Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 18

< December 17	December 19 >

December 18[edit]

Category:Ice hockey players by club by competition[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 delete/merge per nom. Kbdank71 16:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deleting

Category:Ice hockey players by club by competition

Suggest merging

Nominator's rationale: Over-categorization. Added an unneccessary layer to the cat structure. Should have been discussed prior to attempting. It was obvious that the subcats of the league cats were the teams in that league. No need to add another cat in between.-Djsasso (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Flibirigit (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to reduce clutter on Category:Ice hockey players by club. Having this is a lot better than listing NHL, AHL, IHL, ECHL etc clubs by country, which is the alternative Mayumashu (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You mean moreso than Category:Ice hockey players by club by country which was also created? Nevermind the fact that club by country is probably over-categorizing anyways. -Djsasso (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Pparazorback (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you proposing, that for example, everything in Category:American Hockey League players by team, including the contents of the subcats be merged into one category?? Maxim_(talk) 13:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Maxim, I'm pretty sure Djsasso simply wants the team player categories merged up one level, not eliminated. These cats do appear redundant. Reso lute 21:16, 24 December 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:Botswanan anything[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 rename all. Kbdank71 16:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Botswanan culture to Category:Botswana culture

Propose renaming Category:Botswanan music to Category:Botswana music JackyR | Talk 23:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Botswanan hip hop to Category:Botswana hip hop JackyR | Talk 23:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Botswanan hip hop musicians to Category:Botswana hip hop musicians JackyR | Talk 23:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Botswanan musicians to Category:Botswana musicians JackyR | Talk 23:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Botswanan diplomats to Category:Botswana diplomats

Propose renaming Category:Botswanan people by occupation to Category:Botswana people by occupation

Propose renaming Category:Botswanan judges to Category:Botswana judges

Propose renaming Category:Botswanan activists to Category:Botswana activists

Propose renaming Category:Botswanan women's rights activists to Category:Botswana women's rights activists

Propose renaming Category:Botswanan historians to Category:Botswana historians

Propose renaming Category:Botswanan military personnel to Category:Botswana military personnel

Propose renaming Category:Botswanan politicians to Category:Botswana politicians

Propose renaming Category:Botswanan sportspeople to Category:Botswana sportspeople

