Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 19

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} no consensus --Kbdank71 13:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|UPN network affiliates}}

{{lc|The WB network affiliates}}

• Delete because these networks are dead as of yesterday. This is a nomination on behalf of WikiProject Television Stations, done by myTrackerTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) on 23:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC).
• Either rename these categories as "Former UPN network affiliates" and "Former WB network affiliates" or convert the categories into lists. I can imagine people wanting to know which stations used to be affiliated with these networks. --Metropolitan90 06:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to :category:Former UPN network affiliates and :category:Former The WB network affiliates per Metropolitan90. - jc37 02:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete then create List of former UPN network affiliates and List of former The WB network affiliates, adding both lists to :category:Defunct_television_channels. Example is List_of_former_DuMont_Television_Network_Affiliates. Otherwise change DuMont pages for consistency. --Skapare 09:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 13:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Not quite sure what the policy on book-by-author categories is, so this may be perfectly OK... but Vogel only ever wrote one sf novel, and given that he's been dead for around 100 years, it's doubtful that he'll ever write another one. This strikes me as overcategorisation. Grutness...wha? 23:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

:Delete, can only ever have one member. --ais523 15:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 17:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 13:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Professor}}

• Delete, Category has a couple of problems. First, it only has one article (consider merging that article into :Category:Academics or an appropriate subcat). Second, most professors are already under academics, so I'm not sure this category is needed. Finally, if kept, the name is incorrectly singular tense and should probably be changed to :Category:Professors Dugwiki 22:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete :Category:Professors has been deleted before. It causes confusion without adding value as the seniority and merit needed to attain professorship varies widely from country to country. Choalbaton 01:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Mark as {{tl|deletedcategory}}...?  David Kernow (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Choalbaton. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 13:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please delete "People from Harlem". Another editor created a redirect to List of people from Harlem, which was not my intention, but I can see it is a duplication of efforts. Category page is empty. Thanks!! HOT L Baltimore

• Delete Classification by neighbourhood is overspecific. Choalbaton 01:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Choalbaton Calsicol 17:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as category is empty. And while I agree with Choalbaton that, in general, classification by neighbourhood is overspecific, in some cases it may be necessary to keep the categories from getting so big as to be useless, and New York City (along with Los Angeles) are the only two cities in the United States where I think this might apply. If the category were filled, things might be different. Badbilltucker 17:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 13:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

:Category:FC Basel 1893 footballers

• Delete, category already exists at :Category:FC Basel players. Chanheigeorge 21:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect into :Category:FC Basel players. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 13:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Gay unfriendly companies}}

• Delete, Original research,POV categorization of companies, and possible libel. Ragib 19:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Ragib. --Yamla 19:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Although it has no articles at the moment, so I don't know which pages (if any) have been in there, it is quite obvious that the title displays a POV, and, as per Ragib, libel allegations are possible. Delete as an attack category. Picaroon9288 19:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As above, looks too subjective. Best you could possibly do along these lines might be someting based on objective criteria, such as "Organizations that officially do not allow gay membership". While I'm not sure that category is encylopedic, it would at least be objectively verifiable and not as subject to POV inclusion/exclusion.Dugwiki 21:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Extreme example of a POV category. Choalbaton 01:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - possible libel implications and definite POV, probably original research as well. Badbilltucker 14:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. While the HRC produces an annual report to evaluate the gay-friendliness of various corporations (and I believe this is what the user was going for), a category devoted to that is POV-pushing. Perhaps the articles on specific corporations can include the HRC findings (cited, of course) in a "Criticism" section. -- Merope ^Talk 15:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• 'Strong delete per Ragib. Cain Mosni 18:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Supporters of "x" /critics of "x" categories require citations/evidence, which is not possible in a category. - jc37 02:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete More of a familiar strain of POV pushing. Golfcam 03:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• :Category:British Museum people to :Category:People associated with the British Museum
• :Category:British Museum collections to :Category:Collections of the British Museum :Category:Collection of the British Museum

