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.
Nominator's rationale: This category was recently created, is used inappropriately, and is not needed. According to its contents, the category's articles appear to be "rehabilitation and therapies that utilize robots," although I am not sure these articles are even properly categorized. There is only one article relating to robot-aided rehabilitation, Rehabilitation robotics, which is not even included in this category. If the topic is expanded to additional articles, perhaps this could be re-created...but it is not needed now. Scott Alter21:09, 18 April 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.
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.
Support delete - This is a case of overcategorisation. The various causes of peritonitis are already categorised to appropriate disease categories. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:04, 19 April 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The category contains only two articles, other articles are unlikely to be added because there are no other modifications of the Total war series that are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. QueenCake (talk) 20:02, 18 April 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.
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.
Support merge - in the hospitals I've worked in the specialty is always referred to formally as 'Orthopaedic Surgery'. 'Orthopaedics' is an abbreviation of the department title, as in 'the Orthopaedics Department' or the 'Orthopaedics Secretary'. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:58, 19 April 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.
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 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.
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/merge all three into Category:Songs written by Johnny Mercer. If wider consensus is to split all of the "written by" categories out into "lyrics by" and "music by", this can be reversed. That, however, is a very large undertaking and will require more input than this. Kbdank7113:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Also nominated to be changed to Songs written by Johnny Mercer category:Songs by Johnny Mercer and Category:Songs with music by Johnny Mercer. Johnny Mercer, extremely notable and fine lyricist that he was, also wrote music and has at least 3 songs listed at WP where he composed the music. When he also wrote the lyrics such songs would sit in both the music and lyric categories. However, I think think this might be case of overcategorization. FWIW, with the information that Mercer also wrote music I would find it strange if he did not provide some of the music in the songs "lyrics by..." and his co-writer some of the words. The definition of composer and lyricist still exists today in standard music contracts and defines "composed by" and "lyrics by" but in all partnerships there's always a little give and take and for practical reasons probably would have signed accordingly. Please note, I consider this a very contentious nomination, there are a few more other songwriters this applies to. It should also be noted that Category:Songs by composer was recreated a month after it was deleted last time. I shall be notifying interested parties about this nomination. Richhoncho (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if 'Songs written by xxx' means 'some part written by XXX (and perhaps others)'. It is indeed a difficult area. Still, if the article says 'Lyrics by A', 'Music by B', it seems logical to put the song into 'songs with lyrics by A', and into 'songs with music by B'. Occuli (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The downside of this (particularly regarding people from JM's era) is that people who wrote both words and music we find 2 categories, Lyrics by XYZ and Music by XYZ and exactly the same songs in both categories. Something I'd like to avoid. Or we might have half a dozen articles that say who wrote what, but the last article is silent, do we guess the right answer or create a new category? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Put on Hold This is a far larger issue than Johnny Mercer. There are many songwriters who wrote only the music or lyrics for some or all of their songs. While I have no issue with putting all songs in which a songwriter participated, writing the song on his own or with a partner, or whatever part was contributed, there are excellent reasons to split "Songs written by Foo", "Songs with lyrics by Foo" and "Songs with music by Foo" into separate categories. This is not an issue specific to Johnny Mercer and should be addressed globally, perhaps with the assistance of folks more familiar with the musical nuances involved here. Alansohn (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't really want to go down that route. The amount of contribution in any partnership is debateable (see delete discussion for Category:Songs written by Norman Petty), and any veriable sources that says who wrote this or that is good enough for me. My query on this was does a single person need 3 categories (especially as there's only one entry for one cat, 2 for the other and a worthwhile cat for the lyricist cat. I'd be happy and consider Mercer "a songwriter" for cat purposes, or "lyricist" and "composer" but then we have 2 songs which should appear in both cats! For somebody of JM's stature I don't mind that, but there are a few single song cats which are duplicated because one person did both lyrics and music, and that really is overcategorisation. This nomination was always a "test the waters" and see what people have to say. Thanks for your comments.--Richhoncho (talk) 08:49, 23 April 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.
