessary, these categories can be recreated if and when there is sufficient content to put in them.  -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 19:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per BrownHairedGirl, with no barrier to recreation if they are ever actually needed. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just speedy empty categories. Deletion after four days of tagging. Debresser (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2009 (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:X-rated films
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * x-rated films


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. X-rated means different things in different countries—it depends on the applicable rating system. We do not categorize films by rating because of this problem—there are many different rating systems and films are often distributed in many different countries. The meaning of "X-rated" in any given classification system has also varied over time, so using it as a basis for categorization becomes very difficult. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unclear inclusion criteria, as per nominator, and redundant with Category:Pornographic films. We also do not appear to have anything akin to Category:Films rated X by the MPAA, etc. (I would guess because they've been deleted, since it strikes me as unlikely that no one would have overcategorized that way by now). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 04:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I found some old ones for PG, R, and a general container, but I can't find anything previous for the X or NC-17 ratings. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Off-topic: What's your search methodology? You seem to come up with stuff like this faster than I'd be able to. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 09:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Guess. The metholodology is probably just this and that. But I dinna tell you that, OK? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dang, those look like they were a lot of work! —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 00:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They were at first, but now if I just update them every couple of weeks, it's not too bad. The CFR ones are far from comprehensive--just some items that interested me. Oh yeah, but they are kind of top secret. And never refer to them in a discussion, or else all sorts of editors start complaining about how I'm trying to establish a precedence-based common law system for CFD and then they point out all my inconsistent opinions I've voiced in past CFDs. All of which of course is ridiculous and makes the existence of the list more trouble than its worth! So they don't really exist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I created Category:X-rated films I note that Good Olfactory:
 * Did not message me first, so we could work toward other options before deletion, such as deleting the category and moving the category to a new topic as SMcCandlish suggested. "Remember that deletion is a last resort."
 * Did not contact me that you were putting the category up for deletion.
 * Neither suggestion is required, but the first step helps avoid the adversarial atmosphere which deletion nominations create. The second step is also not required, but it is a traditional courtesy which most courteous editors extend to others.
 * I am still willing to work with others here and come up with an amicable solutions. Moving this category to Category:Pornographic films would be wonderful, except that all rated x movies are not pornography. Ikip 11:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Categories especially are dealt with pretty much as raw, impersonal data; no one is attacking you, and no one else is making it adversarial. I do agree with you that some XfDs can be adversarial, especially WP:AFD, in which very significant amounts of misguided work can be nuked, but creating a category is trivial. Also, I certainly did not suggest renaming this category to something else; I was suggesting that this would be a bad idea, and that such categories had surely already been previously deleted (they were). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 00:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, because there is no consistent definition of X-rated. No need for merger to any other category, because this one contains only the head article X-rated and the film Glen and Randa, which is not porn. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 22 December 2009 (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:Video game topics
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Video game topics to Category:Video games
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. I can't find any other backward structure like this anywhere else in the category hierarchy. The short version is that the general category has somehow ended up being Category:Video game topics (anyone see a Category:American football topics, Category:Chemistry topics, etc., etc.? Didn't think so), while Category:Video games is supposedly being used only for specific games and franchises, yet it's the parent, and of course this upside down category structure is confusing people and being ignored, with pages and subcats. (e.g. Category:Video game journalism) being put into both of these categories and some that should only be in one are in the other, and so on. It's a huge mess. The simple solution is to simply move everything up a category to Category:Video games and delete Category:Video game topics. Should take 5 minutes. There are innumerable categories with simple structures like this; it's the most common.  A more complicated solution is to rename Category:Video game topics to Category:Video gaming (or something like this, that disambiguates from Category:Video games with less verbosity), and make it the parent category, move Category:Video games to be a subcat. of the former, make it clear that the latter really is only for specific games, and clean it up. There are other categories, including games categories structured this way, e.g. Category:Pinball and Category:Pinball games as a subcat.  I don't care which solution is implemented really, but one of them needs to be, and badly. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 03:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename Category:Video game topics to Category:Video game. I agree with the nominator's general logic that the current category structure is inverted, but I prefer the idea of separating categories about video gaming from those about individual games. I suggest that since the head article is at Video game and most of the sub-cats of  are of the form "video game foo", that Category:Video game would be the best name for the new parent category — just as  is the parent of .  If that distinction seems to subtle, then a rename to  would do the same job . -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments I don't think Category:Video game works under the category naming conventions very well. See Category:Game vs. Category:Games, etc. - we just use plural, unless the topic is a concept or a field usually referred to in the singular (Category:Taoism and Category:Chemistry, respectively, vs. Category:Locomotives) or is commonly used as a mass noun (Category:Theatre) even if it has pluralized count-noun applications as well (Category:Theatres).  "Opera" (a doubly odd case since it is really already a plural anyway, of "opus") is a mass noun when referring to the art form generally, but "video game" is not – it's always a count noun. Conversely, there is no "opering" or "opera-ing". "Video game" does have a mass noun form, in "video gaming", but this form and the singular, one-word mass noun form that "opera" takes are mutually exclusive, as far as I can tell.
