Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 9

< August 8	August 10 >

August 9[edit]

UFC champions[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: upmerge all. >Radiant< 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - appears to be the only MMA champions by promotion category structure. Since fighters can hold titles in multiple weight classes and promotions, categorizing by each of them is in the long run impractical. The superior List of UFC champions, with detailed information on the title fights and defenses of each champion, exists. Otto4711 23:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge all to Category:UFC champions. Seeing as there is 2-12 articles per category, and that some are duplicate, I believe the 1 parent cat will suffice (no need to break up into subcats, because that is overcategorization). However, most of these people are notable because they are UFC champions, and I believe that it is a defining factor for these individuals, so keeping the parent cat to house them all seems in line with our categorization guidelines.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all to Category:UFC champions, or better yet, into a new cat, like Category:Ultimate fighting championships competitors (or fighters, or contestants) so that all of non-champions can have a home too. The list that Otto links will always be better at providing the details. ×Meegs 01:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge and rename to full name, Tewfik^Talk 16:42, 12 August 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:Murdered Roman Catholic priests[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: rename, apparently, but there seems to be a lack of suggestions of what to rename to. I'll relist this (for renaming, not deletion) to find suggestions. >Radiant< 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Illogical and contrived. What's next? "Category:Roman catholic priests who met with an accident"? Sarvagnya 21:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the closing admin The nominator has agreed that he is WP:Stalking my edits (see below) and he is angry with my contributions to wikipedia (see below) and is violating WP:POINT, WP:NPA in this nominations as well as in the discussions. ThanksTaprobanus 01:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sheesh.. pathetic. Sarvagnya 02:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I disagree but I'm wondering why this category and not the several other categories for murder victims by profession under Category:Murder victims? Otto4711 21:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the nominator says that he is only interested in my specific wikipedia contributions (see below) Thanks Taprobanus 21:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but maybe rename. Most of these were murdered for political/religious reasons, and the category should be restricted to them. So Luigi Locati should go - killed in an attempted robbery, it seems. The other problem is that a large number of martyrs could be said to meet this definition. I can't think of a short suitable rename, so I think canonised & beatified priests, and ordinary crime victims should be excluded in the definition on the page. Johnbod 22:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category coz it just caught my eye(see my recent contribs). This cat was created by User:Taprobanus who's written an entire coatrack of articles about 'alleged victims of alleged terror perpetrated by groups allegedly armed with alleged tacit support allegedly from the sri lankan army'... and I am cleaning up his mess. For starters one of the priests that he had categorised(which I've since removed) isnt even dead! Category creation itself was probably a WP:POINT vio and in any case, I cant see this cat getting filled with a decent number of entries. Isnt there a minimum number of entries for a cat to even be created? (one of the cats I'd created was deleted on those very grounds). As for the other categories you mentioned, yes, I feel they all got to go too unless there's a special reason and at the very least enough entries under them. Sarvagnya 23:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing you are now WP:STALKing my edits. Also don't violate WP:NPA. Concentrate on the content not the editors. ThanksTaprobanus 01:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the members has anything to do with Sri Lanka that I can see; according to the article (referenced to Ammnesty magazine etc) he has been missing for one year come this August 20th. If you have information that he isn't dead I'm sure his family etc would like to know. I have readded him to the category. The number, which can easily be added to, especially from South America, is already enough - see WP:OCAT. Johnbod 23:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is Thiruchelvam Nihal Jim Brown, which has just been removed again by Sarvagnya, who has also removed him from Category:Assassinated activists. He just went out to get some milk apparently. Johnbod 23:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:John see reference regarding recovery of his bodyhere. ThanksTaprobanus 01:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but if you have a source that confirms that he's dead, please add it to the article and save us all some trouble. And ya, the coatrack I mentioned is not made up entirely of priests.. but alleged victims of alleged terror.. and ya.. 'allegedly' dead. Most of them including this priest shouldnt even be having their own articles on wikipedia. If only there wasnt so much POV pushing on the article creators' part, I wouldnt be so pissed. It is because of articles like this that the entire Sri Lanka project is in a mess. This article/coatrack certainly doesnt deserve our patience and 'understanding'. Sorry. Sarvagnya 23:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overcategorization, or rename to something broader like "murdered clergy" or "murdered religious leaders", or "assassinated religious leaders" depending on scope of inclusion.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment will youchange your vote if this is changed to murdered clergy ? instead of current title ? thanks Taprobanus 01:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep:These Roman Catholic priests have been killed particularly because oftheir profession. This category simply puts them together for encylopedic puposes. Thanks Taprobanus 00:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah? And what is that great encyclopedic purpose that the category is providing? So in your opinion, each and every Roman Catholic priest killed is killed because of the profession? Gnanapiti 20:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A category is like an index, all what a category does is, it corelates like minded articles. This categort categorizes RC Priest who are killed because of their religious persuation. Thanks 21:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep The rationale for deletion isn't clear, to put it mildly. The category seems logical enough and seems to have a 'decent number' [sic] of entries, not to mention the potential for many more articles to be added. Deleting an entire category because one article was possibly miscategorised, doesn't exactly sound logical, does it? Lotlil 16:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but maybe rename. As per above. 68.89.137.250 16:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim and rename to limit to those killed because they were priests - I wouldn't want to see John Geoghan in such a category, for example. Carlossuarez46 17:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Johnbod Harlowraman 19:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most bizarre category I've ever seen. What exactly the category is trying to achieve? What useful organization of things this category is going to provide? This category has to be deleted unless we are going to have categories for dead cats and dead dogs. Gnanapiti 20:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what is bizzare about a category that links all murdered RC priests ?Taprobanus 13:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Murdered clergy per Andrew c. If you ignore the little spat between nom and creator, it seems like the only real problem with this category (not its current contents) is that it may be overly narrow. Per WP:OCAT#Narrow intersection, I think it make more sense to start with a broader topic. It can always be subdivided later, if and when that proves necessary.
Keep as per Johnbod, and oppose renaming to "murdered clergy. The murders of clergy are often specifically sectarian, so while it might make sense to have a parent category for murdered clergy, it is also useful to have this specifically Roman Catholic one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful category. I also think we should take some of the people in the category off. However, it is a very useful category to have. Watchdogb 22:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable intersection of profession and death without prejudice to any refining through renaming. Tewfik^Talk 16:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - WP:OCAT, all entries can probably be moved to Category:Christian martyrs.Baka man 20:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Read Christian martyrs, the article is very clear (and the category is based on the article) that these are people without seeking his own death or any harm to others, is murdered or put to death for his religious faith or convictions(alone). None of the murdered priests in this category were killed beacuse of their faith alone. Further the Catholic church has a process to accept a dead priest as a Matyr. When some of these priests are accepted as a Matyr then we can move them into that category. Thanks Taprobanus 21:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created Category:Murdered Hindu priests.Baka man 22:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know reasonable people will always come to reasonable resolutions. That's the only way to get ahead in Wikipedia not conflict, confrontation and accusations. I firmly belive that neutral articles, categories etc is the best way of getting the information out. Thanks Taprobanus 23:40, 13 August 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:English art historians[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: not to merge. >Radiant< 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:English art historians to Category:British art historians