• Rename. The change to the collections cat would be consistent with all of the other subcats of :Category:Museum collections. The proposal for the people category also follows the standard for categories of people associated with a certain institution (e.g. :Category:People associated with the London School of Economics, etc.). [talk to the] HAM 18:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Rename first nomination (:Category:British Museum people to :Category:People associated with the British Museum); Neutral as regards second. NB :Category:British Museum collections currently seems to be either misnamed or misused, as it seems to contain articles on individual items, not collections... Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

::The "collections" cats are indeed intended for individual objects in the collection of a museum, in this case the British Museum. While I have no strong objection to using the singular (i.e., "Collection of the British Museum"), I think the plural emphasises the fact that almost all museums are a composite of different collections, especially one as massive as the British Museum (where each of the dozen or so departments has its own collection, so to speak).

::As for articles on a collection within a museum, the only example I know of such a thing is Hope Entomological Collections, which is currently being considered for merging with Oxford University Museum of Natural History anyway. A category for actual collections within the British Museum would be pointless as no Wikipedia pages on them exist nor are likely to for some time. Best, [talk to the] HAM 18:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

::: Thanks for more rationale; however, I'm still confused by the nomenclature – apologies in advance if I'm missing something obvious. If "the "collections" cats are indeed intended for individual objects in the collection of a museum", why aren't these category names :Category:Objects in the British Museum or the like...?  When I saw :Category:British Museum collections, I thought I'd see articles such as "John Doe Memorial Collection", "Davy Jones Maritime Collection" etc etc, i.e. articles on collections of objects...?  Yours, David (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Ideally I'd like a single standard nomenclature across the board for subcats of cat:Museum collections (as there currently is, with the exception of the anomalous "British Museum collections". Oh, and :Category:Metropolitan Museum of Art, but that can wait until another day). The beauty of "Collections of the X Museum" as I see it is that it can encompass objects, artworks, biological specimens, anything under the sun. Giving the cat a more specific title might result for CfD wrangling over whether "artefact" or "antiquity" or whatever might be better phrasing; in the past I've had to send :Category:Works in the Louvre to CfD for deletion for that same reason.

::::However, I can see that the plural "Collections" is confusing. I suppose there's less ambiguity in Collection of the British Museum – it can only mean one thing: the collection of the BM and the objects within it. My point about museums being a composite of collections is perhaps a little too subtle for a categorisation scheme; a good deal of articles on museums treat their subject as a single, monolithic collection anyway. Would that clear things up for you? Regards, [talk to the] HAM 09:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

::::: Thanks for continuing to address my query; I fear, however, that "Collection" in the sense of "an object collected" is not straightforward – or am I misinterpreting your use of this word...?  :Category:Objects in the British Museum, containing articles about individual objects in the British Museum – in general, Category:Objects in X – seems straightforward and sufficient to me (and, I'd hope, most readers). It then releases "Collections of" for specific (named) collections of objects held in museums etc along the lines I'd expected above. Yours, David (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::: Don't worry, my understanding of the word "collection" is no different from yours; I certainly don't take it to mean "an object collected". Note that I've changed my mind since the original proposal and now want to ditch that abstruse plural "Collections" after all the confusion it's caused. Each article in the category in question is not "a collection" of the British Museum, but a constituent part of the "Collection of the British Museum". For that reason I think that my proposed change of name is an appropriate one; nothing that I've read on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) seems to disallow it.

:::::: Now let me explain my aversion to :Category:Objects in the British Museum. Objects, first of all, could not be applied across the board for all subcats of :Category:Museum collections, because for the art museums we would have to change it to Artworks (unless, say, the Mona Lisa is to be merely an "Object in the Louvre"). So we potentially have a situation in which Elgin Marbles is categorised under "Objects in the British Museum" whereas Venus de Milo is under "Artworks in the Louvre". This would be senseless as the Parthenon sculptures are as much works of art as the Venus, but simply because they're in a museum comprised mainly of antiquities they're disqualified from an Artwork category. Best not to be that specific about the nature of the work/object/thing; that was the consensus for the CfD vote that did away with :Category:Works in the Louvre (there was already a :Category:Collections of the Louvre, of which it was a subcat). So, I think that Category: Collection of the Foo Museum as a standard would apply itself most smoothly to all of the cat:Museum collections subcats.

