Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 2 January 4 >

January 3[edit]

Category:Unleavened breads[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 a virtual tie between merging one way, merging the other way and keeping the two separate. So no discernible consensus. Timrollpickering 01:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unleavened breads into Category:Flatbreads
  • Merge, Currently there is a fair amount of overlap between the articles in these two categories.Recently we merged the articles for flatbreads and unleavened breads because the articles were similar, it would make sense to do so to the categories--Nleamy 20:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. — coelacan talk — 22:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but merge flatbreads into unleavened breads which I think is the more commonly used international term. The faltbread page should alos probably be moved back to it's unleavened title. --Peta 00:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge backwards (per Peta) Cleduc 03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Merge Keep.Google returns 554,000 for 'faltbread' v 506,000 'unleavened bread' pretty much a wash. But one of the first articles for flatbread states 'Many flatbreads are unleavened' that could be a reason to not merge (actually this is the wiki article).If the two are not the same, then a merge would be an error.Should Category:Unleavened breads be a subcat of Category:Flatbreads? Vegaswikian 06:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: Not all unleavened breads are flat, and not all flatbreads are unleavened. I'm no baker, but I believe these are two different types of categories, and do not have a parent/child relationship. --lquilter 15:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Nom:

So, the article for unleavened bread was recently merged into flatbread because in American English, it is my understanding that all unleavened breads are flatbreads, but not all flatbreads are unleavened breads.In American English unleavened bread has a distinctly religious connotation (usually referring to matzo) whereas flatbread refers to breads in general which are made without yeast or chemical leaveners.Trying to find online British dictionaries, it seems that unleavened bread is the more inclusive term and that there is no entry for flatbread (in the online British dictionaries I have found).

The other reason I thought to change it to flatbread is that there are many more links to flatbread than there are to unleavened bread as well as more articles in the category of flatbreads than there are in unleavened breads.So, a change that I thought would be simple at first, seems to be much more complicated.There is a lot of overlap between these two categories, with many entries being double listed.I would still support my original merge nom, but with more reservations. --Nleamy 21:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Naan is a fairly well-known leavened flatbread eaten by hundreds of millions.It concerns me when decisions are made in ways, offering merging flatbread into unleavened bread instead of vice-versa, that indicate a lack of understanding of what is being discussed, what unleavened bread is, what flatbread is.I'm neutral on merging unleavened bread into flatbreads, but to make categories that are wrong, flatbreads as a subcategory of unleavened bread is problematic.KP Botany 23:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Nleamy is right that the term "flatbread" isn't used in this country; I don't know about the rest of the non- U.S. English-speaking world.It's been made clear, though, that there are flatbreads that aren't unleavened, and therefore Category:Unleavened breads is useful. --Mel Etitis(Μελ Ετητης) 00:17, 8 January 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:Foundations of Norway[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. Timrollpickering 01:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foundations of Norway to Category:Foundations based in Norway
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:Fan Fiction[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. Timrollpickering 01:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fan Fiction into Category:Fan fiction
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.

Perth[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 all except Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives for Perth. Timrollpickering 01:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Perth" is a common words. in wikipedia article is disambiguation page. all rename.Bongkd 17:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The Perth in Western Australia is the most important by far. Pinoakcourt 18:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all (amended, see below), as per the article title, "Perth, Western Australia". There was a major discussion a while back regarding this naming issue, and the consensus was that the Australian city did need disambiguated. --Mais oui! 20:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the old Requested move discussion: Talk:Perth#Requested_move. --Mais oui! 20:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amended to - Rename all except Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives for Perth, per User:Hesperian. --Mais oui! 15:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This is an unnecessary move as Perth is not a "common word" per nom. The major discussion described by Mais oui! related to the articles, not the categories - disambiguation should not be performed for disambiguation's sake. If one of the other Perths (the largest of which is 1/20th the size of the Australian one) decides to create a category as per the above, it can be done on a one-by-one basis.
  2. A lot of work would also be required to convert several thousand articles to the new format if adopted, and it would break several complex templates of which I am aware in the case of the "Suburbs"category (none of the other Perths have suburbs, for the record.).
  3. Also, spaghetti at the bottom of articles is neither useful nor attractive for users. Per WP:NAME, "names of Wikipedia articles should be optimised for readers over editors"
  4. A quick check of the contributions of the user raising the discussion shows this discussion is their only contribution thus far to Wikipedia. While I have no objections to new users raising matters for discussion, I would feel much more comfortable if this radical proposal was coming from a user with an established history, considering most of the categories have stood for two years with no objections. Orderinchaos78 01:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Contributions ooze the kind of efficiency that comes with experience. This has all the hallmarks of a (legitimate) sockpuppet. Possibly an established editor not wanting to suffer any blowback. Hesperian 02:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Three of these categories - History, Sport and Sporting clubs - should not even exist. Their contents could be quite adequately relocated to the existing Western Australia categories. I would support their deletion. Orderinchaos78 01:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing inherently wrong with these categories but they were certainly premature. The history and education categories are now depopulated and deleted. Hesperian 02:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have only heard of the Perth in Australia, which is the largest by a factor of well over 30, and apparently I live about a hundred miles from one of the other Perths. Sumahoy 02:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you opposing the last one in the list too? Hesperian 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abandon issue on the basis that if the nominator is indeed a sockpuppet- we needa legitimate long time editorto have very carefully made distinction between articles and catgeories for a startSatuSuro 02:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The nominator's status ceases to matter now that so many legitimate editors have expressed an opinion here. – Kieran T (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment the nominator hasn't posted a single thing since this nomination, and nothing before it, and most of the Supports come from an organised campaign from the Scottish Perth and do not represent Wikipedia consensus DanielT5 12:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Primary Perth is W. Australia. --lquilter 20:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Natives of Perth to Category:Natives of Perth, Scotland, since it's the only "Perth" category that doesn't refer to Perth, Australia. (Then perhaps Category:People from Perth, Western Australia could move to Category:People from Perth without causing confusion.) Oppose all the other changes. --Quuxplusone 23:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all I assumed a Perth category would refer to the Scottish Perth - it is after all the original. Australians can't monopolise the name.--Docg 23:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all Perth is a disambiguation page due to the many places which share that name. Any article or category related to one of those places should therefore retain the article title of that place, e.g. stuff about Perth, Western Australia, places in Perth, Scotland, people from Perth, New York. --duncan 23:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all The Scottish Perth is the orginal from which all others are derived and should take precedence. Is notability defined by size - or by less quantifiable things like historical significance? Malathos 00:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The original Perth of Scotland has primacy. siarach 00:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Permit me to reiterate that Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives for Perth is different from the others and should be treated separately: the name is unambiguous (because it already has "Australia" in it), and "Perth" refers to the federal Division of Perth, not the city of Perth, Western Australia. Hesperian 04:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename If the article Perth is disambiguated then it makes sense to have the category's too if only for consistencies sake.  YDAM TALK 07:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all For consistency and because the population-size of a place does not determine its global renown. – Kieran T (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename stating that Perth, Western Australia is the primary one is POV and should not even be an issue. There exists more than one, so disambiguate all correctly. Bots would be used to correct all articles concerned, so that issue is a moot point. --Bob 08:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all (including Category:Perth) but excluding the House of Reps one.We had the debate ages ago on the article name and the consensus then was to keep "Perth" as the neutral disambiguation term - the category debate was bound to happen sometime.Logically, the same must apply for categories.I dread the cleanup work that this will involve but it needs to be dealt with at some time so lets get it over and done with. :-( —Moondyne 11:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose All some people above seem to be voting for the ARTICLES and not the Categories. These are not articles they are an organisation system and meant to be kept as optimised as possible. The idea with disambiguation is surely that we should only do it when there is a reason to do it, i.e. when there might be two of them... None of the other Perths are big enough to sustain almost any of these categories, if they were then Wikipedia would be full of useless categories as every town over 1000 would need a category for all of the above... seriously keep it as it is, it works, and decide each one on a case by case basis. I mean, come on, Railway stations in Perth, somewhere else? Name ONE other place that has a multitude of railway stations that would need a category. or bus stations. and I doubt anyone would be big enough to have a culture (I can just see it now - Culture of Mukinbudin - you say where?) Education and History might have been contentious but both have been deleted so they're not an issue. One final comment, there is a Melbourne in Florida with 80,000 people and a Sydney in Canada which is a decent sized town, and an Adelaide in Ontario too. All of these are undisambiguated (and no that is not an invitation, just pointing to what wikipedia consensus is at this time) DanielT5 12:38, 9 January 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.

Pastors by nationality[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. Timrollpickering 01:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both into Category:Christian pastors. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is it not appropriate and helpful to match the nationality cats for other occupations?Pastors are of various nationalities as are most other occupations.Thanks.Pastorwayne 20:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominated - I would prefer not to sort people by nationality anyway.I have been contemplating an action to merge all of the "astronomer by nationality" categories for quite some time now, although the category structure of Category:Astronomers would get messy.Dr. Submillimeter 22:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. "Pastor" should not be the main word used for Christian clergy/ministers as Pastorwayne seems to think it should be. Sumahoy 02:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Sumahoy and others. "Pastor" is effectively only an intermnediate category, between "christian clergy" and denominational categories, and most of its entries are a result of overcategorisation. Upmerging these cats is a first step to upmerging Category:Christian pastors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk)• (contribs) 10:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But this proposal isn't to get rid of "pastor", it's to get rid of the nationality....--lquilter 13:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. >Radiant< 11:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. - Kittybrewster 18:00, 4 January 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:Sons of Confederate Veterans[edit]

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn by proposer. Timrollpickering 01:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for so many reasons ... let's just call it gendered. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Organizing people based on their relation to other people is not useful.Categories for the relatives of other people have been deleted previously.(We had a discussion on a Category:Spouces of Chinese leaders or something like that in December 2006.) Dr. Submillimeter 17:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worth pointing out that there's an actual organization called the Sons of Confederate Veterans; whether having a category for it would be useful is, of course, open to discussion. Kirill Lokshin 18:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category is apparently being used for the actual male children of Confederate veterans, not people in the organization.If the category is used appropriately, then my vote will change.Dr. Submillimeter 18:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dr. Submillimeter and nom. — coelacan talk — 22:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete creating a category for one entry is without not at all usefull and I'm not too sure that even if there were a lot of articles it would be justified. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 03:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, I've populated it with 6 articles related to the organization (main article, 3 biographies, and 1 park and 1 museum run/owned by the group). Mairi 05:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, since there seems to be actual use and reason for the name. I fear it may still be a bit specialized in use, but proper maintainance and care seemed to be all it needed to be at all useful. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 06:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not categorize people by their relatives. Also, category is incorrectly capitalized. Doczilla 08:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Zill, we've come to realize thos category's original usage was a mistake, and the title comes from an actual organization. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 09:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.The existence of the organisation (and an article called Sons of Confederate Veterans) is not enough to justify a category, because memebership of the organisation is not a defining characteristic of the people involved, who in any case are not actually sons, but something like great-great-grandsons.The SCV article includesa list of notable memebers, which seesm to me to quite enough to keep track ofg those involved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk)• (contribs) 09:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I had said that I would change my vote if the category was used properly, BrownHairedGirl has convinced me that the category would generate category clutter, as most Sons of Confederate Veterans (such as Trent Lott) are known for other accomplishments. Dr. Submillimeter 10:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While likely a more notable organization, we also have Category:Daughters of the American Revolution, which has the potential for similar excessive use, but both (at present) are used on articles where the notability is more related to the organization. Mairi 22:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or rename the modified and re-populated cat - to something like Cat:Sons of Confederate Veterans (Organisation) (cf a host of CfDs re ambiguity) and remove anything not in or of the organisation.roundhouse 10:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cat as nominated for discussion was (I think) a single element cat containing Clare Purcell only (whose father was a confederate veteran). CP has now gone. Don't we need a new nomination on the present manifestation of this chameleon of a category?roundhouse 10:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. >Radiant< 11:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as there is an explanatory note making clear that the category is for members of the organization. I think it's pretty well-established that categorizing people by their relatives is a bad idea. Recury 14:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Some of the old votes address the old version of the category, while other votes (both keep and delete votes) address the new version.Given that this discussion has now become very confusing, perhaps the discussion should be closed and restarted?Dr. Submillimeter 15:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - Kittybrewster 18:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sons of Confederate Veterans is an organization, like Daughters of the Conferacy and the Boy Scouts, which have categories.Besides that the original nominator gave no valid reason, he obviously did not understand that it is an organization. -THB 23:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn.At the time I nominated this category, it had exactly one member, an actual son of an actual confederate veteran.Since everything about this category has now changed, the best thing to do is withdraw this CFD ... anyone wishing to proceed, please feel free to start a new one.-- ProveIt (talk) 02:03, 5 January 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:Wikipedia subject-specific style guidelines[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 upmerge. Timrollpickering 01:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Wikipedia style guidelines. Most style guidelines are subject-specific, and the distinction is pretty much irrelevant. >Radiant< 15:30, 3 January 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:Zionism in Somalia[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. Timrollpickering 01:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zionism in Somalia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete. This seems to have been created for political purposes.I found two articles on which it had been placed, both on Somali politicians who were described in the articles as Christians (the same User added the "Evangelical" category to the article on the Somali government).After removing the category, I had a look at it, and found that those had been the only two entries.I can find no evidence of the significant presence of Zionism in Somalia. Mel Etitis(Μελ Ετητης) 15:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Supplementary: the creator, User talk:Shaheen76‎, responded to a warning on his page with: "I was just responding in the same way Evangelicals and Zionists are abusing Wikipedia". --Mel Etitis(Μελ Ετητης) 10:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and be on the lookout for other cats like this springing up. — coelacan talk — 16:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Orderinchaos78 02:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Chesdovi 13:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not a category but a topic. Is there any validity to Category:Zionists in Somalia? I'm just throwing that out there. Alcarillo 16:02, 4 January 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:Towns in Belarus[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. Timrollpickering 01:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns in Belarus to Category:Cities and towns in Belarus
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:Cities with trolleybus system[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 01:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities with trolleybus system to Category:Cities with a trolleybus system
  • Rename, The article has been omitted. Pinoakcourt 14:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 15:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes I agree with the above, but if it is not deleted it should still be renamed. Pinoakcourt 18:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above plus this is rather volatile categorization. Pavel Vozenilek
  • Convert to a list I was trying to find out yesterday what cities have subways, so this type of information can by usefull. Make a list like List of rapid transit systems --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 03:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify to List of trolleybus systems per Armadillo. Recury 14:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, would you look at that, there already is one. Looks pretty extensive too. Delete then. Recury 15:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Recury for reasons given.This is a non-useful categorization. Brianhe 18:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete should instead be a category for trolleybus systems, provided an article exists for them. Cleduc 03:49, 5 January 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:Eastern Air Lines Flights[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. Timrollpickering 00:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge into Category:Eastern Air Lines, which currently contains only 9 articles, or at least Rename to Category:Eastern Air Lines flights, see also Braniff Flights. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge.Over categorization. Vegaswikian 23:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Eastern Air Lines flights, yes I'm changing my vote, so that we can have Category:Airline flights.As it turns out there are dozens of articles on airline flights, and it makes sense to give them their own category. -- ProveIt (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clipper471 06:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename (lowercase) for consistency with other airlines and airlines flights. --lquilter 20:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename (at least) for now.Deletion/upmerge should probably be a separate discussion covering sibling categories as well, but the capital "F" in "Flight" is clearly incorrect and should be fixed.Xtifr tälk 21:00, 5 January 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:American missionaries in Angola[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. Timrollpickering 00:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American missionaries in Angola into Category:American missionaries
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:Computer and video game sequels[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. Timrollpickering 00:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer and video game sequels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Overcategorization, too trivial to be useful. Combination 09:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Overcategorization? Riight. Maybe we should delete category:sequel and all its other subcatswhile we're at it. The articles contained would just be categorized there if not here, anyway. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 09:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - So many sequels have been created for so many different video games (even relatively modestly successful computer games) that this is no longer a defining characteristic.Moreover, the sequels probably have little else in common with each other.Dr. Submillimeter 11:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Submilli. >Radiant< 15:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a natural subcategory of Category:Sequels, which includes all works which are sequels of previous works.This is just a way to sort out video game sequels from, say, book sequels or movie sequels within that parent category. Dugwiki 18:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dugwiki, though perhaps deleting the entire sequels category structure would be best.Why exactly do we gain by grouping Jaws IV, Empire Strikes Back, Police Academy II, and Color of Money?Postdlf 23:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cleduc 03:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We should be consistent, so I would provisionally say "keep" this since we have the other media sequels; but I think we should look at getting rid of Category:Sequels."First in a series" or "Original" is a more defining characteristic, and more limited/scalable, than "sequel".--lquilter 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with lquilter. Keep for now; I don't think it's overcategorization, given its sibling categories. However, the whole "Sequels" supercat should be deleted. It has only five articles (which can be linked via "See also" sections) and the problematic subcats. --Quuxplusone 23:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: So long as there is a Category:Sequels, this is a valuable sorting mechanism. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:10, 9 January 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:Wikipedian military[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. Timrollpickering 00:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian military (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category was superseded by Category:Wikipedian military people a long time ago.I was trying to figure out why there are 3 items in this category still, but they are pretty complicated pages. —Kenyon (t·c) 08:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. — coelacan talk — 16:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge at least until we get our own SeaOrg

-- Kendrick7talk 21:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. keep those contributions coming![reply]

  • Delete both. These serve no relevant purpose.--Docg 02:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete or merge. The current title is wrong. Wikipedia does not have a military (yet... when it does, watch out Britannica! :) Grutness...wha? 05:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Kittybrewster 18:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge until we raise an army. Cleduc 03:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment note that this category has been deleted once before. —Kenyon (t·c) 09:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Proto::► 23:18, 7 January 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.

American films by year and by decade[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. Timrollpickering 00:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This includes Category:1890s American films through Category:2000s American films by decade and Category:1890 American films through Category:2009 American films by year (a total of 132 categories)

Delete all these empty categories.These were created recently, before a consensus was reached at the Wikiproject for film categorization.They may be part of the final consensus, but I hope not.These are overcategorizations, a set of category intersections that are not needed. Even if they are eventually part of the consensus, they can be recreated later.Until then, I don't think they should be populated. -- Samuel Wantman 07:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and populate It is not necessary to obtain a consensus in advance for the creation of new catgories. A project cannot own an area of Wikipedia any more than an individual user can. Olborne 14:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct.It is not necessary to get a consensus in advance to create categories. It is necessary to get a consensus to delete these categories once they are created and nominated for deletion.It is harder to get them deleted than to create them.This is the forum for getting them deleted.Since Wikipedia runs on good faith, you have to realize that a major change to an established taxonomy undertaken unilaterally is bound to create opposition.Convince enough of us that we are wrong, and these categories will remain. -- Samuel Wantman 22:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this intersection makes navigation more difficult. >Radiant< 15:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete overcategorization. — coelacan talk — 16:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't appear necessary yet to subdivide by-year category into national subcategories.Dugwiki 18:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These categories do not only subdivide the chronological categories, but also the national categories, several of which are enormous. Sumahoy 02:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rather than a giant A-Z of American films which beleive me when all American films are categorized as they should be American films will be enormous category on maybe as much as 100 pages - my navigation box would take you the lists of American films organized sensibly by year of relaese in America rather than 115 years of film in one category. And the categories are as yet only empty because we haven't been allowed to proceed with filling them. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 10:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have a solution. ALthough I created those many categories I would prefer the film categories to be as simple as possible and according to Brion the wikipedia tech man it wouldn't be a server problem to list all American films in one category. So Category:Amercan films should remain untouched. However I do feel that my idea of the lists of American films by year serve some educational purpose that the categories cannot, and rather than delete the categories they could be moved to List of American films. A List of the more notable American films could be compiled in a film chronology see List of Argentine films. Organized by the navigation box above (replace the categories with the lists) we could provide a list of films produced in America by year which are not only lists but provide summary details of direcot actors and date of release and maybe studio of production. E.g List of American films:1975 would provide a detailed summary of all of the American films of that year, by providing these summary details on one page as with List of Argentine films. Obviosuly though the compiling of the lists would be a very long process but I beleive it could be a very important source eventually. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 13:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deletepending consensous at the film wikiproject. - TexasAndroid 14:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no f***ing way. Can you imagine the copycat categories this would spawn? Recury 14:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – very nice, but unwieldy.The categorization system should instead support join queries on categories. Cleduc 03:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a frequent feature request.See Wikipedia:Category intersection. -- Samuel Wantman 04:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom; these cats are totally unwieldy, will make navigation and maintenance unbearably difficult, and their only purpose is to get around a limitation in the Mediawiki software itself (namely, the absence of category intersection, per User:SamuelWantman above). --Quuxplusone 23:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete I created these categories but it best if any compioing of American films by year is done it should be in lists not cluttering up categories. Please dleete all the caegories asap but PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THE NAVIGATION BOX AS THIS WILL BE ADAPTED FOR LIST OF AMERICAN FILMS BY YEARErnst Stavro Blofeld 16:12, 7 January 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:American films by medium and subcats[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. Timrollpickering 00:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American films by medium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and its subcategories:
Category:American films by medium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American films by director (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American films by genre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American films by location (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American films by series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American films by actor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all of these empty subcategories.These were created prematurely before consensus has been reached at the films wikiproject.They can be recreated if consensus is reached, but I don't think they should, as they are overcategorizations.Even if they are part of the consensus, they should be deleted now so that they don't end up getting populated. The films by actor category in particular would lead to a huge amount of category clutter that serves no good purpose.This information is much better handled by filmographies in each actors article. Samuel Wantman 06:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete empty, prematurely created categories. Doczilla 08:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. However the toxic Category:American films by actor should be destroyed immediately as a repost. -- ProveIt (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate It is not necessary to obtain a consensus in advance for the creation of new catgories. A project cannot own an area of Wikipedia any more than an individual user can. Olborne 14:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment, you are correct in that categories do not need "approval", however empty categories are generally not a good idea. Now the question is whether to populate these categories becuase the relevant wikiproject has not yet decided on this.While wikiprojects don't necessairly WP:OWN any area of wikipedia they are generally used as a meeting place of similar subject editors.These are people who work with the articles the most and the project contains a wide variety of people who all have a special interest in the subject matter.As such, if a categorization is deemed controversial, only in the spirit of consensus (not ownership) is it advised that you seek agreement within the appropriate wikiproject. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this intersection makes navigation more difficult. >Radiant< 15:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete overcategorization. — coelacan talk — 16:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Films by actor categories in particular are routinely deleted.Dugwiki 18:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I KNOW WHY NOT JUST DELETE CATEGORY AMERICAN FILMS TOO AND HAVE ONLY ONE CATEGORY FOR THE WHOLE OF FILMS? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 19:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These categories were only created to stop the many series categoreis Indiana Jones and Dirty Harry etc being spread across some 15 different pages of American films. Very difficult to find so I thought they would be best organized like this rather than being spred haphazordously across 15 catregorization pages. And by the way I own wikipedia as much as anybody elese and have the right to make changes that I feel help. You all seem to forget that wikipedia is a wiki for a good readonErnst Stavro Blofeld 19:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is run by consensus.When there is disagreement we have discussions.This page is the forum for the discussion.You have the right to make changes you feel help, and I have the right to try and stop you by starting the discussion we are having now. As for the films by series, what is gained by having the "American films by series" as opposed to Category:Film series?Most of the series in that category are American, and most film series have international appeal. The category is not needed and it will just add clutter and disorganization. -- Samuel Wantman 22:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletepending consensous at the film wikiproject. - TexasAndroid 14:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are lots of American films. Having large categories is no excuse for overcategorization. Recury 15:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – once again, the cat system should support "join" category queries. Cleduc 03:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. speedy delete I created these categories and even I now want to get rid of them asap. Any compiling by year should be done in lists not cluttering up categories, Delete asap. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:09, 7 January 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:Rat breeds[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete; rename. Timrollpickering 00:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rat breeds to Category:Rat species Category:Species of rats
subcat Category:Extinct rat breeds to Category:Extinct species of rats
  • Rename, also, all articles in this category (except perhaps for Fancy rat) are actually rat species.I had tried creating Category:Rat species and moving all the inappropriate articles there when the creator of both this and Category:Mouse breeds started moving them back and insisted I request a consensus on this.I'm not against having this category, but until articles like Dumbo rat or American blue rat are created, there is no use for it, and calling animals like the Gambian pouched rat a breed is grossly inaccurate and misleading. All articles need to be moved to the Species category by bot, and take the place in the hierarchy of Rat breeds. Please also vote below on Category:Mouse breeds. ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 06:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and previous discussion. -- Visviva 08:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above. Doczilla 08:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - should be called Category:Rat species Category:Extinct rat species Headphonos 11:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Peta 00:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Delete per Aranae. --Peta 22:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As Zappernapper points out, "breed" and "species" are not synonyms. At the moment, this category is obviously full of rat species. Can anyone comment on the likelihood that in the future we'll need a category for rat breeds as well? Perhaps the category should be something deliberately ambiguous, like Category:Cat types; or perhaps all the species should be merged into Category:Rats or Category:Muroid rodents, à la the species articles in Category:Felines.
    • as menioned above, there is the potential for a justifiable category.If we ever have articles on Dumbo rat or say the Manx rat, there may indeed be good reason for this category. but right now we don't need it so we shouldn't have it.Additionally, i like having species under a seperate subcat, it makes the category as a whole easier to navigate. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 23:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Rats by the definition applied in this category is totally meaningless.It seems as if the category for inclusion is that an animal has "rat" in its common name.There is no meaningful way of defining a rat in that fashion except vaguely as a large muroid.It's not a category based on relationship, ecology, or anything else meaningful. Also the common names of muroids aren't really standardized so one reference will use the term "rat" and another "mouse" in the common name. There is already a Category:Rats which basically refers to members of the genus Rattus.We've generally taken the approach on the rat page and elsewhere that we're using "rat" as equivalent to Rattus, related genera, and perhaps large murines.I think the rat breeds category is worse than useless as it implies that there is something that unites these species into a common group and there simply isn't such a thing.Also breeds refers to members of a single species, but I would also oppose renaming the category to rat species.These articles should be moved back into their previous categories of Old World rats and mice, New World rats and mice, and others.--Aranae 21:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • i'm inlined to side with you on this, however you may want to add your two cents here on the discussion of those two categories, as the same perosn who instituted this scheme has also put them up for deletion :) and it would appear there is opposition to using the OWRAM and NWRAM as common names with little two-way discussion. However, please read my response on the related category below. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:35, 8 January 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:Mouse breeds[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete; rename. Timrollpickering 00:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mouse breeds to Category:Species of mice
subcat Category:Extinct mouse breeds to Category:Extinct species of mice
subcat Category:Lab mouse breeds to Category:Strains of lab mice or Category:Strains of mice
subcat Category:Mouse genus to Category:Genera of mice as a subcat of Category:Mouse
  • Rename per nom. --Peta 00:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Delete per Aranae. --Peta 22:36, 7 January 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:Canadian Halls of Fame[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. Timrollpickering 00:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian Halls of Fame to Category:Halls of Fame in Canada
  • Rename to more conventional word order. Cloachland 05:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Olborne 14:24, 3 January 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:British air disasters[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. Timrollpickering 00:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British air disasters to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United Kingdom
  • Rename, As per other 'by country' cats. Mais oui! 03:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Olborne 14:25, 3 January 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:Genes associated with congenital genetic disorders[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. Timrollpickering 00:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Genes associated with congenital genetic disorders to Category:Genes associated with genetic disorders
  • Rename, sometime ago the congenital genetic disorder category was deleted in favor of the more simple genetic disorder cat, rename for consistency. Peta 03:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Doczilla 08:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.Are there any non-congenital genetic disorders?KP Botany 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that I can think of - that's why the original category was deleted (if I remember correctly). --Peta 00:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - Kittybrewster 08:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.--lquilter 01:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ... although my partner just pointed out to me that congenital genetic disorders are all birth-onset; while some genetic disorders (such as adult onset diabetes) are not birth-onset.So, as the genes classes grow, it may be helpful eventually to have both categories.--lquilter 01:22, 7 January 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.

Silver medals, Gold medals, Civilian cross 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 delete. Timrollpickering 00:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Silver medals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Gold medals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Civilian cross decorations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, As part of ongoing efforts to rationalise categorisation of orders, decorations, and medals I have hit upon these three categories, all resident in Category:Orders and decorations.All three are poorly utilised and they are of questionable value.

  • Silver medals - 1 article
  • Gold medals - 3 articles
  • Civilian cross decorations - 10 articles (mostly on Polish medals)

In addition to under-use, the scope of these categories is so expansive as to be of little utility.Most orders and medals are made of either gold or silver - it doesn't strike me as being a categorisable attribute.I'm also not sure why it is useful to distinctly categorise civilian medals that are in the shape of a cross - why not those in the shape of stars, or disk-shaped awards, or better yet, why bother to do it?

Xdamrtalk 02:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a trivial attribute. -- Visviva 08:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see why we should cat awards by the kind of metal used. >Radiant< 15:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Kittybrewster 18:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete so long as silver/gold/cross don't have any permanent, consistent, and important meaning. --lquilter 22:24, 5 January 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:Video Games based on Movies[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. Timrollpickering 00:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video Games based on Movies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as nom. I just happen to click on the contribs of EJBanks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in a fit of boredom. What do I find? Another wholly deletable, miscapitalized category! As many gamers and film buffs know, the two industries aren't exactly strangers to one another. In fact, it seems every other new movie since the 2000s has a video game tie in. Unmanagably broad? I think so. If kept, at least give it the decent name of "Category:Computer and video games based on films". Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • On second thought, don't rename. While the afore mentioned category "based on licensed" might have its own issues, it does make "based on Moves" redundant. No need to rename it. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 09:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and make sub-cat of Category:Computer and video games based on licensed properties. Much like the proverbial blind pig, EJBanks has actually managed to stumble upon the acorn of a potentially useful category. I know, I'm surprised too. Otto4711 04:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This category should be deleted too! Everything is either licensed or unlicensed or both (depending), so everything requires at least one of those categories. Why? How is this helpful? --lquilter 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yet another miscapitalized category. I wouldn't say to just rename it either, because we don't have video game category broken down by every possible inspiration. Why just movies (which would be a better word than films)? How about TV? How about books? How about toys? Shoester 08:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that the categorized games include Eragon (a game based on a movie based on a book), Batman Begins (a game based on a movie based on comic books), and other multiply inspired games. It's not that clearcut. Most such games include material that was in the original source but not the movie -- like extra villains in Spider-Man and Superman Returns games. Doczilla 08:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet another good point is made. I say leave the subcategorization to character/series specification, not medium. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 09:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify for more comprehensiveness. >Radiant< 15:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - media translations / adaptations are a very bad category precedent. --lquilter 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hey! You've got a point. Although established, it could definitely be seen as cluttery, overly broad and unnecessary. I'm submitting it. (If it isn't already.) Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Proto::► 23:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:21, 9 January 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.

Subdivisions of France[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. Timrollpickering 00:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Communauté de communes to Category:Commune communities in France
Category:Former French colonies to Category:Former colonies of France
Category:French overseas departments, territories and collectivities to Category:Overseas departments, collectivities and territories of France
Category:French région flag images to Category:Images of flags of the regions of France
Category:Communauté urbaine to Category:Urban communities in France
Category:Communauté d'agglomération to Category:Agglomeration communities in France
Category:Sous-préfectures to Category:Subprefectures in France
Category:Préfectures to Category:Prefectures in France
Category:French health organisations to Category:Health organisations in France
Category:French government agencies to Category:Agencies of the government of France
  • Rename. For two reasons. The first is to follow x of y naming conventions, the second is to use English in article/category/everything when a translation is widespread and commonly used. Also follows from Category:Départements of France renaming. Bob 01:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Greg Grahame 01:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom Eluchil404 15:25, 5 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_3&oldid=1115159088"