 * Anyway, one reason I am in favor of a merge rather than keeping but inverting-to-correct the split is that we don't have Category:Card gaming, Category:Pub gaming, Category:Outdoor gaming, etc., etc., but we do have Category:Card games, Category:Pub games, Category:Outdoor games, and so on and so forth. Why is video gaming in particular so special that it needs a different sort of category structure? (We do have a Category:Gaming, but it is a confused mess that will be one of my next CfD cleanup efforts). Another reason for merging instead of moving is that all of the individual-game articles in the present Category:Video games are already under, or can be moved under, something more specific. I.e., there's no particular reason, in my view, to object to games being under Category:Video games by genre and whatever other ways of pigeonholing video games that we might want (by country of development, by decade, whatever), and for all of these sorting subcategories to be directly under the proposed merged Category:Video games. I.e., Opera/Operas isn't so much of a precedent as something that itself needs to get cleaned up, since such a merger is probably just as plausible for Category:Operas &rArr; Category:Opera. All that's needed in both cases is for the articles on individual works to be in subcats, and for the number of subcats to not be truly excessive. I don't intend to belabour any points here, just trying to be clear on what I see as reasonably solid rationales for one cleanup option over the other.  All that said, I could live with the rename-and-invert option, I just think it will some day end up back here for further action.
 * —  SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 11:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You make a good case, so I'll withdraw my objection. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 1 January 2010 (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:Pinball games
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest renaming Category:Pinball games to Category:Pinball machines, and subcategories:
 * Category:Pinball games based on comics to Category:Pinball machines based on comics,
 * Category:Pinball games based on television series to Category:Pinball machines based on television shows,
 * Category:Pinball games based on films to Category:Pinball machines based on films, and subsubcategories:
 * Category:Star Trek pinball games to Category:Star Trek pinball machines,
 * Category:Star Wars pinball games to Category:Star Wars pinball machines.
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename: More clearly disambiguates real pinball machines from pinball video games. Pinball articles usually refer to these devices as "machines" (or "tables" sometimes), not "games". Cf. List of pinball machines, List of Sega pinball machines (almost enough for me to say "speedy, #4"). The "based on television shows" rename is to account for cases where a show isn't necessarily a "series" in the usual TV sense (e.g. televised sporting events like WWF/WWE wrestling matches, an actual case in the category in question; it could also apply to miniseries or made-for-TV movies or whatever). "Programs" is too US-centric, since the Commonwealth-minus-Canada-usually spelling is "programmes".  Various other categories in this form (some use "programs", some "series", some something else probably) should also be renamed to "shows" at some point, but let's start with this one. If this is somehow objectionable, still rename it from "games" to "machines". —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 03:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename all per nom, to clearly distinguish pinball machines from pinball video games. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 28 December 2009 (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:Breaking the Fourth Wall
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * breaking the fourth wall


 * Nominator's rationale: Seemingly pointless category that seems to be being randomly aided to a ton of articles by its creator. What is "Breaking the Fourth Wall" supposed to indicate? works that do it? what kind of works? Too vague, too meaningless. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't really get it either, more seems like one editor trying to force their own perceived categorisation. The category name is bad, doubt "X which break the fourth wall" makes it any more clear and the inclusion seems flaky as some of the articles either have one instance of fourth wall breaking or don't contain it at all. It's bad all round, there's a good reason this category didn't exist before. treelo  <sub style="color:#D2CDC6;">radda  01:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a preconceived categorization and the examples are not ones I came up with myself. The example list comes from the result of the collective work of people editing the fourth wall page over a long period of time. It might look like a sudden long arbitrary list if you have not been watching the fourth wall page. If any particular example seems wrong, please remove it. Otherwise, it is a legitimate category list.Damiwh2 (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's far from legitimate to me, one cannot pull a list from an article and go "hey, this'd make a froody category yknow?" Better question to ask is why? As the nominator asks, what does the category indicate? Right now it's a mere cut and paste of into articles on an overlong list teeming with bad examples with little thought behind why and if it's reasonable to do so for certain articles whilst leaving it for someone else to clean up if it isn't. A split into specific works maybe? Even then I'll figure it to be of any good only to works that use it a substantial amount rather than rarely if at all but at least it'll be somewhat less undefined. Ed makes a good point, there are a lot of articles in that list which cannot be assessed as accurately portraying the forth wall concept just by looking at the article in question.  