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 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.
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.
If anybody can either create the relevant article, or add songs to the category I would be more than pleased to remove the nomination. Richhoncho (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I said I would G8 next time, on checking I didn't think it covered categories and, if, as happened last time, an article is created I would want to withdraw the nomination, so a little time and debate is preferable. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're still categories without a parent article, which falls under G8. Categories can always be re-created after there's an article on the person in question, but let's not put the cart before the horse. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP)23:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy criteria are very specific and very carefully drafted, so it would not be appropriate to assume that something would apply "by extension". But you could, of course, propose adding this to the existing criteria, and see what other editors think of the idea. Cgingold (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all the G8 requests because I don't see any Wikipedia policy that requires a category to have a similarly-named article in the encyclopedia. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:55, 20 April 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.
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 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:No comment. It has been suggested that this category has inclusion standards that are too subjective to allow for its existence. I created the category and previously defended it at CFD. Since the category has been repeatedly offered as an example when trying to keep other categories, I am bringing it back to CFD to see if consensus about it has changed. Discussed and kept once previously. I am neutral. Otto4711 (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as you know one when you see one, & certainly of encyclopedic interest. On the wild frontier of subjective criteria though. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it is indeed an example par excellence when trying to keep other valuable categories with or without subjective and/or convoluted inclusion criteria. Occuli (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! – as I did at the previous CfD, I voted to Keep then and will do so again now not only because this meets all of my standards for retention, but for the staggering number of precedents that it sets, all the more so because of the clear consensus it set previously, and the nature of the category and comments used to support its retention. 1) Categories can be almost completely subjective - There is no definition whatsoever of what "LGBT-related" means, nor is there any way to determine if any episodes "substantially cover such issues". As stated in the Keep vote from the earlier CfD by User:Ctjf83, all that is necessary is to "put in inclusion criteria on the template page", regardless of inherent subjectivity. 2) Slippery Slope is not an issue - There is no discernible means to determine which episodes are in and which are out (pun originally was unintended). Thus the dreaded slippery slope argument, "but what will prevent someone from adding a possible borderline case" has no validity. There is no standard here whatsoever -- amount of LGBT-related content, number of words spoken by LGBT-related characters, use of LGBT-related keywords, etc. -- objective or subjective, that could possibly tell us which should be included and which should not. 3) Acceptance that WP:CLN encourages coexistence of lists AND categories - Categories should co-exist with lists as a default and one should not be deleted simply because the other exists and deletion of one wil result in "no net loss of data". As noted previously by the nominator of the current CfD, "The category can be linked as easily as the list can be, so that's no argument in favor of deletion. No one appears to be suggesting that the category is superior to the list, rather, per WP:CLN they complement each other. There are several hundred episodes on that list, most of which would not be notable enough for individual articles." 4) No need for articles to have any common uniting feature - again, as stated at the original CfD "the first guideline for category usage is that the category groups similar articles together". The oft-repeated argument that there must be some inherent connection between each of the articles in a category is eliminated. 5) Sources are not needed to support a category, but existence of sources confirms retention of a category - existence of general media coverage is all that is necessary to show that a category should be retained. 6) Three-part test for category retention - As discussed at the previous CfD should be used in all cases, keeping all categories that meet the three criteria A) is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the topic of the category? B) is it obvious why any given article would be in the category? C) does the category fit into the overall categorization system? Rather than arbitrary personal preferences, we can finally implement a set of guidelines that will end most of the drama here at CfD. I again suggest that these guidelines should be recorded at WP:CAT so that we can short circuit so many of the pushes for deletion of categories that almost always ignore or directly contradict these guidelines. Alansohn (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per excellent rationale by Alansohn and keep rationales from the previous CfD. The category inclusion criteria are clearly articulated. And cats are intrinsically different from lists; both can and should co-exist, as they serve different functions. — Becksguy (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the category's inclusion standards are too subjective, then tighten them. Nothing wrong with the category per se. Born Gay (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; criteria seem too subjective for categorization. The list would be a preferable method for grouping these episodes. However, the thought of an editor hawking this solitary result ad infinitum as a "unanimous" so-called endorsement of some questionable principles of "precedent" is more troubling than the prospect of actually having to keep the category around. Hence I dissent, while acknowledging that sometimes if enough editors simply prefer to have a category around, it will exist, regardless of what other editors or the guidelines say. In Wikipedia, for any specific case the people ultimately rule, not the more generalised rules and guidelines. Therefore, I can accept that the category will be kept (and should be kept because of the consensus), while still maintaining the opinion that a strict application of the generalised guidelines would suggest that it should not be. Good Ol’factory(talk)11:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So just to be clear here, you don't actually think this template should be deleted but want to poison the well for those other sneaky categories saying "me too"? -- Banjeboi11:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reminded of the Seinfeld episode "The Wig Master" where Jerry wants to return an item to a store and when asked why says "for spite", to which the clerk responds "Well, if there was some problem with the garment. If it were unsatisfactory in some way, then we could do it for you, but I'm afraid spite doesn't fit into any of our conditions for a refund." this article provides a legal case involving Tom Clancy in which the Seinfeld case is quoted, pointing out the legal obligation to act in good faith, one that any legal scholar would be aware of. If I sum up your principles, they appear to read that if I like a catgeory keep it, if I don't delete; consistency is not even an afterthought. Your actions, which appear here to be in staggeringly bad faith, only further undermines the little credibility of a process that is so utterly broken. Alansohn (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think you missed my point. My point was that I believe the category should be deleted, because it is a category with subjective inclusionary criteria. Subjective inclusionary criteria ≠ spite. At the same time, I'm realistic that consensus does not always accurately reflect the guidelines. I'm glad you can dream up pretended parallels with American TV shows, but I suggest you allow other users to characterize their own reasons. If you're sensing an edge to my comment, maybe it's just a reflection of how I have felt about some of your approaches in the past and the dread with which I anticipate more of the same in the future. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I think you missed my point"? No, I heard your WP:POINT loud and clear. To quote your justification, "However, the thought of an editor hawking this solitary result ad infinitum as a 'unanimous' so-called endorsement of some questionable principles of 'precedent' is more troubling than the prospect of actually having to keep the category around. Hence I dissent". Even including spite as a secondary reason seems rather WP:POINTy bad faith to me. These words are a direct quote. If you can defend them, go right ahead. Alansohn (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, maybe it's just a reflection of how I have felt about some of your approaches in the past and the dread with which I anticipate more of the same in the future. (Sometimes I'm not sure how much of a comment you read, because you tend to focus in on selected bits (which incidentally is not unlike the frustration some other editors have repeatedly expressed regarding your selective quotation of WP:CLN); hence the repetition here, which I though would have already answered the inquiry you made directly above had it been read and considered.) When I wrote my comment I had just re-read a very lengthy inquiry from you on my talk page complaining about CfD in general, some actions of mine, and asking for some sort of unclear tit-for-tat action, and I was tired, in more ways than one. Call it Alansohn fatigue. But quite simply, I find what you claim this discussion stands for preposterous and over-reaching. At least now we won't have to hear about how those principles were supported "unanimously". However, if you want to continue to think you know better what my overall point was, that's up to you. I know what it was, and I think I'll be able to forgive myself for my transgressions. Good Ol’factory(talk)02:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being "LGBT-related" is a non-defining characteristic. I can think of no rationale that would support keeping this over any other "xyz-related television episodes" categories, which I don't think is a categorization system we should maintain. Replace xyz with pet ownership, watermelons, public transportation, cell phones, or any other possible topic you can muster up, and I don't see how it would be any different from this. We don't have an article on LGBT in television, for instance, explaining why this would be a phenomenon notable enough to be a defining characteristic of a television episode. If such an article existed then perhaps I could see this category being different from my aforementioned examples, but until then there's no grounds to view this characteristic of a TV episode to be notable enough to categorize. Keeping this IMO sets a precedent to categorize all television episodes by their central theme, whatever that theme may be. VegaDark (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed those when searching for an article on the general subject of LGBT in television, and from what I read there wasn't really any portion explaining why an LGBT-themed television episode is a particularly notable occurance over, say, any other central episode theme. Perhaps this would be so 30 years ago, but today I really don't see this as uncommon at all. VegaDark (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's true only recently, I would say since Queer Eye and L Word became quite fashionable; and only true in certain countries and therefore an editing issue to be resolved. That's different than none of these were ever notable. -- Banjeboi03:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was mostly responding to your comment about there being no LGBT in television article by saying that in effect there is, it's just split out over a number of different articles. As to why an LGBT-themed episode topic is more notable than another central episode theme, it may be that there are other themes out there which are as notable but no one's written up the information on them. This particular central theme remains extremely rare in the context of the history of television. From the origin of regular US network broadcasting in 1946 to 1969, I've found reliable sourcing for barely two dozen television episodes of which homosexuality was a central theme. When a controversial topic like homosexuality is a central theme at a rate of approximately once per year for the first quarter-century of American television and when a number of those episodes are themselves the subject of multiple reliable sources, it seems to me that this might be considered more of a notable or defining characteristic of such episodes than a theme like "the family buys a new pet" or "the kids break the neighbor's window playing ball and learn a valuable lesson" or what-not. Yes, such episodes have slowly become more commonplace, with five or so per year in the 1970s, about seven per year in the 1980s and so on, but hardly growing at such an exponential rate as to allow them to be considered completely non-notable based on their frequency. LGBT themes in individual TV episodes are the subject of continued study (see Tropiano, Capsuto, etc.). It may be that as television progresses LGBT-themed episodes in series that do not generally address such themes will become so commonplace as compared to other central television episode themes as to make this category obsolete. I don't believe that time is upon us yet nor is it likely to be in the near future. Otto4711 (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make some good points, but I'm sticking with my original rationale. Another thing don't like the temporary nature of this category. It seems we agree that, assuming society will continue to be more GLBT-friendly as time goes on (a safe assumption IMO), the more episodes of these we will have and the less notable this occurance becomes. I think that point has occured, while you don't think it has, but I think we both agree that at some point this category probably should be deleted. I think a better idea would be to create Category:LGBT-related television episodes of the 20th century or something similar, as those may be notable, but I don't think some of the early episodes in the 50s or 60s which were rare should be grouped in with a 2009 episode of some show which isn't really uncommon. VegaDark (talk) 14:45, 23 April 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.
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 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:People with their own private railway halt
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.
Nominator's rationale: I find the idea of this category rather fun, but it's a little trivial, and most importantly only one of the 8 articles in the category (Sir John Simeon) makes any mention of a private railway station. If the others were removed from the category (as they should be), then the category would contain only one article, which is no aid to navigation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is rather fascinating, and I enjoyed reading the parent article. However, I don't see how navigation is aided by having this category. I will reconsider if offered an explanation of the significance to the individuals. Alansohn (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and then delete -- It was common for landowners to insist that they could stop any train on a line crossing their manor. The right was abolished in (I think) 1968, amking this a closed category. The category probably only contains a few articles for teh very reason that it is so trivial. Furthermore, some who had the right to stop trains did not have private halts, becasue there was a public station within the manor. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:28, 20 April 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Delete per nom. The article and both categories are all the work of the same editor. Oddly, the article was not even included in the category of the same name. Neither of the highly redundant categories were provided with parents, and both featured full paragraphs of text, so it's clear that their creator simply has a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and function of Categories on Wikipedia. This history walk strikes me as perfect material for a navbox template to go on the bottom of each article. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the author I accept this deletion request and am working to make the History of Oyster Bay, New York category the norm. Also appreciate the navbox template idea. Have never done this before but will look into it. Thank you. Inoysterbay (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this would seem to be settled anyway, but as it stands now, the category adds little. If the locations were added and removed from the parent, it might be possible to construct a category that would be a useful aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 01:18, 19 April 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.
