Category:Artists who exhibited in Metavisual Tachiste Abstract[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: "Artists who exhibited in ..." is probably not a category tree appropriate for WP categorization as it's not usually a WP:DEFINING characteristic. For info: There is a list at Metavisual Tachiste Abstract. DexDor (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcat/performer by performance; no need to listify as the main article already contains the full list. Maralia (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a performer (in this case artist) by performace (where they exhibited). If you look at the lists of locations exhibited by many artists they go to over 20 places, this would lead to massive category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry, I might have entered the exhibition listing in the wrong format but the principle page should stay for it was a very important exhibition that gave a voice for painterly Abstraction being promoted in England and a starting point for many now famous British artists careers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalmaterial (talk • contribs) 10:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Digitalmaterial: Hi, I think you've misunderstood our jargon. We are discussing deleting Category: Artists who exhibited in Metavisual Tachiste Abstract—the category— because we long ago made the decision not to add such categories to artists' pages for each exhibition (or to a musician's page for each performance, etc). No one has suggested to delete the article Metavisual Tachiste Abstract, and since the article itself lists the artists in the exhibition, no information would be lost by deleting the category only. Hope this helps. Thanks for your contributions to art articles; feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Maralia (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:OC#PERF. This is partly a list-article sitting in cateogry space, so that I would have voted articlise/listify, but if there is already a list (a better one) we do not need to. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This honorific is of the type that notable people tend to accumulate over a public career and is not defining of the individuals who receive it. A list exists at Canadian Newsmaker of the Year. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an overcategorization by award, and not a defining award at that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Listify then Delete the separate university categories. I previously nominated the two Massachusetts categories in this nomination but forgot to tag and notify the creators. I have notified the creators this time for you (please do so using Twinkle which makes it a lot easier). Solomon7968 04:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we're going to delete anything, then back up the lists somewhere else, because it would be incredibly short-sighted to delete categories where someone researched the facts to tag the people in these categories. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have consistently deleted these honorary degree categories in the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Yet another category for WP:OC#AWARDs. Listify by university perhaps. We might then have a paretn category for the lists. Honorary degree recipients are not normally alumni and it is a nmeans of recognising notability, not conferring it. We might thus keep the Swiss category as a parent for the lists. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. In the Yoruba religion, a divinity is the same as a deity. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; it's like having "Category:Single-family houses" and "Category:One-family houses". In what religion(s) is a divinity not the same as a deity? Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (possibly reverse merge). They are essentially the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This structure consists entirely of the stations parent and the Underground sub-cat, which itself contains nothing but a couple of redirects and an article that's on its way to deletion. Neither category is needed for this content. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom and following on from the deletion of the trivial and non-notable articles which were previously in the category. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the sole article in the category has now been deleted at AFD. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Illegality is not property of the drug itself but condition of nations legislation at given point in history. One substance can be illegal in one coutry and legal in other. Categorizing by legality/illegality would be ethnocentric and chronocentric. This is also overcategorizational. --Custoo (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is the sort of information that is much better presented in the form of lists such as those in Category:Lists of drugs which can include sourced information about the specific circumstances of the illegality (country, dates, etc.). Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator, there are a million and one drugs that are illegal in some place and not illegal in others; ergo, this category makes no sense at all. Proper categorization of this type would be of the style, Category:Drugs banned by the British government, etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. I also don't think we should go down the path of categorizing on a per-country basis either - this could mean that each drug would have 190 different categories depending on it's legal status. Lists are the way to go here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has problems not only with different countries and changes over time, but in some circumstances different sub-units of countries have different laws that make some drugs illegal while other parts of the country lack such laws, so we might in some cases need categories for specific US states and I would not be surprised if India and some other countries may have differening drug regulations in some cases at the sub-national level as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It might be appropriate to have list articles for each country (and probably US state or other jurisdiction) and a parent category for usch lists, but there must be 250-300 differnet national POVs on the issue of what should be illegal. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Non-notable award, typical of the sorts of honorifics famous people tend to accumulate in droves. Fails WP:OC#AWARD. Deleted previously but speedy was declined as "not the same code", which, I have no idea what that means. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because I don't see how it's helpful. I declined the speedy request; let me explain my meaning. With articles, projectspace pages, templates, etc., it's easy to produce a viable new page at a certain title after the old title is deleted without it being G4-eligible — just include different contents, since it's not a repost. Since categories work completely differently, we need to be extremely strict on the A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy part of the criterion: a category title needs to be just as open to new creation as any other kind of page title, so we need to ensure that the contents (which for a category generally comprise just parent categories and a short description) be identical before we speedy delete them. When someone creates a completely new article on a subject that was deleted in 2010, it doesn't qualify for G4 speedy deletion, and in the same way a CFD from 2010 shouldn't be used to qualify a new category for speedy deletion. Nyttend (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
speedy merge plz these are duplicates.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sure there is a content minimum for having a category, but this person has articles relating to he performances of music as well as writing songs (the best known and widely awarded of which received he did not perform) and so this seems like the appropriate place to keep the articles related to him categorized. Rlendog (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Small eponymous category, not needed to connect the material which is already linked through the subject's article itself. Note to nominator, a better deletion rationale than "too little content" perhaps with links to such guidelines as WP:OC#SMALL and WP:OC#EPONYMOUS would make for better CFD experiences. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:do not merge; this is without prejudice to a future nomination for renaming. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very similar names, completely similar functions Codename Lisa (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (cat creator). Thanks for bringing this ambiguity to editors' attention. The very similar names should not imply completely similar (i.e. identical) functionality. To put the nomination in context, it's worth noting the existence of
"... emulation software" is for software running under that system which is used for emulation of other sytems
"... emulators" is for emulation of that system under any system
It is acknowledged that an explanation of the above is desirable on the category pages themselves, and I'll probably do so before this discussion is closed. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Can we at least disambiguate them? I still think they are synonyms; the only thing against it is Trevj's word. Can you be certain that you can remember their difference once you forgot about this discussion?
