Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 17

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< July 16 July 18 >

July 17

edit

Category:Toon Tunes and Category:Toon Tunes albums

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categories created for a series of two cartoon music CDs; more categories created by MascotGuy. tregoweth 22:15, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. One article in one, the other is empty. --Kbdank71 15:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toon out <- delete. ∞Who?¿? 06:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Psycho films

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a psycho film. All of the films in this category comfortably fit into either Category:Horror films, Category:Thriller films, or both. —Xezbeth 17:09, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. At best, it's ambiguous—I thought it meant the Psycho series of films, not a sub-genre of questionable distinctiveness. Has anyone verified that psycho (genre) is not simply original research? Postdlf 17:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes and no. Apparently the film critic Kim Newman has at some point classified a "psycho" genre. It's not clear whether the anonymous user who unilaterally decided that 50-odd films were not horror films but "psycho films" instead was using the same definition, however. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a good point... -Splash 17:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Niz 17:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. -Splash 17:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems to be related to an attempt to re-write the Horror film article to exclude serial killer films. JW 10:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Is a clearly worded attempt to separate supernatural horror films from non-supernatural bizarre crime tales, which have been overly absorbed in the Horror category. Knee-jerk POV in reason to delete ("There is no such thing") is evident. 12.73.196.14 00:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is considered good form, if you are the author of the article under VfD, to disclose that fact. As for keeping the category or not, the question is not "is it a clearly worded attempt to separate supernatural horror films from non-supernatural bizarre crime tales?" but "is separating films into those categories a critical approach taken by experts in the field or is it one editor's idea of how we should classify films?" The latter is of course original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oooh. original thinking! That-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named! Stodgy old thing, aren't we? Well, fortunately, as Mr. Rattigan points out, a "Psycho Film" genre is *not* an original proposition to the person who set up the category, but does come from at least one identified expert. In defiance of whom, it appears, Wikipedia will clutch tightly to a tradition born of youthful gore fans and publicity agents.
      • This anonymous author has defaced the horror film article with the arbitrary removal of all "non-supernatural" films, he has gone through numerous film articles changing the words "horror" to "psycho" (e.g. Texas Chainsaw Massacre is not a horror film, apparently), he has written a weak article (apparently psycho films stopped being made in 1930) about these so-called "psycho films". i have no problem with an article dealing with "psychopaths in the movies" but it cannot be classed as a "genre" unless its widely accepted, which this is not. and even the article, by its description of psycho films, seems to be just describing slasher film, which has a perfectly good article of its own. Niz 10:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Defaced? Because you don't agree with something revised, it is defaced? Well, another stodgy old beak intrudes. Seems to me "slasher film" is a far more narrow, and more juvenile, name for the genre under discussion, but I guess it could do to make the logical distinction which is, namely, that Norman Bates and Jack the Ripper are not Dracula and The Mummy. Oh, and, the article seems to have stopped at the 40s, but it doesn't seem to be complete. Like many articles around here. Maybe we should wait until it's completed to pass judgment. And, PS, last time we checked, the real defacement was, someone reverted the article on Horror films

to its content prior to the guy's (or gal's) starting the "Psycho" article, which content he had also adjusted to fit in with the new article's content. Very honest and brave, whoever did that.

  • Keep - If Britain's foremost horror critic Kim Newman has written about it as a genre, there is no reason why it does not belong as an entry on Wiki. Agreed that initial reason given for deletion was blatantly POV. The entry needs work and more research, but as to whether there should be an entry for a Psycho genre, yes. David L Rattigan 0718 19 JULY 2005 GMT
    • You seem to be talking about whether there should be an article on the subgenre, not about whether this category should exist. Postdlf 06:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • the category should be deleted, the Psycho (genre) article should be renamed Psychos in film or something, and have "see also" pointing to slasher film, horror film, thriller film etc. once its satisfactory defined what is a "psycho film", only then should categorization begin. one anonymous author's opinion and unilateral changes should not excuse the defacing of all horror-related articles in this way. if Kim Newman truly defined a separate genre for psychos, and wasnt just writing about "the history of psychos in the movies", then its not widely accepted by anybody else and should go on the Kim Newman article instead.
        • Oddly, the Psycho (genre) article has not been put up for deletion or renaming, only the appendixed list of films at Category:Pscyho films. So this aspect of the discussion is moot. As for segregating Kim Newman's work on the genre because it is "not widely accepted", I do hope you have the statistics to back up that claim. Without them, your rationale is just reactionary POV, like the rest of the deletionists; and, as I say, the "wide acceptance" which you may perceive is mostly based on the contemporary horror-fan community, and studio ad-men and fan magazine authors who pander to them. If that is the standard for Wikipedia content, then the project is doomed.
  • Delete as per nom. --Kbdank71 15:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, here comes the admin to the rescue - tne who did not like the Category:Films by country discussion and hurried it to an early grave, on the grounds that there was "no concensus" even while an active discussion was in progress to reach a concensus, and who now wants to be sure a concensus is kept here for the sake of the Wikistablishmentarians. Danky, old boy, why aren't you at work getting Category:movie genres renamed Category:Film genres, since there was a definite concensus there and all discussion stopped, and 9 days have now passed. Oh yes, you didn't agree with the concensus there, so we can take our times.
          • Because it was nominated on the 13th and it's only the 19th. That's actually only 6 days. I believe I may have mentioned at some point that you fail to grasp how things work around here, and I'd be happy to explain it to you, using small words if necessary. No response was forthcoming, so I'll just assume you're trolling. --Kbdank71 17:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Deep thinking, and NPOV, where art thou?
  • The antics of the article's author have convinced me that this category should be deleted. Not as a petty "He's annoying and therefore I'll abuse my power to retaliate" thing, though I'm sure he'll announce that it's exactly that; it's that until other people can turn up the existing body of theory upon which this is based, we would be taking his word on the correctness of his interpretation and his classification -- and he has shown through his unwillingness to do anything but insult that such trust cannot be extended to him. Without any shred of evidence he has leapt to insulting conclusions about what must be going through the heads of everyone who disagrees with him on this matter; there is no reason to believe he is not rendering whatever existing critical theory does exist on "psycho films" through the same distorting lens. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no such genre as a psycho film. --ThomasK 02:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I've never heard of it as a genre - when clicked, I was thinking it was a category for Psycho (1960) and the sequels it spawned: Psycho II (1983), Psycho III (1986), Psycho IV: The Beginning (1990), Bates Motel (1987), Psycho (1998 remake).--jiy 21:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't believe it's a major genre, maybe a sub-genre. And even if it is kept it's wrong to change the descriptions the films so categorised to be psycho film. That's often not their primary categorization. SteveCrook 14:25, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not a widely accepted genre or sub-genre, at least not under this name. DES 19:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Arguments against deletion are all based in fan tradition. There needs to be some way to separate films about supernatural horror from extreme, but human, gore/shock horror, and neither Category:Slasher films nor Category:Thriller films - based on their respective articles here - can accommodate all the "mad human killer" films that are now under Psycho film. JVC 03:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per above is broadest category possible to cover scary non-supernatural films (BTW, Boris Karloff even proposed these as two distinct film genres, although he used "Terror" for the supernatural films and wanted "Horror" to mean what this Wikipedia author is attempting to corrale under "Psycho films"). Albus Dumbledore 01:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Knob ends

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category appears to exist only to disparage its subjects, with only one article (which itself is the subject of a VfD). I vote Delete. Pburka 15:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy as an attack category. -Splash 17:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Infantry divisions by nationality

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An empty category creatd since September 2004. Seems like its probable sub-cats are all in Category:Infantry divisions, which is its parent category. I would propose merging the two categories to Category:Infantry divisions by nationality.--Huaiwei 11:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:United States painters

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 14:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:American painters. I'm getting tired of coming across this one and I'm going to make it quite clear: googling "American painter" gets 102,000 hits. Googling "United States painter" gets 603, and even those meager results appear to have come almost entirely from Wikipedia and its mirrors. All I've ever seen against the use of "American" to mean from the United States are political arguments based on sensitivity to other residents of North and South America, never evidence of what the term actually means in the minds of most English speakers that would go against such usage. Postdlf 08:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps Category:African Americans should be changed to Category:United States Africans. Postdlf 08:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, merge the other way around. And "African Americans" should be "United States black people", though race is an odd way of categorising people. James F. (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, for the sake of all that is holy, tell me that you're being facetious. Postdlf 16:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see what the relevance of this dicussion is to this CfD, but it may save you from a repetitve debate if you take a look at a previous ethnicity CfD. This resulted in a consensus to delete that was considered to be overridden by the number requests that it go to RfC. -Splash 17:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The race issue wasn't relevant—I simply brought up an absurd example of what this obtuse kind of naming convention would lead to. Postdlf 18:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not being facætious. We have a very long-term policy of not using the term "American" to refer solely to people of the United States of America. I see no particular reason to throw this out of the reason now. James F. (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per James F. Category:American painters→Category:United States painters since that's they way all the other similar cats are named. -Splash 17:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not: see Category:American people and the subcategories of Category:American people by occupation; the majority are in the form of "American ____." But even if all others were in the form of "United States ____", "United States" is not an adjective and "American" is the most widely used term by far. That is, if we actually want to follow what is actually practiced in the real world instead of inventing our own little language preferences. Postdlf 18:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge American painters → United States painters, then delete the poorly named Category:American painters. Just because the other categories are wrong doesn't mean this one should be. We can change the others later. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please explain your rationale? Postdlf 03:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Certainly. As has been previously the case in "American X" vs "United States X" on CFD (and this has been here a lot recently), "American" is far too ambiguous. It does not automatically refer to the United States, whereas this category is intended to refe to just that. we've recently had Category:American dependent territories on here, which intended to refer to dependent territories in the Americas. We've now got "American painters", which is meant to refer to painters from the United States. it is clear that the term is too ambiguous. For further evidence, I can cite the book Essential History of American Art (ISBN 075255349-6), which lists such American painters as Diego Rivera and David Siqueiros. Grutness...wha? 01:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OMG, Postdlf, haven't you heard? It is a crime to be an American on Wikipedia! We have to be sensitive to international peculiarities. As the 800-pound (er, excuse me, that is 362.87-kg) gorilla on the international block, we have to let them dictate the policy. (going to find a towl, because I'm dripping with sarcasm) —Mike 03:00, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • I actually hate admitting that I'm an American these days. Nonetheless, in the English language, whether it is American english or British english, "American" is the term used for someone from the United States. No one proposing alternatives has actually shown that they have any substantial usage in the real world, which is what we should be following, after all, isn't it? No one told me we could just decide to call things whatever we wanted to call them here regardless of what they were actually called. Postdlf 03:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Agree with Postdlf.
  • Merge - I think this probably applies to other categories that use the term "United States" instead of "American", and maybe the whole thing should be looked at. The problem is United States is a country not a nationality. Saying "United States painters" is like saying "Germany painters" or "France painters", it's illiterate. JW 09:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to United States. Classify by the country, not the continent. America is quite a bit bigger than the US (see WP:CSB). Radiant_>|< 09:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • North and South America are the continents. The Americas refer to them collectively. An American, however, is someone from the United States because the U.S. successfully co-opted the word. JW is right that "United States painters" is simply illiterate and there is no excuse for tolerating it. Postdlf 10:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the BBC agrees.[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7] As does Britannica.[8],[9]. Note the qualification Britannica makes of "Latin American literature"[10], in contrast to unqualified "American literature"[11]. So what else do you need to see? Postdlf 11:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge America into United States. The name of the country is not America. --Kbdank71 12:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it often is, in common usage, and dictionaries will cite that meaning of "America" before any other. And the links from non-U.S. sources that you've just ignored include such a usage. But that's not even the point; the name of the Netherlands isn't Dutch, yet that's what people from the Netherlands are called. Postdlf 17:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure in parts of the middle east, common usage is "Infidel". So let's just use that, shall we? I'll repeat: The name of the country is not America, period. Not "it often is", not "it rarely is". Not at all. If you've got such a problem with adjectives vs nouns, then rename the category to Category:Painters from the United States. --Kbdank71 15:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also the CIA World Factbook table of the correct adjectives and nouns to use in referring to nationality.[12] Anyone have any contrary evidence? Postdlf 18:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Postdlf. Am I missing something, or is there another adjective that means "person from the United States"? People who live in North America are Canadians, Americans, Mexicans, Cubans. People who live in South America are Venezuelans, Brazilians, Columbians, Peruvians, etc. It is perhaps my American POV, but I believe American, as an adjective, does not primarily mean "of or pertaining to North, South, or Central America". If this is common usage outside of the US and there is some other adjective more commonly used for "people from the US" (um, other than "idiots"), I'd like to see some evidence. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:34, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • *Reverse merge America into United States, or USA. My dictionary indicates America may mean the United States, but "American" can refer to all of the Americas -- Central America, South America, etc. Central Americans, South Americans, etc. [I didn't word that well the first time]
Whatever the decision, all these could be brought into consistency
  • Artists of the American West
  • American architects
  • American cartoonists
  • American comics artists
  • American illustrators
  • U.S. illustrators
  • American photographers
  • United States sculptors
  • Art in the United States
  • American photography
  • American visual art
  • Art museums and galleries in the U.S.
  • American art critics
  • U.S. artists

-->>sparkit|TALK<< 18:19, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge as per requesters suggestion. When I become the global dictator I aspire to be I'll post an edict requiring all countries to adopt one-word names to eliminate all the confusion. No more prefixes like 'United', 'Great', or 'New'.--Hooperbloob 23:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I bow to you, oh dictator, since we are already referred to as simply the States. However I do fear that means we would have to cede the northeastern U.S. back to the British (drop the "New" from "New England" and you have "England"). —Mike 02:16, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Leave it where it is, which is perfectly clear already. Jonathunder 23:37, 2005 July 18 (UTC)
  • Use "American" or "U.S." "United States" is stilted, etc. Maurreen 14:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC) Forgot to sign earlier.[reply]
  • Merge category:United States painters into category:American painters. — Instantnood 05:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge category:United States painters to category:American painters Classify by nationality not by form of government. Hiding talk 15:16, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree with the proposal. My voting card says on the top "for United States citizens only." Are you going to say that is a wrong usage? United States works as an adjective and is perfectly clear. CDThieme 18:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per James F. No need to repeat reasons given above. DES 19:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Reverse merge the American painters category (leaving out the Canadians, Mexicans, etc.) and redirect or create a disambiguation page for "American Painters" in search. So Google's wrong in its classification system (which is subject to no controls whatsoever): why must Wikipedia be. Strictly knee-jerk reactionary POV evident in all arguments favoring "American" over "United States". 12.73.195.30 03:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:American painters in line with most Wikipedia categories and normal everyday usage. Heavy PC bias in counter proposal. CalJW 22:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Reverse Merge contents of Category:American painters to Category:United States painters or Category:Mexican painters or Category:Canadian painters as appropriate. Then delete. DES 22:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Notable people in Latter Day Saint history

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 14:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_17&oldid=1121943522"