Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 11

< August 10	August 12 >

August 11

Category:Four Star Television

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 Category:Four Star Television to Category:Television series by Four Star Productions and Purge. --Xdamr^talk 20:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Four Star Television to Category:Television series by Four Star Productions

Nominator's rationale: The current category is simultaneously serving as both a "television series by studio" category — which is valid, but needs to be named for consistency with other such categories — and a category for actors who starred in those series — which violates WP:OCAT as "performer by performance". I thus propose that we rename the category, keeping the television series in it, but remove the actors. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Television series by Four Star Television and Prune (danish optional) to match the title of the parent article and the standard used by the other entries in the parent Category:Television series by studio. Actirs should be pruned out so that the only articles that remain are for productions. Alansohn (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2009 (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:American television series based on non-American television series

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. --Xdamr^talk 16:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OCAT by "things that are both X and Y". Note also several specific-country-of-origin subcategories. Do we really need any of these? Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We do have other 'work based on other works' categories and I don't believe that's quite the same thing as a mere 'X and Y' trivial intersection. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slight Keep At least for this overarching cat, it's a nontrivial trait (that the series is foreign and non-original). --Cybercobra (talk) 05:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "based on another work" is widely accepted as defining and there are several large structures categorizing articles on this basis. If there is an issue with the system then a much wider discussion should be initiated. Otto4711 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While WP:OCAT often means anything, this stretches it farther than can possibly be justified. The source of the material is a defining characteristic of the show. Alansohn (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2009 (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:Books made into films

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 Category:Books made into films to Category:Books adapted into films. --Xdamr^talk 20:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Books made into films to Category:Books adapted into films

Nominator's rationale: Rename. More professional phrasing. Also, for consistency with its subcat Category:Novels adapted into films. Cybercobra (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice See also previous CfDs on July 25 and earlier today (below on this same page). --Cybercobra (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since this rejiggering is kind of my fault, I've notified the users who commented in the debate of the same name today but have not yet commented in this one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have likewise notified the remaining commenters from the original CfD. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Delete/Merge?