By the way, we should we have a category with only one entry? Remove it and have its content moved to its parent.
Hi. I didn't dream up this naming convention, but took it from use with other OSes, as listed at Category:Emulation software. As for the matter of the category being currently sparsely populated, this is something which can be addressed in connection with WP:RISCOS. I don't see this as presenting a problem, nor how removing the category would assist editors wanting to improve the encyclopedia by writing new articles which would fit within the category. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 09:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete - subjective category. Anyone can accuse anyone else of anything; at what level does an "accusation" become categorizable? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Jerry Pepsi noted, anyone can accuse anyone of anything, and if we kept categories for all such allegations, pretty much every article on a person or organisation would have a plethora of such categories. Note that "terrorism" is one of the words to avoid, and Category:Terrorists was deleted at CFD in 2009. We do have Category:Organizations designated as terrorist, which at least meets WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV ... but since the only such categories are of organisations designated in that way by govts, they are not neutral. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subjective, non-defining, and potentially libelous. When a topic belongs in a category, it should be pretty straight-forward. However, the lone use of this category seems to instead be a point of real tension in that article, which alone is probably evidence that we should avoid such categorization. Mbinebritalk ← 02:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge with cat Eco-terrorism - Enough governments, notable experts and the group themselves apply the term "Eco-terrorist" to the organization. All of this has been carefully cited on the Eco-terrorism page and multiple pages related to SSCS. There is no sense in saying "accused of" if it's that well documented. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See the headnote on Category:Homophobia. It is used for issued relating to homophobia, and not for individuals, groups or media that are allegedly homophobic. The same principle should be applied to categories based on other pejorative terms, such as "Eco-terrorist". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) •(contribs) 07:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As noted on your talk-page, Eco-terrorism (crimes related to ecology) is more analogous to Category:Hate crime (crimes related sex pref and race) than than Homophobia (catch all term of anti-gay bias). Homophobia is a pejorative that the governments of the world just don't use to define that type of crime and is therefore not a good comparison. Eco-terrorism most definitely is a term governments use (officially) to define a certain type of crime, as is Hate crime therefore we should treat the two crime type categories similarly and the pejorative term differently. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, you seem to be under the impression that Wikipedia's purpose is to reflect the POV of particular governments. That is not the case, and an NPOV encyclopedia should be careful to neither endorse nor oppose govt viewpoints. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not upmerge - I do see some value in this category, because it needs to be clear that this organisation has only been accused, not convicted but, per the comments here such as "Subjective, non-defining, and potentially libelous", this cat should be deleted. Comments at the Category:Organizations accused of piracy TfD indicate that upmerging should not occur, for the very reasons that people have supported deletion of that category. The same comments are being made here, so upmerging should not happen if this category is deleted. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete and don't upmerge the one content. We don't categorize by accusations.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The considerations are the same as in the piracy case (and about the same article). We might have a convicted category, but accusations are largely POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Documentary films about American sports[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete, for now at least. Consensus here was not dead set against creating the type of category in the original proposal. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:This edit by User:Clarityfiend I think underscores a problem and an ambiguity with the current title. Sports like baseball and basketball are American-invented sports that are now played in a great many countries. Should we rename the category in some way to make its parameters clear? Soccer is not an "American sport," yet it is my opinion that a documentary on U.S. soccer should be included here (and indeed, I've recently added one).I do believe that sports in the U.S. is such a vast field -- and that we have enough articles on sports docs -- that an American-specific category is an aid to navigation, as a subcat of Category:Documentary films about the United States, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, another option is we just delete it. There's a growing number of subcategories of documentary films about specific sports, and perhaps that's a more useful way to go, without creating a parallel structure for sport doc by country, too? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although some sports have their origins in the United States, their spread around the world means that they aren't really "American" sports any longer. Inclusion of a sub-category for basketball films is illustrative of the problem, since basketball is played in dozens if not hundreds of countries. Splitting out documentaries by sport seems like a more sensible route at this point, without broaching the by-country division at this point. Films should already be categorized by country in such categories as Category:American documentary films. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Relisted at 2013 NOV 7 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