Nominator's rationale: An unnecessary subdivision of Category:British art historians. The parent category, as it stands, seems to be for three kids of people:

Those for whom no more specific place of birth is given than just "Britain"
Germans etc. who became naturalised Britons/Englishmen
Those whose place of birth is specified, and which is usually in England, despite the existence of Category:English art historians for exactly these people. In fact, the "English" category even has someone from Edinburgh, whereas there are no Scots in the "British" one! So, as a fully-populated Category:English art historians would entail an almost-empty Category:British art historians, the "English" category reduces the usefulness of its parent category by atomising it needlessly. Merge. Ham 20:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What you say is equally true of all British categories, which are kept subdivided the way they are essentially because of a number of Scots editors, and some English ones too I think. There's no point in tackling it piecemeal, especially during the holidays. Johnbod 20:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with any English biographical category of which there are hundreds. Every English person should be categorised as such. It is correct that most "British" categories for biographies should be almost empty. Piccadilly 20:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Piccadilly. It is useful to have separate categories for the nations within the UK, and there is no problem in having the "British" one empty, as with other container categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep because this is part of an existing crosslinked hierarchy, though the question of whether such categorisation should take precedence over the points raised by the nominator has not yet (AFAIK) been answered in a centralised and holistic manner. Tewfik^Talk 16:49, 12 August 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:Comic book founders[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: merge. >Radiant< 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Comic book founders to Category:Comic book company founders

