Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 6

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete via {{db-g7}}. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User Barek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow category for a single user, PrefixFinder does the same function. MBisanz ^talk 17:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -
  WP:UCFD? - That aside, there's a fairly consistent precedent for deleting such categories. - jc37 17:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - I hadn't spotted the guidelines against such categories; but if they exist or there's precedent for deletion, please go ahead and delete it. The category serves a fairly minor purpose - allowing me to more easilly track if changes are made to any of my subpages in my user space via this link which I've added to my "Interaction" nav box via my monobook.js settings. I can replicate the same thing via a sub-page within my user space rather than a user category. I'll go ahead and tag the category for user-requested deletion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - category now tagged with {{db-g7}}. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:37, 6 November 2008 (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: delete. Kbdank71 14:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Magno albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete: Category for albums by a non-notable (article deleted via AFD) artist. Only one article exists in the category (a collaboration with a notable artist). Pointless category. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the extant article has now been nominated for deletion. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2008 (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: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deleting Category:Fictional nuclear explosions in film and television, or at worst merging/listifying it to Nuclear weapons in popular culture.

Nominator's rationale: Delete or merge/listify:

1. Arbitrary, endless, pointless and unencyclopedic
   intersection
   . A fictional explosion and its type is not notable in any way; works depicting such explosions may be notable (on a case-by-case basis).
2. Redundant with suggested merge-to list.
3. Mal-named; if somehow kept, it should be moved to Category:Fictional nuclear explosions, since there is no rationale for separating out filmic ones, and there is/are no categor[y/ies] for non-filmic ones.

My preference is for...

• Delete, as nominator. I only support merge/listify as a last resort, in case some kind of rationale is found for retaining some form of this. If we keep this, we might as well have categories like Category:Fictional fist-fights, Category:Fictional hand-grenade explosions, etc. There has to be a limit to the level of nitpicky micro-specificity of detail in "fictional X" categories. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Weak Listify/Merge to
  WP:OC#Performers by venue.) - "Weak" because I'm not sure that the members of the category would be "notable" for the topic. - jc37 12:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: Just to clarify, there is no Category:Nuclear weapons in popular culture as a merge target. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I was merely noting that based on a previous version of your nomination (as I didn't realise you weren't finished : ) - It also struck me funny that you added listification (which caused us to ec). - jc37 13:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Right. I was half-asleep and had mistaken
  CfD tag on the nominated category from {{cfm}} to {{cfd}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: It's been brought to my attention that there are various other in-fiction categories under active CfDs at this point, so this nomination should be considered in conjunction with them, to the extent applicable. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the whole. I'm far from persuaded this is unencyclopedic, and can't agree that "A fictional explosion and its type is not notable in any way" & the nom's rant along similar lines. I'd prefer it if the science-fiction ones & those on Earth were separated. The parent Category:Films dealing with nuclear war and weapons is if anything less satisfactory, as films where the bomb is defused with 3 seconds on the counter bla-bla are generally a very different group from those where it goes off, or has done. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and possibly rename. I am absolutely floored by the assertion that filmic depictions of nuclear explosions are somehow "not notable in any way" -- and I'm shaking my head in disbelief at the reductio ad absurdum comparison with depictions of fist-fights and hand-grenade explosions. We might want to tweak the wording, though; perhaps "Fictional depictions of nuclear explosions in film and television". Cgingold (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Except that this isn't a category of nuclear explosions. It's a category of several films and television programs. And after a quick search, I'm not seeing much in the way of sources for the explosion being "notable" for things like Broken Arrow. - jc37 15:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You mean Broken Arrow (1996 film) presumably. Yet again, articles have to be on notable subjects, categories have to be defining for their subject. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  And having an explosion (nuclear or otherwise) in a fictonal presentation (film, television, etc.) is "defining" how? - jc37 18:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yet another question showing a basic lack of understanding of categorization principles. Not all nuclear explosions in films etc have to be defining, though it is not often, I would have thought, a throw-away moment. But to be in the category it should be defining for each member individually. As an example, that there is one shown on the poster for Broken Arrow is a good indication for this. Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I have to admit that you saying "Yet another question showing a basic lack of understanding of categorization principles." - and then following it up with "Not all nuclear explosions in films etc have to be defining...", and concluding that a promotional poster indicates whether something is "defining", made me laugh uproariously. - jc37 14:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Rename My arguments for retention largely echo those of Cgingold, including a potential rename target. I assume that residents of some cities in Japan would have readily chosen to have had hand grenades tossed at them or been involved in fistfights, rather than having had a nuclear weapon dropped on their hometowns, and this same distinction flows over to fiction, making it a rather strong defining characteristic. Argument 2, based on redundancy perpetuates the false dichotomy that we must choose between a list OR a category on a binary basis, in clear violation of
  WP:CLN's urging that categories AND lists are designed to work in synergistic fashion. To quote WP:CLN, "Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted just because they overlap." Alansohn (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - I must admit, the notion that fictional characters would prefer to get into fist fights than have nuclear bombs dropped on them is...novel... but ultimately this category is no different than various "films about Foo" categories that we've deleted over the last months/years. A made-for-TV movie like
  talk) 21:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Again, if the explosion is "merely incidental" it will not be defining and the articles should not be included on normal principles. That is no argument against the category itself, although a rename as suggested above might make this clearer. I agree that SF ones should be separated, and might agree that they would not deserve a category. But media about nuclear war/holocaust/WWIII on Earth is a notable genre, even though we don't seem to have anything except lists about it, falling mostly into 3 types: WW2, future leading up to the war/explosion, future starting from the war/explosion. No good reason has yet been advanced why these should not be categorized. We still have plenty of films by genre/subject/topic categories left and rightly so. Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, this requires some level of OR to decide how central or incidental to the categorized article the nuclear explosion is.
  talk) 22:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Sidenote: Deletionist's Quiz: What is the one film in Category:Films with open endings leaving the audience to draw their own conclusions? Prize: You get to do the nom. No cheating please. Johnbod (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  While I'm not a "deletionist", I had guessed that it was

