Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 1

< March 31	April 2 >

April 1[edit]

Category:Vlad[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as unrelated subjects with shared names. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 02:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Articles with similar names often have little else in common (although the comparison of Putin to Dracula is humorous). Also note the nomination for Category:Amz, which is both a subcategory of Category:Vlad and a redirect to Category:Vlad. Dr. Submillimeter 12:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, many of these are unrelated articles. That is funny about Putin, though. --Seattle Skier (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cleveland Browns starting quarterbacks[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Cleveland Browns starting quarterbacks into Category:Cleveland Browns players. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Cleveland Browns players, this seem a little too narrow. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Cleveland Browns players - NFL players are generally not divided by team and position at this time. Dr. Submillimeter 12:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --Seattle Skier (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. It is indeed unnecessarily narrow. — coel acan — 07:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Catalan sport[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Catalan sport into Category:Sport in Catalonia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Sport in Catalonia, convention of Category:Sport in Spain by autonomous community. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per WP naming criteria. Joan sense nick 23:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The pages that are directly in Sports in Catalonia: Korfball in Catalonia, Pitch and putt in Catalonia, Futsal in Catalonia, and Australian rules football in Catalonia are about 4 of the several sports which the Catalonia's Federations are admitted officially in the respective International Federations, so they compete like England, Wales or Scotland.

And the articles in the subcategory "Catalan sport" are usually about sports where Catalonia is not recognized internationally.

I think that there would be a difference with the two kinds of situation, but I don't know what's the way to show this. Perhaps is correct doing "Catalan sport" a subcategory in "Sport in Catalonia" or creating another subcategory. Puigsacalm 20:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Super Eight teams[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as non defining, already listed in Super Eight. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a Super Eight team is a huge deal for a Massachusetts high school. Not all high school articles discuss the achievement much, if at all. The examples given for "non defining", such as "Cities with a McDonalds", are not the same thing. Stoneice02 23:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Super Eight is a hockey tournament for Massachusetts high school ice hockey teams. The tournament alone is not a primary defining characteristic of the schools. Moreover, since many schools have teams that participate in many sports, categories for all tournaments would be excessively long for some schools. This is not a practical way to categorize high schools. Dr. Submillimeter 12:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Sub. Recury 13:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The information is already at Super Eight. If it's not already included on the article pages that are in this category, then they shouldn't be in this category anyway. Write it out on the articles and it can be qualified with years, locations, etc. — coel acan — 07:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pokemon more than 500 lb[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think this should be renamed to "Pokémon more than 500 lb", but I need other people's opinion. TheBlazikenMaster 21:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an arbitrary standard for inclusion. Otto4711 22:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... why would something arbitrary like this be useful to anyone? -Amarkov moore cowbell! 22:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - arbitrary. Is there a list "Pokemon by weight"? That would serve. --Justanother 23:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as arbitrary and trivial. Doczilla 02:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Otto4711 --rimshots^talk 10:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is categorization using an arbitrary inclusion criteria, a form of overcategorization. Dr. Submillimeter 12:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wow, I didn't know it would get so much "delete" voters? I thought that the e in pokémon would be voted to change, but no. Ah well, not everything is as you plan. But seriously, there are few pokémon with over 500 lb, so why the hell remove? After all there are only 21 pokémon in that list. TheBlazikenMaster 19:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as arbitrary per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Arbitrary inclusion criterion. Plus, "lb" is an inappropriate unit of measurement for a topic of Japanese origin. If kept, should be renamed to Category:Pokémon more than 226.8 kg—which I think we can all agree is about as arbitrary as they come! :) Xtifr _tälk 00:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bridges of Myanmar[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Bridges in Myanmar, convention of Category:Bridges by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 19:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename per speedy criterion 4: non-conformance with naming conventions. --rimshots^talk 10:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Notable video game failures[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete and has already been speedily deleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Video game failures, since notable is presumed. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I agree. Since I'm the creator, I'll just go ahead rename it to save us the trouble of bureaucracy. I figured there was a better thing to name the cat, I just couldn't think of it at the time of creation. —Mitaphane _?|! 20:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've emptied the cat and placed {{db-catempty}} on it. For the closing admin, feel free to close this discussion. —Mitaphane _?|! 20:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete altogether. Whether you call it Category:Notable video game failures or Category:Video game failures, it's useful as a list but much more arguable as a category. A list of games that somebody somewhere called failures is one thing, but slapping that as a categorical label on each game simply because someone somewhere called it that leaves too much room for debate. (Don't listify. The list already exists.) Doczilla 02:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, List of commercial failures in video gaming serves that purpose better, by explaining why a game was included in the list. --rimshots^talk 10:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Determining whether a video game or a game system is a "failure" suffers from POV problems. Dr. Submillimeter 12:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inherent POV. Some games are considered commercial bombs yet retain loyal fanbases for over a decade, the proliferation of ROMs on the Internet allows some games to gather new fanbases long after commercial viability. — coel acan — 15:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Video game commercial failures, to indicate what kind of failure we are talking about. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sport in Kurdistan[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:CFD#Category:Airlines of Kurdistan there really is no reason for this category.