Nominator's rationale: Rename - proposed rename more accurately reflects the contents of the category and reduces ambiguity. Otto4711 19:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod 20:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Wryspy 00:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, Tewfik^Talk 16:49, 12 August 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:Vogue editors[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: delete. Given the small scope of the category, I'd suggest simply keeping a list of those five editors in the main article, and/or employing succession boxes. >Radiant< 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - a flavor of performer by performance overcategorization. Journalists and editors, like actors and television personalities, can and do work for a variety of media outlets in the course of a career. Otto4711 19:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looking through the parent cats, it seems like this is the only category that specifies editors by magazine. All the other subcats are things like "American magazine editors" and "British magazine editors". Therefore, this seems like overcategorization. I'd support deleting as long as all the articles in the category were kept somewhere in the "magazine editors" categorization tree. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Rename to "Editors of Vogue" American Vogue has had five, count them, five editors between its foundation in 1914 and today. This is not a job people give up after a few years for something better (unless like Anna Wintour they move from British Vogue to US Vogue). The fact that there are a number of international editions with equal local importance makes this a special case. In general, whilst it is true, as Otto always says, that journalists "can and do work for a variety of media outlets in the course of a career", this should not be applied to jobs that are virtually always the summit of a career. Nobody ever objects to "Bishops of ..." categories, despite the fact they 'can and do work for a variety of church outlets in the course of a career'. And Vogue editors have far more power and pomp than bishops. However it should be restricted to those who have been proper top editor-in-chief of a national edition, so Babe Paley, Elsa Klensch, Hamish Bowles, Lisa Love and a couple of others should be removed. A rename would make this clearer. Johnbod 20:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep rename if desired. Editing any of the major editions of Vogue, particularly the US one, is like being made a cardinal. Many people in fashion journalism want it; only a few get it and the influence they have is beyond description. Daniel Case 23:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry, but editing a fashion magazine is not comparable to becoming a bishop or cardinal. That's just ridiculous. Otto4711 00:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, bishops and cardinals wish they had the pull of fashion editors, I admit. Daniel Case 04:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the Cardinal-in-Chief, er, I mean Pope Benedict XVI, was just named "accessorizer of the year" by Esquire magzine on account of those red loafers he loves to wear. :) Cgingold 13:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename and restrict to editors-in-chief per JohnBod. Cgingold 13:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even JohnBod above admits that there have been only a handful of editors for this magazine. So why does it need a category? List those editors within the main article for Vogue and delete the category. Most companies and organizations simply don't need eponymous categories to list their previous leaders/editors in chief/presidents/etc. Put that info in the main article or an easily accessed list. Dugwiki 15:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't understand. Being the editor-in-chief at American, British, French or Italian Vogue is about a lot more than being a magazine editor. It's not like being the editor-in-chief of Time or Newsweek. With that position comes immense power and influence, power and influence that can and does shape the direction a multi-billion dollar worldwide industry takes, an industry with far greater influence on you personally than you may realize. Read Anna Wintour (an article I developed to GA status) to understand just what that can accomplish. A better article on Diana Vreeland would also demonstrate the same thing.
  Or perhaps I should let a fictionalized version of Ms. Wintour explain:

This... stuff? Oh... ok. I see, you think this has nothing to do with you. You go to your closet and you select out, oh I don't know, that lumpy blue sweater, for instance, because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what you put on your back. But what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue, it's not turquoise, it's not lapis, it's actually cerulean. You're also blindly unaware of the fact that in 2002, Oscar de la Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns. And then I think it was Yves St. Laurent, wasn't it, who showed cerulean military jackets? And then cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of eight different designers. Then it filtered down through the department stores and then trickled on down into some tragic Casual Corner where you, no doubt, fished it out of some clearance bin. However, that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs and so it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when, in fact, you're wearing the sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room. From a pile of stuff.

That's all. Daniel Case 22:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the amount of influence wielded by Vogue editors is not the issue here. And, while Daniel's little screed was entertaining, all it really goes to show is that many industries are more intertwined with the world than we normally realize. A similar screed could be written about probably dozens, if not hundreds, of different industries that people often think of as unimportant. The choice of the screws used to attach my door to my car was probably the result of at least as complicated a set of decisions by at least as large and contentious an industry. "You may go to your car and open up, oh I don't know, the driver-side door, and you ignore the handle because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what the handle is attached with. But what you don't realize is that that screw is not just a phillips head..." A-a-anyway, what this really boils down to is a matter of consistency, utility and overcategorization, and I think if fails on all three counts once a list is added to the main article. Xtifr _tälk 11:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The amount of influence wielded by someone, anyone, has direct bearing on how notable they are. And I would suggest you avoid using words like "screed" to describe other people's contributions (especially when they're just quoted); it's too close to a personal attack and assumes questionable faith. Daniel Case 02:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the winds of consensus do not seem to be blowing the way of keep, I will state for the record that it seems to me that by deleting this we are making a move as boneheaded as deleting all the categories for Oscar-nominated films when we did it this spring, one that shows absolutely no understanding of what confers notability in the industry in question. All the editors from WP:FILM who tirelessly pointed out what it means to filmmakers and critics to even have been nominated for an Academy Award, and included links demonstrating the point, couldn't save the categories in question from the cold equations of WP:OCAT, so I doubt that a smaller-scale action by three of the more active editors in WP:FASHION is going to melt this snowball. No crying over spilt milk then ... I will just wait till we reconsider some aspects of that policy (as we are bound to do eventually, given CfD's well-earned reputation as the deletion page that has to be kept on the tightest leash) or consensus changes on this issue.
  I created this category during the great spring reworking of the monstrously large, undiffused Category:Fashion, to which most of the credit goes to Jen below. As I was sorting through articles about people and other things related to Vogue, I noticed how indiscriminate the category was ... might as well have been Vague. Despite the modest number of articles in it, I had to think long-term. It was going to grow and would eventually need further diffusion. I hate incredibly broad categories that have no subcats ... I have been pondering a diffusion plan for the county I live in, a category admittedly swollen with articles I developed on local notable subjects, long before I posted it to the talk page. Returning to Vogue, a separate category for editors was the most logical first step (I eventually see a need for categories related to the major local editions given the number of fashion notables who've come out of the Big Four, and one to include all the minor (currently, anyway), editions). Consider how, for instance, it's noted in our article on Millicent Fenwick, as it is many other accounts of her life, that she was a Vogue editor herself once upon a time. I had no reason to think anyone would question it at the time.
  In the meantime, I suggest that after this cat is picked up and thrown against the wall so we can all watch it break apart and hear the pretty noise the pieces make as they hit the floor, the list some editors are proposing be added to the Vogue article be instead created as a separate article for two reasons: 1) As I have tagged the article and suggested on the talk page, there is no way a single article could do justice to the subject. A list of editors would eventually be spun off anyway to shorten up the main article when it's nominated for FA. 2) A separate list (something like, say, List of editors-in-chief of Vogue editions, that would easily pass muster as useful and notable, could then include not just the Big Four but all extant national editions (Romanian Vogue, Brazilian Vogue, Congolese Vogue) and maybe even the niche ones like Teen Vogue, Men's Vogue, Vogue Living etc., which also have national editions in some cases. This would be the better solution than a list in the article, and could be added to and expanded immediately. Daniel Case 05:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Dugwiki; any relevant categorisation could be enacted using Category:Vogue, just like in Category:Time magazine. Tewfik^Talk 16:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like Johnbod said above, these are the top posts in the fashion industry and not a job that you happen to have, then you give up to do something else. Perhaps a comparable category that no one is complaining about would be Category:Presidents of Harvard University (just a job, but one of the most important jobs in academia, coming with tremendous influence, and a job you keep basically until you die, retire, or are forced out). If the editor of some other magazine or newspaper had power and influence proportionate to that yielded by these editors, I wouldn't object to a category. This category would be extremely useful for those looking to learn about the power players in the fashion industry. I agree that limiting it to editors-in-chief makes sense. Calliopejen1 03:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I ought to make explicit something that might be implicit in Jen's vote. Suppose the category up for discussion were Category:Editors-in-chief of the New York Times or Category:Executive editors of the Washington Post (which, AFAIK when typing these, don't currently exist). Like Jen's example of the Harvard presidency, no one would argue with an assertion that we ought to have separate categories for these posts, for the same reasons.
  And I also think no one would be engaging in some of the snark we see above, and there might even be more keep votes. Hmm ... might that have anything to do with the fact that these are positions that have always, only been filled by men (although that could change, I allow)? I'm loathe to accuse any individual editor in this discussion of sexism, but we ought to keep in mind that WP:CSB is about more than just making sure articles reflect more than just a single country's perspective. In an open-content online encyclopedia where what, 85% of the editors are male, it was entirely yet still dismayingly predictable that it took till 2007, several years after the birth of Wikipedia, to establish a WikiProject on something as basic and wide-ranging as fashion. And thus it should follow that a category about an important position within a particular area that has historically only been filled by women, dealing with a subject often considered of primary interest to women, gets sniffed at as trivial. Daniel Case 05:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Addendum: And hey! We've got Category:Presidents of Florida International University! I eagerly await the explanation of how the presidency of a school known to most Americans for this, if anything, is weighty and important enough to merit a category devoted to the four men who have held the position whereas a category devoted to editors of the one of the world's most influential magazines is not. Daniel Case 05:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I eagerly await the day when people stop pointing at other things and saying "we have that, so I want this!" Shall we wait together? I'll bring the popcorn. Otto4711 13:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figured someone would hit that link. But belittling it with OTHERCRAPEXISTS does not change the fact that what I pointed to is still crap. Daniel Case 14:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so nominate the other category for deletion. I haven't looked at it closely but I might even support deleting it too. Dugwiki 15:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be nominating all the college and university president by institution categories for deletion then. I would greatly prefer it if, since I didn't make the suggestion myself, no one accuses me of violating WP:POINT (in return I will defend you against any suggestion that you forgot WP:BEANS). Daniel Case 13:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on importance versus navigation There's a lot of text above talking about the "importance" of being a Vogue editor in chief. I just wanted to reply with a quick comment that categories deal with two somewhat independent functions. First, and foremost, they are navigational tools that let readers go from one related article to another. Navigation is the primary function of categories, and if a category isn't actually needed for navigating articles because it's function is redundant with articles then the category probably shouldn't exist to avoid increasing editorial maintainence on the affected articles.

Now the other aspect dealt with by categories is identifying "important aspects" of an article. Things which truly define the article. These important characteristics are what you would use as the sorting criteria when grouping relevant articles. Obviously you don't want to categorize things by random, largely irrelevant characteristics. So the more important a characteristic is to an article, the more likely it is you'll consider using it as a possible category.

But just because a characteristic is important does not mean it's useful for navigation. If everything that needs to be said on a topic is already said in the main article, and all the associated links already appear in the main article, then you normally don't need a category specific to that article to handle those items. So in this case, the fact that being a Vogue editor is "important" is nice, but it doesn't by itself mean that you need a "Vogue editors" category in order to navigate those articles. You can simply list them in the main article and that would be the most natural, efficient way for readers to find those people.

Thus something being "important" isn't always enough to warrant having a category. The category also needs to serve a navigational function that the main article doesn't basically duplicate. That's the reason we delete so many eponymous categories, and it's also the reason for my delete recommendation on this one. Dugwiki 15:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But then you go create a navbox and someone recommends that for deletion, so you go create a list and someone wants to delete that, too. And they both suggest "Why can't this be a category instead?" We just went through this where categories for actors on some TV shows were deleted and the category creators were allowed and encouraged to create a list instead. Well, whaddaya know but that those lists weren't nominated for deletion themselves a couple of weeks ago? Sigh ... Daniel Case 13:51, 14 August 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:Administrators of British India[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: merge. >Radiant< 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Administrators of British India to Category:Administrators in British India

Nominator's rationale: Merge, duplicate category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Johnbod 20:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Piccadilly 20:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. appears to be an accidental duplication Ephebi 08:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, Tewfik^Talk 16:56, 12 August 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:SPT railway stations[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: no consensus for rename. >Radiant< 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SPT railway stations to Category:SPT stations

Nominator's rationale: Rename, as it includes both railway stations and metro stations. It is about stations controlled by SPT. Simply south 17:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming, as the Glasgow Subway (or Underground) depending on the current naming is still an underground railway. I do not see that this renaming will add any clarity to the category. --Stewart 17:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up - following comment by Tewfik would support a subcategory for the Glasgow Subway stations. --Stewart 20:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the Glasgow Subway is a distinct entity, if related to general SPT suburban rail services, wouldn't it make sense to create a subcategory for its stations, which are at this point already named differently (compare Bridge Street subway station to Bogston railway station)? Tewfik^Talk 19:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- how about a split, with it just including the National Rail stations? There is already a Category:Glasgow Subway stations. This could be included just as a part of say Category:SPT, as well as the rail stations cat. Simply south 15:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This could work because Category:SPT could also include SPT supported ferry services (Category:SPT Ferry Services) and railway stations (Category:SPT railway stations). --Stewart 10:52, 14 August 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:Health professionals[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: delete. >Radiant< 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category contains no articles and is made superfluous by Category: Healthcare occupations --Vince 16:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although it is Category:People in health professions that is the real duplicate category; that is where the individuals should be. Johnbod 16:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with empty daughter Category:Cleft lip and palate health professionals, Tewfik^Talk 19:10, 12 August 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:StarCraft storyline[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: merge. >Radiant< 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The category only has two pages, one of which is badly in need of clean-up and the other will likely be deleted shortly. Most of the StarCraft storyline pages were deleted some time ago. Their category should follow suit. The Clawed One 16:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:StarCraft. Otto4711 16:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:StarCraft. as Otto4711 :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, Tewfik^Talk 19:12, 12 August 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:Pilot Cans at the Queer of God[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 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 debate was speedy delete. Obscure reference to a song by The Flaming Lips. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Nonsense. Kbdank71 15:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ...oops! I just tagged this as CSD (G1) - our edits must have been pretty much simultaneous as there were no other tags on the article at the time. If you want to remove the CSD tag go ahead, but I don't think this one really needs discussion does it? EyeSerene^TALK 15:57, 9 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Van Buren family[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: delete. >Radiant< 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with little apparent room for growth, also eponymous family overcategorization. Category holds Van Buren's article along with an article for his house and a grandson-by-marriage. Material is appropriately linked through the text of the various articles. Otto4711 15:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Family categories are defining. Piccadilly 20:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every family category is defining, as you know following your participation in this deletion review for the Gates family category, in which deletion was endorsed. Otto4711 21:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not by me it wasn't. I can think for myself, and will continue to do so, whether or not you approve of my opinions. I oppose that decision, as well as the deletion of this category. Piccadilly 20:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. These are not the only Van Burens in the world. Wryspy 00:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categorization by family tree is a bad idea in general. I don't see why this should be an exception to that rule. Dugwiki 15:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you mean this isn't about Dear Abby and Ann Landers? ;-) Carlossuarez46 17:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ample precedent, Tewfik^Talk 19:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although I firmly support the validity of family categories, in this particular case I'm afraid there's simply not enough to warrant a category. Just 3 articles -- and only 2 family members. (unless we throw in Ann and Abby to pad the category!) Cgingold 22:11, 12 August 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.

Wetlands of California[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: per Johnbod. >Radiant< 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wetlands in California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wetlands in San Francisco Bay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wetlands in Richmond, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wetlands in Contra Costa County, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wetlands in Alameda County, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge all into Category:Wetlands of California, convention of Category:Wetlands of the United States by state. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Wetlands in San Francisco Bay. Merge per nom (in fact I think delete, as all articles are duplicated) the others:Category:Wetlands in Contra Costa County, California, Alameda county and Richmond At the moment these categories are not related. California is a big place, and I see no harm in local subcats, if fairly well populated. But all these duplicate each other. Make SF bay a sub-cat of the California one. NB:César Chávez Park does not actually appear to really have any wetlands, so should removed altogether. That leaves only one in the Alameda category anyway. Johnbod 15:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If we keep the SF one, I recommend it be renamed to Category:Wetlands of the San Francisco Bay -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, "San Francisco Bay Area" might be better. The bay itself actually contains very few wetlands, what with being all full of water and all. :) Xtifr _tälk 10:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good point. It should be Category:Wetlands of the San Francisco Bay Area. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom except rename SF Bay category per Prove It. The purpose of the Category:Wetlands of the San Francisco Bay Area category needs to include articles on wetlands of the entire estuary of the area. This is the area of most California wetlands, including the Sacramento/San Juaquin river deltas. Hmains 00:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and rename San Francisco cat, Tewfik^Talk 19:16, 12 August 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.

Lakes of California[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: merge. >Radiant< 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lakes of Alameda County, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Lakes of Santa Clara County, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Lakes of San Francisco Bay Area (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge all into Category:Lakes of California, convention of Category:Lakes of the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bay Area, Delete others, which are duplicates, as in last nom. There are other area sub-cats here, for the Mojave Desert etc. Johnbod 16:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If we keep the Bay Area one, I recommend that it be renamed to Category:Lakes of the San Francisco Bay Area -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question: What's the norm, generically, for layers of categorization involving the Bay Area, California and other metropolitan areas that span multiple states or distinct counties? Within the Bay Area people are certainly aware of and draw distinctions between Santa Clara, SF, Marin, Contra Costa, etc. Whatever we do for "people from", "restaurants in", etc., should be the norm here, right? And then individual articles ought to be categorized with the most specific category they can, with the broader category used mainly to sort subcatoegories? This issue has been confusing me for some time. I think we ought to be consistent. Wikidemo 14:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - answer Good luck. The 'norms' are all over the place, in fact; who knows what guidelines might exist. Each set of category/articles 'owners' like to do their own thing Hmains 01:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - When area is included in the name, it generally includes more than the one place. In the majority of cases, categories for the largest city in a metropolitan area address items in the area by default. Vegaswikian 06:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment why do San Francisco lakes require special attention? SF is not a lake area. The lakes of California are primarily found in its mountains. Hmains 18:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all, including San Francisco. Tewfik^Talk 19:18, 12 August 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.