Propose renaming Category:Botswanan athletes to Category:Botswana athletes

Propose renaming Category:Botswanan boxers to Category:Botswana boxers

Propose renaming Category:Botswanan footballers to Category:Botswana footballers

Propose renaming Category:Botswanan writers to Category:Botswana writers

Propose renaming Category:Botswanan generals to Category:Botswana generals JackyR | Talk 00:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The most appropriate adjective pertaining to Botswana is just "Botswana"; it follow the same pattern as Category:New Zealand culture. Explanation from this previous CFD is repeated below. See also List of Botswana-related topics. JackyR | Talk 23:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Botswanan does not exist in Botswana English - as with Hong Kong or New Zealand, the adjective is just the country's name (or Batswana or Setswana, for people or language/culture), eg: "Botswana government", "Botswana territory"[1], "Botswana football"[2], "Botswana justice"[3], "Botswana authorities"[4]. Proper nouns (although individually not a good guide) are universally Botswana, not Botswanan: Botswana Housing Corporation, Botswana Defence Force, Botswana Democratic Party, Botswana Netball Association...
Botswanan does exist in UK dictionaries, but doesn't seem to be used by people who have anything to do with Botswana. Since one usage is wrong in the local English, and the other usage neutral in all Englishes, there doesn't seem any justification for going with Botswanan. JackyR | Talk 23:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename grudgingly - I'll bet they have a National Flower, so I don't think a National Adjective is too much to ask. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: isn't "Motswana" the corresponding adjective? Or is that only used as a proper noun? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, half way through doing this, I realised that all the people-related categories should be Motswana, and probably the culture-related ones should be Setswana. But there's always some ambiguity hovering around both these terms, regarding whether they refer to people of Botswana or ethnic Batswana. Dunno, what do others think? JackyR | Talk 11:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per JackyR, and just go for "Botswana" in each case; this is complex enough as it is. --John (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency and simplicity per JackyR; perhaps a note can be made on the relevant category pages about the different permutations. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nom. It will not be obvious to most English speakers that the adjective is Motswana or Setswana, and so would confuse less sophisticated users (probably including me!). We are not used to English words changing prefix in this way. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 23 December 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:Ice hockey players by position[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 Not sure why I didn't think about the possibility of it just being subcat in my example. Probably was the reason I didn't put it up 6 month or so ago when I first saw it. --Djsasso (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This and all subcats should be deleted due to over-categorizing. Similar categories such as Category:NHL goaltenders have already been deleted for this reason. Players are already categorized by country and team. If that country cat is too large they are then split into positions for that country. If these particular categories were to be kept we could end up with players like Joe Sakic ending up in both Category:Ice hockey forwards and Category:Canadian ice hockey forwards for an example which would definately be over kill. Currently only the Canadian cat is split that way. Nevermind the fact that players change positions on a relatively frequent basis. Categories are also completely unused except for one player who has since been removed. Djsasso (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and populate. This is the right direction to go, as evidenced by all other categories of Category:Sportspeople by position. (It should not be done by league, though, since only MLB does it that way.) What should eventually disappear is the various "Canadian ice hockey (positions)" categories, as those players should be in category:Canadian ice hockey players, any league categories, and a non-national position category to mirror how we treat basketball and American football players.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The players were in the Category:Canadian ice hockey players cat's but because of the sheer numbers in that cat had to be split out to subcats and this was the best way to do it. -Djsasso (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I wouldn't. Category:American basketball players is pretty big too. It's not a bad thing to have lots of people in a people category, as long as you have a navbar at the top that can allow you to see the ones you need to see. Anyway, this isn't a referendum on those, but I could see nominating those for upmerging into Category:Canadian ice hockey players and Category:Ice hockey (position)s.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that you emptied out these categories before you nominated the category for deletion (edits such as this and this. How many were categorized before you did this? There would be no need for a player to be in Category:Ice hockey forwards and Category:Canadian ice hockey forwards. You just make one a subcategory of the other. So, if we keep the Canadian categories, I think keeping the generic category is what we should do. I'll see what others have to say before expressing an opinion to keep or delete. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And I mentioned those edits in my nom. They were the only two. My nom may have been missunderstood I meant one player in each of the subcats. If I was trying to be sneaky about it I would have just waited the 4 days and speedied it, I wouldn't have put it up here so I would appreciate it if you assumed good faith. Thanks.-Djsasso (talk) 23:37, 18 December 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:Blood+[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 delete. Kbdank71 16:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category for only a handful of articles; no likely hood of expansion and already well covered with article linking Collectonian (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after merging a bunch of articles, there's not much in that category anymore. --Eruhildo (talk) 23:27, 18 December 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:Need for Speed locations[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 delete. Kbdank71 16:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: One article in category. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:17, 21 December 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:Trinity Blood[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 delete. Kbdank71 16:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category for a small handful of articles already well covered by internal linking. No likely hood of expansion as the creator of the series has died. Collectonian (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for same reasons as above. --Eruhildo (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:17, 21 December 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:Fictional towns and cities in Mexico[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 rename to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Mexico. the wub "?!" 22:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Has grand total of one article in it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~Rename to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Mexico, per below. This needs to feed into the parent categories Category:Fictional towns and cities and Category:Cities in (X). But we can't upmerge the article into Category:Cities in (X), as that would mix real and fictional content. So this needs to stay.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mike & (below) Otto's points. Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While we're discussing it, though, we should rename it Category:Fictional cities and towns in Mexico for consistency with the equivalent nonfiction category, Category:Cities and towns in Mexico. Doczilla (talk) 09:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. I hate to hijack this nomination (especially since I disagree with it), but is there anyone who would oppose switching these four categories (and then presumably all the rest) to Category:Fictional cities and towns in (X)?--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any rename should encompass the entire category tree on both sides. The real and the fictional should be the same, whether it's towns and cities or cities and towns. Currently they don't match. I don't care which ends up as the name. Otto4711 (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the fictional categories would make a lot more sense, as there are quite a bit fewer of them. I think we should do this for all of them. Whether we need a new nomination for this is unclear.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably we should, for those not nominated here. But I agree with the change for this & all the ones below. Johnbod (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Fictional towns and cities. One article does not a category make. --Kbdank71 16:35, 26 December 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:Fictional Asian countries[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 keep. Kbdank71 16:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only two non redirected articles remain in this category. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are articles in the parent that can be diffused out to the sub-cat. Otto4711 (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 19 December 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:Fictional towns and cities in China[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 rename to Category:Fictional cities and towns in China. the wub "?!" 22:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Has one article in it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are a number of other Fictional towns and cities in Foo categories so these could be seen as part of a wider categorization scheme of fictional cities by country. If not retained then they should be upmerged to Category:Fictional towns and cities. Otto4711 (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~Rename to Category:Fictional cities and towns in China, per point in the Mexico nomination. This needs to feed into the parent categories Category:Fictional towns and cities and Category:Cities in (X). But we can't upmerge the article into Category:Cities in (X), as that would mix real and fictional content. So this needs to stay.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mike & Otto's points. Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename Category:Fictional cities and towns in China for consistency with real world subcategories under Category:Cities by country and Category:Towns by country. Doczilla (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Fictional towns and cities. One article does not a category make. --Kbdank71 16:35, 26 December 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:Fictional towns and cities in Chile[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 rename to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Chile. the wub "?!" 22:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Has only one article in it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are a number of other Fictional towns and cities in Foo categories so these could be seen as part of a wider categorization scheme of fictional cities by country. If not retained then they should be upmerged to Category:Fictional towns and cities. Otto4711 (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~Rename to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Chile, per point in the Mexico nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mike & Otto's points. Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename Category:Fictional cities and towns in Chile for consistency with Category:Cities and towns in Chile. Doczilla (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Fictional towns and cities. One (ok, two) articles does not a category make. --Kbdank71 16:35, 26 December 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:Fictional towns and cities in Italy[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 rename to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Italy. the wub "?!" 22:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category has a grand total of one article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are a number of other Fictional towns and cities in Foo categories so these could be seen as part of a wider categorization scheme of fictional cities by country. If not retained then they should be upmerged to Category:Fictional towns and cities. Otto4711 (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~Rename to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Italy, per point in the Mexico nomination. This needs to feed into the parent categories Category:Fictional towns and cities and Category:Cities in (X). But we can't upmerge the article into Category:Cities in (X), as that would mix real and fictional content. So this needs to stay.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mike & Otto's points. Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename Category:Fictional cities and towns in Italy for consistency with Category:Cities and towns in Italy. Doczilla (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Fictional towns and cities. One article does not a category make. --Kbdank71 16:35, 26 December 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:Fictional towns and cities in Sweden[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 rename to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Sweden. the wub "?!" 22:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Has all of one article in the category. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are a number of other Fictional towns and cities in Foo categories so these could be seen as part of a wider categorization scheme of fictional cities by country. If not retained then they should be upmerged to Category:Fictional towns and cities. Otto4711 (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~Rename to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Sweden, per point in the Mexico nomination. This needs to feed into the parent categories Category:Fictional towns and cities and Category:Cities in (X). But we can't upmerge the article into Category:Cities in (X), as that would mix real and fictional content. So this needs to stay.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mike & Otto's points. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename Category:Fictional cities and towns in Sweden for consistency with real world subcategories under Category:Cities by country and Category:Towns by country. Doczilla (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Fictional towns and cities. One article does not a category make. --Kbdank71 16:35, 26 December 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:Starter Pokémon[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 delete. Kbdank71 16:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There are actually only two unmerged articles in this category now, and both cover the fact that they are "starter" pokemon. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pokecruft. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary, underpopulated category. Doczilla (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:18, 21 December 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:The Attitude Era[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 delete. Kbdank71 16:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There is no agreed beginning or end to the Attitude Era (so no set parameters), and it seems very vague as the user it started the category is adding it to every event that happened and person that was involved with World Wrestling Entertainment from 1996-2002. The article on the Attitude Era itself is also up for deletion. TJ Spyke 19:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Speculation category that doesn't seem very useful. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if there is no agreed upon beginning or end, it seems that this category will cause more problems than anything. Also, there doesn't seem to be any criteria for inclusion, as the category is being added to wrestlers who only wrestled in the WWF/WWE once between the years of 1996-2002 ( example: Ivan Putski). Nikki311 18:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dav nel 03 12:23, 23 December 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:Empusidae[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 delete. Kbdank71 16:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a case of overcategorization, in addition to duplicating the function of the taxobox. Empusidae is simply an insect family, of which there are over 1000 in existence; there is no point to giving every insect family its own category, especially when the family is as small as this one (there are presently only four articles that would be placed in this category, and even if every species in the family had its own article, there would be only about 30 articles, all effectively linked already via the taxobox hierarchy). I requested speedy deletion, the request was denied. Dyanega (talk) 18:58, 18 December 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:Sports in Charlotte[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 rename. Kbdank71 16:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sports in Charlotte to Category:Sports in Charlotte, North Carolina