  2001: A Space Odyssey (film). Guess I won't be doing the nom : ) - jc37 13:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I guessed Flaming Star. I didn't see the movie in the category, though, so my chances of winning were zero. --Kbdank71 14:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (as creator). Fists fights are totally irrelevant. Fictional works depicting nuclear explosions are defineable, finite and notable. There is no agonisation over inclusion criteria or original research required, it is a cat, simple as that. MickMacNee (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Again we have a plot element as a category. This is not a defining characteristic. If kept then we can add Category:Fictional warp core explosions in film and television. Why is this category deemed notable? If it is the size of the blast, then we need Category:Fictional explosions equivalent to nuclear explosions in film and television. If it is the radioactive damage then we need Category:Fictional dirty bombs in film and television. Listify if the information is helpful. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Warp core explosions are completely made up, collating them for comparison in a category would be totally pointless. With fictional depictions of nuclear blasts there is real world evidence to compare/contrast with. And finally, a nuclear blast is not a dirty bomb, again that's not relevant either as this category would not cover dirty bombs. MickMacNee (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I might note that fiction is "made up" as well...

  And "compare/contrast"? (And really, the whole of your comments...) Sounds like

  WP:OR to me. - jc37 05:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Yes, people do compare and contrast fictional works, is this a concept you are unaware of? The point being, there is actually a real world merit to comparing something that has a real world equivalent, it is a common activity in film study, some might say even central if one's field is in artistic direction. Comparing warp core explosions is only ever going to be a matter for memory alpha, and not serious mainstream film study. If you don't explain yourself further I can't really help you with why you might be having difficulty in accepting this catagory is defineable and verifiable, and hence by definition is never going to be OR. MickMacNee (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I am quite aware. The problem is that we, as Wikipedia editors, are not allowed to. It's considered

  Original research

  (A page that you may or may not benefit from reading.)

  And worse, creating a dividing line between explosion types, especially when you are suggesting that the usefulness is for artistic direction, suggests WP:OR even clearer.

  If you do feel that this is a noteworthy topic, then create a well-sourced article. Wikipedia would more greatly benefit from that, than merely having an unsourced category for unsourced reasons, with dubious benefits to navigation. - jc37 00:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I realy have no clue what you are on about. There is already a related article, only wider in scope. The difference is merely a sensible sub-division. I have no clue what supposed original research you think the existence of a simple category is advancing. It must be quite a terrible crackpot theory or tremendous leap of imagination for you to want the use of the category to be denied to all users for ever. Lets be clear, I care not a jot if other categories exist or not, theoretical or otherwise, I am only interested in keeping this one because I know it is sensible. If you honestly can't see the difference between the justification of not grouping pure pie in the sky made up depictions of warp core explosions, with grouping fictional depictions of real world events, and you actually need a source to explain that simple idea for you, then I truly don't know what to say to you. MickMacNee (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, again, it's rather clear that you don't understand what

  original research

  is on Wikipedia. And the key word is sourced, not "article".

  "...and you actually need a source to explain that simple idea for you" - Yes. That's exactly right. We need to have a scholarly

  original research. And that's simply not acceptable on Wikipedia. - jc37 02:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The category does not compare or differentiate anything for the purposes of presenting OR. There is no research or assertion being made here that needs a source, you have misunderstood totally what a category is for, it is a simple grouping of related articles on a defineable parameter, quality or attribute. Nothing unusual has been defined, no theory has been advanced, there is no dispute over what could and could not be in it (I am ignoring such basic errors as beliefs that dirty bombs are nuclear blasts etc). There is no original research here. I am bemused at your beliefs here. The very idea that it would be appropriate to add a {fact} tag to a category because you think it advances or represents some kind of OR is nonsensical, it is either a meaningfull defineable relationship deserving of a cat or it isn't. It does not need sources or verification or any other such rubbish that applies to articles, not categories. Seriously, I ask you again, what is the cookery or notion or theory or unsupported statement or anything else that comes under OR that is being enforced by the presence of this cat that you feel it needs deleting? I am not going to accept any argument along the lines of, if we do this then this, or if this hypothetical situation existed then we would have to do this, I want to know what the specific complaint is with this specific category. MickMacNee (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  "It does not need sources or verification or any other such rubbish that applies to articles, not categories" - Actually, you're quite incorrect in that. See point #7 under

  WP:OR. - jc37 09:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  You have it totally and completely wrong. The only requirement of part 7 is that you should be able to determine that each article in that category actually belongs in it, i.e. the film does actually feature a depiction of a nuclear blast. Considering films are a primary source, fulfilling that requirement is not rocket science, pun intended. MickMacNee (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Being present in a presentation doesn't mean that it's defining for the presentation. Who determines that? Aassuredly not us Wikipedians... - jc37 13:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  So you would require Cat:Films by X to show the fact that X appearing in film Y was defining otherwise it doesn't get included, or worse, the category should not exist? Utter nonsense, if X was in Y, X goes in the cat. This is a simple yes no decisision, it has absolutely nothing to do with examining sources about the general topic of films with significant nuclear blasts in, or provinding a source that shows whether it was a significant element of a particular film. Applying your idea of category inclusion criteria is actually what is applying OR, not stating that 'this is a cat of all films with a nuclear blasts in' - that is a simple statement of fact to aid navigation, the very definition of the purpose of a category. You have totally misunderstood the real purpose behind the sourcing and original research policies, and the purpose of categories. Nuclear weapons in fiction is a defined topic with an associated article, and this is a sensible accompanying category. MickMacNee (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fictional warp core explosions are made up. Fictional nuclear blasts are also made up. If we're only keeping because there is a real-world comparison, we really need to go back and delete all of the other fictional categories like Category:Fictional characters who use magic, Category:Fictional shapeshifters, Category:Fictional werewolves, etc. Not a defining characteristic. --Kbdank71 14:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  If-then arguments are never very strong reasons for deletion, I've never seen or used those cats, and their presence frankly doesn't matter one bit to this debate. And it is a defining characteristic, just because you do not think that anybody might want to know it, or make use of that relation, does not make that false. If you named a selection of the category contents to anybody who half knew films and asked them what the relation between them was, that would easily very early on pick out the fact they featured the depiction of a nuclear blast. That is the very definition of a defining characteristic, pun intended. They would not be left scratching their heads because it is such a hard trick question because the relation is so esoteric. A category does not have to be seen to be

  of use to the entire readership to justify its existence, it merely needs to represent a defineable and meaningful relation, which it does. MickMacNee (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Actually, you're describing an article. Categories need to be well-sourced in article space, and are merely technical aids to navigation. (The cyberspace version of tabbed indexing : ) - jc37 00:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Where did I describe an article in the above post? You lost me totally. And I have got zero idea what you mean by the statement "Categories need to be well-sourced in article space". If you mean every category needs an accompanying article to justify its existence, based on experience and common sense I think you are completely wrong (and as said above there already is a related article). This category is an aid to navigation, I have used it myself and is why I created it, so either I am a complete idiot for creating a usefull navigation tool without creating a parent article first (or rather messing around with the existing related one to meet this odd requirement), or you simply cannot conceive why or how I or others did or could use it for navigation. Either way, neither is a reason for deletion of a simple category. MickMacNee (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read

  WP:OR. I am hoping that that page may help clarify your confusion. - jc37 02:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I know what OR says, hence why above I have asked you again to explain what the specific supposed OR is that is being presented by this cat. MickMacNee (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  If you named a selection of the category contents to anybody who half knew films and asked them what the relation between them was is OR. Your buddy Joe the moviegoer does not count as a reliable source. --Kbdank71 14:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  He doesn't need to be a reliable source, see above, you have totally misunderstood what needs to be sourced here. MickMacNee (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not suitable category fodder. A bare alphabetical list is a poor way to present this information. Flowerparty^☀ 17:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (listify if wanted). Plot elements as categories are generally not workable as true categories. This is no different here. It's not defining for many, many of the included articles. For example, the nuclear explosion almost happens in passing in Independence Day (film). Not much time is spent on it, and no one left the theatre talking about when Houston was nuked, because it got such a passing mention. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is a pure trivia category. It serves no encyclopedic point. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used it myself to complete an encyclopoedic piece of work. Please do not call other editors use of the encyclopoedia trivial just because you personally would never use it. MickMacNee (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2008 (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: I. Am. Stunned. SMcCandlish, you really need to go away more often. :) Rename. Kbdank71 14:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Fictional extraterrestrial species to Category:Fictional extraterrestrial life forms

Rename Category:Fictional extraterrestrials to Category:Fictional extraterrestrial characters

To match the parent Category:Fictional life forms. (Which was renamed from Category:Fictional species due to this cfd discussion.)

And also due to miscategorisation confusion between these two cats. - jc37 11:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both - as nominator. - jc37 11:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per eminently sensible nom, and cited precedent. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This proposal has my blessing -- Rename both. So nice to agree on something, jc! :) Cgingold (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Jest: Sheesh, I absent myself for a while and all of a sudden people start getting along? This will not do. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both Though I will note that Category:Fictional extraterrestrial life forms does introduce some ambiguity as to whether this covers groupings of similar life forms ("species") or individual life forms ("characters"), I will support the rename for standardization purposes. Alansohn (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2008 (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: no consensus. If I could make a recommendation, and feel free to ignore it if it's unworkable. Leave Category:Diamond for the mineral, and create Category:Diamonds, or Category:Diamonds (gemstone) for the stone. Create appropriate hatnotes to explain what each is for to avoid confusion. Alternatively, create Category:Diamonds or Category:Diamonds (gemstone) for the stone (as above), but renominate Category:Diamond to be renamed to Category:Diamond (mineral). We don't have to have just one category here, you people know that. Kbdank71 14:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Diamond to Category:Diamonds

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I tossed up whether to mark this for a speedy rename, but it's not a straightforward one. Most of this category is about diamonds, plural, and in many ways it mirrors the (pluralised) Category:Pearls, the only other subcat of Category:Gemstones that it can be compared with. On the other hand, it could be argued that, like many minerals, diamond could be considered a better name when taking about the mineral itself, and the "s" is only added when talking about individual stones. personally, I think that pluralising it would make sense in terms of WP naming conventions re categories using plurals, and most other minerals either use the form Category:Foo minerals or use plurals (e.g., Category:Zeolites and most of the other subcats of Category:Silicate minerals). Grutness...wha? 08:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: "Diamond" in the singular is rare, and readers will not expect it (to the extent that they actually internalize WP category naming conventions at all, which is arguably to an incredibly minuscule extent). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - This type of semantic debate always reminds of those foreground/background graphics, where your perception flips back and forth from one to the other. In the end, I think it's best to go with Category:Diamonds, because in the vast majority of cases we're dealing with discrete objects, not merely the substance itself. Cgingold (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

??? Have you seen the category contents? Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per standard convention for such generic categories, and to avoid it being mistaken for Category:Named diamonds with 51 articles. "Zeolites" etc are not good comparisons, as there are many types, whereas to the geologist, and apart from artificial ones, all diamonds are diamond. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the category covers
  Maui Diamonds, or political like blood diamond.-choster (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • What about Category:Pearls though? It is the most similar category to Category:Diamond. One of these two categories must be wrong, surely. If this one stays at Diamond, perhaps the other one needs renaming...? Grutness...wha? 22:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could go for renaming. The main article, after all, is Pearl.-choster (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per
  Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Special_conventions_for_lists_of_items - the very first bulletpoint. - jc37 17:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The category is not just about a "kind of X." -choster (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Notice it says "and/or". - jc37 17:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you please notice that the category contains all sorts of articles about diamonds, diamond mining and the diamond trade, and is not remotely covered by that para, but by the one above, which says general topics should have singular category names. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misinterpret the cat if you think it's "not remotely covered by that para". But that aside, I'm wondering if, by your argument, shouldn't Category:Women be Category:Woman? - jc37 13:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should, also to match the main article Woman. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd like to see that discussion. Feel free to nominate that for CfD. I'll keep an eye out for it. - jc37 14:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diamonds and women are not analogous here. Diamond is a substance, whereas women are discrete beings. A jeweler can cut a chunk of diamond into ten pieces, each of which could be called a diamond but each of which is still made of diamond. Cut a woman into ten pieces, and not only could none of those ten pieces be called a woman, but I would see the jeweler swiftly jailed.-choster (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is a bit of consistency at Category:Synthetic diamond, though I will agree that the parent Category:Gemstones contains Category:Pearls, but perhaps that name ought to be reconsidered per Grutness. I think that either name has issues, nut the singular is a bit clearer to referencing the subject, not individual stones. Alansohn (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If the concerns are there there are Dimanod-related topics and diamnods in the cat, why not just create Category:Diamonds, for subcat under Category:Gemstones, and rename Category:Diamond to Category:Diamond-related topics (Compare to Category:Comics-related lists.) - jc37 13:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Choster's comment above for why this would not work. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2008 (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: rename. Kbdank71 14:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cleopatra to Category:Cleopatra (gastropods)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is for the genus of gastropods, not for the queen. Even though the category currently claims

Cleopatra VII, and Cleopatra (disambiguation) sets out a number of meanings. The category was bot-created so it's not surprising no disambiguation was used. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename obviously badly named, considering the usage by Shakespeare. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename: 99.9% of users will be thinking of the historical figure. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• By all means, rename. But I'm afraid SMcCandlish is a bit off -- I'd say at least 99.999% of users would be thinking of the historical figure! Cgingold (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I hate the parens, but anything to avoid the natural assumption that this is about the individual. Alansohn (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2008 (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: delete. Kbdank71 14:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Raggonix's Stuff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This appears to be a category associated with a single user. Stepheng3 (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree,
  User:Raggonix made this up for his own things rather than to classify articles to organize Wikipedia.—Largo Plazo (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete, and then some per
  WP:CSD at C1 (nothing of WP value an possible populate this category), G8 (there is no article on this non-notable user), arguably G1 (under a liberal interpretation of "patent nonsense"), and also G2 (not G3 - the user's obvious lack of understanding of what WP categories are for constitutes noob experimentation, not vandalism). As such, this also qualifies as non-controversial maintenance under G6. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:42, 6 November 2008 (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: rename. Kbdank71 14:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Colleges Affiliated to Calicut University to Category:Colleges affiliated with the University of Calicut

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To follow

WP:MOS with regard to capitalization and the University of Calicut article with regard to the institution's name. I also propose changing the preposition from to to with but I'm worried that might be an Americanism. If Indian usage favors to then I'd support Category:Colleges affiliated to the University of Calicut. Stepheng3 (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename per nom, and to the "with" version; "affiliated to" isn't particularly sensible in any dialect of English, I fear. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Renamethough the given university uses "to" [1]. Further, "affiliated to" not being sensible seems hardly tenable.

"If an organization affiliates to or with another larger organization, it forms a close connection with the larger organization or becomes a member of it. (FORMAL)". That's from Collins COBUILD. It gives several examples with "to"

"v.t. Adopt as a subordinate member of a society, branch of an organization or company, etc.; attach to or connect with an organization etc." M18. Excerpted from Oxford Talking Dictionary. But let me tell you that I don't have a native ear. Vat96 (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2008 (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.