Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 15

< February 14February 16 >

February 15

Category:Soap Opera Digest Award 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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 23. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This seems to violate the rule against categorizing by award. I read through the article on the award and really saw no evidence that this is a prestigious enough award to be an exception to the general rule. We already have a list so do not need to listify.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2013 (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:English republicans

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Don't mean to rankle nerves on the other side of the pond - but categorizing people (especially musicians mostly here) on a single political view point seems a bad idea. I can just imagine the various categories on various people on their viewpoints on every conceivable thing even if they are not "activists" by Wikipedia's definition (which we have for gay rights, women's rights, anti-nuke, death penalty, and all sorts of political causes). We'll have categories on who says/thinks should we tax the rich, get rid of welfare, every immigration position, pro-Obamacare, anti-Obamacare, pro-EU/anti-EU, pro-Euro/anti-Euro, pro-NAFTA/anti-NAFTA, whether someone likes gun-control or not - the categories on outspoken people would proliferate to the point of not being able to find anything. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2013 (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:Mayors of Fayetteville, North Carolina

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: merge to Category:People from Fayetteville, North Carolina and also to Category:Mayors of places in North Carolina. There is a consensus to upmerge, but only of the 3 editors in this discussion spotted that the category has two parents. Please can nominators remember to check this when proposing a merger? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Category has only 1 entry ...William 15:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Unlikely to grow. --Marco (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now without prejudice against recreation. As a city with over 200,000 people Fayetteville is probably large enough we would consider being mayor of it a notable position. I did create an article on the only person who was mayor of Fayetteville when it was that large, Anthony G. Chavonne. Even he is only border line notable though. In an article on his wife who was a sate legsilator we learn that J.O. Tally, Jr. was mayor of Fayetteville, and someone might be able to find enough to make an article on him. However I don't really see this category gorwing to be large enough to justify having it any time soon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SMALLCAT specifically precludes small categories that do not have potential for growth — but given that the city is large enough for its mayors to count as notable per WP:POLITICIAN, this category does have potential for future growth. That said, it seems evident that we don't actually have enough articles about the mayors to warrant a separate category yet, so merge without prejudice against recreation. Note however that both articles must be upmerged to Category:Mayors of places in North Carolina as well as the proposed target. If and when we have a couple more articles to file in this category, then it can be recreated. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2013 (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:World War II guns

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: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category completely duplicates the target, and uses a less precise and significantly more ambiguous name. As the scope of this category is for artillery, not "guns" (which would include pistols, machine guns, aircraft cannon, naval rifles, etc.), a merge to the more precise name is in order. The Bushranger One ping only 10:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nom could need more thought as target cat already has Category:World War II guns of Italy‎ as sub-cat. Consistency? --Marco (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I moved that category to the target category this morning, planning to manually move the contents of "guns" to appropriate "artillery" categories as having been miscategorised, then realised not all of the articles in this category could be done that way (there is no "French guns" or "French artillery" category to properly move the proper articles to, and creating one would result in shifting out of process) and a full merge was necessary. Note that Category:World War II guns of Italy is at CFDS for renaming to "artillery" format. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, fast response. I'll look at it again. Cool. --Marco (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2013 (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:1993 in English cricket

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: keep. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous category created for a single article, which has since been recategorised elsewhere according to WP:CRIC standard on categorisation --Jack | talk page 03:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional categories for deletion on same rationale are:
Category:1994 in English cricket
Category:1997 in English cricket
Category:1998 in English cricket
Category:1999 in English cricket
Category:2000 in English cricket
Delete all. ----Jack | talk page 03:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment. You are missing another point. Who is going to create a full series and who is going to properly populate them. As things stand, it is a willy-nilly operation, neither one thing nor the other, which is fouling up our categorisation structure and causing confusion to readers who are trying to navigate the structure, which is the basic purpose of categorisation. Why not forget your ludicrous CfD RULES and use some common sense to support the project and help the readers? ----Jack | talk page 10:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)WP:NOEFFORT is relevant, I believe. Also, the WP:COMMONSENSE and useful to the readers solution here is to keep, not to delete. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Jack, please have the courtesy to accept that common sense can point in more than one direction. I have set out my reasoning above.
If the consensus is to keep these categories, I undertake to complete the series and to populate them. It will be less than an hour's work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I'll hold you to that. ----Jack | talk page 10:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am happy to help too. There are some Derbyshire CC categories not in Category:English cricket seasons from 1969 to 2000 eg Derbyshire County Cricket Club in 1971 to which I will add “1971 in English cricket”; it has “1971 in England” (&1971 in cricket) at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo999 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 17 February 2013‎ (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:Works based on The Simpsons

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: keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT#SMALL. Has only four entries, one of whom shouldn't be there as he is a person, not a work. Also, Ralph Wiggum (song) does not seem to be a parody, though the categories suggest parody. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this category was larger before someone moved half the entries to Category:Non-fiction books about The Simpsons. This category was created because things like MacHomer are related to The Simpsons, but didn't belong in any other Simpsons category, so this was made. -- Scorpion0422 02:16, 15 February 2013 (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:Dr. Seuss parodies