treelo  <sub style="color:#D2CDC6;">radda  02:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The list on the article was clearly unsourced and inappropriate, despite one person claiming it should not be removed on the talk page. The list has also been removed from the article. However, you can't blame the badly done list for YOUR misapplication of this category that YOU created to dozens of articles. As an aside, I've now restored the properly referenced version of this article that was done months ago and destroyed by various IP editors. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The category page was created because the Fourth wall page had a long list of examples on it. rather than just delete the list or keep what is just a list on that page, I created a category page. The additions to pages of the category tag is not "random", as stated below, but is derived from the list of examples that has been compiled on the fourth wall page. If you do not know what breaking the fourth wall is supposed to indicate, I invite you to read the Fourth wall page where it is explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damiwh2 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The list of examples is far too long, it needs clipping not spun out into a vague category which offers little in the way of clarity. treelo  <sub style="color:#D2CDC6;">radda  01:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If there are examples that do not belong, their removal would be welcome. But the list of examples comes from the list that has developed over a period of time by editors of the fourth wall page. The list is not too long if all the examples are legitimate examples. If they are not legitimate ones, then length is still not the issue.Damiwh2 (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - A brand-new editor, User:Damiwh2, starts work on 22 December and immediately begins adding this ill-defined category to a ton of articles. I don't see the point, and don't see how you could determine from the content of each article that it's a valid example of 'breaking the fourth wall.' This editor behavior seems unusual to me, and is pushing the limits of good faith. Our article, Fourth wall, which was mentioned above is tagged for being unsourced and requiring cleanup. Not much of a reference point to hang a new category on. I invite Damiwh2 to start a low-pressure discussion somewhere instead of trying to pull a bunch of articles into a pattern that doesn't yet enjoy any support. EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "A brand-new editor" - No, I'm not new. Just new as a logged in editor. I have been editing articles for some time, which you can do without having a log in identity. I only registered today because it is required to create a new article or category. "ill-defined category" - No. If you read the Fourth wall page you will see that there is a pretty clear definition of what the fourth wall is and what breaking the fourth wall means. "I don't see the point" - the point is the same as any other category list. The fourth wall page had a large and growing list of examples on it, and so they are better moved to a category page. "don't see how you could determine from the content of each article that it's a valid example" - If you want to challenge any of the individual examples, please feel free to do so. I did not compile the list and cannot vouch for most of them. So like content on all Wikipedia pages, the category tag is open to being challenged by people who think it is wrong. "This editor behavior seems unusual to me" - Ok, but it seems odd to me that someone would nominate a category for deletion by proclaiming that she does not know what "breaking the fourth wall" even means when clicking a simple link to the Fourth Wall page would have explained it. Odd behaviour is not the issue here, anyway. "Our article, Fourth wall, which was mentioned above is tagged for being unsourced and requiring cleanup" - Yes. If you can help clean it up that would be great, too. "trying to pull a bunch of articles into a pattern that doesn't yet enjoy any support" - 1. I did not pull the list together. It came from the fourth wall page. 2. It is a list that does have support. It has been supported by editors of the fourth wall page for a long time. Editors there have resisted its deletion and have monitored additions and subtractions from it. The list is not new and is supported.Damiwh2 (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We had an unsourced list of examples at Fourth wall. You removed that list, and started adding all those entries to a category instead. Wouldn't it make more sense to add references to support the items in the list? It seems to me you have just magnified the problem rather than solving it. A personal opinion that something 'breaks the fourth wall' is still an opinion when there is no outside source that says it breaks the fourth wall. Two or three WP editors who share that personal opinion doesn't make it noteworthy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, If you (and the others so far) get your way and have the category deleted, it might be worthwhile for you to go over to the discussion page for the fourth wall article and explain to folks there why the list of examples should not just be restored on that page. Because the list has been deleted before only