Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 23

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename to Former women's universities and colleges in the United States that became coeducational. David Kernow (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Women's Colleges that are Coeducational to Category:Former women's universities and colleges in the United States

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The current name is a contradiction in terms, as a women's college cannot be coeducational. The category description says that it is for former women's colleges which now admit men. I chose the new name to coincide with Category:Women's universities and colleges in the United States. I'm not an expert on categories, but perhaps this would be best placed as a subcategory of that one. If the current name is kept, the improper capitalization needs to be addressed. Djrobgordon 07:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, but I propose as an alternative Category:Women's colleges that became coeducational. I made the change to the associated template before coming here. "Former" I think is overbroad in that it implies inclusion of defunct colleges. Wl219 08:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I prefer your suggestion as well. It's a better description, and more succinct. --Djrobgordon 16:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that Category:Women's colleges that became coeducational is a fantastic new name. It affirms that the college was once exclusively female, but is not any more and does not suggest that the college was closed (such as Evelyn College for Women) or absorbed into another school (such as Radcliffe College). How does one go about changing it? MUW Fan 17:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - agree with the other comments. Metamagician3000 00:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nominator Great new name. Makes more sense. The only reason I don't support the alternative that Wl219 proposes is because a school like Florida State University started all-male, went all-female, and then became coeducational. I feel like it's better defined as "former women's university" over "women's colleges that became..." Overall, though, I would be happy with either renaming. Kushboy 06:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support nominator. I think Category:Former women's universities and colleges in the United States is definitely the best wording. The Florida State example also came to mind for me, so I agree that the original proposal makes the most sense and can cover all the different situations I can think of. Beginning 20:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think we can solve the Florida State problem by creating and including it in a companion Category:Men's colleges that became coeducational and Template:Men's colleges that became coeducational. There's nothing about WP that says Florida State can't be in both. Wl219 22:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up - Although I think the Men's college category may become over-populated given the history of sexism in the US... Wl219 23:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "former WU&C" might include colleges that went kaput before they ever became coed. Is that intended? Is that okay? Otherwise, why not something like, "historically women's U & C", parallel with "historically Black colleges"? That also fixes the Florida State problem because it wasn't a historically women's college. And we do not need "Men's colleges that became coed"; it's not a notable feature of them, because it was the default for most colleges & universites. --lquilter 18:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Historically black colleges and universities is actually a legal term as defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965; the definition is: "any historically black college or university that was established prior to 1964, whose principal mission was, and is, the education of black Americans, and that is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association or is, according to such an agency or association, making reasonable progress toward accreditation.” I am not aware of any similar classification for historically female schools. MUW Fan 03:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bronze Medallion recipients (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - overcategorization by award. Otto4711 07:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is an award given by New York City to people who are so famous that they win many awards anyway. The category says little about the people's achievements while contributing to category clutter. This award's recipients are already listed at Bronze Medallion (New York City award), so no listification is necessary. Dr. Submillimeter 11:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  overcategorization; not a major award enough to merit a category. Prolog 01:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment the Bronze Medallion is a rating in life-saving. 70.55.84.248 06:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete of a category that seems able to resurrect itself. I am not salting since the names are changing with the resurrections. Vegaswikian 23:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters who can resurrect themselves (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This category has little or no potential for growth. Very few characters actually satisfy the conditions, and in most cases those it is used on are simply immortal. —

• Keep - I've made a change on the parent/grandparent thing. It should be that Category:Fictional immortals should be kept far and separate from this category because not all immortals can resurrect themselves, per say. Shall I list an example? Power level (Dragon Ball) 06:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You're missing the point entirely. By removing the cat, which Snapper restored, you're only making my case better. Those who can resurrect themselves are by definition immortal. Also, you've completely misunderstood the relation between parent and sub-cats. Having a parent cat of immortals in no way implies what you think it does. —