:::::: Your point about "specific (named) collections of objects held in museums" has been noted; in the event of an article on such a collection being written it probably would end up in a category named something like "Category:Collections of the British Museum"; that's another of the reasons why I've changed my proposal from the plural to the singular. Thanks for your continued patience. [talk to the] HAM 20:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::: The thanks is also for your continued patience and efforts to enlighten me!

::::::: First, I've remembered that a museum or the like is usually more than the collection of objects it contains, so I think I now properly appreciate the use of "Collection of the British Museum [or of X]" (as distinct from say the "Library of..." etc).

::::::: Second, however, I'd say "object" seems the most generic, neutral and commonplace description; yes, the Mona Lisa or Elgin Marbles are usually considered as more than mere objects, but by the same token they're more than merely "collection"s, so I'd choose what I reckon is the more commonplace and readily understandable term: "object"...?  If a term such as "object" is used in place of "collection", this releases "collection" for use in identifying named collections of objects. Hope I haven't missed any of your points above!  Yours, David (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Rename both per nom. - EurekaLott 15:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

:Merge into :Category:Unknown-importance Writing system articles, convention of :Category:Unknown-importance articles. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 13:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

:Category:BBC radio comedy to :Category:BBC radio comedy programmes

• Rename, Similar ctas (including the television hierarchies) specify 'programmes', or 'shows' ("programmes" here because the BBC is British). The problem with the current name is that it is ambiguous, meaning that some comedians are being added. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom, maybe create a separate category for people like Jeremy Hardy who are Radio 4 regulars. Tim! 16:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 13:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Surrealist humor}}

• Delete, Poorly defined category. The notion of 'surreal' is too complicated, and is often used too freely. There is no guidelines offering what this cat considers sureal: seems POV, and probably inaccurate. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Calsicol 17:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 13:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Politician Astronauts}}

• Delete, scope problems as only Americans are included, and astronaut-first politician-second included along with pol-first astronaut-second. Basically an unneeded intersection category. Dhartung | Talk 09:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Overspecific. Choalbaton 01:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above (plus faulty capitaliz/sation). David Kernow (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 13:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|University shootings}}

• Delete, we already have :Category:School massacres and all the sub-categories within it, we don't need anymore. LindaWarheads 06:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, heaven forfend we have enough category members to make this necessary. Overrefinement. --Dhartung | Talk 09:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless, since, as LindaWarheads points out, we already have plenty of categories that cover the subject quite well. --Frescard 03:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} no consensus --Kbdank71 13:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Rename to :Category:Courtesans, prostitutes, and escorts. Some people have raised WP:BLP concerns about labeling escorts who advertise their "time" as actual prostitutes if they have never been convicted of such. Gamaliel 04:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Rename as above to avoid the possibility of legal action. Badbilltucker 14:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe escorts who are not also prostitutes or courtesans might feel misrepresented...?  David Kernow (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Any escort who doesn't want to be associated with prostitution should have thought things through before getting into the escort business. Golfcam 03:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, nn escorts should not be here. Clean the category instead to have only people who can be primarily caracterised as prostitutes. E.g. Valerie Solanas doesn't look so and Guseva is known only by her attack on Rasputin. Pavel Vozenilek 17:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Pavel. I have put a lot of thought into this proposal, as I had a couple of weeks advance notice that it was coming. There should be a separate cat for escorts. This is like having a category named "murderers and mean people" or "convicted felons and alleged jaywalkers". How, with a category, does one draw the distinction between those who have been convicted, or have admitted committing the crime of prostitution, and those who may have run an ad as an escort, but we have no evidence that they ever had any customers? In response to Golfcam, in Japan, "escorts" are most certainly not prostitutes. They are well paid to sit at a table with a customer and talk to him. Crockspot 21:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.