Knowledge (XXG):Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 25

1172:

several distinct navies historically, such as Germany or Japan's cases. Thus, like other adjective categories for ships, it seems best left ot the editors to decide when and if such categorization was appropriate and how deeply so. I am not personally all that concerned which way things go as long as we have a direction so I can go fix the templates for example, which right now don't work well when there are two different formats in play. There are some minor additional reasons I chose to nominate the above method first, including that all the names will be a bit shorter, and sorting is not dependent on adding a piped adder to the category link. Neither abig deal, but worth a mention. If people decide to go the other direction, then we can put up the longer list, but I just thought I'd propose the shorter one first.

1930:

data on similarities between R-rated movies, such as trying to compared R-rated movies for the purpose of determining if the rating has an impact on sales or if the rating has a correlation with violent current events. Or maybe I want to see if the guidelines for what constitutes an R-rating have changed over the years, meaning a movie that drew an R rating in 1970 might only draw a PG-13 rating today. Then I would want a list of all the movies with R-ratings from which I could draw a sample. With that in mind, I can see some use for the category and no significant downside in terms of maintaining it once it's established. Hence my vote to keep.

2025:- The point of multiple rating systems for multiple countries is a valid one. On the other hand, it doesn't negate the potential utility of sorting films by rating as I described above. In other words, while there is a question of how many different rating systems exist, it would still be useful to have a list of, for example, all R-rated movies for people looking to study movies with similar rated characteristics and to look at how the rating systems work. In fact, it becomes even 1780:- Ok, per the discussion above, I've gone ahead and created an umbrealla cfd nomination for all the subcats. I recommended converting all the subcats into list articles, to reduce the per-actor category amount and also because lists allow for more information (eg. including the character name next to the actor on the list). This category would remain in place to hold all the list articles. The umbrella nomination and discussion can be found 1569:, It is generally a bad idea to create individual categories for specific movies and television shows to sort actors. The reason is that most actors have up to 50 or 100 or more movies and shows on their IMDB listings, which would mean that if you create a new category for every movie and show called "Actors in fill-in-the-blank" each actor will have 50 to 100 or more categories at the end of their article. Moreover, actor articles 1691:, I don't think such categories are a good idea for individual films, but they can be useful for television series. A lot of these categories seem to be filling with guest stars who only appeared on one or two episodes of series though. They should only include the main/recurring cast. If used in this way, they will not clutter articles as the film ones would. Categories for non-notable series should be deleted. -- 345:, "We should not categorise people by stance on issues (as opposed to actual political action). There are hundreds of issues, and doing so will either (a) create chronic category clutter or (b) skew Knowledge (XXG) towards trendy issues of the moment in an unencyclopedic way (as here)." - Said by Twittenham in the debate over the deletion of 1740:: It bothers me that people are added to these categories when they are only one one episode of the series, but I do think the categories should exist for actors who played main or recurring characters. I do think the categories are being misused but I don't think misuse of categories is reason to delete. 3768:-language general encyclopedias" instead of (as well as) creating an "encyclopedias by language" subdivision. A category like "English-languge encyclopedis" wouldn't be very useful if it contained not only Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana, ..., but all specialized encyclopedias as well. — 1727:

Someone subdivided the category by genre, assuming that would end the discussion. Note that the problem wasn't subdividing the category, but rather the more general problem of what happens if most television shows and movies have their own unique categories (eg actor articles with 50 categories, one

1267:

Not so much disagreeing as wishing to understand preferences; I think I'd favo/ur "Ships of the Navy of the Islamic Republic of Iran" (unless "Islamic Republic of Iran Navy" or something else is the official English name). I agree that this Iran example is pretty awkward whichever way it's cast, but

1712:

Good point above. Probably a better way to go is to review the individual subcategories and see which should be considered for deletion. Subcategories of series that cross genres or that have multiple articles associated with them outside of television, such as Star Trek, are probably worthwhile,

1171:

scheme. This helped avoid some confusion. One item of note was that while every ship should be categorized by country if known, organization by navy was only required where it added value, either in the case of very large navies such as the Royal Navy or United States Navy, or where a country had

124:

would appear to be outside the electoral remit. Within the main article, the third sentence ("Political campaigns also include organized efforts to alter policy within any institution.") is the only reference to non-electoral campaigning, so that could probably change too; if this CFR gets through

2029:

useful when you consider the global perspective, allowing you to compare how the same movie is rated in different countries and therefore compare how different countries' rating systems operate. It might be interesting to know how Europe rates movies versus the US, for instance. So at this point

1929:

I'm going to vote keep on this for a couple of reasons. First, it doesn't present much overhead per article; it only adds one category per movie article. Also, it's easily verified and objective. Finally, I can see some possible use for it. For example, let's say I'm doing an essay or reviewing

1573:

have relatively complete "works" listings within the article showing what television shows and movies they've appeared in, so further cross-referencing by category isn't adding any additional search utility. Likewise, a TV show article or movie article should include the cast, so again you can

518:

should also be included, but if that category remains deleted and if this category is deleted, so should all other categories that may be perceived as contoversial or political. The deletion of categories pertaining to same-sex marriage while allowing categories pertaining to right-to-life or

505:

was deleted so in light of this deletion we should, in your words, not "give an impression of favoritism for certain issues and a bias against others". Keeping the opposers category while deleteting the supporters category would be favoritism and bias while also showing sheer hypocrisy in

1216:

I agree that consistency is the most important thing here. Personally I also am in favour of "Ships of the..." but so long as there is consistency it doesn't matter too much. I do also agree though that "Ships of the..." seems a little less cumbersome than the alternative.

1181:

I agree that consistency is the most important issue. If, toward the end of the discussion period, "(Navy name) ships" has a majority but not a clear consensus, I'll gladly change my vote to help get a change made. I do prefer the "Ships of (navy)" format though.

1162:

I am aware that there are significant sub-cats under these and once a direction is decided, I will put the necessary ones up for reformatting. When the matter was discussed earlier in the year, one item that was mentioned was that by organizing navy ship cats as

1667:, with the apparent assumptions being that 1) only "main actors" or "regular cast members" would be listed, and 2) only notable "series" would have their own categories. Although I'm somewhat skeptical of both assumptions, this would be a similar discussion. 429:

I'm beginning to think we need a speedy for categories that represent a person's opinion (e.g. people who support motion foo, or people who vote for that party, etc). Happens frequently enough, all we need is a good wording. And no, I'm not talking about

490:

for the same reasons that Category:Pro-life politicians and Category:Pro-choice politicians were kept after being marked for deletion. To allow those and not allow this would give an impression of favoritism for certain issues and a bias against others.

2951:

If this change is the right name, then all of the other similar named cats should be changed at the same time. Doing one and leaving the others would leave to confusion. Is there a problem doing all of these if this one is correct?

564:

Yeah, a measurable set of criteria would go a long way in making this kind of category npov. However, it may be very difficult to find an applicable set of criteria that can be agreed upon by the community. Is it really worth it?

1795:, and delete all subcategories as well. Yes, some actors are know best (or only) because of their appearance in a specific TV series, but some actors are also known best (or only) by their appearances in specific films. Note that 550:

I would think a consistent voting record on the issue would suffice. This is more specific than "LGBT rights opposition" which could be interpreted as anything from demanding all LGBTs be imprisoned to getting under 50% from the

519:

pro-choice show a point of view as to what is allowed and what is not. Picking and choosing as to what subjects can be in a category shows a point of view, and if one is discarded then all others should be discarded as well.

1630:

is necessary since "The 4400" has no real notability outside of being a television show, which means all or almost all the articles in "Category:The 4400" would be either actors in the show or episode listings. Therefore it

1200:(and rename those on that longer list!). Results such as "Islamic Republic of Iran Navy ships" seem too cumbersome to me; I suspect "Ships of..." produces less cumbersome (if, yes, a little more lengthy) names. Regards, 194:. Of the two names listed, once could possibly be classed as an assassination, but the other was simply murdered. There are quite a few police officers who have been murdered, but very few who have been assassinated. -- 125:

I'll suggest that. The articles in the category are rather US-centric at the moment, which may have affected the choice of terminology for the names. Fixing this will be a step towards fixing that wider problem.

1578:

and its subcategories could potentially create 50 or 100 or more categories per actor article with little to no benefit gained. I recommend deleting this and also any subcategories related to non-notable shows.

3218:

I created this because many in the main cat seemed to be identified this way that it seemed permanent. In hindsight the main category was never crowded enough to justify it so I'm good with a merger. Possibly

1713:

but categories for otherwise relatively unimportant television series can probably be deleted. So rather than delete this parent category, we should probably scan the subcategories for possible deletions.

1905:. Not needed at all. This seems like one of those "make it because the user wanted to". Films are sorting by many other things, rating doesn't need to be part of it. This is not an all movie site. 1768:

so that people can get the information about the people who made a guest apperance and so that people's articles will not be full of categories of series where the actor only made one appearance.