Keep Category is appropriate, and significant characteristic of its constituents. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being made into a film is not a defining characteristic of a book. While it is noteworthy (and should be noted in every case), whether or not it is eventually made into a film has no bearing on the book's existence. Otto4711 (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "bearing on the book's existence" is not what "defining" is about, necessarily. Not all defining aspects of people are caused by actions they have taken. Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I have raised in the previous CfDs, what bearing does the "definingness" have on the appropriateness of a category? --Cybercobra (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - See sentence 3 of Wikipedia:Categorization#What_categories_should_be_created. Whether a film/play/opera/TV series is or is not made based on a book is incidental (to the book). Occuli (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per otto and per my views last time. Occuli (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Take III) Film adaptations are a clear defining characteristic, with books almost always re-released in synch with the corresponding film, often with a cover touting the connection. Articles and reviews about such films always make the connection to the book. I'm sure that in the next hundred years, as new media are developed, this may need to be renamed or reconsidered, but for the next few decades this would remain a strong defining connection. Alansohn (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC) note: added missing signature to unsigned comment --Cybercobra (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That a book is re-released in conjunction with a film adaptation is nothing more than marketing. Otto4711 (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We already have the novels subcat (which both Otto & Occuli voted to keep on July 25th btw - just below the previous one for this). If anything it's more defining for an autobiography or other non-novel to be filmed, because less common. I agree it is not wholly defining for Great Expectations or Hamlet, though since the films are so well known this is arguable. Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Occuli nor I !voted to keep the novels category. I !voted to delete it and we both opposed merging the novels category to this one. Not the same thing as a straight keep !vote. Otto4711 (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the delete vote, but whatever. It is not the same thing as your position here either, not that it matters much. Why this should go and novels stay has not been addressed here. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the July 25 CFD for Category:Novels made into films, the proposal was made to merge the novels category to the books category. My first comment, timestamped 10:17 25 July, was in opposition to the merge based on how "novel" and "book" are used in categorization but expressed misgivings over the definingness of being adapted into a film. My second comment, immediately below the first and timestamped 20:44 29 July was a !vote to delete the category. My position there, as here, has consistently been that neither category should exist but if they do exist then novels and books should be categorized separately. Otto4711 (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as very relevant. Being made into a film enormously enhances the popularity and media coverage of a book. Debresser (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The film, based on the book by..." is an enormous enhancement of media coverage and popularity? Otto4711 (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see your point. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that frequently, if not generally, the media coverage of a book in relation to the film based on it is the phrase "based on the novel by..." in the reviews. This hardly represents a groundswell of media coverage for the book. And again, without evidence comments about the impact being made into a film has on a book's popularity or sales is speculation. Otto4711 (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename. Being adapted has significant impact on sales of a book, helping to define it's public perception and notability. New name is more professional sounding. oknazevad (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation about the supposed impact of being made into a film is just that, speculation. Otto4711 (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not speculation. This is invariably the case. And very much so. Debresser (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to bite. "Sez who?" Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are easily dismissed at CfD, but hot off the presses (and the screen) comes "'Julia' cleans up 'Julie' among readers" "Publisher Alfred A. Knopf has ordered an additional 75,000 copies of 'Mastering,' which on Monday was sold out on Amazon." Apparently the defining connection between the Mastering the Art of French Cooking and a film that celebrates it does seem have a connection after all. I'd supply further sources if there was any evidence that they would dissuade the naysayers. Chew well. Alansohn (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julie and Julia is not based on Mastering the Art of French Cooking. It is based on memoirs by Julia Child and Julie Powell. Are we now going to start Category:Books celebrated in films? Otto4711 (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't doubting that it could be true in certain cases—no doubt it is. I was asking about the "invariably" part. I don't think we have any evidence that this has happened in every single case or that it's some sort of natural law that it will always happen. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is not to prove that anything happens in all cases, and this arbitrary standard is one that can never be met. I had pulled a page out of my local paper to work on an article and there was an ad for The Time Traveler's Wife, based on the 2003 novel of the same name, with the ad proudly noting that the movie is "from the acclaimed bestseller - now #1 on The New York Times Best Seller List". Apparently, reliable sources as well as readers believe the connection to be defining, but a simple "is not" is sufficient to delete the category. Is there any standard to establish definingness, or is this just an arbitrary game? Alansohn (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising copy hardly rises to the level of an independent reliable source, given that it is generated by people directly involved with the book, the film or both. Otto4711 (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd prefer to hear from the person who made the sweeping claim that "invariably" a film being based on a book has an impact on the book's level of sales. Feel free to go on your tangent, Alansohn, but it's not really addressing my initial question. Note that I didn't "set" this arbitrary standard, but it's one that Debresser claimed existed. If he or you can't back up the statement, then that answers my question. (Note that I haven't voted to delete and don't intend to, so my question was not an attempt to justify deletion, as you may have have interpreted it—not everyone views CfD discussions in a stark, confrontational, either/or fashion. I just wanted clarification on an extraordinarily broad claim.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename—I have not seen any instance of a book adapted into a film where it was unknown whether the book was adapted into the film. No reason to delete a helpful category which has little to no space for OR of any kind (the main problem with certain categories is that they invite OR, especially the ethnicity categories). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Kept, Rename?

Rename For consistency with its subcat. Proposed phrasing is more proper/professional. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change for the sake of it - "made into" and "adapted into" mean the same thing so this is an unimportant cosmetic difference. Otto4711 (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match corresponding category and to hopefully put an end to the drama. Alansohn (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency & slight improvement. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Like Otto4711, I see little difference. In my subjective ears, "made" sounds better than "adapted. And I see no reason to just change a good name. Debresser (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency & slight improvement. And no they don't mean the same thing "made into" implies the original was transformed, it wasn't! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:34, 12 August 2009 (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:Symptoms of bipolar disorder

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. --Xdamr^talk 16:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a follow-up to the deletion discussion for Cat:Symptoms of obsessive–compulsive disorder. This category has the same problems. It includes many specific symptoms, like Insomnia and Melancholia, which may or may not be a symptom of bipolar disorder in any given patient. It is the cumulative nature of individual symptoms that allows for a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, and because of this categorization of symptom by disease doesn't really "work". The issue is covered, as it should be, in the article Current diagnostic criteria for bipolar disorder. This is essentially just a conglomeration of articles about symptoms that link from that article. There is also Template:Bipolar_disorder, which lists symptoms. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inappropriate as category, better done as existing list-ish page. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unuseful category, since the symptoms aren't really defining individually. The article works better for this purpose. Jafeluv (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I believe that this category, and any others like it, are dangerous. Because the text around the list in Current diagnostic criteria for bipolar disorder is not part of the category (correct procedure) the implication of this category is that people with bipolar affective disorder (BPAD) have all of these symptoms. This is, of course, false. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- much better as a list, which would allow commentary too. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per above. Also, insomnia and many other symptoms of various types are symptoms of so many afflictions that the category list could grow to be huge if we went down this slippery slope. Just think of nausea. If we had a cat for every "Symptoms of..." then the cat list at the end of nausea would be a page unto itself! (okay, not really, but you get my point) WP:SNOW, anyone? Dismas|^(talk) 05:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
String delete. categories are the worst possible way to convey such information on wikipedia. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I could imagine this being an effective diagnostic tool in a different context, this category does not appear to be defining for the symptoms themselves. Apathy and Promiscuity, to pick two symptoms out of a hat, may well be symptoms of bipolar disorder, but being a symptom of bipolar disorder is not a defining characteristic of apathy or promiscuity. Alansohn (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2009 (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:IATA-indexed railway stations

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. --Xdamr^talk 20:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The contents are in no way indexed by IATA code. In this case, the list is sufficient. If kept, rename to Category:Railway stations that have an IATA code. The lead article, List of IATA-indexed railway stations, probably needs a rename also. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is already listified. Debresser (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep few railroad stations have IATA codes, and the list does not obviate the existence of the category. 04:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.192.144 (talk)
Is the list preferable to the category in these situations? A rename, as suggested by Vegaswikian, seems more appropriate than outright deletion. Mackensen (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-defining characteristics. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to Category:Railway stations that have an IATA code to more accurately define the content of the category. Alansohn (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2009 (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.

Note: I fear this category deletion is turning out to be have been a little short-sighted... categories are self-maintaining (eg. across renames) in ways that lists are not. Railway stations have localised names to a far greater degree than airports and whilst it was previously possible to cross-reference, that is no longer the case. If the visibility of the category was/is the concern, it perhaps should/could have been made hidden—then the grouping would still present for validation reasons. —Sladen (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway stations linked to airports by bus

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. --Xdamr^talk 16:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Following the deletion of Railway stations by served venue, I would argue that this is an even more blatant example of a non-defining relationship between a train station and an airport. Created by an admin, too, no less – who should be forced to forfeit part of his enormous admin's salary as punishment, I would also argue. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not exactly a defining characteristic for a railway station. I'll be expecting my part of the cash shortly after this one is closed. Jafeluv (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jafeluv, nothing defining about this trivial connection. oknazevad (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Before the Piccadilly line extension, one went to Heathrow Airport by catching the tube to Hounslow and a connecting bus. This might be a legitimate category, if tightly defined to refer to railway stations providing a main link from an airport to its city, but only then. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's what Category:Railway stations serving airports is for. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then why are you attemption to abbolish this category and insisting on a new one Category:Airport railway stations and moving the "goal posts" by insisting "that there needs to be a physical connection of some kind"? Pyrotec (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - For precisely the reason that that's the only instance where it's a defining characteristic, in my opinion, per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_29#Category:Railway_stations_by_served_venue. Buses criss-cross cities "linking" a myriad of places. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - One more point I'd like to make on this: the new name Category:Airport railway stations still would not preclude rail stations adjacent to airports and linked by some kind of direct bus shuttle, as is currently the case with Dorval (VIA) in my hometown (even as a true airport rail station terminus has been built underground, awaiting the decision to extend the tracks). I won't be removing articles for rail stations that aren't physically linked, though it's my stated preference, nor would I write category descriptions excluding them. But I would argue that this discussion raises another OCAT problem with Category:Railway stations linked to airports by bus: retaining this category would open the door to Category:Railway stations linked to airports by monorails, Category:Railway stations linked to airports by pedways and other such categories. I think common sense should apply to what can reasonably be called an Airport railway station, without getting into the specifics of how folks transfer at the category level. That can be explained in individual articles on the airports and rail stations in question.--Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In all honesty, I can think of at least three stations that would get this category; Pennsylvania Station (New York City), Jamaica (LIRR station), and Ronkonkoma (LIRR station). But while all three have bus connections to airports(the 1st two for JFK International Airport, and the latter for Long Island MacArthur Airport, buses are the only connections to Penn and Ronkonkoma. All Jamaica has is the Air Train, and that has only been in recent years. Compare this to Howard Beach-JFK (IND Rockaway Line) and O'Hare Transfer (Metra) which are built specifically for airports, which deserve the Railway stations serving airports category. ----DanTD (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I think the proximity issue -- and plain old common sense -- is so important. Here in Montreal we have a similar situation to Penn Station with our Central Station, which also has a $9 bus link to the airport, about 15 miles away. (BTW, pretty sure there's buses that leave from the downtown side of Grand Central to LaGuardia and JFK, too.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2009 (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:UFL Las Vegas players

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. --Xdamr^talk 16:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Team has been named the Las Vegas Locomotives and the category already exists for them at Category:Las Vegas Locomotives players. ►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge since the category has a member to Category:Las Vegas Locomotives players. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category has already been emptied and the new category matches the new title of the parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. oknazevad (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2009 (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:UFL San Francisco players

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. --Xdamr^talk 16:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UFL San Francisco players to Category:California Redwoods players

Nominator's rationale: Team name has been announced, as seen here. ►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This category has already been emptied and the new category matches the new title of the parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alansohn. oknazevad (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2009 (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:Fritzl case

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only one article categorized, nominated for deletion; few other articles would fit, so it's a poor category to have. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two articles categorized for the time being, and I can think of several articles that would fit in, this is an extremely major and complex case. (Also note that Commons has a Category:Fritzl case) Bob Cooper III (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I generally oppose the creation of categories for legal cases (in their broadest sense). Usualy they have only 1 or 2-3 aticles, and that is not enough for a separate category. This case is no exeption. Debresser (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two articles, one currently the subject of an AfD, little potential for expansion. Even if one or two more articles could be added, that's still so few that I see little benefit to a category over reciprocal "See Also" links in this particular instance where such reciprocal wikilinks will likely be present anyway. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 19:10, 18 August 2009 (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:State libraries and archives of the United States

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: split. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete and split into Category:State libraries of the United States and Category:State archives of the United States. I created this category about a year ago, and now I think it would be a good idea to split it, because libraries and archives are two very different types of institutions. (Note that some of the institutions in the current category would fit into both of the proposed new categories.) Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 18:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support good proposal for splitting into relevant categories by nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Bearcat (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split as nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2009 (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:Railway stations serving airports

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 per nom. --Xdamr^talk 00:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Railway stations serving airports to Category:Airport railway stations

Category:Railway stations serving airports in Australia to Airport railway stations in Australia

Category:Railway stations serving airports in Canada to Airport railway stations in Canada

Category:Railway stations serving airports in France to Airport railway stations in France

Category:Railway stations serving airports in Japan to Airport railway stations in Japan

Category:Railway stations serving airports in Norway to Airport railway stations in Norway

Category:Railway stations serving airports in Russia to Airport railway stations in Russia

Category:Railway stations serving airports in South Korea to Airport railway stations in South Korea

Category:Railway stations serving airports in the United Kingdom to Airport railway stations in the United Kingdom

Category:Railway stations serving airports in the United States to Airport railway stations in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename following the deletion of Railway stations by served venue, suggest we simplify the name. The rename will fit better into the mastercats Category:Airport rail links and the just-added Category:Railway stations, the latter of which tends to use "FOO railway stations" for its subcategories. I think it might also help avoid the still-lingering vagueness about how distant stations might be said to "serve" airports, making it clearer that there needs to be a physical connection of some kind. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename Less wordy. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This change appears to be based on certain presumptions by an editor, i.e that there is and needs to be physical link between the station and the airport, which is not true in many cases. There are railway stations that have no physical connection to the airport, the physical may be a bus link between the airport station and the airport. It is not the job of wikipedia to dictate to station operators that their station must have a physical link to the article; wikipedia should reflect actuality. Pyrotec (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I replied above at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_11#Category:Railway_stations_linked_to_airports_by_bus, while I am of the opinion that a physical link between airports and railways stations would better constitute a defining and non-trivial relationship between the two locations, the primary reason for this nom is to shorten and rename in line with the Category:Airport rail links and Category:Railway stations master cats. There's nothing in the proposed rename that would preclude rail stations adjacent to airports and linked by a dedicated shuttle bus line, as is the case with Dorval (VIA) where I live, nor would I try to impose one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2009 (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:Books made into films

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: Administrative close. The same proposal was just made and was closed as "no consensus", and this discussion is essentially going down the identical path. Please re-read the close for a suggestion on how to best approach this in a new nomination. There are two separate questions that users care about, each of which needs to be addressed. The first questions is "keep vs. delete?". The second question is "if kept, do we rename?". We can't limit a CfD to one question or the other, so as I suggested before it may be helpful to have a discussion with two separate sections where each question can be addressed individually. If we do that, we should be able to easily identify a separate consensus (or lack thereof) respecting each of the two questions, instead of the mish-mash-type discussion we've had up to this point in both discussions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SEE IMMEDIATE RENOMINATION HERE

Propose renaming Category:Books made into films to Category:Books adapted into films