to be restored by editors insisting on its legitimacy. So either they are right, and a category is a better way of hosting the list, or they are wrong, and should be advised against restoring the list to the fourth wall page. Damiwh2 (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if they are right it's still a grossly overlong list of "examples" which shouldn't be half as long as it is or be a category. Thing is, they are wrong in stating the list is legitimate as it is indiscriminate with no sourcing to back their statements up. I think it's been explained to them before actually, not certain about that. treelo  <sub style="color:#D2CDC6;">radda  02:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it's been going on as long as the article has existed for with people really wanting to keep a list of examples in because they think they should be there even if they're incorrect, unsourced or likely to cause the bloated corpse list again. treelo  <sub style="color:#D2CDC6;">radda  02:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - The concept of Fourth wall has an article. Great.  And that article can have a handful of examples.  But that article should never have a lengthy listing of examples as it is clearly against Wikipedia's policy against being an arbitrary collection of lists.  But then somebody made an undefined and confusing list and made it a category?  Completely ridiculous.  And half of the items in this category don't have any clear reason why they are related which defeats the very purpose of a category.  I found my way here from a documentary style film, which doesn't even qualify as fourth wall because when you interview somebody it isn't "breaking" any wall that was supposed to be there in a fictional setting.  This category is spam.  --Fife Club (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see no sign of any objective way of setting inclusion criteria for this category. The concept clearly refers to a subjective experience. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Clean up or delete - The problem I have with both the list and the category is that there is not necessarily an explanation within the individual articles that explains just where and how the fourth wall is broken. Airplane!, for example, I recall vaguely that the lead actor turns to the camera at some point, but there's nothing in the article about it. Such a category is inherently going to be random and incomplete, unless one can find a comprehensive source for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per much of the above. It's a jargon phrase no one but theatre/film types even know much less understand, the categorized items generally don't say in their articles that they do it, it's a weird little thing (i.e. trivial intersection) to categorize by, has vague inclusion criteria, and can't really be shown to be a definable phenomenon (definable enough for a WP category anyway, since the "fourth wall" is a very new concept - stage productions have had no such wall in many cases all the way back to ancient Greece. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 04:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Paradoxically, the longer the list gets, the more obvious it is that this is a very-commonly used theatrical/film device, and that it is literally impossible not just to list them all but to even make a serious dent in the universe of such a list; in contrast to the way that you could, for example, list all the films that John Williams or Elmer Bernstein have scored. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, that's cincher evidence of an overbroad trivial intersection, like "movies with red shoes in them" or "plays featuring singing women" or whatever. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 09:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete – seems to fail on every line of WP:OCAT, as well as being wholly undefining. Occuli (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled by the addition of video game series, and disappointed by the omission of Moonlighting. Oh, and delete per the above as indiscriminate trivia.  If it can't survive as a list, then chances are it will make a lousy category.  postdlf (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete For two related but sperate reasons. First the creation of this category is symptomatic of a pattern of long term edit warring (not by the creator of this category but by multiple IPs) to keep the article Fourth wall in violation of wikipedia's core standards (WP:V & WP:NOR), and out of line with WP:NOT, by having a long list of non-notable and unsourced examples dominating the page.  Wikipedia is not a list of non-notable examples.  Back in July I managed to turn that article into a well sourecd stub but but months ago legions of different IPs bombarded with reverts and copy-paste dumps of this same material until editing there had become impossible.  Secondly Baseball Bugs's point (the longer the list the more obvious that we can't list them all) is extremely pertinent and I agree wholeheartedly.  There is no need for this category as the examples are not notable for breaking the fourth wall - the technique is far too widespread for such categorization-- Cailil   talk 23:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Listify as separate list. A classic case for this. I don't see it as subjective, trivial, or jargon, but since in many cases the "breakage" lasts only for a few moments in a film or whatever, it is often not defining, and the breakage will not be covered in the article, as pointed out above.  Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2009 (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.