Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 2



Category:Select Group Referees 2007/08

 * 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 13:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * select group referees 2007/08


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. A category for a group of referees that were together for one season is not appropriate. If this were to continue, we would have hundreds of these categories. Furthermore, we don't even have a category for the Select Group Referees for the season that's just finished. Open and shut case, tbh. – PeeJay 23:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – PeeJay 23:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete – per nom. It could be listified within Select Group Referees. Occuli (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & past practice. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nominator. --Carioca (talk) 19:15, 7 June 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:Brat Pack films

 * 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 13:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * brat pack films


 * frat pack films


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - a variation of performer by performance overcategorization. Also vague and subjective inclusion criteria. Films are included on the basis of an indeterminate number of actors informally identified as members of the "Brat Pack" appearing in them. Who is or isn't in the Brat Pack is based on a subjective standard (some say appearance in one of two films, others say both, many exclude one of the principles based on her not appearing in other films with the other actors) and three of the films included in the category were made prior to either of the two cited prerequisite films. There is no objective number of "Brat Packers" who have to be in a film to qualify it for the category. There's also no "expiration date" on the category. Would a film made in, say, 2003 in which two or more of these people appeared qualify as a "Brat Pack film"? Otto4711 (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - adding the Frat Pack category to the nomination, and noting that Category:Frat Pack was deleted two years ago and Category:Brat Pack was deleted last September. Otto4711 (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and "tally ho" to the nominator. Debresser (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Both Perhaps we can follow Wikipedia standards and use descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources to make such determinations. Alansohn (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Except of course that reliable sources differ on who is or isn't considered a member of either of these groups. Some state that appearing in The Breakfast Club is sufficient to be a Brat Packer. Others state that appearing in St. Elmo's Fire is sufficient. Still others insist that appearing in both films is required. Some include Mare Winningham because she was in St. Elmo's Fire. Others exclude her because she has not appeared in other films with other Brat Packers. Similarly, reliable sources differ as to who is included in the Frat Pack. The article indicates multiple levels of frat packiness and includes at least one person in part based on his own self-identification. Deciding amongst the various reliable sources as to who really is a Brat Packer or a Frat Packer demands that editors indulge their personal point of view and/or engage in original research. Even were we to leave aside all of those issues, the question of the number of Brat or Frat Packers required to qualify as a "Brat Pack film" or "Frat Pack film" (and in the case of Frat Pack films, the previously asserted subject matter - comedy only) is still completely subjective. Otto4711 (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, the argument from possible borderline cases, all of which should be dealt with as individual cases based on the consensus shown by reliable and verifiable sources. I do enjoy the claim that using sources violates NPOV and OR, but I am utterly unswayed. Alansohn (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, the utter mischaracterization of my comment. The claim is not that using sources violates NPOV and OR. The claim is that equally reliable and verifiable sources conflict, which means that deciding which films to include and exclude requires editors to choose between those equally reliable and verifiable sources. It is forcing the choice between those sources that violates NPOV and OR. Otto4711 (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per the persuasive arguments of Otto, as membership is subjective and/or arbitrary. Occuli (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete if these were an objectively definable group, they could be templated. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:17, 4 June 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:Sholay

 * 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 13:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * sholay


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category for a three-decades old film, highly unlikely to expand. Articles are interlinked. Otto4711 (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 09:18, 3 June 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:Beetlejuice

 * 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 13:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * beetlejuice


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - another small film category with no chance of expansion. Lead article serves as a navigational hub and if desired a navtemplate would work well here. Otto4711 (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Small category, unlikely to grow. —  Σ xplicit  02:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree wholeheartedly with the nominator. Debresser (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A rather decent-sized category with clear opportunity for expansion. No legitimate policy for deletion has been offered. Alansohn (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And the "clear opportunity for expansion" would be...what exactly? The deletion is based on the guideline WP:OC. If you believe that guideline to be illegitimate, I suggest you take it up on the guideline's talk page. Otto4711 (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no limit to the number of future movies, books, comics, games, toys, breakfast cereals, etc., etc., etc. that can be produced as part of the Beetlejuice franchise and no reason to believe that it is impossible for future additions of new articles to this category as you insist with your statement in your nomination that incorrectly characterizes this as exclusively a "film category" for which there is "no chance of expansion". Your argument is based on your own personal interpretation of WP:OC, which unfortunately tends to become an arbitrary game of IHATEIT / ILIKEIT, and this time the one-sided coin landed on IHATEIT. While WP:OC has its own deep and fundamental flaws, the issue here is that the argument is "illegitimate", not the guideline. Your rebuttal only further reinforce my position. Alansohn (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Should there be a sudden glut of Beetlejuice-related media, there is no prejudice to re-creating the category if the community consensus is in favor. Until such time as that happens (although given that the last such item was released almost two decades ago it seems unlikely) the category is not needed for navigational purposes. It would appear that the other side of that one-sided coin is jingling around in your own pocket, seeing as how your usual argument comes down to ILIKEIT. I did enjoy how, when called on your statement "No legitimate policy for deletion has been offered" you tried to change the meaning of the word "policy" to "argument". Otto4711 (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * At last we agree that there is a chance of expansion, just that you have taken it upon yourself to determine that "it seems unlikely". Given that this is an animated feature, I'm sure you would acknowledge that there is no obstacle to creation of new content in the future or addition of new articles for existing content. The category includes an ample number of independent articles and the threat of allowing recreation always leads on the disruptive path of speedy deletion due to allegations of recreated content, so I would pass on the offer. There still is no legitimate policy justification for deletion other than your arbitrary insistence that it is simply "not needed for navigational purposes". I'd be happy to compare my delete/keep ratio with any editor, a number which is far more difficult to calculate for some editors where the denominator has trouble getting past zero. Alansohn (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Otto4711's insistence that this category should be deleted because it is small, not needed for navigational purposes, and is unlikely to expand, is not a legitimate policy justification for deletion. A consensus of editors agreeing with Otto4711, however, is.  Postdlf (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm, I don't agree that there is any chance of expansion. "It seems unlikely" was an understatement. Beetlejuice is not an animated feature and I'm unsure what its being animated or not has to do with the category. The obstacle to creating new articles is the lack of reliable sources that offer significant coverage of other aspects of subject matter relating to the franchise. Again, should a slew of such sources suddenly manifest and articles get written, such that the lead article and/or a navtemplate not suffice for navigation, no one will reasonably object to recreating the category. Feel free to run whatever statistical analyses you would like on your own or any other editor's keep/delete ratio, if that's what blows your skirt up. Otto4711 (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not enough to say that expansion is limitless in its theoretical possibilities. The prospect of expansion has to be reasonably certain and/or immediate — for instance, we know that there will be more Category:Presidents of the United States in the future. We know that there will be more Category:Britney Spears albums. But if the best you can say is that there could be new Beetlejuice merch someday, solely on the grounds that anything is possible but without any degree of actual certainty as to what will happen, then that's simply not good enough to meet the "prospect of expansion" criterion. If some massive new collection of Beetlejuice-related merchandise actually hits the market in the future, then we can recreate this, but until that actually happens, the onus is on you to prove the expandability by showing actual evidence of actual topics that can actually be added to the category now, not on anybody else to prove that somebody won't introduce a new Beetlejuice-branded fruit drink in 2057. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 9 June 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:10 Things I Hate About You

 * 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 13:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 10 things i hate about you


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with very little growth potential. Absent the questionable inclusion of the Shakespeare play (yes, I know it's a loose adaptation, it's still questionable) we have three articles with only two likely expansion articles, lists of episodes and characters. Outstanding example of material that should be linked through the lead article and a navtemplate. Otto4711 (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree per nominator. Not another navtemplate, I hope! Just linking should be enough. Debresser (talk) 09:16, 3 June 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:Sony Records 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: rename, recategorization into the label subcats still needs to occur. Kbdank71 13:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Sony Records albums to Category:Sony Music Entertainment albums
 * Nominator's rationale: To match parent category. Actually, most of these should be recategorized, as Sony proper doesn't release the albums; most are from Columbia, Epic or a sister label. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, but... to match title of parent article, but this should probably only be use as a parent category to all of SMEs individual labels. Alansohn (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I was going for. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:18, 5 June 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:Toronto musicians

 * 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 along with ottawa and niagra per bearcat and precedent. Kbdank71 13:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Toronto musicians to Category:Musicians from Toronto
 * Nominator's rationale: To match precedent of other X from Y categories. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree definitely. Debresser (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. That's fine by me. --Marchije•speak/peek 11:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Per established NC for these, speedy-rename Category:Ottawa musicians and Category:Niagara Region musicians at the same time; no need for new nominations on those. Bearcat (talk) 03:27, 9 June 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:Diet food writers

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


 * The result of the discussion was: relisted on june 10. Kbdank71 13:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * diet food writers


