Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 28
August 28
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 rename as nominated --Kbdank71 13:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Fantasy parodies". Radiant_>|< 19:33, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- rename as per nom. --Sherool 15:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 18:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. -- Reinyday, 23:50, 31 August 2005 (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 of the proposed deletion of 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 rename as nominated --Kbdank71 13:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the English Wikipedia, not the Japanese one, only devote fans (and people who understand Japanese) would understand the current name. To say nothing of consistency. Rename --Sherool 17:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely. Radiant_>|< 19:33, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- I can definately agree with this, there are quite a few, and it would be a waste to delete. However, I think we'll eventually run into making subs for the rest under Category:Voice actors. Which is fine, I see someone took some steps, but still a lot to be sorted. ∞Who?¿? 20:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Move as proposed. CalJW 22:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Move as proposed. --FuriousFreddy 14:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 18:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT if this is renamed then Seiyu should remain as a CategoryRedirect. 132.205.3.20 19:48, 29 August 2005 (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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 delete --Kbdank71 13:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant to Category:Artist groups and collectives. >>sparkit|TALK<< 17:38, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- And also miscapitalized. Merge please. Radiant_>|< 19:33, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, merge into Category:Artist groups and collectives (then delete Category:Artist Groups). --Sherool 18:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. No argument. siafu 00:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it has been emptied. - choster 19:14, 1 September 2005 (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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 delete --Kbdank71 13:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "The following lists on the men who are monster in human body". About as POV as you can get. Calton | Talk 17:24, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. There is no way the POV-ness of this could be redeemed. Joyous (talk) 17:35, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. POV cat. Shanes 18:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete POV. --Sherool 18:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Confusion between life and comic-books. Meggar 18:11, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
- Delete Rather redundant with other more NPOV categories already in existence. DreamGuy 18:34, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete; no way could it ever be made NPOV. Antandrus (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Patent nonsense. siafu 18:43, 29 August 2005 (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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 keep --Kbdank71 13:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The category itself is inherently vague and unnecessary. There is no possible way for anything to list all practicing lawyers, or all American lawyers regardless. There is a constant influx of lawyers who practice law after getting a law degree, and an outflux who die or no longer practice law. Are we to list every single American lawyer ever, from law school professors at obscure colleges to long-dead attorneys from the 19th century? The list would be endless, ridiculously difficult to compile, and impractical. Not to mention that not everyone with a law degree/bar admission practices law, and America has millions of lawyers who practice law in many fields, from corporate law to divorce law to international law. Are we to list all them, too?
I propose Wikipedia create (or if it already exists, merge with) an article of Notable American Lawyers. This category would not include every notable person with a law degree/bar admission, and restrict subjects to those who are icons in the American legal field: Clarence Darrow, Thurgood Marshall, Johnnie Cochran, and the like, while restricting unneccessary politicians and celebrities whose only qualification is they got a law degree. Howard Cosell and Star Jones for example, do NOT belong in this category. This article is impractical and should be removed offkilter 22:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment As I mentioned in my vote using adjectives (famous, notable etc) in names are against wikipedia policy. If you feel some of the articles in the category are non-notable then suggest them for deletion. If you feel that notable people listed in the category are not well enough known as lawyers just be bold and remove the category link from the article (or discuss it on the talk page of the article if you are unsure). The category itself is however fine. --Sherool 18:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While a renaming of the category to "Noteworthy American Lawyers" or "Notable American Attorneys" is advisable, and a paring down of the list to exclude unfamiliar or those without significant accomplishment, to delete the category entirely is too extreme.
Obviously, the towering figures in the field like Marshall and Darrow belong, but, yes, it is also interesting to note that celebrities who make their name in other fields hold a law degree. Where to draw the line can be up to wikipedians in the usual manner. Coolshoes
My main issue with this article is that it is hardly a category at all. The list is so broad that it contains so many members from so many categories that it fails to be a category on lawyers; rather, it is a category on famous people with a law degree. Just as George Washington belongs primarily in the "presidents" or "American Generals" category, a great many members of this group should be removed from this and placed in their rightful place. Politicians, commentators, jurists, and actors don't belong in the lawyer category, they belong in the politician, commentator, jurist, and actor category. I think that deleting this article is preferable because, short of renaming and paring it, the category is far too broad and too inclusive. Frankly, I think that creating a new category for "Notable American Lawyers" and placing members who fit strictly by that definition, notable in the field of LAW, is far simpler and easier than a mass reorganization of a chaotic category.--Offkilter 08:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep! This is one of hundreds (thousands?) of categories deliniating people by occupaction and nationality. See Category:Nationalities by occupation and Category:Occupations by nationality. I can see that there are disputes about this particular category, but it necessary in the general category sorting scheme. Because the category is so large, I would suggest it be sorted into subcategories as much as possible. -- Reinyday, 21:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lists spesificaly says you should not use words like famous, notable or importhant in titles, this goes doubely for categories wich only list existing articles. It goes without saying that if they have an article in the Wikiedia they are notable (if not the article should be deleted). So the category is not for listing all lawyers, but rather notable people who happen to be lawyers. --Sherool 17:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, but rename to US lawyers or US attorneys. "Notable" and "icon" designations are just highly POV, and often time-limited even with general concensus, hyperbole. Idea of Wikipedia is anyway to cover broadly the numbers of persons (and events and products and....) past and present who cannot be accommodated by the limits of paper-print resources but can within cyberspace. Obviously, people with law degrees who never practiced as attorneys belong elsewhere but can be moved within Wikipedia without removing the entire category in which they've been misplaced. Broad coverage of artists, writers, actors, scientists, politicians, countries, cultures, inventions, theories, mechanisms, etc. - no reason to discriminate against lawyers, even if we don't think much of them personally. 12.73.194.8 02:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't use the abbreviation US. See Wikipedia:Category titles. I personally prefer "American" to United States", but this is still being debated. -- Reinyday, 00:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- A "U.S. Attorney" is a federal prosecutor, so using anything other than "American" is ambiguous. Postdlf 08:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but Rename per Wikipedia:Category titles; also, might be better named "Attorneys" as a subcat of "Jurists". siafu 18:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to what, exactly? -- Reinyday, 00:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- I see what you mean by the NPOV violation. I still think that the category itself is too broad, and subcategorization is the best action if not deletion outright. Possibly subcategories by their specialization or occupation? --Offkilter 21:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Do not rename, unless someone actually wants to bother with just switching "lawyer" for attorney, though what that would get accomplish, I honestly can't say; lawyer is probably used more in American English, though both are equally understood. I'd recommend against any subcategorization (or for proceeding only after discussion) simply because in American legal practice, there really are no specialties to speak of that would work well in a category system. Law degrees are general, and except for patent practice, admission to the bar permits one to take on any subject. As for occupation, few lawyer "job titles" would be clear (only for certain government lawyers, perhaps), and few do only one thing at one time let alone during their career. Postdlf 08:47, 4 September 2005 (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 page.
merge Category:Birth control into Category:Contraception
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 no consensus (no change) --Kbdank71 13:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- These categories are more or less duplicates of each other. Jdavidb 01:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. -- Reinyday, 16:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Contraception is merely one kind of birth control, I think the current structure with Category:Contraception as a subcat of Category:Birth control makes the most sence. If articles are duplicated between the two simply be bold and sort it out, it's not like there are hundreds of articles in either of them. --Sherool 21:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Sherool. siafu 18:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I don't think these two are similar enough to merge. -Splash 23:45, 29 August 2005 (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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 delete --Kbdank71 13:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Or everybody who has ever been a guest presenter on Saturday Night Live. This can be safely deleted as a comprehensive list already exists. JW 11:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the list if far more useful. - SimonP 17:03, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and list. siafu 18:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and listify definitely. -Splash 23:46, 29 August 2005 (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 page.