  T | C) 07:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Speedy delete and salt as recreated content. For good or ill, consensus is that a category for fictional characters who can resurrect themselves is not appropriate. Variations on this category have been created and deleted several times already. Otto4711 07:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt - This category appears to have the ability to resurrect itself. Two variants on this category title were deleted within the past week. Two other variants were deleted in Oct 2006 and Jan 2007. This category needs to be blocked. Dr. Submillimeter 07:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is no good reason to delete it. Characters who can resurrect themselves are not "simply" immortal, and deserve a separate category. Furthermore, people who can resurrect themselves are not necessarily immortal. For example, some role-playing games allow characters to cast spells on themselves that will resurrect them if they die while said spells are active; however, this is not immortality, as the characters can still die permanent deaths and presumably age normally. Even if that weren't the case, the category is specific enough to warrant its separation from "fictional immortals". One might, and I emphasize "might", think that there aren't enough fictional characters to fill the category at this time, and that it should be deleted for that reason, but under no circumstances should its recreation be prevented because more fictional characters with this ability might be written in the future. Cosmetor 08:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, consensus can change, but to consistently recreate a cat immediately after a CfD result of "Delete" or "Speed Delete" is flat wrong. It reads as the editor does not believe consensus matters. Additionally, with the situation with the Feb 17 nom, this verges on looking like disruptive editing. — J Greb 20:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as an improper recreation. LukeHoC 11:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt this persistent recreation. Someone just keeps bringing it back. The name isn't even accurate. Doczilla 17:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt the previous CfDs are here, here, and here. The Feb 17 CfD was either circumvented or the closing admin did not bother to close the section. Could someone look into the deletion of the category involved in that one and find out what exactly happened? Additionally, I strongly suggest that all three previously deleted cats be salted as well as the suggested rename from the Feb CfD. — J Greb 20:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woohookitty deleted that last discussion per CfD/speedy. Vegaswikian 23:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest this category either listified or renamed, as it's not the places that are palindromic but their names. Category:Places with palindromic names...?

David Kernow (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as arbitrary standard for inclusion. These places have nothing in common other than the coincidence that their names can be spelled the same way backward and forward. There might just barely be enough justification for a list but not for a category. Otto4711 06:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Otto4711. LukeHoC 11:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:OC#Unrelated subjects with shared names. ~ BigrTex 15:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and maybe listify. I'd find a list interesting, and the list would be unobtrusive. It's too trivial for categorization, though. The list would have been helpful a few years ago when I needed to discuss palindromes in a lecture. I say "maybe", though, because there are palindrome sources on the Internet. Doczilla 17:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Would follow similar reasoning to the cfd discussion for Category:Palindromes which was deleted Jan 23 2006. Dugwiki 00:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Prove It ^(talk) 14:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- this [1] Wikipedia backlog taskpage has been cleared of all the work inside it - no new tasks are expected to be added here. So can it be removed? Guroadrunner 05:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per
  CSD C1. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 05:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete as empty. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, this category is likely to rampantly grow. So, either delete, or split into more subcats. --PlayStation 69 05:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's manageable for now. Maybe split Windows X into a Category:Discontinued Microsoft Windows versions but the overall category is worth keeping. Wl219 09:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep MS mostly keep releasing newer versions of programs without phasing them out entirely Corpx 11:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete endless category. We don't advertise for Microsoft. We're not their help desk. The "discontinued" distinction is like categorizing by whether people are dead or alive, which Wikipedia explicitly says not to do. Doczilla 17:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The category by itself doesn't advertise for MS. There are multiple non-adv. articles on notable MS software products, and it is useful to distinguish between the ones MS still supports and the ones they don't. Using the people dead/alive analogy is erroneous. WP has categories for defunct companies, airlines, etc. etc. and this is more similar to those. Wl219 22:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Lugnuts 20:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and break out the Windows versions per Wl219. SubSeven 04:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge to Poltergeist films. Tim! 18:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Poltergeist saga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deelete as redundant to Category:Poltergeist films. Otto4711 04:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was listify and delete. the wub "?!" 20:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Conviction cast
• Category:Law & Order: Criminal Intent cast
• Category:Law & Order: Special Victims Unit cast
• Category:Law & Order: Trial by Jury cast

Listify, Delete just as related nominiation, these are subcats of Category:Law & Order cast members. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - All the shows are completely independent of each other than an occasional connection. Should be kept seperate. Corpx 10:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and Delete These are better suited to a list and will help avoid category clutter. ~ BigrTex 15:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and Delete, but there should be separate lists for each show. Crumbsucker 02:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment these all seem to have been included under the Actors by series nomination; they should already be liable for speedy deletion once listified.

Xdamr^talk 17:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Corpx. All are independent. A list would be impossible to manage, keep track of, etc. Linking directly from the actors' article is of great help. Michael 01:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Poltergeist saga people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - this category is serving as an ersatz writer/producer/director by series category. Participants in the Poltergeist film series can be noted in the article for the participant, the relevant film or both. No justification for this category. Otto4711 04:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 08:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Categorizing people by project is inappropriate, as it leads to category clutter. Dr. Submillimeter 13:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and per Dr. Submillimeter. --Xdamr^talk 17:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bivalve images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All images on the commons, commons does a better job of image organisation. Delete Peta 04:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete (checked all images are tagged {{

Category:Sponge images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have moved all images in this category to the commons, image galleries and categories are better set up there, and this will be empty as soon as the transwikied images are deleted. DeletePeta 04:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete (checked all images are tagged {{