Category currently has only three articles. Kurdistan is a small, geographic region, and I really doubt it has enough teams to warrant a category; if necessary a list can be created and included under the main Category:Kurdistan. -- Cat ^chi? 16:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a national subcat of Category:Sports by country (it wasn't parented there, but should have been, and I have just fixed that). Underpopulated categories are permissible when part of a series such as Category:Sports by country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdistan is not a defcto/dejure country (Kurdistan doesn't claim to be a country/no one recognizes it to be a country) and should not follow that scheme. Relevant Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Armenia, Iran categories should be used instead. -- Cat ^chi? 18:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Neutral. OK, you've mostly persuaded me, so I'm changing my vote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This Category describe the sports and not politics terms. --Bohater 18:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is Kurdistan a term without any politics involved? Kurdistan is not a sport. -- Cat ^chi? 18:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not a country and parent Kurdistan category or article is not part of WikiProject Countries (just like many unrecognized states and regions), and as such many stubs (like Kurdistan-bio-stub, TRNC-stub) have been deleted over and over again by impartial administrators. Besides there are WP:V concerns. Wikipedia organization is based upon objective UN borders. Baristarim 18:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't always true. Non-UN countries are often fine provided they claim to be a country. -- Cat ^chi? 18:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can also have a Project without a country with oficial borders, What is about a cultural Projekt. ? --Bohater 18:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cultural projects are fine. We limit such projects to the respective culture. For instance see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture for a wide variety of wikiprojects. I however do not see the relevance to this discussion. -- Cat ^chi? 19:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you must be joking!--Bohater 19:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite serious. -- Cat ^chi? 19:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:ALF Trivia[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This is an article in category space ... should be restored to ALF (TV series). -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The section in the article with this content got copy and pasted back, becoming unwikified. I have restored this. –Pomte 16:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Italian rebels[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one entry. No definition of what is meant by 'rebel'. (? artistic? political? sexual?......Italian by nationality? After unification only? Italian by ancestry?) Seems unencyclopaedic, vague and serving no useful purpose. Smerus 11:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a subcategory of Category:Rebels by nationality. Maybe the category tree as a whole should be discussed. Dr. Submillimeter 11:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a subdivision of Category:Rebels. Wimstead 11:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a subdivision of Category:Rebels. Easily and consistently defineable as those who rebelled against what government structures were in place at the time they were active. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although a renaming of the entire tree might be a good idea. — coel acan — 16:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Grade II listed buildings in Somerset[edit]

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. — coel acan — 16:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I'm too tired. Sorry. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:History of the Italian mafia[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:History of the Italian mafia to Category:History of the Italian Mafia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:History of the Italian mafia to Category:History of the Italian Mafia