Nominator's rationale: To match the parent category, Category:Charlotte, North Carolina. TJ Spyke 17:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match parent cat. Doczilla (talk) 18:48, 20 December 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:LGBT theatre[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 keep. Kbdank71 16:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:LGBT theatre to Category:LGBT plays

Suggest renaming Category:LGBT plays to Category:LGBT-related plays

Nominator's rationale: Merge LGBT theatre to LGBT plays and rename the result to Category:LGBT-related plays. The theatre category as it's being used is redundant to the plays category. Category:Theatre isn't used for articles on plays; that's what the Category:Plays structure is for. Plays don't have a sexual orientation. See the parallel Category:LGBT-related films and Category:LGBT-related television programs. Otto4711 (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But not all these are plays - Aputheatre & The Gold Dust Orphans are companies, Singapore gay theatre does what it says on the tin. Split off the plays & keep, split as suggested. There must be more articles out there - it's got the potential anyway. Johnbod (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because they're not all plays. Doczilla (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Theatre is the broader topic. --☑ SamuelWantman 09:45, 23 December 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:Bouzaréah[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 rename. Kbdank71 16:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bouzaréah to Category:Bouzaréah District

Nominator's rationale: To follow the norm for categories about Districts of Algeria. (For example as in Category:Dar El Beïda District). ESCONDITES 16:17, 18 December 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:DMCA takedown incidents[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 rename. Kbdank71 16:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:DMCA takedown incidents to Category:Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown incidents

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT. Snocrates 08:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I created the category before I was on-board as an acronym-expander (or fully understood the need to do so) and should have caught it myself in my own watch-lists. Oops. Thanks, Snocrates! (And oops looks like Category:Copyright law has gotten a little hairy lately and this category needs a little work anyway. Will add to my to-do list.) --Lquilter (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename someone should prune the cat, the one article I looked at had no DMCA issue at all, just a plain old copyright suit seeking an injunction. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I thought they were dmca 512 incidents. Which did you look at? --Lquilter (talk) 02:55, 21 December 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:Monkey Island locations[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 delete. Kbdank71 16:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Has a grand total of one article in it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete underpopulated category. Doczilla (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Monkey Island and Category:Video game locations.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:15, 18 December 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:1990s fads[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 no consensus. This nomination splits on two very different levels: whether fad categories are okay in general, and whether the 1990s are too recent to determine what's a fad and what isn't. As such, there isn't consensus on either point. This may benefit from being part of a group nomination for a change to "(decade) trends" or somesuch.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Seems like a very POV category title, who determines what's a "fad", and what isn't? I notice Pokemon is noted as a fad, and so far its popularity is massive and sustained for over a decade, as an example... Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per previous discussion for the 2000 decade. Lugnuts (talk) 08:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective category per precedent. Doczilla (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:Fads also has subcategories for the 1920s through the 1980s. Arguments about the subjectivity of the "fad" label would seem to cover all of the categories equally, while the too-soon-to-tell argument that was mentioned during the discussion about the 2000s may not. It would be helpful if everyone could explain their positions more thoroughly. Specifically, if anyone is advocating the deletion of all of the decade subcats, please say so. ×Meegs 10:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support deleting the 80s downward, just the 90s upward. Many franchises of the 90s are still very much alive in the fairly boring 2000s. I think the overwhelming number of people who grew up on these things are too close to the topic to have any hope of categorizing them in a neutral way (and neutrality DOES apply to using categories, neurotic as that argument may seem). I think the too-soon to tell argument definitely applies here, just by looking at some of the articles placed into this category already TheBilly (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all decade categories. Subjective. Who defines it? I wouldn't consider Mortal Kombat, TMNT, or Oprah's Book Club fads, but they're all in the 1990s category. --Kbdank71 17:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe some social sciences researcher could tell us that fads has a more definite name? I mean, I don't know what else to call the goldfish-swallowers of the 1920s or the phone-booth stuffers of the whatever that was, the 1950s, or the streakers of the 1970s. (I do note the similarity between this and the so-called Category:Popular history that was just deleted.) Products like Mortal Kombat and TMNT and cabbage patch dolls and troll dolls or -- jesus -- beanie babies may be a slightly different kind of fad. "Fad products"? --Lquilter (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Referring to the Pokemon bit in the nom: A fad does not necessarily become unpopular or obscure when it ceases to be a fad, it often becomes a part of the mainstream culture. ff m 00:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To me, categories like this are needed. A fad in reality when used in this sense, just is something that was quite popular during that time, and still may be popular today. Pokemon was extremely popular in the 90s, and still is. It is not POV from what I can see. I was going through the some of the decades *fads* and it brings back a lot of memories, I was looking to read up on how some of the biggest toys and games and such are doing, and the category 1990 games, is way too big and does not focus on the *fad*/big games of the decade like this does. Maybe if the category name was changed. But to me categories like this should stay for the reasons stated above, and if people do (which they do) what I do and go back in time and read the Wikipedia articles. After all Wikipedia is about spreading information to the reader, and it's best to get the information as easy and fast as possible.--Sugarcubez (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "precedent" was very thinly-attended indeed, & objections were rightly raised about the decade still being in progress. A rename would be ideal, and some things that have shown longer life should not be in here (eg Oprah's Book Club), but the majority of the entries seem fine & I see no problem with the basic concept. Johnbod (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Subjective overcategorisation. Seeing Windows 95 - how did one of the most used SW products became a fad? Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I don't think that all fad categories should go for being NPOV, I do think this one is a problem. We're still too close to the 90s to decide with a high level of certainty what really was a "fad" after all (Pet rocks are a classic example of something widely recognized as a fad: once a craze, now a curiosity. Whereas something like pokemon still rakes in disgusting piles of money each year). This category will only breed endless debate. If we can't even agree what "fad" means, we can't properly utilize this category TheBilly (talk) 22:01, 24 December 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.