Category:Myxozoan images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have moved all images in this category to the commons, image galleries and categories are better set up there, and this will be empty as soon as the transwikied images are deleted. DeletePeta 04:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree - good deal then! Corpx 10:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep Tim! 18:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of films with features in common (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - this may be a first for me. A category that should be deleted which contains some 30 articles that should all also be deleted. Every one of the articles constitutes an

Keep - This is a wholesale attempt to purge 30 articles with no consideration of their individual merit. The reason given for each article is a canned sentence with only the subject of the article changed in each. There are thousands of list on Wikipedia and many are quite useful. The same criteria given here could be used to purge them all. From WP:LIST: "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." This discussion should be consolidated in one place and I think here would be appropriate.--agr 04:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have considered the individual merit of the articles contained within this category, and my feeling is that the vast majority of them have none. Those articles have been nominated for deletion.
  WP:NOT bars loosely associated depositories of information and this category serves no function but to house such depositories. Otto4711 04:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Perhaps the sticking point is "loosely associated." Most of these articles have a very narrow focus. E.g.
  Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Some of the lists in this category I agree do not fit within those guidelines. List of films which end in protagonist's death is far too broad, for example. There's another whose name I don't think I have to repeat here. But most are tightly defined and potentially useful to people interested in film or the underlying topic, e.g. mental illness, computers or passwords.--agr 11:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• WP:LIST and
  WP:USEFUL is also not a compelling argument. Otto4711 16:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

WP:NOT is far from clear cut. It says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply:" and it then enumerates several types of article that are not allowed. The type of list we are talking about are not one of them. Guidelines exist in part to provide interpretation of policies. A guideline is "generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow." Under your interpretation of WP:NOT almost none of the lists on Wikipedia would survive and the list guidelines would be pointless. If so those guidelines should be changed and that process would be the right place to debate the role of lists on Wikipedia. --agr 17:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

A goodly number of the lists on Wikipedia probably shouldn't survive, and the vast majority of the lists in this category are among them. Judging from the number of "...in popular culture" articles that have been getting deleted lately as being indiscriminate/directories there does seem to be an increasing consensus that this sort of list does violate

WP:NOT. Otto4711 00:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually I'm going to disagree with the contention that there is "increasing consensus" that lists of trivia fall under WP:NOT. In fact, if anything, the consensus in the discussions I've seen seemed to be that WP:NOT is generally overly and incorrectly cited in afd and cfd discussions as a means to try and remove materials individual editors feel is "trivial". There is as yet no consensus on what constitutes trivia, nor any real consensus on pop culture articles. Dugwiki 00:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The category doesn't fall afoul of any one particular wiki policy. While of limited usage, that's no reason to delete. The category needs to be cleaned up as do the individual articles, but that is a separate issue. Zotdragon 17:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Zotdragon Lugnuts 20:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree with User:agr's take on the nature of this move. Several of the articles in there are *%$#; and should be AfD'd, but that doesn't mean all of them are nor that the category serves no purpose. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yeah, I agree with the above comments. The nomination appears overly broad. If the intent is to try and delete the included articles, that needs to be handled on a case by case basis at afd, not here. And if you assume that the articles are (at least for now) kept in place, then this category probably makes sense as a way to index them. So I'd recommend closing this particular discussion and, if desired, instead nominate the individual articles that might appear to require deletion. Dugwiki 00:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Change to Keep I have voted in support of many of the lists included in the category, but there are some that should be deleted as well. This category could use a name change as suggested by Hoverfish below. Lists of films is a good collection of lists of films which is well-organized. The category should be renamed to better cover the variety of lists on the page.--Nehrams2020 05:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename As long as some or most of the lists are kept, we will have them loose again under the parent category (Category:Lists of films), which has already lots of loose pages in it. I was trying to put some order in the parent category, so I created this category and it helped for a while. I dout that all these lists will be finally deleted, as they will get support from many editors, so this category should stay to keep them contained. Hoverfish Talk 07:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• After a round through all individual lists, I have to add Strong keep (still with "rename", if a better name is found). Many lists are going to be kept and they need this category to be contained in. Hoverfish Talk 09:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep for all the reasons given so far, plus the fact that the original nominator's attempt to delete pretty much all the articles in the category looks like it it going to fail on at least half of them. However, I would support a category rename if a better-sounding name was found. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:A-level English Literature Set Texts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete There are probably several thousand books that have been set as A-level texts by one of the various British exam boards over the last 60 years or so, and many of them will also have been set as texts for various other exams in the UK and other countries. This is not a defining characteristic of the books. Haddiscoe 00:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Peta 04:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, as non defining. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete - This category does not represent a view shared by the rest of the world. Dr. Submillimeter 07:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. LukeHoC 11:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 17:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unworkable category. Metamagician3000 00:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 section.