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for consistency with proposed renaming of Category:People murdered by the Mafia to Category:People murdered by the Italian Mafia (see below). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I think capitalisation is better, but have nominated purely to help keep the category names consistent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. "Mafia" is normally capitalized. Doczilla 22:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People murdered by the Mafia[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:People murdered by the Mafia to Category:People murdered by the Italian Mafia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People murdered by the Mafia to Category:People murdered by the Italian Mafia

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for consistency with parent category Category:History of the Italian mafia, and to avoid confusion with the American mafia and with other crime organisations generaically referred to as "mafia". Note that I am unsure whether mafia should be categorised. I think it should be, and will also nominate the history category, but am neutral on the merits either way. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Consistency with parent, although if they're mafia parents... ;0. jk. --Keefer4 | Talk 08:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Platform games[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Platform games to Category:Platformers

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Platformer is the more common usage in the gaming community and press. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming. "Platformer" is an unfamiliar neologism, and the head article Platformer was only moved today by the nominator, in this edit. "Platform games" is a much more accessible term for those unfamiliar with the current jargon of the computer games press. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per nom, as neologism. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. Doczilla 21:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Video games with textual graphics[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Video games with textual graphics to Category:Text games

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The main article is text game, which accurately describes the genre, as opposed to the current category name. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Would Zork and similar "adventure" games be called "text games"? If so, then maybe this category should not be renamed. Dr. Submillimeter 11:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although nom raises an interesting point, I think there is a clear distinction between games that use actual text (adventure games, hammurabi, early quiz games, etc.), and games that use textual graphics (roguelike games, early versions of chess, tic-tac-toe and the ancestral startrek game). The flaw here, it seems to me, is in the stubbish head article, not the categorization scheme. Xtifr _tälk 00:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis games[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Category:Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis games to Category:Sega Mega Drive games. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis games to Category:Sega Genesis/Mega Drive games

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Removed a redundant "Sega" and alphabetized. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Looks like uncontroversial housekeeping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The "Mega Drive" naming is what has been adopted for the main article on the console, and what is was known by in every country bar the US. Through previous historical discussions, it has been agreed upon to use the "Mega Drive" naming to refer to it, so this it what should be the first term to keep consistency. However, a rename to Category:Sega Mega Drive/Genesis games could be acceptable if the main purpose of the nomination is to remove redundant words. Bungle44 09:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Rename to Category:Sega Mega Drive games. It's been established that Mega Drive is the name to use, so the category should match. Using slashes in categories (except for official uses such as .hack//) is very bad form as it implies a non-existent hierarchy. Garrett^Talk 01:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Sega Mega Drive games, opposing nomination. If the idea is to get rid of redunant words, it's "Sega Genesis" that's redundant. — coel acan — 07:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Randolf[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, An empty category about a Mexican school kid. Steve _(Stephen)^talk 04:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete empty cat. Doczilla 05:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as uncontroversial housekeeping. Pascal.Tesson 06:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7 and/or C1. This is a non-notable biographical article in category space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sarah Hudson albums[edit]

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: withdrawn.--Mike Selinker 17:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This category only appears on the page for Naked Truth, which is the only album by Sarah Hudson. Hudson has no other albums, and her bio page does not list any forthcoming solo album. Category was created over two years ago with no other additions. Ataricodfish 04:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nearly empty cat. Doczilla 05:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the standard thing to do for albums. Pascal.Tesson 07:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please take a look at the header on Category:Albums by artist. If the article exists, this category must.--Mike Selinker 07:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Pascal.Tesson. As noted, this folows the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Categories. I was not aware of that guidance until checking the album categories in relation to this CfD, and I was very struck with how effective that project has been in maintaining a consistent and orderly category tree for albums. It's impressive and unusual ... and CfD discussions really should strongly support the work of projects which work so hard to maintain a huge category tree. May I ask the nominator to consider withdrawing this nomination? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have notified the wikiproject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Category:Sarah_Hudson_albums. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Consistent approach, as BHG says. Bubba hotep 11:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Jogers (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Wimstead 11:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per conventions of Category:Albums by artist. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nomination Hey all, I'll withdraw the nomination. I personally feel we shouldn't have categories to categorize one page -- seems self defeating unless there is two or more of something -- but it's not my goal to swim against the current. Thanks for bringing the above to my attention. --Ataricodfish 23:56, 1 April 2007 (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.