1019: 515: 502: 346: 42: 37: 1660: 1146: 981: 1799:

does not exist, because it is a) redundant with the films' cast lists and the actors' filmographies, and b) impossible to maintain. The exact same princip;e holds true here as well. -

1010: 1258:

Well, if we can't "Iranian Navy ships", "Islamic Republic of Iran Navy ships" seems better than "Ships of the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy". Obviously, you disagree. Oh, well.

3061:, I don't think this is a useful category. This categorization might also lead to issues where a road does not follow one system but does follow another - which one applies? 972: 2030:

I'm not completely sold on tossing out the idea of being able to search movies by ratings, but I do understand the concern about how many rating systems might be involved.

2929:. If this is renamed, then every other one of these sub cats also needs to be renamed. I would delay any action here untill after the local routes issue is resolved on 943: 112:

which pretty much covers the difference. I have already added a note to the Category, based on the articles currently listed, to the effect that it's not about any old

867: 2455:- It looks like one is for project pages and the other is for users, but since this is an administrative category, I think that the distinction isn't necessary. -- 2189:

multiple jurisdictions use the R rating, and it means different things in different jurisdictions. Further films R in one jurisdiction are often not R in another.

724: 708: 1150: 2446: 2413: 934: 1626:

is a natural subcategory of that, because Star Trek as a whole has importance that extends beyond just being a television series. By contrast, I doubt the

555:. I'm skeptical people would restrict themselves to politicians who have a consistent record on SSM, but at least that would give it a measurable quality.-- 858: 655: 541:

If one is created the criteria for inclusion should be very high. In my opinion, that is the problem with category types like these. Its all just opinion.

2153:. Pretty useless category, we don't need categories for each rating. Alot of the time, articles list the rating itself: there is no need to be redundant. 3709: 3489: 687:. The addition of "buildings" is not needed because all RMH is known for is his architecture and only architecture inhabits the category named for him. 3041: 1027: 829: 1995:

I agree with the arguments raised. Ratings are not important and are very dependent on where you are. Some films are available in more than one cut.

1643:

television series subcats, but if so a tight lid should be established to keep the category from growing exponentially with non-notable programming.

3033: 21: 1095: 1057: 905: 2780:. The Simpsons not being a good-vs-evil kind of show, the distinction of "villains" is not very useful, and most of them are ambiguous at that. 989: 3679: 3601: 646: 349:

which ended up being deleted. I agree with Twittenham's argument and see it as hypocritical if one category is erased while the other remains.

3685:, might the category be meant for encyclopedias on these subjects regardless of where or in what language they might be written...? Regards, 3024: 1939:

It only adds one category if only American categories are used. Knowledge (XXG) is not an American encyclopedia, it is a global encyclopedia.

181: 3712:. It's a little unclear to me that the language categories need to change the way newspapers did, but I certainly don't have an objection.-- 3503: 820: 17: 532:

was deleted. If you wish to create a category on this issue that is devoted solely to politicians and or activists I would support it.--

3495: 1141:: Rename "(navy name) ships" categories to "Ships of the (navy name)". That seems to be more in line with other ship categories, like 951: 213: 3729: 3612: 3589: 3473: 2904: 1086: 1048: 1042: 896: 875: 3508: 3705: 2475: 185: 1765: 3512: 1004: 3627: 2720: 1618:

television series that are notable enough to warrant their own categories. For example, I think you could reasonably argue that

528:

The ones you mention specify politicians as their status on issues is pertinent. This does not specify such a thing. As I recall

3545: 317: 121: 3584: 2583: 1541: 663: 3733: 2554: 325: 3464: 2485: 2381: 3666: 3658: 3571: 3469: 1549: 837: 3377:. Any person who was notable solely for their opposition to feminism could be in Category:Feminism or something similar. -- 3161:, This category seems awfully POV, as well as being hard to verify. I think it should be merged into the parent category. 2562: 2039:"Europe" doesn't rate films, each European country does, and there are about 50 of them. Your idea is totally impractical. 966: 308: 3617: 3553: 3535: 3478: 3148: 1636: 1575: 1532: 1103: 1065: 913: 890: 117: 95: 3767:

encyclopedias" a few days ago to organize the general encyclopedias. I would suggest to rename them to "<language: -->

3297:, but I'm no longer certain it's useful or that the name even sounds right. Possibly it could work if renamed, but ehh.-- 2545: 3562: 3389:, all of these "political stance" categories should be purged, as they are prone to POV abuse, and difficult to verify. 1983:

per the argument that there are multiple ratings systems and only having the American system would not be a good thing.

104:. I would have suggested the broader rename "Political Campaigning", to tally with what appears to be the main article ( 3774: 3758: 3738: 3716: 3696: 3652: 3639: 3557: 3539: 3517: 3452: 3439: