Knowledge (XXG):Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 14

1761:, Cat:Individual lawyers has a few problems. First, it contains too much potential overlap with Cat:Lawyers and its subcategories. Presumably Cat:Individual lawyers would encompass ALL lawyer articles, regardless of what other categories they are in. So this would be a very unwieldy category. Second, the stated purpose of Cat:Individual lawyers is to help subdivide Cat:Lawyers. But, in fact, there are already existing subcategories that do the job better, such as subdividing lawyer articles by nationality or US state. Theoretically all lawyer articles that include the lawyer's country of practice should be placed instead in the corresponding national subcategory, for example. Therefore I recommend merging the handful of articles already in Cat:Individual lawyers into Cat:Lawyers or an appropriate national subcategory. 2725:, something that I had done without objection in years gone by when evidently you were not on the (Knowledge (XXG)) scene yet, so it is good to have your views now. To answer your above points. There is no difference the way "clerics" and "clergy" can be used here. Just a question of style. It is only your evaluation that something is "grammatically poor" but you are overlooking the main point of my argument: The need to differentiate in titles between Christianity's and Judaism's "Orthodox" segments. Your tolerance for the ill-defined and loose usage of "Eastern Orthodox" is surprising given your attention to the other details you bring up. My only concern is to create unambiguous clarity in the titles so that no-one and nothing, especially Knowledge (XXG)'s and other non-human 3202:- I believe these categories do have some use. I can definitely imagine some users wanting to compare games with similar ratings. For example, a reader doing an essay involving laws restricting Mature rated video games would probably find it useful to have a category listing Knowledge (XXG) articles with Mature ratings. Simply having the Mature rating listed in an actual article would not allow you to easily figure out which articles have that rating. Rather, you need the articles listed within a single category in order to compare them. Another example would be parents interested in the ratings shopping for games for their kids would have a convenient way to compare games within the same rating. Also, as to Tim's comment above about films, just because films aren't 3360:

entertainment related news. Nor is there any systemic bias. Whether or not a game belongs to a category is completely objective; it either has a certain rating or it doesn't. There's no author bias involved. (You might argue that the ratings board itself contains bias, but the question of whether a category is objective is related to determining how Knowledge (XXG) supports its information and not the internal process the ESRB uses to determine ratings.) Finally, note that given the number of potential computer games involved a list would be potentially much more unwieldy than an automatically updated category system.

4020:, Is this a mass nomination? If so, you need to tag every single subcategory (many of the subcats are also further subcategorized). These categories are not for animals that can be found in every country (and I don't think anybody has used them that way). They are for species (subspecies in many cases) that are native to only one or two countries. I think the issue you mention is nonexistent. If somebody has added an animal that can be found across the world to loads of these categories, then the cats should just be removed from the article, but I don't see any reason to delete all these useful categories. -- 561:, Both categories are very similar, in many cases cover the same topics (such as intelligence and sensitive information), and the boundary between them is extremely blurry. I propose to merge these categories in order to prevent confusing redundancies. Since the term "national security" is broader, more popular, and there is a main article with the same name, I think that the category resulting from the merger should be named National security. 3967:- My nomination was intended to include all the subcategories of ] in the nomination for deletion; why keep subcategories of a category that's gone? I'm not sure what the purpose of the creation of these was; instructions for their use would have to be explained over and over and over to avoid someone putting scads of them at the end of an article; that explanation is unlikely to happen, thus creating more cleanup tasks. 2699:'clergy' not 'clerics'. But that aside, whilst 'Greek Orthodox' and 'Romanian Orthodox' are adjectival expressions, 'Greek Orthodox Church' and 'Romanian Orthodox Church' are not. Thus, to say 'Greek Orthodox clergy' or 'Romanian Orthodox clergy' is grammatically fine; but to say 'Greek Orthodox Church clergy' or 'Romanian Orthodox Church clergy' is grammatically poor. Beyond this, I 2657:; my google search found only two distinct links using "Eastern Orthodox Judaism" and three for "Eastern Orthodox Jew" (and one of those is a forum post saying "I've never heard of Eastern Orthodox Jews"). The categories involving "Oriental Orthodox" likewise seem to have a primary topic that is Christian, but the phrase is an odd English disambiguation to begin with. 2464:, as long as it is being moved anyway. The first one needs to be moved. However, for the "Eastern Orthodox" categories, I wonder how ambiguous they really are, and how much they "need" to be moved. A google search for "Eastern Orthodox Judaism" finds mostly links in lists of religions separated by commas: "..., Eastern Orthodox, Judaism, ..." 3996:: make articles out of these instead of categories. Great topic for an article, but having categories on all of these would either get unbelievably unwieldy or require somewhat arbitrary inclusion criteria ("OK, this animal is in 180 countries, but lets just put it in Fauna of X because its important to X" or something to that effect). 3359:

simply trivia; this can confirmed by a brief review of how many news articles there have been in the last few years regarding whether or not sales of Mature rated games, for example, should be restricted to minors, or what changes if any the ratings system should undergo. It is an important topic in

2613:

so it's therefore very necessary to differentiate between "Eastern Orthodox" Christians and "Eastern (Mizrahi) Orthodox" Jews. Your final lament that "The proposed names are longish; most contributors will still label their articles as they are wont to do; enormous confusion will ensue" is simply not

2478:

per nom, although I share Gimmetrow's reservations about the vestment category. There's no real way to distinguish between Orthodox and Uniate vestments. We are also going to have to ensure that the articles are comprehensive enough to encomapss both the EO and OO vestment traditions. They're clearly

1259:

into its parent categories to avoid orphaning. I think we should strip all "Marvel vs. Capcom" and "Ultimate Alliance" group titles out of all these subcategories and put them into the main categories. Then, if anyone has more than, say, two entries left over, they get to keep their own category. I'd

3411:

I understood what you meant by "trivia"; I just disagree with your assessment. The Mature rating and similar ratings in particular are of particular importance within the gaming industry and in gaming news. Whether or not a game has a Mature rating has a major impact on the game's sales, whether or

2738:

You have changed the titles of a great number of articles, as your contrib history shows. The issue is not about how long you or I have been editing wikipedia, but whether or not these changes are appropriate and whether or not they reflect consensus. It is clear both from here and from the Eastern

2698:

the proposed changes (which have in fact been made unilaterally in advance of discussion) regarding Greek Orthodox clerics and Romanian Orthodox clerics, on the grounds that the expressions 'Greek Orthodox Church clerics' and 'Romanian Orthodox Church clerics' are bad grammar. Firstly, it should be

2757:

A mixture. I'm pretty much with Maxim662 here. "Romanian Orthodox" and "Greek Orthodox" are unambiguous: no problem. "Orthodox vestments" should caange. " Eastern Orthodox" / "Eastern Orthodoxy": probably not a problem, I've never heard this wording in a Jewish context. "Oriental Orthodox": should

2707:

the revision of 'Eastern Orthodox liturgical days' to 'Eastern Orthodox Christian liturgical days', on the grounds that it is unnecessary, since, in English, 'Eastern Orthodox' refers normally to Eastern Orthodox Christianity; 'Eastern Orthodox' is not a title commonly used to designate any branch

2743:

a consensus supporting your changes. In this light, it would be good if you would revert your changes of Orthodox article-titles to their previous titles, pending consensus. Also, 'Eastern Orthodox' is a very specific usage in English - it designates that, and only that, which pertains to Eastern

2372:

subjects and categories, a very different religion! We have had this problem in the past when editors who are editing Orthodox Christian topics overlook that they must keep in mind not to confuse unsuspecting readers with .headings and names that are not specific enough. Most categories like this

4104:- Deleting this category is innaproproiate without discussing the subcategories first. If you want to delete the subcategories, tag all of them and start over with a new nomination. Also, per musicpvm, if they are being misused, address that through culling, instead of deleting the category. -- 2068:

has been solely the county name. I would not oppose deleting the Central Valley category and farming those articles to the appropriate category. I would also not oppose doing one mass change renaming all the sub-cats to one standard name. At this point though, this is the only county not in the

2623:

I have a small problem with the Greek Orthodox and Romanian Orthodox clerics changes. I'm not against them I'm just not sure I see the reason. Do Orthodox Jewish people in Greece and Romania really refer to their clergy as "Greek Orthodox clerics" or "Romanian Orthodox clerics?" I suppose it's

3924:, Adding these categories to the ends of articles would be incredibly unwieldy. For an animal occurring in every country on the list, the article for the animal would need 132 categories listed at the end of the article. Creation of these categories cites a CfD that I can't find. 3325:

It is trivia (not important in the long run), systemic bias (written from an American point of view) and overcategorization (the more categories an article has, the less meaningful they become). It would be far more informative to write a "List of games by ESNT rating".

2526:. I believe the proposal doesn't make much sense. "Eastern Orthodox" normally designates Christinity, not Judaism. The proposed names are longish; most contributors will still label their articles as they are wont to do; enormous confusion will ensue. -- 2614:

true. An extra word like "Christian" does not make a name "longish." Indeed, "contributors" will write as they wish, and then articles will be edited over time, many, many times. There will not be any "confusion" on the contrary, this adds clarity.

367:. The category has existed for over a month, and it doesn't appear to be gaining any additional articles. Seems like an unnecessary bit of extra categorization that can be better handled by including a "see also" entry in the main article 3369:

Ah, I think you misunderstood me. By "systemic bias", I do not mean that the information itself is biased in itself, but that the information comes from a single direction (in this case, America) and does not reflect the entire world

3301:

a game guide situation, it's not even a cruft situation. You don't learn to play any games by using these, and everything that is listed is fact. So even using that as a reason for its deletion is exceedingly stupid in my opinion.

4036:

I'm unaware that all the subcategories of a category nominated for deletion need to be nominated individually, the instructions for nominating a category seem to indicate otherwise, but aren't very clear on this

3412:

not certain stores carry it, and "adult" ratings in general are in news stories regarding what role government should play, if any, in regulating sales of computer games to minors. I'm not advocating including

3288:

Seeing as the rating system, and rating for games has been under much scrutiny by everyone the past years, I don't see any problem with keeping these. And a question; Why does everyone automatically scream

3126:

unless the article actually mentions that the person was a lawyer. Information that doesn't appear in the article shouldn't be used for categorization. Thus a statement being included in an article is a

4775:

The office did change in that period, but I don't think it is worth the complication to segregate its consuls. I am content including those in the years after Caesar in the Republican cat, as is done in

3266:- The reasons above. Whereas they can easily be ccategorised by year (like films), adding only 1 category. Categorising them by rating would introduce a lot of category-bloat for very little payoff. - 2017:. Not only do you have eight Orange Counties in the U.S., there are also businesses with Knowledge (XXG) articles based in at least three of them—the counties in California, Florida, and New York ( 3105:. Redundant information that isn't needed. If it's listed in the article, it doesn't need a category. When the game was made and other things are actually more useful than what a game is rated. 379:: Brandeis University and a few other things were named for him as well, and could be added to the cat. But since theyre linked from the main article, I dont know how useful the cat could be. 3378:. A game can have dozens of ratings, e.g. 91% at PC World, or "age" ratings in a dozen countries, and it is simply not useful to categorize for all of them. If you were to start this scheme, 42: 37: 404:

I can agree with that, if the word "few" is replaced by the phrase "10 or 20 or more". If there are only two or three or four articles, just put "See also" in the associated article(s).

106: 4085:

for this or that country into every subcategory. Also add information where to put animals that could be found over several countries. But even with this I expect poor to absurd results.

1522:, Blade has had a grand total of one video game. He appears (among many others) in the upcoming Marvel RPG: Marvel Ultimate Alliance. But that certainly isn't enough to have a category. 3946: 3061: 2167: 1908: 2744:

Orthodox Christianity. Check the OED. (Lastly, the proper collective noun for a group of clerics is 'clergy'. This is the word to use in an Encyclopedia article title.) Best,

2031: 4345:

are not necessarily great either. Players who've won the World Cup multiple times are certainly exclusive and notable, so I don't see why we can't have a category for them.

2729:, should not dredge up and confuse "Orthodoxies" of different religions (as they surely will given the current ambiguous names for some articles and categories.) Sincerely, 3709:

I agree, it's not a country, and never has been, and the relevent categories should not have "by country" parents. It looks like someone was a little over-enthusiastic. --

1949: 1223:, He has had a total of 2 games and they aren't that popular. He will be one of many in Marvel Ultimate Alliance (but that still isn't certainly enough for a category). 4138:

for the use of Madagascar, Australia, etc. Some animals are found in more than a hundred countries, we really shouldn't have 100+ categories for each of these animals.

4188:

for now, bring back the appropriate ones for renaming to "endemic" and then reconsider. Note that the Biota and Fauna categories need to be looked at in the same way.

4168:

would have to be in virtually *all* the country categories, because they can be found in almost all places inhabited by humans. (currently, that article is just in

196: 3513: 2142:—We have a clear consensus here, no? The logic that other orange counties do not yet have categories is specious; Knowledge (XXG) grows daily; they will come. 3476:

as category clutter. These are not universal (international) ratings, anyway, nor do I see a rating applied by a third party as a defining characteristic. --

461:- Thanks, it looks much better now that there are about ten articles and a subcategory. I adjusted my vote to Keep in light of the newly included articles. 200: 3047: 3042: 3037: 2802: 2254: 3546:, please; Cvg categories are already quite cluttered and this would add an uninteresting cat to almost every modern commercial release. What's next, 2078:

But that standard was never approved as far as I know, so it is just the common form. Creating categories that are dab issues is not a wise move.

1052: 944: 3547: 21: 4589: 4342: 3052: 2801:

It's irrelevant so long as there is no such thing as "Orthodox Jewish vestments;" it's unnecessary disambiguation, like naming the France article

1042: 4286: 3187: 2090:

Where is one supposed to go to get the names of categories approved? In any case, I am more concerend with uniformity than the actual format. --

3693: 3089:, sure the info's already in the infobox but so is the year they were made and the system they were on and I don't see anyone trying to delete 2065: 1922: 4458: 2936: 3523: 3000: 2995: 2990: 2946: 2110:

that may one day require a category. I'm all for consistency, but it seems too likely that other similarly-named categories will be created.

2985: 2980: 2966: 2941: 2931: 98: 4252: 3032: 3027: 3022: 3017: 3012: 2961: 2956: 2951: 2672: 2646: 2461: 2400: 691: 17: 4462: 3007: 2975: 2926: 2258: 260: 223: 179: 81: 4282: 669: 4726: 4303: 4248: 4059:

is just the worst. I deleted all items from "Czech Republic" as either completely nonsensical or not endemic. This is unmaintainable.

1630: 3505: 239: 94: 4688: 4571: 2323: 1186: 1038: 813: 192: 2327: 821: 3077:, agree with many of the points made at the talk page. I don't see why just mentioning the rating in an infobox isn't sufficient. 2286: 182:

as per original proposal. The amended proposal makes no sense as many South African activists spent the Apartheid years in exile.

4863: 4777: 3623: 2282: 3688: 2166:—Companies based in Orange County, California is fascinating to browse through. There do appear to be a number of businesses in 4762:, as useful parent category. The period 44BC till the formal declaration of the principate in 29(?) demands it, in my opinion. 4684: 4567: 3699:

No such country. However, these categories are in the "by country" hierarchy as is Ingria were a present-day sovereign nation.

2267: 1912: 1338: 804: 2649:. For the categories involving "X Orthodox cleric" I'm not opposed. However, for the categories involving "Eastern Orthodox", 4090:

Possibly working would be classification by large region like Sahara or North Asia or Madagascar, not by political entities.

3896: 3064:

for deletion of these categories. Also note other similar ones for PEGI and CERO game ratings, which will be under CfD soon.

2489: 2317: 2774:. While related, the names must be discussed one by one. About the argument of "Orthodox Jews": try and suggest to rename 2276: 2249: 1366:, He has had no series of his own, just minor cameo roles in several other Marvel series, that's not enough for a category. 1346: 1195: 842: 609:, don't seem to meet the definition of the main article if we do this change, so some article cats probably need updating. 4927:

There was a TV movie or two, which evidently didn't qualify for inclusion for this category for an as-of-yet-unmade film.

2423: 2396: 2240: 4891:, the only occupant of this cat was the upcoming Wonder Woman film. Article moved up a level to Films based on DC Comics. 4730: 3668: 1640: 1329: 4134: 2408: 4585: 4159: 3822: 3206:

categorized this way doesn't mean they too couldn't be categorized by rating. So, just my opinion, I'm voting to keep.

2347: 2302: 2263: 1852: 1203: 884: 438: 329: 4943: 4931: 4919: 4907: 4895: 4848: 4835: