Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:10, 30 July 2010

July 25

Category:Mercury Prize nominated albums

Category:Mercury Prize nominated albums - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We usually don't categorize things for being nominated for (but not winning) a particular prize. Category:Mercury Prize winning albums exist, and the nominated categories are linked to at Mercury Prize; that seems sufficient. Good Ol’factory 23:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delete If award-winning categories are generally deleted, then nominations should definitely be deleted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. per nominator and Koavf. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:LGBT Canadian Idol participants

Propose merging Category:LGBT Canadian Idol participants to Category:Canadian Idol participants and Category:LGBT musicians from Canada

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This seems like overcategorization. Suggest upmerging to both parents.Good Ol’factory 23:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, note that all three of the entries contained here are already in both parents anyway, so the only thing that will actually be necessary here is the removal of this one. But definitely delete; there's nothing especially notable (or even marginally interesting) about the intersection of being LGBT and competing on Canadian Idol. Bearcat (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Opposition to apartheid in South West Africa

Category:Opposition to apartheid in South West Africa - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - I removed the only article from the category (Hulda Shipanga) because the article makes no mention of her opinion or actions relating to apartheid. This category was moved to this name following a CFD in September 2009 and has remained essentially empty ever since. The subcat can reside perfectly well in the parent Category:Apartheid in South West Africa. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support merge to Category:Apartheid in South West Africa. This subcategory just seems premature at this point. Even if Hulda Shipanga belongs, she would more properly go in Category:South West Africa anti-apartheid activists. Good Ol’factory 03:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Civil rights movement

Propose renaming Category:Civil rights movement to Category:Civil rights movements

Nominator's rationale: Rename - there are multiple civil rights movements and the category is covering several of them. Should be renamed to the plural. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy Rename - I believe this was originally conceived and used entirely for articles about the African American civil rights movement -- which surely needs its own sub-cat (I'll deal with that in the near future). But in light of the current contents of this category, it clearly needs to be pluralized. As such, it qualifies for Speedy Renaming. Cgingold (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy rename is fine with me. I thought this might be considered controversial so I didn't list it there. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Why don't you go ahead and list it there. Pluralization is generally routine, so I'd be very surprised if anybody objected. Cgingold (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Lost - not seeing the speedy rename at the proffered link. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC) ETA: Oh OK it's at WP:CFR. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Added to speedy rename - suggest leaving the CFD open in case the speedy is rejected so cat can be addressed through this process. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, and (if needed) purge and repurpose. Sorry to surprise you, Cgingold, but I do object. There is only one civil rights movement, that being the period from roughly 1954 to 1980 across the globe, in which a large portion of the world woke up and said "We need to stop treating each other this way." Other movements can't have this name without cheapening the original. This is a very similar question to whether Holocaust is capitalized, and is about the only thing that shows up at roughly the same level of seriousness. So, no, not this change. I do support the goal to categorize equality-recognition movements in some way, just not this way.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• This line of reasoning confuses me. It suggests that the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–1895) and the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954) are somehow not civil rights movements, that LGBT rights movements are not civil rights movements, that the global fight for women's equality is not a civil rights movement, that the dismantling of Apartheid is not part of a civil rights movement since it happened after 1980, etc. I know some African Americans have a very strong sense of ownership when it comes to the phrase "civil rights movement" but that sense of ownership is not a good reason for keeping this category singular. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• It is to me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oh well, that certainly clears that up. Keep something that's demonstrably wrong because changing it might hurt some people's sense of entitlement. Great standard. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not allowed to have an opinion? Regardless, it's not "demonstrably wrong." There is one thing I think of when I hear the words "civil rights movement," and the article on the very same subject agrees with me, as does just about everything else. I'm fine with there being a Category:Civil rights campaigns, for example, but the civil rights movement is, in my opinion, only one thing. Take whatever position you want, but please don't pick a fight with me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• You're certainly allowed to have an opinion just as I'm free to be of the opinion that your opinion is based on an extremely faulty premise. I notice that our article offers no reliable sourcing for its definition of "civil rights movement" and I note that many of your Ghits qualify the American civil rights movement by calling it the "American civil rights movement" or the "civil rights movement of the United States". These sources, along with our own articles differentiating different civil rights movements both for American blacks and for other racial, ethnic, sexual and social groups strongly support the recognition that the definition of the term is not limited in the way that you claim it is. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hold on a minute. I never said anything about the American civil rights movement. The civil rights movement is defined by time, not geography. The civil rights movement is a global event, prompted at the outset by Brown v. Board of Education and similar events, but triggering sweeping change in every democracy in the world, regardless of whether black people were involved. While that change was certainly not complete in 1980, the period of cataclysmic upheaval in democracies was (South Africa coming a little late to the party, of course). The civil rights movement is that period, all around the world. That's what our article recognizes.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree with Mike Selinker here, without taking a position on whether or not it is in fact correct to refer to "the" worldwide civil rights movement. This is not the forum to work out that problem; I think that would best be done at Talk:Civil rights movement. As long as the article reads as it does now, I think Mike's position is the correct one to apply to the categories. I have no opposition to a category such as Category:Civil rights campaigns. Good Ol’factory 03:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Poetasters

Category:Poetasters - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - nominated once previously, closed no consensus. Horrible basis for categorization. Completely subjective inclusion criteria, "someone or several someones think this person is a terrible poet". How many critics constitute being "widely viewed" as terrible? Implicates WP:BLP should it be added to any living poets. The lead article Poetaster points out the problem. "The charge of poetaster has also been leveled by some at Algernon Charles Swinburne, in spite of his widespread acclaim and high regard." If critics can't decide amongst themselves who belongs in the category then there's no objective way for WP editors to. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have just one question: Does anybody object to adding Rod McKuen to the category?? Cgingold (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree that this is terrible basis for categorization. A (sourced) list may be included at poetaster, and that is more than sufficient. I don't see how this can exist when we would immediately delete Category:Musicians widely recognized as producing awful music. Just because there's a made-up word for poets that are widely recognised as producing awful poetry doesn't mean we should categorize by that standard. Good Ol’factory 22:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• The nominator completely mischaracterized the previous discussion. Each person in the category was known not as a poet but as a bad poet and famous for being a bad poet, and the sources are very clear on that point. None of them seem to have had notability as a poet otherwise. There was a time in the 19th century and into the early 20th century when newspaper editors and others made fun of some particularly awful poets, writing mock reviews and giving other coverage to them, and this produced a number of people who share this odd characteristic, essential to their notability. The category is useful to readers who want to find out about people who were known for their bad poetry. There are no BLP implications: They're all dead. You can add Category:Criminals to any BLP as well. The nominator also ignores that the category is not just about anybody who was ever called a bad poet by somebody: There is a written description of what the category covers at the top of the category page (This category covers poets who achieved fame for typically writing verse widely viewed, almost universally by critics and commentators, as utterly awful.). The reasons for deletion are all abstract. The reasons for keeping are all practical, and, of course, no policy is violated. Do we want to help our readers get the information they're likely to be interesed in or not? How else are they going to quickly and easily browse this subject? Do we need to point them to a tiny list on another page? Putting a list at Poetaster won't do it -- the category lines at the bottom of the page are where we've taught our readers to go for similar articles. By the way, as the editor who created the category, it would have been nice to have been informed of this discussion. Lucky I caught it on my watch list.-- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but I did not mischaracterize the previous nomination. I said it closed no consensus and it indeed closed no consensus. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oh no, you're not excused. This is a complete mischaracterization of the discussion: Completely subjective inclusion criteria, "someone or several someones think this person is a terrible poet". -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

To me, the comment you quote looks like it was not related to a summary of the previous discussion. The user was commenting on the category definition and offering an opinion about it. All they said about the previous discussion was "nominated once previously, closed no consensus". There is no mischaracterization that I can see. Good Ol’factory 11:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The nominator presented the mischaracterization as a quote, indicating the idea was taken from somewhere. The nominator had nowhere else to go than the previous discussion to make the statement Completely subjective inclusion criteria, "someone or several someones think this person is a terrible poet". The category page itself states the real inclusion criteria. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

John, the nominator has made it quite clear that there was no intention to mislead. Maybe using quotes was a good way to summarise the nom's opinion, or maybe not .. but your comments give the appearance of assuming bad faith, which will not help in reaching a consensus. The intent has been clarified, so please can you drop this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC) 14:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• • We could change the name to Category:People whose notability as a poet rests only with their bad verse, and that would likely result in fewer deletion nominations, but Category:Poetasters is shorter. (Also, the alternate category name doesn't quite cover Amanda McKittrick Ros, who was also known for her (bad) novels. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd love to know your answer to my question about Rod McKuen. Admittedly, it may have sounded purely jocular, but it does get at the essence of what's being debated here. Here's a poet who is indeed widely recognized as being the best-selling writer of reams of awful poetry (check out what it says about this in the article). So by your reckoning, is he in or out? Cgingold (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
      • No, you're not getting it. You think I'm exaggerating when I say these poets are not only known for being bad but only for being bad. Now look, this is not the way people talk about a mere bad poet:
        • From The Wall Street Journal in 2008 : "The auction reflects the unique brand of celebrity that has fallen upon Mr. McGonagall. Around the world, people have come to identify with the meter-challenged bard, if not for his poetry, then for the sheer lack of self-doubt with which he bore the world's insults and pursued his chosen vocation. Some argue that McGonagall intended his work as parody, reasoning that when he saw he could make money from the baying crowds, he chose poetry over the poor wages of looming."
        • Has Rod McKuen been anthologized in these august tomes, as Julia A. Moore has?
          • Parsons, Nicholas. The Joy of Bad Verse London: Collins (1988). ISBN 000217863x
          • Petras, Ross: Very Bad Poetry Vintage (1997). ISBN 0-679-77622-2
        • According to our article on Amanda McKittrick Ross: Nick Page, author of In Search of the World's Worst Writers, rated Ros the worst of the worst. And apparently she too is anthologized in Parson's The Joy of Bad Verse. And, we are told, Her books are rare and first editions command prices of $300 to $800 in the used-book market. (I'm not sure of the source for that.)
        • According to our article on J. Gordon Coogler: In the late 20th century conservative political commentator R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. invented the annual J. Gordon Coogler Award as a booby prize for the "worst book of the year." The announcement of the prize has appeared annually in conservative organs including Human Events and The American Spectator. According to literary critic Bryan Giemza, other "mock-serious Coogler societies" exist and grant awards for bad writing.
        • James McIntyre is among those anthologized in Very Bad Poetry and his fame rests on his bad poetry, according to The Encyclopedia of Literature in Canada
        • I removed Ebenezer Jones and Frank Lebby Stanton from the category: A not insignificant number of people are known to have enjoyed their poetry, and the same can be said for Rod McKuen. Their fame does not rest solely on their bad poetry. It's as simple as that. The one-line descrpition of the category on the category page is to be taken literally. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Question - are any of these people identified in reliable sources specifically as "poetasters"? If not then the category may constitute original research by synthesis. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• ANSWER:

1. I can't say whether this is a reliable source, but it's got one helluvan interesting title:
2. William McGonagall: It's probable that several of the "snippet-view" sources here are calling him a poetaster, but there are gaps between his name and "poetaster" But there's more. From A History of Scottish Literature (1992) "that sadly comical poetaster, William McGonagall" From Tennyson Society monographs, Issue 5 (1969) : "not even the most deluded of poetasters today would expect to get employment in music-halls or their contemporary equivalent, and at least McGonagall could earn a modest amount "
3. James McIntyre Colombo's Canadian references, Oxford University Press, 1976 "The four poetasters whose works are amusingly studied are James GAY, 'Poet Laureate of Canada, and Master of all Poets'; James MciNTYRE, 'The Cheese Poet'; James P. GILLIS, ..."
4. J. Gordon Coogler Definitive: Also:
5. Julia A. Moore Many sources In particular See also:
6. Amanda McKittrick Ros And from a capsule review in Library Journal: "The collection highlights such poetasters as the “quintessential multiculturalist” Fred Emerson Brooks (who penned “We have ze Santa Claus een France/ We see him when we get ze chance”) and Amanda McKittrick Ros, with her gift for, as she puts it, “disturbing the bowels.”"

In short, We have ze sources/ They're poetasters of courses.-- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I was pointed to this discussion and thought I'd quickly reiterate my comments from last time: firstly, categorising "famously bad poets" is legitimate. There are a small set of authors who are uniquely known (and loved) simply for being atrocious; it's what makes them notable, and it seems very strange that we can't group them together this way - it's certainly a meaningful categorisation of presumable interest to a reader. On the other hand, I really don't like using "poetaster"; it's an obscure term - indeed, a term often not used in our articles about these people, and one that wouldn't make any sense to the average reader looking at the category list and using it for navigation. In short, it's a legitimate basis for a category, but it's not a good title for one. Shimgray | talk | 17:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. I see the value of the category as explained by a couple editors above but I think it's a dangerous category and could grow out of control by subjectivity. Deleting the category, however, does not prevent a thorough article on Poetasters. Further, the term is better included in the article on these poets with some discussion of that assessment with reliable sources. That alone will help avoid the subjectivity problem. The category, as it stands, only begs for more information or context on the judgment, but provides none. --Midnightdreary (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Listify and delete. I don't think there is any disagreement that some authors are known (and even celebrated) for being atrocious, or that a properly-sourced and qualified list of such poets would be a fine thing. However, the question here is whether it is appropriate to make it the basis of a category. Nothing here makes me change the view I took in the previous discussion, viz. that a category such as this which is based on an aesthetic judgement is inevitably subjective. There are plenty of writers whose inclusion will be a matter of legitimate dispute, depending on which critics one reads, and the nominator helpfully offers the example of Swinburne. A category offers a binary choice between inclusion and exclusion: and if a poet is categorised as a "poetaster", the term apperas with qualification at the bottom of the article, giving the misleading impression of an editorial judgment on the dispute between critics. That's a blatant breach of WP:NPOV. OTOH, a list can explain the disagreement, by saying the Swinburne's poetry was praised by critics and X, but Y labeled him a poetaster.
  Finally, it will be always be unclear whether this category is intended all those known as bad poets, or only those celebrated with this particular label ... so even if the subjectivity problem is ignored, we still have a huge degree of fuzziness over how frequently a bad poet should have this label attached before they can be included. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• It is simply a fact -- something objective and provable and proven here, and not some aesthetic judgment of some source or few sources -- that the fame of some versifiers rests on how bad their verse was. Reliable source after reliable source states that So-and-so was famous for being a bad poet as judged by contemporaries and those who came after. That is not an aesthetic judgment on the part of the source. That is the kind of fact that a historian of literature can state. Categories, especially when the topic is sensitive, can state criteria to limit inclusion of certain articles. This category does so: This category covers poets who achieved fame for typically writing verse widely viewed, almost universally by critics and commentators, as utterly awful. There are a limited number of versifiers about whom you can say this, based on reliable sources. Disgust at Swinbourne's poetry was not universal or nearly universal (From our article: A. E. Housman, a more measured and even somewhat hostile critic, devoted paragraphs of praise to his rhyming ability). Factual statements about aesthetic judgments haven't stopped being facts. When the sources indicate an aesthetic judgment has become so universal that the person would be unknown but for that aesthetic judgment, we're on solid, objective ground. There are almost no writers whose inclusion would be in legitimate dispute. Few people get into this situation. Nearly all poets have some following of people who sincerely like their work, or they sink into obscurity. These rhymesters didn't. In fact, their fame continues on this basis, which is another objective fact. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• John, we're in danger of getting tanged in words here, but I think you are missing a crucial distinction about the nature of a fact: the fame of some versifiers does not "rest on how bad their verse was"; it actually "rests on how bad their verse was judged to be". Since there is no objective measure of good or bad verse, we are left with nothing more than weighing critical opinions on that subjective judgement. Now of course you are right to say that there are some hard cases where fame rests is agreed to solely on awfulness. The problem is that there are also plenty of other cases where that view is not 100% supported, and this is where the second layer of subjectivity comes in: just how far below 100% does the critical denunciation have to go before the poet is no longer a poetaster? Would McGonagall be dethroned by one critic praising him? By ten? There's a line to be drawn somewhere, and as with any subjective topic, such a line will inevitably be arbitrary.
  You're right, of course, that text can be put on the category to specify the category's scope ... but that codification of the arbitrary and/or subjective criteria doesn't remove the fundamental problems of the category. It should not be necessary to read the small print to find out what the category is for, which is why CFD has repeatedly deleted categories which could be maintained only by the use of such small print. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Your comments indicate you haven't looked at the evidence I provided: Now of course you are right to say that there are some hard cases where fame rests is agreed to solely on awfulness. I've provided evidence showing you that reliable sources have made that judgment for us: It is glaringly evident, if you just look at the evidence I provided, that reliable sources have themselves stated in so many words that the versifier's fame rests on being an awful poet. Of how many poets will you get rock-solid reliable sources stating that as a fact? How many hazy cases of that can there be? I don't mean "so-and-so is mainly known nowadays for being a bad poet", I mean "so-and-so is ONLY known for his bad poetry". Haven't you actually looked at the category page itself? You say: that text can be put on the category -- Didn't you see it? It's there already. I wasn't proposing it in my comment, I was quoting what's already there). You say categories which could be maintained only by the use of such small print. You've got to be kidding. See Category:LGBT people. You've danced around my point: Of how many versifiers can it be said that they are famous SOLELY as a result of their bad verse. I defy you or anyone to tell me that this is NOT the case with the subjects of the articles now in the category. For a reliable source to state this as a fact -- WHEN THE SOURCE REPORTS ON WHAT OTHER CRITICS ARE SAYING makes the information OBJECTIVE FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE. For the purposes of the category, it is irrelevant what the source we use for that himself or herself thinks the poet is bad. If the fame rests on that widespread critical judgment, then that's what it rests on. No subjectivity involved. The only hypothetical case where this standard could get us in trouble is whether or not sources disagree on whether or not the fame rests on bad poetry. In that situation, even if the poet was living (and I've never heard of any such case -- Rod McKuen certainly doesn't fit this criteria) we could hash it out in the same way any editors would discuss sourcing for inclusion of a subject in Category:LGBT people. And if there were so many bad reviews that people were arguing over whether or not a person's fame was based on them, the BLP issue wouldn't be a matter of major harm. We could tweak the wording of the Category criteria as written on the category page, but it's really there already. But this is all abstract/hypothetical stuff. In the real world, for a certain time period from the mid-19th century to the very early 20th century, poets became famous for this. It didn't happen before and the critics and periodical editors have been too polite since then to create famous people in the world of poetry based only on being bad poets. (Nowadays we do it with filmmakers and singers.) Look: The objection keeps coming up that this is subjective, but all you have to do is look at the facts to see that the criteria is quite objective. If there were serious objections out there to calling Coogler or the rest bad poets, made by even a minority of very credible sources, I'd be fine with removing that name from the category. But that simply is not the case. Sorry about the shouting, but you haven't been addressing the points I've made from the beginning -- indeed, from the last CfD. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

John, please do calm down. The shouting was un-needed, as was your bad faith suggestion that I had not been reading; I had of course read the category and seen the text which was there, read the article poetasters, and read the refs you provided above. Nor is it true to say that I haven't addressed your points: I just haven't addressed them in the way that you address them, or reached the same conclusions.
Your notion of "objective from our perspective" is a philosophically interesting concept, but I stick to the view that subjectivity (or the selective objectivity which you propose) is a poor basis for categorisation. You clearly differ, as is your right, but please could you try to remain civil? Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much an "interesting concept" as the way we normally make editorial judgments here. It wasn't a bad-faith assumption: it was based on what you said that didn't at all sound like what someone who had read the page would have said. If you say you read it, I accept that. Nor am I simply objecting to differences of opinion but to repeated misconstruing of what I'm saying and what the facts are. I don't believe I'm being uncivil. There is nothing "selective" about objective observation in reliable sources -- even if it's observation about the extent of a subjective opinion among critics and the public at large, which is all we're dealing with here. The fact is, I have looked and not seen sources that defend the notion that the continued popularity of the work of these poets has anything to do with quality. All sources say that the badness of the poetry is what keeps it popular. That is a fundamental, very important fact about the subjects of each of these articles. It is objective fact according to every single source that I've seen (some imply it, some don't bring it up, but absolutely none contradict it). You say you've looked at the sources I've linked to. If you do a search -- particularly a search of the names of these scribblers (in quotes) and the word "literature" you'll find source after source after source after source agreeing with what I've said about the basis of the subjects' notoriety. I do not understand how you could imply that there may be disagreement among the sources here. There's disagreement on most things, but I haven't found disagreement on this point. It's as close to objective fact as Misplaced Pages ever gets. Any. Look. At. The. Sources. Confirms. It. Since it's my main point, I'm naturally frustrated that you and the other editors here haven't addressed it. You've said you don't like the argument. You haven't said why. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