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: keep. There is some support for, but no clear consensus to, rename to Category:Parodies based on works by Dr. Seuss, so I encourage a follow-up nomination (perhaps including similar categories in Category:Parody by topic) to discuss the name. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry category, unlikely to expand. Last CFD failed to reach consensus, as it was a discussion to upmerge instead of delete. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BHG's oppose and Rename to Category:Parodies based on works by Dr. Seuss, as part of the "Foo based on works by Bar" system. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator's comment: In the previous discussion, I identified half a dozen or so potential entries to the category (including two or three already existing Wikipedia articles). With one exception (the original O J Simpson poem) these examples were all based on secondary and tertiary sources, some of which I cited, so presumably some of them are notable enough to have their own articles and populate this category. Perhaps there's a new one: www.examiner.com/article/jon-stewart-uses-dr-seuss-like-poem-to-describe-obama-haters [blacklisted site]. So if by "unlikely to expand" you mean there's just not enough Dr. Seuss parody going around in the world to qualify, that is almost certainly incorrect. If by "unlikely to expand" you simply mean no editor is going to ever bother, well, I have no idea. Regarding the articles that exist, I am not going to sneak in a category on "someone else's" article just to win an argument about "my" article. Similarly, I am not going to create a few stubs on topics which I really am not interested in. But I am interested in the Robert Coover story, and it is notable, and it is a Dr. Seuss parody, which is why I created that article, and gave it this category.
As to renaming the category, look in Category:Parodies. There are several "XXX parodies" subcategories out there, presumably you want to rename them too.
The discussion last time was also looking for a word other than "parody". It has occurred to me since that "pastiche" might be a more suitable word. I assume it would be appropriate for all the existing "XXX parodies" subcategories. Choor monster (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there are other parodies with articles of Dr. Suess's work with articles on wikipedia that you have identified, please add the articles to this category now. That will allow people to better consider the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which Dr. Seuss parodies exist that have articles? As far as I see it, none. Are any of them notable? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Creator's comment: Reprising what I identified in the previous discussion (really, you are simply being unhelpful by not bothering to notice: do note that when the previous discussion was closed, the summary stated that it was indeed obvious that there is potential for expansion), and let me re-iterate that most of the following (pre-2004) can be found mentioned inNel, Philip (2004). Dr. Seuss: American Icon. Continuum International Publishing. pp. 168–192, chapter six, a secondary/tertiary source:
  • One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads is a stub. The book is written in Dr. Seuss style. More pastiche than parody.
  • Two Moms, the Zark and Me, sequel to the above.
  • A Scause for Applause contained a Dr. Seuss parody as a segment.
  • The Kid in the Crib is a Dr. Seuss parody. I found one review (Library Journal).
  • The Cat and the Mitt is a Dr. Seuss parody. I found several newspapers that have mentioned it, some with a brief summary, as part of their RNC reporting.
  • The Cat NOT in the Hat is a Dr. Seuss parody, the subject of a notable lawsuit.
  • "The OJ Trial As Told By Dr. Seuss" was a viral e-mail/USENET posting back in the day. It is mentioned, and the first four lines are quoted, in the Nel book.
  • "The Binch" is a Dr Seuss parody about 9/11, available on Snopes, who explains it was discussed in several newspapers.
  • Moxy Früvous has a version of Green Eggs and Ham.
  • Bulworth: the raps are described by Nel as in the style of Dr. Seuss.
  • Truax is a pro-logging rebuttal discussed in The Lorax.
  • "How the Grinch Stole the Election" by Bill Maher
  • "How the Grinch Stole America" by Salman Rushdie
  • "Oh, The People Who Hate You!" by Jon Stewart (new)
I repeat: I am not interested in any of the above, and I am not going to "win" the argument by adding the category to the articles that exist or creating stubs for any that do not and which look like they have enough notability. I just think the claim that this is obviously an inherently small category can't be correct. Choor monster (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator's comment: Well, look what the ..., never mind. Someone has added two articles to the category. Two articles that have been around for quite awhile, and are not on my list above. Choor monster (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with the rename, but I believe it should be part of a multiple rename, for all "XXX parodies" categories. The simpler Category:Parodies of Dr. Seuss works with Category:Parodies of Star Trek, the more complicated Categories:Parodies based on works by Dr. Seuss does not translate well to Star Trek. Choor monster (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like an unnecessary ambiguity to avoid. Theodore Geisel's claim to fame, and hence claim to be an object of parody, is almost entirely from his works as Dr. Seuss. Imagine what a parody of the person would involve, say a novel about his evil twin who writes sick-in-the-head children's books. Almost certainly there would be enough excerpts from the evil twin's writings to qualify as parodies of the works themselves. Choor monster (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may be wrong. There is a kind of fiction where somebody famous has his biography rewritten so that he no longer pursued what he is most noted for. There's a short story where Einstein is a career violin player, and another where Asimov is a megafamous megapundit on everything, so presumably, someday somebody will parody Geisel, having him take up a career as a movie critic or something. But I find it hard to believe somebody will do so without putting Seussian rhymes in! The Einstein/Asimov stories rely on the fact that the main character is recognizable without the famous aspects. Choor monster (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2013 (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:Mysteries and Scandals episodes

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only contains one page, which is already properly categorised as a list. – Fayenatic London 00:24, 15 February 2013 (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:Moonlighting (TV series) episodes

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only contains one page, which is already properly categorised as a list. – Fayenatic London 00:19, 15 February 2013 (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:Matlock (TV series) episodes

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only contains one page, which is already properly categorised as a list. – Fayenatic London 00:05, 15 February 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_15&oldid=1086356340"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 15, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.