Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 22

< February 21	February 23 >

February 22[edit]

Category:Deontology[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I have moved the only remaining article in this category to category:deontological ethics which seems to have replaced this category and is consistent with the main article name on this topic. --Vince 23:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - empty category. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 02:21, 23 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Doom source ports[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only one article (Doom source port), which is also in Category:Doom. From the article's discussion, it seems that any articles meant for this category have already been merged into the main one. --Vossanova ^o< 20:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Vossanova ^o< 21:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant category. Otto4711 23:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree; it seems that the main article would be the only article in this category for the forseeable future. — brighterorange (talk) 23:51, 22 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:FIFA World Cup goalscorers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Categories on football (soccer) players already contain several categories indicating their participation in the FIFA World Cup, and the large number of categories are difficult to read within the individual articles. This category is the weakest. People in other sports are not categorized by whether they scored in important games (e.g. American footballers are not categorized as to whether they scored in the Super Bowl, nor are MLB baseball players scores as to whether they scored in the World Series). This category therefore seems inappropriate. Given this and the outcome of votes on a related football (soccer) categories for people scoring in similar finals games (which I cannot find at the moment), this category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 20:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I found the related discussions on Category:Players who scored in an FA Cup Final and Category:FA Cup Final goalscorers at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 9#Category:Players who scored in an FA Cup Final. The arguments for those categories' deletion also applies to this category. Dr. Submillimeter 22:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments wikilinked above. Haddiscoe 00:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a useful way of identifying top strikers or anything else. Nathanian 00:59, 24 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lǐ (李) (surname)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete (speedy delete per G4). Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - First, this is categorization by name, a form of overcategorization. Such categories usually bring together articles with little in common. Second, this category was deleted following a lengthy 22 Nov 2006 discussion where the majority of users found that it was not useful to categorize by surname. (The discussion was closed 9 Dec 2006, and the category was recreated 16 Jan 2007.) For these reasons, the category should be speedy deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 20:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Also see the debate on Category:Chén (陳) (surname) at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 20#Category:Chén (陳) (surname). Dr. Submillimeter 08:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Part of an unneeded (and thankfully non-existent) scheme. Haddiscoe 00:11, 23 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Maltese Football Clubs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Maltese Football Clubs into Category:Maltese football clubs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maltese Football Clubs to Category:Maltese football clubs

Merge, capitalised duplicate of Category:Maltese Football Clubs. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 19:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Can this be speedied? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 27 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Voice actors by channel[edit]

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn as duplicate. I'll solicit assistance from related Wikiprojects. We have a huge number of backlogged categories for listifying. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. These were part of the mass nomination that resulted in the decision to listify and speedy delete cast categories with an appropriate cast list in place. However, thes categories for actors by the network on which their shows appeared or the producing studio, not for specific shows. Per Disney Channel actors, these actor by channel/studio categories should be speedily deleted without listifying. Otto4711 17:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above and per previous actor by studio afds. Dugwiki 19:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close disucssion - These two categories have both been the subjects of individual WP:CFD discussions that were closed very recently. The decision on Category:Disney voice actors was to delete. The decision on Category:Nicktoons cast members was to listify (although I think that deletion may have been more appropriate, as this is a production company and not a show). The administrators and bots have not had the opportunity to act on these categories. Another discussion is only going to confuse people. Dr. Submillimeter 19:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, and I even participated in both of those discussions. I saw these and thought they were carry-overs from the mass nom that hadn't been dealt with. Withdrawn with apologies, and give the admins and bots time to catch up. Otto4711 21:27, 22 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Research in Kiev city[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename Tim! 20:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Research in Kiev city to Category:Organisations based in Kiev city

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This category is excessively narrow. It appears to have been created to hold one particular article, and I can't find any other research by city categories. However Category:Organisations by city is fairly well populated and some of its other subcategories contain research institutions. CalJW 17:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is renamed as proposed, please could the closing admin relocate it. CalJW 17:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and relocate per nom - and populate too. Haddiscoe 00:10, 23 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Manhattanization[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Category contains three articles, the lead article and two articles for buildings in Miami. The articles for the two buildings, Platinum on the Bay and Four Seasons Hotel Miami, contain no information which justifies inclusion in the category. Even if they did, three articles are insufficient to sustain a category and without the building articles the one remaining article certainly is insufficient. I have placed the article Manhattanization in an appropriate parent cat, Category:Political terms. The nominated cat should be deleted. Otto4711 17:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a bad idea for a category, being based on a term that is both vague and polemical. CalJW 17:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The term is too jargonistic, too vague, and too obscure for use in categorization. Dr. Submillimeter 19:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too subjective. Metamagician3000 00:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vague, subjective, jargonistic neologism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:02, 27 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Categorization of location[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by these cats. SilkTork 17:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a substitute for a map. CalJW 17:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have grouped all these nominations together. This is apparently part of a "Location Categorization Project" whose goal is to make categories for every region in a grid of coordinate by latitude and longitude - see Wikipedia:Categorization of location. The person behind this is User:AxelBoldt. --Vossanova ^o< 02:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The category and the essay explaining the category was started and finished in May 2006. Even the guy who started it seemed to abandon it quite quickly. The actual system has since been replaced. SilkTork 23:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am certain that this is a bad idea without listening to whatever reasons may be put forward to justify it. Haddiscoe 00:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've thought about this, and I can't see any reason why we should keep this failed attempt on the database. SilkTork 23:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The problem I have with these, aside from the 67,464 total categories that could be automatically created, is that it wants Wikipedia to be a WikiAtlas, which, needing massive map images, could really stand to be a separate site. --Vossanova ^o< 00:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A bad idea in principle, which now seems to be abandoned. --Xdamr^talk 17:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Obviously a project like this cannot thrive if people don't like it, which seems to be the case here. To me, questions like "What other churches are located close to this one?" or "What are the neighboring counties?" etc. seem to be pretty natural and relevant for an encyclopedia to answer. I would therefore be interested in learning why people immediately reject the idea, maybe on my talk page or on the project's talk page. I thought it was a really good idea at the time :-) Cheers, AxelBoldt 23:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This categorization is (relatively) time-proof. Taking a long-term view (either backwards, or forwards; it doesn't matter) -- with shifting government borders, there is a case to be made that these categories are more valid than Category:Mountains of the United States or Category:Rivers of South Korea. However, for regions which overlap more than one square, there is no point in adding 50 or more categories. This may make for an interesting wiki on its own. Neier 01:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all It's a tempting idea, but I don't think that wikipedia's categoriastion system is sophisticated enough to deke the results useful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 28 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Orders and decorations[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. As a corollary, I am also renaming Category:Orders and decorations of Nigeria to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Nigeria to match all the others: it was tagged for speedy renaming on Feb 22, but somehow this was never implemented . Any objections, let me know. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Orders and decorations to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to match the by-country subcategories. CalJW 16:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, BUT... This is something I've been meaning to get around to for a while, so I've no objection in principle. However, given that the by-country subcategories use the serial comma, for consistency's sake I would suggest that the category is renamed to Orders, decorations, and medals.

Xdamr^talk 16:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I intended. CalJW 17:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Nathanian 01:00, 24 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Polygonal forts and Category:Star forts[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete empty categories Tim! 20:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polygonal forts
Category:Star forts
Delete both. After a reorganisation of Category:Fortifications of Malta, these two categories (having been replaced with Category:Polygonal forts in Malta and Category:Star forts in Malta). It is possible that they could be used as subcategories somewhere in the Forts category, but I personally don't feel it is necessary. Should they be deleted? ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 16:23, 22 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pejorative political terms[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per recent AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political epithets (2) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep (or rename to Category:Political epithets or something). The AfD does not expand to every category and article in some way related with the deleted article. Failing that merge into Category:Political terms. // Liftarn
Delete - "pejorative" requires an improper POV judgment call. Otto4711 15:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a vote for rename, not delete. // Liftarn

Do not strike out other editor's comments. CfD is a discussion, therefore it is open to editors to suggest any course of action they consider best. If you disagree then leave a comment in response, do not deface or delete those of other editors.

Strikethrough of Otto4711's comment removed.

Xdamr^talk 16:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, of course, per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political epithets (2) Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and how does a vote on one thing affect another thing? // Liftarn
You've misunderstood, these aren't "votes", they are discussions. Read the discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, then. How does one thing affect another? That A was deleted is not a valid argument to also delete B. // Liftarn
  - This isn't A and B, this is a second variation on A. Lists and categories are very closely related—in fact, it's common to convert categories to lists, and vice versa. Now, it is true that a deletion for "List of A" does not necessarily mean that "Category:A" should also be deleted, because it's possible that the list was deleted in favor of a category. This is pretty much the sole exception, though, and doesn't apply here. Xtifr _tälk 22:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it does apply here. // Liftarn
Delete "Pejorative" is an overly subjective term, and thus is a problematic criteria for categorization. Where do you draw the line between "justifiably insulted" and "overly sensitive"? Dugwiki 19:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments raised for the near-identical list, many of which apply even more strongly to a category. Categories can't include citations and can't be easily monitored for inappropriate additions. If we were to keep one or the other, then we should keep the list, but since the list has already been deleted, we should most definitely get rid of the category as well! Xtifr _tälk 22:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, becasause we deleted the list the category should stay. However it may need a better name. // Liftarn

Delete 'Pejorative' is simply too subjective. Anything which comes down to opinion, like this does, is an unsuitable basis for a category (WP:OR, etc).

Xdamr^talk 17:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete until a satisfactory replacement term is found. Suggests are 'political epithets' or 'political slurs' Bad idea to upmerge to 'political terms'--that category is already in need of category diffusion. Hmains 19:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that there is any way that this can be replaced without being OR. Afd doesn't seem to want it, so any re-creation is likely to be deleted.

Xdamr^talk 22:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one person's pejoritive is another's badge of honor: by the way, what about all the most common ones (at least in the US) Nazi? Communist? Liberal? Hawk? Dove? we can find all sorts of people who'd be stung with those labels and others who gladly embrace(d) them. Carlossuarez46 21:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective Catchpole 08:23, 1 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of mainland 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of mainland China into Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the People's Republic of China. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary layer of categorisation. Upmerge all content into parent category, Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the People's Republic of China.

Xdamr^talk 15:26, 22 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Batman-inspired villains[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spedy delete per result of previous CFD. List of villains inspired by Batman now exists. Otto4711 14:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt recreation of this vague, POV/OR category. Doczilla 08:52, 23 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Batman-inspired heroes[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per result of previous CFD. List of heroes inspired by Batman now exists. Otto4711 14:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt recreation of this vague, POV/OR category. Doczilla 08:52, 23 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Orders, decorations, and medals of Canada - Housekeeping[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Awards and decorations of the Canadian armed forces to Category:Military awards and decorations of Canada

Rename Category:Civil decorations of Canada to Category:Civil awards and decorations of Canada

Rename as above to bring Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Canada into compliance with WP:ODM categorisation conventions.

Xdamr^talk 14:25, 22 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Orders, decorations, and medals of New Zealand - Housekeeping[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Awards and decorations of the New Zealand armed forces to Category:Military awards and decorations of New Zealand

Rename Category:Civil decorations of New Zealand to Category:Civil awards and decorations of New Zealand

Rename as above to bring Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of New Zealand into compliance with WP:ODM categorisation conventions.

Xdamr^talk 14:12, 22 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Futurologists[edit]

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

The result of the debate was relist Tim! 20:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I originally nominated this for renaming on 2007 Feb 7 to be renamed as "futurist consultants". I had thought that the category was supposed to be used for people paid by corporations for information on future developments. However, looking at futurist, futurologist, list of futurologists, and future studies more carefully, it appears that this category was originally intended to include science fiction writers (who so frequently write about the future that it is not a defining characteristic), scientists and economists who have made predictions about the future, and other people. Few of these people are not connected to any other profession. This collection of people is not useful. In particular, discussion of the future is not a defining characteristic for some groups of people, especially science fiction wrtiers (where people normally write about the future). This should be deleted. (I apologize for not coming to this realization during the first nomination.) Dr. Submillimeter 08:44, 22 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Samuel A. Taylor plays[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only two members so far. Since Taylor is dead, there is a theoretical maximum of eight members. This grouping should be handled with a navigation template, if at all — and at the moment, with only two articles, there's no need for a navigation template either. --Quuxplusone 08:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's better for the articles to be where they are than back in Category:American plays. Greg Grahame 12:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is part of a larger organizational scheme of plays by playwright. In these situations, small categories are acceptable. Dr. Submillimeter 14:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned above, this is part of Category:Plays by author, which does not discriminate its subcategories by size. This is similar to Category:Albums by artist and Category:Books by author, and is used even if the subcategory only has one article. Dugwiki 19:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of a wider categorisation scheme. --Xdamr^talk 17:33, 24 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Roman Catholic military leaders[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting. Appears to be an incomplete nomination from Jan 10. Vegaswikian 07:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Excessively broad category. Greg Grahame 12:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Catholicism was only highly relevant to warfare in the 16th and early 17th centuries. LukeHoC 11:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absurd contents now. Catholicism was relevant even before 16-17th century, e.g. during Waldensian Crusades or Hussite Wars or during early conflicts with countries under the Orthodox Church but the category gives no chance to cover this and only this and would be as misused in the future as it is now. Pavel Vozenilek 21:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. At present, the category appears to be a random intersection of military leaders who happoen to be RC, even if thir religion has no bearing on their military role. The question I see is whether a similar category could be more precusely named or labelled to restrict it to those who were doing their military leadership in a particularly Catholic way. There might be a case for a more specific "category:Leaders of Roman Catholic military forces", but even that would probably still be too broad, because it wouldn't distinguish between officers in the contemporary Spanish Army (a secular force which happens to be mostly Roman Catholic), and leaders in the Waldensian Crusades or Hussite Wars. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 28 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Orders, decorations, and medals of India - Housekeeping[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete honours system category, rename military decorations category. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Indian honours system (empty)

Rename Category:Awards and decorations of the military of India to Category:Military awards and decorations of India

Delete/Rename as above to bring Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of India into compliance with WP:ODM categorisation conventions.

Xdamr^talk 01:20, 22 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Indoor theme parks[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indoor theme parks to Category:Indoor amusement parks

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. I have an idea that there was a mass merger of all theme park categories into the matching amusement park categories, but this one was not included for some reason. Sumahoy 01:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Greg Grahame 12:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Djsasso 20:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Royalbroil^T : C 05:32, 24 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Artist-producers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the nomination below about category:Singers by instrument, this is another strange hyphenated category, where most members are also in category:Record producers and a musician category.--Mike Selinker 00:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These categories add clutter to articles which often have many categories already, but they add very little value in compensation. Sumahoy 01:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge--Urthogie 03:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These crossover categories add little that is useful for organizational purposes while simply adding clutter to people's articles. Dr. Submillimeter 08:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. Greg Grahame 12:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Urthogie. Blackjays 18:37, 24 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wii user interface[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Category with only one article and I can't see much room for expansion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it were renamed to cover interface input devices (wiimote, nunchuck, etc.) there would still not be enough to warrant a category. Garrett^Talk 04:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its totaly pointless Mattyatty 18:22, 23 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gallantry Awards of Bangladesh[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Gallantry Awards of Bangladesh to Category:Military awards and decorations of Bangladesh

Rename to follow WP:ODM category naming conventions for military decorations.

Xdamr^talk 00:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename LukeHoC 11:34, 23 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.