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Moved its only article to more appropriate category. We already have Category:Food writers and Category:Health and wellness writers which are well-used and linked in. thisisace (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please reinstate whatever you removed. See the procedures. How can we consider a category that has been emptied? There may well be a case for a category (with a better name) with both of these as parents. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. thisisace (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Diet writers or Category:Writers on diet. can very easily be populated from the parents, & a useful sub-category of these. Johnbod (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - anyone who writes about food is writing about diet. If this is intended to capture people who have written books about specific diets - meaning weight loss plans - then the category is becoming too specific. Categorizing authors based on the subject matter of their books (as opposed to genre) is cutting things too fine. Otto4711 (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Most food writers just address one dish or meal at a time. I'm open to different phrasing, but diet books are clearly a very different genre from cookery books, and recognised and placed as such in completely different sections (often not even in the food section) on the shelves of bookshops and elsewhere in the book trade. We have many far more minute distinctions than this in writer categories that have been upheld here. Obviously not all diet writing is about weight loss. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep / Consider Rename There are people who write about cooking from an aesthetic standpoint and there are those who write about from a dieting standpoint, where the goal is to eat foods to reach some state of improved health. Irma S. Rombauer, author of The Joy of Cooking, was not writing about dieting, and most cookbook authors don't. Category:Health and wellness writers includes writers who address issues other than food as a means towards wellness. I would fully support a rename, but this category appears to capture a defining characteristic that would be eliminated by deletion or renaming. Alansohn (talk) 17:53, 9 June 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:León

 * 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 both to Category:León (province) to match article. Kbdank71 13:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:León to Category:León province
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Category:León province follows the naming pattern of the other Spanish provinces. thisisace (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - there is the city León, Spain; which is in León (historical region), and León (province). I would suggest renaming Category:León province to Category:León (province) to match the article. Most cities have a category: surely material can be found for Category:León, Spain? Occuli (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree I prefer the proposal of the nominator over the proposal by Occuli. Debresser (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Merge / Rename Target I support the merge, but the target should be renamed to Category:León (province) to match the title of the parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:08, 3 June 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:Royal Navy cargo ships

 * 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. Kbdank71 13:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Royal Navy cargo ships to Category:Royal Navy storeships
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Sources on ship classification in the Royal Navy use 'storeship' (spelt as one word), rather than 'cargo ship', the latter implies some sort of civilian mercantile activity, and is an invented classification as far as I can tell. Benea (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 *  Merge? Rename. I agree that the wrong terminology was used, but would this be better merged to Category:Royal Fleet Auxiliary? Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The RFA was established in 1905 and took over the responsibility of managing naval oilers, storeships, and other replenishment vessels on behalf of the navy. But prior to that the Royal Navy itself operated storeships for hundreds of years. HMS Buffalo (1813) in the category is one such example, and one on which to apply a label of the RFA would be an anachronism. Benea (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more of the function. Functionally a storeship and an RFA are the same. As long as there is explanation in each category and a clear link to the other I have no problem. Changing to rename. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support rename. TheGrappler (talk) 19:58, 4 June 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:Shock jocks

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * shock jocks


 * Nominator's rationale: A POV categorisation using a loaded term with no clear criteria for inclusion other than "widely regarded". Unsalvageable by a rename and unlikely to find any criteria that would meet consensus. Mattinbgn\talk 11:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Present consensus has put some 52 articles here. So what's the problem? Debresser (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - nom is correct, no objective inclusion criterion can exist for this category. Otto4711 (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You do realize that there are ample reliable and verifiable sources establishing these individuals as "shock jocks". And what exactly is the "objective inclusion criterion" for Category:LGBT-related television episodes, now modified to cover "episodes of television series that are not generally about LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender)-related issues that substantively cover such issues" and which twice met overwhelming approval for retention here at CfD. I have found thousands of sources for "shock jock" (this search found 15,700 occurrences in Google News Archives), while I have yet to find anything reliably sourced as a "LGBT-related television episode". How can we explain this stark inconsistency? Alansohn (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete subjective and OR. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading sources is "Original Research"?!?! Alansohn (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete subjective, no obvious criteria. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The criteria is descriptions of an individual in reliable and verifiable sources. Lumping all radio personalities together while ignoring the defining characteristic of a Howard Stern or Opie and Anthony pointlessly deprives Wikipedia readers of an effective means of navigating through similar articles united by a defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, subjective, colloquial term; undoubtedly in usage, but not with any objective consistency. This makes for a fine article about the term/concept, but for a poor unannotated classification.  Postdlf (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Mattinbgn (nom) and Postdlf have very strong arguments TheGrappler (talk) 19:59, 4 June 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:Celtic music instruments

 * 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: G6 Speedy merged to Category:Celtic musical instruments Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Celtic music instruments to Category:Celtic musical instruments
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Standard title for every other article of the 150+ in Category:Musical instruments by nationality. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. Occuli (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy merge. How did this go undetected? Debresser (talk) 15:27, 2 June 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.