Nominator's rationale: Since kept in deletion, proposing renaming to a more appropriate name; same as has been proposed with the novel subcategory -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being made into a film is not a defining characteristic of a book. Whether or not a film is made of it at some point after its release has no bearing on the book's existence. Otto4711 (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concur with Otto. Occuli (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Film adaptations are a clear defining characteristic, with books almost always re-released in synch with the corresponding film, often with a cover touting the connection. Articles and reviews about such films always make the connection to the book. I'm sure that in the next hundred years, as new media are developed, this may need to be renamed or reconsidered, but for the next few decades this would remain a strong defining connection. Alansohn (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is NOT intended to be a deletion discussion as the last discussion, but a rename discussion...-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Delete" is deemed by some to be an acceptable reply for any discussion on any subject, regardless of the previous discussion a few weeks ago that had no consensus for the deletion. Can't blame 'em for trying to take another crack at the desired result. Then again, you can. Alansohn (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator and oppose delete, since this is a defining, and very important defining, characteristic. Debresser (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (and Keep) as category creator per nom. More professional phrasing. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2009 (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:Lesbian and bisexual Playboy Playmates

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. --Xdamr^talk 16:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category has a single entry. No reason to categorize just one item. Dismas|^(talk) 10:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The category did have two more entries. Stephanie Adams was removed because the subject no longer identifies as lesbian and the other, Kymberly Herrin was removed by me because the source was a MySpace page which claims to belong to Herrin but we have no WP:RS that it's actually her page. Dismas|^(talk) 10:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added Stephanie Adams as categories do not, indeed are not allowed to, operate on a "current" basis. No opinion on nom. Johnbod (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Category doesn't make sense anyway. We could split up any category into gay/straight/bi sub-categories, but why do it? What's the relevance of singling out playmates of a different sexual orientation? There's nothing unusual about it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see the need to have this category. Debresser (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we absolutely needed this information — I don't think we do, but I'm willing to defer to the judgment of people who actually care about Playboy playmates — a list would be fine. Bearcat (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if someone argued the usefullness of organizing playmates by sexual preference, grouping it under "Lesbian and bisexual" is bad categorization, it would be better to have them split. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 04:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a trivial intersection to me. Makes less sense than, say, Category:Lesbian pornographic film actors, because someone's sexual orientation isn't really related to their modelling work. Jafeluv (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But can you imagine if they were to all... um, sorry: Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Delete? --Cybercobra (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2009 (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:Humorous 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: Merge Category:Humorous songs to Category:Comedy songs. --Xdamr^talk 00:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Comedy songs, only more POVish. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Comedy songs, which I expect is what nom wants. Johnbod (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are different articles and categories for humour and comedy, so it is not unreasonable to keep both song categories. Category:Comedy songs is already a subcategory of Category:Humorous songs, so it is easy to look up both categories. I do not think merging them would any improvement. Category:Humorous songs matches the Category:Humorous poems and, for instance, the songs of Noel Coward are described as humourous songs rather than comedy songs. Cjc13 (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nominated. Perhaps I'm dense, but I just can't understand what the difference between the two would be. Comedy is defined as "... any humorous discourse generally intended to amuse ..." Comedy is humorous. If it exists at all, the difference is bound to be so subtle that I don't think retaining a dual categorization is worthwhile. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why then are there separate categories Category:Humor and Category:Comedy then? There are also separate articles for Humour and Comedy. Yes comedy is humorous, but humour is not necessarily the same as comedy, for instance the Noel Coward songs referred to above. Comedy categories are always given as a subcategory of humurous categories, so I do not see a problem having the separate categories. If there is a merger it should be Category:Comedy songs to Category:Humorous songs, as the latter category is more inclusive. Cjc13 (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answers to your questions. It doesn't make sense to me. WP:WAX, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how you are defining "comedy songs". I am tempted to say that comedy songs are songs that make you laugh and humorous songs are songs that make you smile. It is noticeable that some articles use the description of a song as humorous and others use the term comedy song, which seems to indicate a difference. It would seem reasonable to use the appropriate category according to what term is used in the article concerned. I would suggest comedy songs are songs with broad humour whereas humourous songs are more witty than comic. Cjc13 (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2009 (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:Evansville Aces soccer players

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 Category:Evansville Aces soccer players to Category:Evansville Purple Aces men's soccer players. --Xdamr^talk 16:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Evansville Aces soccer players to Category:Evansville Purple Aces men's soccer players

Nominator's rationale: Rename because of the following:

The correct school nickname is "Purple Aces", not just "Aces". Although the school does use "Aces" as a short form, it more commonly uses "Purple Aces"; its official athletics site reflects this — gopurpleaces.com. See also Category:Evansville Purple Aces basketball and its subcats.
All of the players in this category are men. The school has a women's team as well.

Thanks... — Dale Arnett (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article Evansville Purple Aces and to reflect that the sport is played by both men and women. Alansohn (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2009 (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.