Reservoirs in California[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: merge. >Radiant< 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Resevoirs in California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Resevoirs in Alameda County (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Resevoirs in San Francisco Bay Area (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge all into Category:Reservoirs in California, currently there's only four of these. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all per nom. Johnbod 16:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to the correctly spelled name, per nom. I wouldn't object to subdividing the category if there were more articles, but as it is, this is pointless and actually impedes navigation. Xtifr _tälk 01:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment consider renaming Calif level category to Category:Reservoirs and dams in California' or Category:Dams and reservoirs in California. The two usually go together, but there are articles on 'foo dam' or 'goo reservoir', and usually not paired articles on 'hoo dam' and 'hoo reservoir'--not enough content to warrant two articles. The article, be it be named dam or reservoir would fit. On the other hand, some dams have 'reservoirs' behind them and some dams have 'lakes' behind them. What to do about this? And notice my spelling of 'reservoir' which is from the MS Word dictionary. Hmains 01:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Reservoirs in California after the speedy rename to fix spelling happens. Vegaswikian 06:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nom & Vegas, Tewfik^Talk 19:19, 12 August 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:RiffTrax[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: delete. >Radiant< 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category not needed to hold one article and one subcat (which should also be deleted but that's an issue for another day). Otto4711 12:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the categorization and its counterpart Category:RiffTrax movies serves to be promotional for RiffTrax. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as very small with little possibility of extension. We might at most decide to add the primary commentators, bringing the amount of articles to three, and that's it. --Huon 09:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ample precedent, Tewfik^Talk 19:19, 12 August 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:Ig Nobel Prize[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: delete (unanimous). >Radiant< 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. Contains only the base article and the subcat, so this is superfluous. Failing that, merge with subcat. >Radiant< 12:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Frankly I'm even a little dubious of the subcategory, but that's another topic. Either way, even assuming the subcategory for the winners is ok, this eponymous category for the prize isn't needed. Dugwiki 15:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge per nom, depending on fate of subcat. Johnbod 16:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subcategory should have been deleted as well. Piccadilly 20:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with categorizing the winners, but since this one only has the one entry, the winners should be moved into this parent category and the sub-category deleted. That puts everything in one category and uses the shortest name for it. --Bduke 23:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wryspy 00:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom's reasoning. –sebi 00:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Tewfik^Talk 19:19, 12 August 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:Meitner[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: delete. >Radiant< 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category is never going to contain more than three items, and serves no purpose. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small category with little or no potential for growth, also grouping unrelated people by coincidence of name. Both examples of overcategorization. Otto4711 13:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category with no chance for growth, Tewfik^Talk 19:20, 12 August 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:League of Extraordinary Gentlemen characters[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: delete. >Radiant< 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic. These characters were not made to be featured in the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and being so is not relevant to the characters themselves. If only the original characters were to be categorized, I'd be content, but as is, practically every major character of Victorian fiction is destined to end up here. Huon 10:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - on the category's talk page, the creator claims there are precedents, and gives Category:MST3K movies and Category:Nine Worthies as examples. I agree, but draw a different conclusion: Just as this one should go, so should the others. If consensus favors deletion here, I'll nominate them, too. --Huon 10:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Both of those examples sound like dubious categories. Dugwiki 15:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pretty obviously not a defining characteristic. I think the MST3K category survived a CfD not long ago, on the basis that it was the main source of notability and for much of the critical commentary about those movies (a reasonable, if debatable, argument). The characters in LoEG, however, were obviously chosen because they were already notable, which is a completely different situation. Most of these characters have appeared in a wide variety of other stories, and critical commentary is all over the place, but is primarily focused on the very notable original sources. Only a tiny percentage of what reliable sources have to say about these characters is going to even note the existence of the League comics and movie. And, of course, creator's argument amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is an invalid argument at deletion debates. I can't comment on Nine Worthies, as I haven't looked at that category, but the comparison of this to the MST3K category is both irrelevant and incorrect. Xtifr _tälk 12:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these aren't LoEG characters. They weren't created for the series and being used in the series was not a defining characteristic for them. The recent CFD was for Category:RiffTrax movies which I still think ought to be deleted. The comparison to the MST3K category is invalid in that in many cases the films that MST3K riffed would not be notable or have articles in the absence of MST3K. No opinion on the Nine Worthies comparison but regardless this category should go. Otto4711 12:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not opposed to this sort of thing at all; technically a lot of categories aren't defining characteristics, but incidental attributes. ←Ben^B4 14:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Organization membership and character lists are normally better handled by list articles or by incorporating the lists into the main article on the topic. See WP:OCAT. Since this list can easily be done either within the main article or as a subarticle, delete. Dugwiki 15:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would not mind a category for original characters, if there were enough, but I don't think there are. Can all be done by a list in the main article. Johnbod 15:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per extensive precedent regarding superteam membership. Also, these characters shouldn't be categorized by every pastiche-ical use of them. Wryspy 00:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominating this category for deletion shows a remarkable amount of hypocrisy. The nom admits that this is the same for categories such as RiffTrax, which was voted to be kept. The nom admits this should be for original characters, which there already are some in it. If he feels so strongly about the presence of Victorian characters than he should just propose that they be removed from the category. If even the nom is being two-faced, saying he agrees the category should exist yet wanting to delete it anyways, that should tell you something. Kuralyov 00:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK first, throwing around words like "hypocrisy" demonstrates both a lack of civility and a failure to assume good faith. Second, the nominator did not mention the RiffTrax movies category. That was mentioned in another comment and the existence of the RiffTrax movies category has nothing to do with this nomination. Otto4711 01:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but prune to ONLY the following: Campion Bond, Allan Quatermain, Jr., and Rodney Skinner. These are the only original characters in the lot.--Mike Selinker 08:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are only three original characters, doesn't that make this category small with no potential for growth? Otto4711 13:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never bought this argument. If so, these characters will be dumped into Category:America's Best Comics characters, which means that they will be right in the same place, just more disorganized.--Mike Selinker 16:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nondefining characyeristic. Yes, other stuff exists - lets get rid of it as well. Tewfik^Talk 19:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have no personal objection to this but all superhero/comic team character categories have been deleted and this is no exception. (Emperor 02:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. While I might buy the logic from Mike Selinker for keeping 3, that is not a big enough group to keep, in my opinion. Vegaswikian 00:13, 14 August 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:Venezuelan[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: delete. >Radiant< 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Newly created but unneeded category, as people are usually categorized by nationality and profession, in addition to Category: Venezuelan people. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 07:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely. Let's not start a trend. Bulldog123 14:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Venezuelan what? Coffee? People? Oil rigs? Too vague and undefined. - Crockspot 20:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure this meets the criteria for speedy deletion – do you mind telling me how this could be a candidate for speedy deletion? –sebi 00:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above reasons. –sebi 00:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per convention, Tewfik^Talk 19:23, 12 August 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:Never raced F1 cars[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: rename. >Radiant< 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Never raced F1 cars to Category:Formula One cars that never raced

Nominator's rationale: First, F1 should be written out as Formula One. Second, this makes more grammatical sense and is easier to understand. The359 01:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. DH85868993 05:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very small cat with little room for expansion, esp. in today's F1 climate. Lugnuts 11:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The McLaren MP4-18 is only 4 years old, so it is possible in today's F1 climate. Also, there are several known cars that could be added to the list eventually. The359 19:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Six articles is enough. Johnbod 15:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Six articles is enough, especially where the alternative are either (a) making a a parent category messier (b) not categorising articles by a key characteristic. Piccadilly 20:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: abbreviations in category names should be avoided, and the current name sounds like a biographical category which would include nearly all biographical articles on Wikipedia. For example, I'm pretty sure that George W. Bush never raced F1 cars. As an alternative, Category:Never-raced Formula One cars might be acceptable, but I think nom's suggestion is more clear. Xtifr _tälk
Rename, as while it is small, it does have the potential for growth. Tewfik^Talk 19:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the guideline WP:OCAT#Small with no potential for growth explicitly defines "small" as "two or three members"; this already has six. Xtifr _tälk 03:20, 13 August 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:Public services by city[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: delete. >Radiant< 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Simply too broad and imprecise of a category. Currently one city in this category. Most of the included subcats and articles are already covered by existing categories and category structures. Vegaswikian 00:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the single subcat is under discussion here. Otto4711 13:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Piccadilly 20:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments at other discussion, Tewfik^Talk 19:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as empty since the only sub-categroy has been (or shortly will be) deleted. Otto4711 17:02, 13 August 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:WikiProject U.S. Congress senators[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: delete. >Radiant< 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not needed after discussion elsewhere. Empty. Using Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress persons instead. —Markles 00:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Given how many congresspeople there are the "in use" category seems underpopulated. Carlossuarez46 17:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete unused cat per nom & CSD:C1, Tewfik^Talk 19:26, 12 August 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:WikiProject U.S. Congress representatives[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: delete. >Radiant< 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not needed after discussion elsewhere. Empty. Using Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress persons instead. —Markles 00:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Carlossuarez46 17:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above, Tewfik^Talk 19:27, 12 August 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.