Category:Screenshots of video games[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep, proposed name does not match convention of Category:Fair use screenshots. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Screenshots of video games to Category:Video game screenshots

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Simpler category name. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Doczilla 05:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's a convention in Category:Fair use screenshots and every subcategory. The X of Y format seems to be generally preferred (consult Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) etc). –Pomte 13:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Politics of Quebec[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, this category contains articles about government institutions, and not just politics. Until I changed it recently, Category:Government of Quebec was a redirect. Before I looked inside Category:Politics of Quebec, I expected it would primarily contain information about political parties, etc., instead of institutions. I suggest that Category:Politics of Quebec be renamed Category:Government and politics of Quebec. Joeldl 04:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose/Keep Current, per parent category Category:Politics of Canada by province or territory. Other government related material, including institutions is within the same style subcategories in Canada, and from definition of Politics this doesn't altogether seem unfounded.--Keefer4 | Talk 05:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Politics of X" is currently the standard form for all 13 subcategories of Category:Politics of Canada by province or territory. Oppose current nomination, though I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a batch discussion to have all of them renamed to "Government and politics of X" if somebody feels strongly enough about that. But a one-shot rename of this one alone, while leaving the other 12 at their current names? No. Bearcat 05:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, good point about the parent category. But Category:Government of Canada contains a lot of material about institutions and there's a Category:Government by country, so perhaps my suggestion would have to carry up to the parent and sister categories. I will introduce a discussion to this effect below and withdraw this suggestion for the time being. Joeldl 05:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Keefer4. GreenJoe 05:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think it's useful to separate politics from the machinery of government. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree, but as things are now, some people seem to want them together. I am saying that if they're going to be together they shouldn't have a misleading name like "politics". Joeldl 22:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Planets of the Solar System[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do we need this for? Everbody know what the planets of the solar system are! Sheesh. Delete. --Justanother 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We need it as for those planets which are in the solar system; the parent category is Category:Planets, which contains a lot of general articles on the concept of a planet etc. This sub-category separates out a particularly important group of specific planets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just wondering if the date was relevant to this nomination ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wattayamean?? I'm goin' after Category:Presidents of the United States and Category:Chemical elements next. I am sick and tired of Wikipedia rubbin' my nose in things I learned in grade school! --Justanother 02:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You probably learned in grade school that Pluto was a planet. Well, guess what? –Pomte 12:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - PLUTOWND? Lugnuts 18:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are planets in other solar systems. It's good to have a tidy, separate category. Joeldl 04:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an April Fool's nom to me. Keep on the off-chance it isn't.--Wizardman 05:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as legitimate subcategory as more and more planets outside our Solar System keep getting discovered. "Everybody knows" is not a reason to exclude encyclopedic content. Doczilla 05:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even grade schoolers surf the net dontcha know. And many also play April Fools jokes, too! ;)--Keefer4 | Talk 05:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IDK, for an April Fool's joke, I would have picked Category:First-generation Pokémon. No-one would ever dream of deleting that! Now, what about this one Category:Chief Justices of the United States. I mean, who really cares? --Justanother 06:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The category is needed to disambiguate between planets inside the Solar System and planets outside the Solar System. Dr. Submillimeter 11:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a clear April Fool's win-up! Rgds, - Trident13 12:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. —dima/s-ko/ 18:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.