A sourced subjective judgement is still a subjective judgement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If what we're sourcing is that this is the state of critical reception, with either everybody or almost everybody having the same view and having it over the course of a century or so, then what is the practical value of your distinction? It is fundamentally wrong for the encyclopedia to put up obstacles that make it more difficult for our readers to understand a subject, especially when no other harm would result. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment/suggestion. In light of the opinions that a category is not appropriate for this topic, how about a template that can be placed on the alleged poetasters' articles? That will essentially accomplish the same thing in terms of reader access but will avoid the problems of categorization by a subjective feature. I think it might be worth a try. Good Ol’factory 11:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

  That sounds to me like a good idea, particularly in light of the evidence from JohnWBarber which suggests that this is a small and relatively static group. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

  How is that done? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Scheduled elections

Propose renaming Category:Scheduled elections in Asia to Category:Future elections in Asia

Propose renaming Category:Scheduled elections in Spain to Category:Future elections in Spain

Propose renaming Category:Scheduled elections in Germany to Category:Future elections in Germany

Propose renaming Category:Scheduled elections in France to Category:Future elections in France

Propose renaming Category:Scheduled elections in the United States to Category:Future elections in the United States

Propose renaming Category:Candidates in scheduled elections to Category:Candidates in future elections

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match closes of Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_8#Category:Scheduled_elections_in_Australia and Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_11#Category:Scheduled_elections_in_Canada.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Rename per nom.--Lenticel 01:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Rename all per nom and per previous discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Economic crises by country

Category:Economic crises by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Upmerge' to Category:Economic crises. Nothing wrong with this in principle, but with just a single article there's no real need for it at present. (Yet another Mac/Nopetro creation.) Cgingold (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:World economic crises

Propose merging Category:World economic crises to Category:Economic crises

Nominator's rationale: Merge. My only question is should this also be up merged into the other parent, Category:World economy. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. If there was more stuff in the parent cat pertaining to "local" Economic crises there would be a case for keeping this sub-cat. I would endorse upmerging to Category:World economy as well. Cgingold (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Economic crisis

Category:Economic crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - My immediate thought upon spotting this category was that it needed to be renamed, i.e. pluralized. But -- of course -- we already have Category:Economic crises. End of story. Cgingold (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Delete or Retarget to ]. Either way I'm okay. --Lenticel 01:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Prototype electric vehicles

Propose renaming Category:Prototype electric vehicles to Category:Proposed electric vehicles

Nominator's rationale: "Prototype FOOs" does not exist as a category tree, except for Robots. If an electric vehicle has been created in prototype form only, its analogue would be Category:Concept automobiles, and we could create Category:Concept electric vehicles, as a way of standardizing things. A simpler solution might be to merge to the suggested target, as a parent for Category:Proposed electric automobiles. If people feel that having been presented in concept form at an auto show is a defining difference, then creating the "concept" cat would be the way to go. I really don't: I'd prefer that we simply differentiate between proposed and in-production. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Electric automobile associations

Propose merging Category:Electric automobile associations to Category:Electric vehicle organizations

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge into my just-created umbrella category. The nominated category was recently renamed at one of my CfDs, but I realize the category as is is still a bit misleading in that these are not electric automobile driver's associations, in the same sense as AAA. They are advocacy organizations of different types, two of which happen to have the word "association" in the name. If the merger passes, CalCars should have the target cat removed so it's only in Category:Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle organizations, where according to its article, it should be. (Right now it's in both) And World Electric Vehicle Association will be in the right place, as it is expressly about "vehicles," not cars. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Red Star FC players

Propose renaming Category:Red Star FC players to Category:Red Star Saint-Ouen players

Nominator's rationale: Category should be renamed to match parent article, Red Star Saint-Ouen, and related categories, Category:Red Star Saint-Ouen and Category:Red Star Saint-Ouen managers. BigDom 19:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I Agree.--Latouffedisco (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Sherwood Pictures

Propose renaming Category:Sherwood Pictures to Category:Sherwood Pictures productions

