Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 3

< August 2	August 4 >

August 3

Category:Drama Writing Emmy Winners

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Overcategorization. Drovethrughosts (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination - We already have [[Category:Emmy Award winning programs]] which is sufficient. Pinkadelica ^♣ 03:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Variety Writing Emmy Winners

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.. Overcategorization. Drovethrughosts (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:NBC drama series nominated for the Drama Writing Emmy Award

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Overcategorization. Drovethrughosts (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:FOX drama series nominated for the Drama Writing Emmy Award

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Overcategorization. Drovethrughosts (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:FOX comedy series nominated for the Comedy Writing Emmy Award

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Overcategorization. Drovethrughosts (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:HBO comedy series nominated for the Comedy Writing Emmy Award

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Overcategorization. Drovethrughosts (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:HBO drama series nominated for the Drama Writing Emmy Award

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Overcategorization. Drovethrughosts (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Incredible, textbook examples of overcategorization. And for gosh sakes, Fox is not an acronym and should never be all caps! oknazevad (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 08:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Futura Records albums

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: Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: redlink record label —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep created stub for record label. Rich Farmbrough, 07:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete it is still a minor record label that does not need its own cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn John Pack Lambert's argument is invalid per WP:OCAT--small categories can exist as a part of larger schemes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just because small cats can exist does not mean we have to have every possible small cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Filipino pop songs

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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Filipino pop songs to Category:Philippine pop songs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per reasoning in the renaming of similar categories in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 25#Filipino to Philippine. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. I think this is one of the ones that should use "Philippine", as songs are inanimate. This format would also match the parent Category:Philippine songs. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Indian location articles needing coordinates

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete this and all subcategories. All these categories are currently unused, and have been rendered obsolete by the {{coord missing}} mechanism and its corresponding category tree, both of which are actively maintained by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates and their associated bots. -- The Anome (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all the subcats (empty) and then speedy delete this one (which will then be empty). Occuli (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, following lasting implementation as announced last year at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Archive 26#.7B.7Bcoord missing.7D.7D now accepts Indian state names as arguments. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obsoletedCurb Chain (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obsolete. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Animals by geography

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/merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Animals by geography to Category:Animals by location

Rename Category:Birds by geography to Category:Birds by location

Rename Category:Regional bird lists to Category:Lists of birds by location

Rename Category:Crustaceans by geography to Category:Crustaceans by location

Rename Category:Insects by geography to Category:Insects by location

Rename Category:Mammals by geography to Category:Mammals by location

Rename Category:Regional mammals lists to Category:Lists of mammals by location

Rename Category:Molluscs by geography to Category:Molluscs by location

Rename Category:Prehistoric life sorted by geography to Category:Prehistoric life by location

Rename Category:Prehistoric animals sorted by geography to Category:Prehistoric animals by continent

Rename Category:Ammonites sorted by geography to Category:Ammonites by continent

Rename Category:Reptiles by geography to Category:Reptiles by location

Rename Category:Regional reptiles lists to Category:Lists of reptiles by location

Rename Category:Regional invertebrate lists to Category:Lists of invertebrates by location

Upmerge Category:Regional beetle lists to Category:Beetles by region

Rename Category:Regional butterfly lists to Category:Lists of butterflies by location

Rename Category:Regional Diptera lists to Category:Lists of Diptera by location

Rename Category:Regional dragonfly lists to Category:Lists of dragonflies by location

Rename Category:Regional Hymenoptera lists to Category:Lists of Hymenoptera by location

Rename Category:Regional moth lists to Category:Lists of moths by location

Rename Category:Trees by geography to Category:Trees by location

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Most sub-cats of grandparent Category:Categories by geographical location are "Foo by location", including the parent Category:Organisms by location. There are Categories by region" but "region" there has a fairly specific meaning, not the mixure of sub-national, national, supra-national & continental currently contained in these categories. I'll do some tidying-up afterwards. Fayenatic (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know if it's just me, but I interpret "... by location" quite differently from "... by geography". "Trees by location" suggests to me things like the Major Oak, which are [individual] trees in a specific location. What these categories actually contain is organisms categorised by their geographical ranges, which to my mind is captured better by "... by geography" than by "... by location". --Stemonitis (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: there are categories in Category:Individual organisms for such pages, but those are insufficiently well populated to justify sub-cats by location. "By location" works for all sorts of inanimate things, so it seems clear enough to me for it to apply within Category:Organisms by location. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User talk pages with Uw-spam4im notices

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: Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily stigmatizes editors with template on page.

My attention was drawn to this category (which I hadn't been aware of) when a new user was very concerned there were unjustly being placed on a "bad" list. (A note was going on their permanent record!) As any editor can place this template on another editor's talk page, justified or not, it isn't meaningful. Reviewing the prior deletion discussion, the primary user of this template appeared to be User:A. B.. I asked them if they were still using the template on 6 June User_talk:A._B.#spam_category but they apparently are not currently active. Gerardw (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a useful category. It also may fall under the ban on attack pages.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Courcelles 11:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 11:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is one of an entire tree, so a little thought needs to be made about the general utility of categorising talk pages by the level of spam warning they have received, instead of this one particular level. Courcelles 11:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Link to previous discussion on this and similar categories: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 30#User talk pages with spam notices categories. I have left links to this discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. [1] [2] Link to parent category which includes several similar categories, as well as categories for editors temporarily & permanently blocked: Category:User talk pages with spam warnings. ~~I would not object to deletion, but without prejudice to re-creation if anyone would make use of them for the good of the encyclopedia.~~ - Fayenatic (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all (should be a hidden category so it does not stigmatise further, though having a {{uw-spam4im}} on your talkpage does already stigmatise s.o. as a spammer). 'Earning' this category already shows that something is seriously wrong with s.o.'s link additions. There are various tools to make intersections of categories, search for new additions, etc. etc. These categories show quickly who were deemed to be spamming recently, and whose link-additions (which links) need further attention. Spam is not vandalism - Spam earns money for the spammers, companies get paid to spam for others - Generally, spammers who receive warnings will return, and tools are (unfortunately) needed to be able to find them back. Having spammers consistently categorised helps in finding them back. If editors are wrongly 'tagged' <removed per WP:BEANS>. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note regarding grouping into 'one' - the spammers that end up to get a Spam4/Spam4im are not that many. As I said, spammers have to go pretty far getting there. If an IP-hopper gets a spam1 here, and a spam1 there, then at a certain point, those warnings don't help anymore, and those are the ones that end up getting spam4/spam4im warnings. But before you give that spam4im, you need to know how often that spammer was already warned with lower warnings on different talkpages. Being able to intersect categories is necessary there. And noting, if an editor is adding 'obscurenonexistingcompany.com' using one username, and 2 weeks later another user is popping up adding 'obscurenonexistingcompany.com' then those two editors are almost certainly related, if then 5 months later another editor pops up who adds exactly the same link, then that editor is also related (WP:DUCK-test; note, those timings where spammers 'disappear' for months is not something that never happens - it does pay to have your links here, so it is worth trying again after some time, and hope that they forgot about you). In that it is dissimilar from vandals who add 'poop' to article texts - two different editors who add 'poop' to an article are likely not related to each other.

When editor 4 pops up, while editor 3 already got a spam4im, then cross-sectioning the appropriate data shows quickly that one of the socks was already warned with a spam4im, and blocking or blacklisting may be in order. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per Beetstra. Also agree it should be a hidden cat...--Hu12 (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it is already a hidden category. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does hidden mean is this context? My attention was brought to this category when a new user saw it while editing their page [[3]]. Lacking evidence any editor is currently using the category, it seems to be unnecessarily unfriendly for insufficient reason. Gerardw (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerardw: Hidden means, that if you see the page in normal mode, you do not see that it is categorised there (barring a setting). You of course see it in edit mode.

How do you mean, 'unnecessarily unfriendly for insufficient reason'? You think that those spam4im messages are left at a whim, or because you don't see the reason for categorisation and/or don't know what to do with it you think it is insufficient? Do you think that if someone would leave a {{spam4im}} without that category that it would then be less unfriendly (it is still a final warning for spamming!)?