Nominator's rationale: Rename - the category appears to be for productions by the studio, not the studio itself. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about this. If consensus is reached either way, I'll go with it. To play devil's advocate, however, the category isn't just productions by the company. It includes Alex Kendrick and Stephen Kendrick (co-founders), Sherwood Baptist Church (owner) and The Love Dare (spin-off book). Although adding "productions" somewhat makes sense, I'm not sure if it's needed or fitting. American Eagle (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Economics of production

Category:Economics of production - Template:Lc1

Rename Category: Economics of production as 'Category:Production economics'

Nominator's rationale: According to Google scholar "Economics of production" has about 6,000 hits compared with "production economics" at 62,000. Not only does the latter save a word & have much greater usage, but those knowledgeable in the subject may be more likely to make productive edits with a more standard & current use of terms. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. I barely recognized it under the old name. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Lents, Oregon

Category:Lents, Oregon - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. None of the members of Category:Neighborhoods in Portland, Oregon have their own category. This is probably a good idea to avoid burying relevant pages in these very specialized subcats. Pichpich (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Occuli (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Sarcasm

Category:Sarcasm - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Sole page is already included in the wider Category:Irony. No need for a subcategory and the line between irony and sarcasm is too imprecise to warrant separate categories. Pichpich (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Yeah this category is so precise. It will even be populated, like by a lot articles. In fact, I'm doing it now!--Lenticel 01:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Awesome category. Lugnuts (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Stromae

Category:Stromae - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete Typical case of overcategorization. We don't keep eponymous categories for artists (with the occasional exception). Pichpich (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - there are many similar categories in Category:Categories named after musicians, many with 2 subcats like this one now is (the 'songs' one was adrift, and I have just created the 'albums' one). It is true that eponymous musician categories like this with 2 subcats have often been deleted at cfd, despite there being no overcategorisation that I can discern. Occuli (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with the nominator that the small amount of material doesn't need its own eponymous category. There is a navtemplate and the songs and albums of a particular artist are almost invariably linked to each other and the artist's article. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Reservoirs and dams in Burma

Propose merging Category:Reservoirs and dams in Burma to Category:Dams in Burma

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicating category. Most of similar categories are named 'Dams in X' although there are some exceptions named 'Reservoir and dams in X'. All articles currently in the category named dams so there is no need for reservoir in the category name. However, no objections if category:Dams in Burma will be merged into this category.Beagel (talk) 07:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support: "Reservoirs and dams" to "Dams" per nom. Rehman 08:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Life Fellows of the Institute of Physics UK

Category:Life Fellows of the Institute of Physics UK - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I can no mention of at the IoP pages of 'Life Fellow'. They do have honorary fellows and 2 of the people in the category are on that list. The third (Derek Abbott) is not mentioned on the IoP web pages. Even assuming that life fellow = honorary fellow this category should be deleted as a non-defining award, per WP:OC#Award recipients. Tassedethe (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ 03:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Upmerge. Small category. Beagel (talk) 07:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:List of characters in films directed by Quentin Tarantino

Propose merging Category:List of characters in films directed by Quentin Tarantino to Category:Lists of film characters

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Overcategorization and unlikely to grow. Tassedethe (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ 03:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Curses-based software

Category:Curses-based software - Template:Lc1

Category:Ncurses - Template:Lc1

Category:PDCurses - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Non-notable characteristic of Unix-based software; nearly any gui-ish software of a certain age used one of these packages.Mangoe (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• disagree - otherwise one would merge these with other things (such as slang and SMG$) which are distinct. Similar or related things aren't identical. By the way, the "nearly all" part of the nominator's statement is inaccurate, since counter-examples are easy to produce Tedickey (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Worth noting there is an AfD discussion progressing in parallel with this. AllyD (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Electric trucks

Propose merging Category:Electric trucks to Category:Battery electric vehicles

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Dealers choice! Do we merge to Category:Battery electric vehicles or upmerge. I can find a case for both options. And the consensus is... Vegaswikian (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Merge to Category:Battery electric vehicles and to Category:Trucks. Category:Electric vehicles is too general. Beagel (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Greenhouse gases in transport

Propose merging Category:Greenhouse gases in transport to both parents.

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge to both parents. OC small. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Upmerge per nom. Beagel (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Upmerge per nom.--Lenticel 02:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)