And as I said, I am using that category, and seen the oppose by Hu12, they is also using the category. What evidence do you have that that category is not used. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really getting this. A user is warned with a {{uw-spam4im}}, which openly warns the user of spamming on the talkpage. But the worry is about a maintenance category that that same template is putting the editor into, not about the actual text that is there? The worry is that editors are able to find this editor? Or even that this editor, just because it is categorised in a certain category will, automatically be branded forever? Yes, this maintenance category is maybe only useful for those who actively fight spam on Wikipedia, but I don't think that the category is in any form more unfriendly than the message on the talkpage (I would even call it friendlier). If that warning was wrong (and it seems to be), then that warning should be removed (which also removes the categorisation), not the whole category so that we will not be able to find all the warnings left to users who were actually serial spammers. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm getting this, either. If a user removes the warning from their talk page, does that take it out of the category? Gerardw (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'If a user removes the warning from their talk page, does that take it out of the category?' - I don't understand here what you do not understand, Gerardw - categorisation is done by a piece of wikitext which is on the page, either directly or via transclusion of a template. If you remove that piece of wikitext, then it removes that page from the category, as there is nothing that puts it into the category in the first place - that is how categorisation works. There are, AFAIK, no other ways of categorising a page, then by adding '[[Category:Whatever]]' (or a template which incorporates that text) to it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Yes" was the answer he was looking for, but thanks for the full explanation! - Fayenatic (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand it whether the categorisation mechanism only works on the current revision revision of the page or whether it also looks at historical versions of the page.

If it's the former, the usefulness of the category seems suspect -- couldn't a user just remove themselves from the category by removing the notice from their talk page?
If it's the latter, that brings me back to my original concern. Sometimes editors get warning templates place on their talk pages because others who have a conflict with them put them there inappropriately. I provided an example above.
Note I did read the if you remove the wikitext above, it justs not clear to me whether that's the "edit the page remove" or sysop deleting the revision "remove." Gerardw (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It only works on the current revision (hence, the former). The point is, that if spammers continue after having a spam4im somewhere, it is a ticket towards getting your links blacklisted. As you may have noticed, I left a piece out above per WP:BEANS, which is exactly the point you make here now, and it is actually a practice that we sometimes see (or similar practices, like blanking reports). That indeed makes detecting serial spammers more difficult, however, IF it is noticed that an editor has removed spam4im warnings, ánd continues, then that just strengthens the reasons to blacklist the stuff (editors remove warnings all the time and continue .. the idea is, if they remove a warning, then they know for sure they were warned, otherwise it may be a case that they have the big orange banner on their talkpage and still spam on, without knowing what was posted to their talkpage). And having these categories just help in finding serial spammers (as well as spammers who were caught by 'others', but which the regular spam-fighters did not notice - A. B. e.g. does pick up on those warnings to investigate them further), but it is by far not the only trick that we have.

The actual contents of a category is determined out of the current content of the wikitext of a page. Removing that wikitext, either by blanking it, overwriting it, or by deleting the page in all cases removes the categorisation (note: archiving it would result that the archive page would be categorised there).

Note, every editor who draws the conclusion "you have a {{uw-spam4im}} on your talkpage, so you must be a spammer", solely based on the appearance of the {{uw-spam4im}} on the talkpage should be ..hmmm .. explained that that is not the way it works. Editors looking into spam should look into the whole case, including what the editor actually added, what else the editor added, considering reasons why the links were added, etc. etc. These are just slight indications, but the whole picture is needed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, makes sense now. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; even though the original category creator is not currently active, other editors are using it for legitimate management reasons. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If folks are actively using it I concur. Gerardw (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture

Propose merging Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States

Propose merging Category:Late 19th and Early 20th Century American Movements architecture in the United States

Propose merging Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in Connecticut

Nominator's rationale: Merge? I have a feeling that this may be another NRHP designation category that is not really defined in any articles. Not sure if there is a good place to merge these or if the category should just be deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Until sourcing surfaces, these are all arbitrary if not original research categories of architecture.Curb Chain (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if you can not find a place to put them, which no one has suggested.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Women in 21st century warfare

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 rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Women in 21st century warfare to Category:Women in 21st-century warfare

Nominator's rationale: All other century subcategories of Category:Women in war by century use the dash seperator of 21 and st. Hugo999 (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename per convention - Fayenatic (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Characters and objects from the film trilogy of The Lord of the Rings

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 to delete; rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Characters and objects from the film trilogy of The Lord of the Rings to Category:Original characters and objects in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category doesn't include every character and object in the Lord of the Rings film trilogy, just the ones that were original to the film trilogy. The main article about the characters is List of original characters in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. I suggest that the name of the category should indicate that. I also suggest reformatting the name to match its parent Category:The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. Actually, I'm not even sure this category needs to exist at all, so I'm fine with deletion if that is preferred. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. The category is (only just) useful for navigation, and the new name will be clearer. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list is enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Novels by Michelle Malkin

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Novels by Michelle Malkin to Category:Books by Michelle Malkin

Nominator's rationale: Rename. None of Michelle Malkin's works are novels; they are all non-fiction books. Granted, she does have some creative ideas and occasionally she just makes stuff up, but that alone doesn't make the books fictional. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Creating "books by" and "novels by" is just confusing for research. I don't quite get why people do this because only the most anal person would go around pointing out that a novel is fiction and a book (?) is not. I think this falls into common use and people really need to stop being so stuffy about this. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's "anal" to object when someone calls a non-fiction book a "novel"? This coming from a user who suggests a change from "women" to "female" would alienate women? "Women" and "female" at least have roughly corresponding definitions, but the definition of "novel" is "a long fictional prose narrative". These books are not long fictional prose narratives. Ah well, I guess different users are anal about some things but aren't troubled by things that may disturb others ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my rude comment yesterday, it was inappropriate. But I will say that I think that it's a little trivial, and I know in my daily life most people I know do not distinguish between the two.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK—to a large extent, much of what happens at CFD is about users being pedantic (or anal) and getting things exactly right, or as close to right as we can. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - there are two clear category trees for novels and books. Maybe Henriettapussycat would like to suggest a breakaway from this at WP:BOOKS? Lugnuts (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big deal to me, but I find the distinction trivial at best. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies is obviously not a novel. Occuli (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Books is a broader category. If she writes so many books, and enough that there are so many that her novels can be subcategorized, then we can make this category.Curb Chain (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, as I sit here struggling to envision what sort of person would be interested enough in books to talk about them regularly but not interested enough to know the definition of a "novel." Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename All novels are books, not all books are novels. In fact not even all works of fiction are technically novles. We should be precise in our language in cats. What next is someone going to suggest we put a movie in a novels by x category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. There are people in the world who don't distinguish between novels and non-fiction? Really what now? Bearcat (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The category as currently named is misleading and therefore confusing to users, as noted above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{----

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:FTC games

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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:FTC games to Category:FIRST Tech Challenge games

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the article FIRST Tech Challenge. FTC is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Per Good Ol’factory. Chris857 (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to remove ambiguityCurb Chain (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. We generally do not use acronyms or abbreviations in category names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:FLL games

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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:FLL games to ~~Category:FIRST Lego League~~ Category:FIRST Lego League games

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match article FIRST Lego League. "FLL" is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may we want to name this one Category:FIRST Lego League games to be consistent with the others. Chris857 (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, sorry, yes, that's what I meant. I've corrected the nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:FIRST Lego League games to remove ambiguity.Curb Chain (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to FIRST Lego League games.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2011 (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.

FIRST Robotics Competition

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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:FRC games to Category:FIRST Robotics Competition games

Propose renaming Category:FIRST Robotics teams to Category:FIRST Robotics Competition teams

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest using a standard name for categories that refer to this competition, which is FIRST Robotics Competition. "FRC" in particular is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Both: It makes sense, and FRC is rather ambiguous. Chris857 (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both Rename The abbreviations are ambiguous.Curb Chain (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Both per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2011 (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.