Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 9

< January 8	January 10 >

January 9[edit]

Category:Deaths due to illness[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 to Category:Deaths by type of illness. the wub "?!" 22:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seriously proposing this category for deletion, because it serves a useful function as a container for various subcategories. However, is there any formal way to mark it so that people do not add the mind-bogglingly useless tag "Deaths due to illness" to an article's list of categories? BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this before; you can add text to the category page explaining that the category should not contain individual articles, that it's meant only as a container for sub-cats, &c. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would a rename to something like "Deaths by type of illness" help the problem? --Groggy Dice T | C 00:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea! I think that would do it. (Your dice appear very non-groggy!). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I HAVE been adding this cat to some bios that say, e.g., the person died after a lengthy illness, but no further detail is known. So what is the difference if someone died of illness or if someone died of cancer? If one cannot know what illness, just that it WAS an illness, this seems the appropriate cat. Open to suggestions! Pastorwayne 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply the overwhelming majority of deaths are by illness (the remainder being by some form of misadventure, whether that's murder or a car crash or some sort of Darwin Award-winning exploit), so a "deaths by illness" tag adds almost no useful information. If the nature of the illness is unknown, the tag is superfluous. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Deaths by illness (or "from" instead of "by") because I hate the phrase "due to." Create a category along the lines of Category:Deaths by unknown illness for people who've died of an undisclosed illness so that individuals won't be added to the parent cat. Otto4711 01:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Deaths by type of illness per Groggy Dice's suggestion, to clarify that this category exists only as a container for sub-categories and that it should not be applied to individual articles. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to CHANGE my vote, but can't figure out how to do that strike-through thing: Rename to Category:Deaths by type of illness per Groggy Dice's suggestion and Create a category along the lines of Category:Deaths by unknown illness for people who've died of an undisclosed illness. Thanks. Pastorwayne 11:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~You go like this~~. Oh, and rename. I don't think the category for "people we don't know the illness of" is very useful, though, as it's inherently unverifiable. >Radiant< 14:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - thanks! I see how, now.
Delete I am not entirely clear what a 'non-defining attribute' might be, but suspect that death by any sort of illness might be a good example. Why are we not deleting the lot? Is there any point in gathering together people who died from flu? X, the notable flu-victim ... roundhouse 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with roundhouse's viewpoint. People are generally notable for what they did while they were alive, not how they died. It is difficult to connect people meaningfully based on how they died from a specific disease. For example, people are not going to look up Errol Flynn and say, "Gee, Errol Flynn died from cardiovascular disease. I wonder who else died from cardiovascular disease." An exception could be made for AIDS (which gets a disproportionate amount of news coverage and because people like Freddy Mercury are usually notable for having had AIDS), but that is it. Dr. Submillimeter 23:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Deaths by type of illness or similar to keep individual articles out. Which of the cat's children are appropriate should be considered in a separate, pointed discussion together with all of Category:Deaths by cause's subcats. Only if all but a handful of illnesses (such as AIDS-related) are deleted should we merge this up to Category:Deaths by cause. Also, let's not create Category:Deaths by unknown illness; among other problems, such a cat would only really be useful if we were trying to categorize every bio by cause of death, which I sincerely hope we're not. ×Meegs 10:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is an effort to categorize every bio by cause of death. Dr. Submillimeter 14:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree with Dr S and Meegs. Category:Deaths by unknown illness would be spectacularly useless; and I think that the subcats of Category:Deaths due to illness could do with a thorough purging (and possibly blanket deletion). None of the existing sub-categories looks at all useful to me (unlike some of the other subcats of Category:Deaths by cause, such as Category:Executed people, Category:Martyrs and Category:Murder victims). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename HOW a person died is important and useful historical biographical information to some researchers, myself included. All of existing sub-categories of diseases should be kept, and additional sub-categories should be added to reduce the number of bios that fall into "deaths by unknown illness". I support a rename to something like "Deaths by type of illness" as proposed above, and text to the category page explaining that the category should not contain individual articles, as it is meant only as a container for sub-cats. In this, I most strongly disagree with certain of the above users -- simply because they feel the information is not useful does not justify a blanket deletion of the whole concept/category. --MChew 10:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per MChew. Irk _(talk) 11:53, 17 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:Prize winners[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 all into Category:Award winners. the wub "?!" 18:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Prize winners, Category:Award winners, and Category:Recipients of formal honors all into Category:Award winners. Award winners ~~avoids the Prize/Prise American/Anglo spelling issue and~~ is much less clunky than Recipients of formal honors (which also has an Anglo/American spelling issue). While there is a technical distinction between prize and award (a prize is a subset of an award), it's not a very useful distinction and nobody follows it. (Just look at Category:Awards and Category:Prizes.) --lquilter 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there's much of a US/UK dispute over the spelling of 'prize'. :)

Xdamr^talk 18:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, you're right; I'm embarrassed. I was thinking of the verb form ("to prise someone highly"). --lquilter 18:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd feel responsible for misconceptions if i ignored this marginal-to-topic discussion.

The oversize Yank dictionaries i consulted generally note Brit usage where there are differences, but here's no suggestion of national spelling differences, only variant spellings presumably affecting both.
One meaning is related to the Latin root that produced "price" (and surely also "precious"): we prize what is precious.
The rest of the meanings derive, in two groups, from the Latin root meaning "to seize", that produced "prehensile" (and surely also "apprehend", "misprision", and "prison"). The first group includes "prize" in the senses both of a captured ship and (presumably as a result of that) of other things that are won less directly: things given in recognition of a capture, or of any other accomplishments. The second group goes in the direction of first-hand application of force as with a crowbar: getting a grip on something; one sense of "prize" is to pull something apart, as with one or more crowbars, and another is the sense of the crowbar-like tool that delivers the force; this is regarded as having led to the assumption that the word might be spelled "pries" and be the plural of "pry", which has thereby gradually become the preferred term for a single crowbar and for the action of using such a tool to "pry" something apart. (The spelling "prise", the noun pry, and the crowbar senses (both noun and verb) of "prize" or "prise" have all declined, which probably explains my own (perhaps quirky) inclination to construe the spelling "prise" as if it were normally for, and only for, the "to pry" sense.)
--Jerzy•t 09:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - These are not all the same thing. --Groggy Dice T | C 00:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are the meaningful distinctions? Or, how can we define the categories such that the people who add awards can figure out how to do it? (And, really, why should we go through and pull out the "awards" from the "science and engineering prizes" into a category "science and engineering awards"? -- just to offer one example) --lquilter 00:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Prize winners and Award winners are merged as Winners of prizes and awards if the distinction between prizes and awards is unmaintainable (or is not going to be maintained). ~~Recipients of formal honors seems a maintainable (i.e. sufficiently distinct) category.~~ Regards, David Kernow (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC), amended 18:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? what is the distinction? The category includes a lot of the things otherwise listed as either "awards" or "prizes". I agree, it sounds different, but I haven't found "formal honors" that aren't awards, and there's no "formal honors" tree, so the "recipients of..." is a freestanding biographical cat. --lquilter 15:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies; I now realize I confused myself re Recipients of formal honors having reminded myself re the "Awards, decorations, and medals of" categories. So, merge all to Winners of prizes and awards ! Yours, David (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. No clear distinction. >Radiant< 14:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. David Kernow's suggestion of Winners of prizes and awards has merit, but if the Category:Prizes nomination goes through and that category disappears then referring to 'Prizes' in related categories would be inconsistent. The distinction between awards and prizes seems to be unsustainable so it is probably best that it is not perpetuated.

I'm also unsure exactly what the present scope/ambit of Recipients of formal honors actually is—as distinct from Category:Award winners etc. I can see the advantage of a category relating to those who have been the recipients of national (ie state) awards, but such a category should probably conform to the tentatively established WP:ODMesque conventions. Category:Recipients of Orders, Decorations, and Medals by country, with appropriate national sub-categories, seems useful—although this would probably benefit from some discussion at WP:ODM.

Xdamr^talk 18:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As above, I don't see the distinction between an "award", a "prize" and an "honor". The only difference appears to be semantic choice of which word is officially used. Dugwiki 19:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Much simpler. Recury 02:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Pinoakcourt 13:47, 11 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:Prizes[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. the wub "?!" 19:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Prizes into Category:Awards. While there is a technical distinction between prize and award (a prize is a subset of an award), it's not a very useful distinction and nobody follows it. (Just look at Category:Awards and Category:Prizes.) People don't always know whether something is a prize or an award, and sometimes they change, when an award gains prize money. Prefer Category:Awards because it avoids anglo/american spelling issues and is brief and to the point. --lquilter 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if distinction unmaintainable, per preceeding nom. David Kernow (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. No clear distinction. >Radiant< 14:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever distinction that there is is clearly unmaintainable. If that is so then it is best dispensed with.

Xdamr^talk 17:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as otherwise Category:Prizes is highly likely to be recreated. Honbicot 19:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As above, I fail to see a distinction between a prize and an award, aside from the choice of wording used. Dugwiki 19:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There is a flavor difference between the use of "prize" and "award," but the difference is wholly dependant on the person or organization using the term. (In my mind "prize" is for achievement and "award" is for recognition, but others will disagree.) Either way the two are similar enough to be contained within one article. Kail Ceannai 07:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep -- I was initially okay with the distinction until I started diffusing and cleaning up, and realized that it was applied completely inconsistently by every one who did pages for their various awards. Hence the nomination! --lquilter 15:52, 11 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:Novels of Russell Banks[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 00:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming...

Rename per previous books by author discussion; consistency and clarity. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - hurray for consistency. --lquilter 23:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Bluap 00:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and another big thank you for yet another thankless task. I had thought about doing this several times, but then I relized how much work it would be be. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're ever so welcome. It's very satisfying, in a mind-numbingly repetitive sort of way...<g> Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all and dispatch vat of ointment to Her Pegship with thanks. David Kernow (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Like the others, I support consistency. CRKingston 07:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reluctant Rename - I would have prefered the [Name] Xs format but quite willing to go this route to gain consistency and I "can" see the decreased ambiguity arguement. Thanks for the doing the work envolved. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My feelings exactly -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all A more elegant convention. Honbicot 19:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom for consistency, and strong pass the cookie-jar to Her Pegship. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:51, 13 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:Kuznetsov class aircraft carriers[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 as empty and non-controversial. the wub "?!" 19:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it was replaced by Category:Admiral Kuznetsov class aircraft carriers —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:49, 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:Intellectual property law[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:Intellectual property into Category:Intellectual property law. the wub "?!" 20:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Category:Intellectual property law into Category:Intellectual property~~

Category:Intellectual property into Category:Intellectual property law

Merge, Category:Intellectual property into Category:Intellectual property law ~~Category:Intellectual property law into Category:Intellectual property~~ as unnecessary subcategorization. All IP is a creature of "law", and every article in either category could go into the other. ~~I prefer Category:Intellectual property as a more succinct term and with the most articles now (IP law only has 3 subcats and one article).~~ Plus the main articles for both cats are the same -- Intellectual property. --lquilter 21:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, redundant; though honestly I wouldn't strongly object to merging the other way if that's what the kids want. As long as they're merged. Postdlf 22:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but I would prefer the merge to go the other way (ie retain Category:Intellectual property law). Just about any creative outpouring can be described as being someone's intellectual property, however this category deals with concepts relating to intellectual property law; that being the case I think that it ought to be named as such. To me, as an sometime law graduate, these semantics matter a great deal :)

Xdamr^talk 00:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't object to going the other way. I was just being parsimonious, but you're right, IP law is a bit clearer and could avoid any problems with people attempting to classify licensed works, non-public-domain, etc., works in this cat. However, it'll be more work to fix going from IP to IPL. --lquilter 00:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Please folks, do take time to look at the subcats of these two categories. Category:Intellectual property law intersects neatly with various legal categories, but Category:Intellectual property includes non-legal sub-cats such as Category:Intellectual property activism, Category:Patent Medicines and Category:Public domain. The distinction is useful, and should be maintained (though some recategorisation of subcats would be useful, and I will make a few changes now). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, ip activism and public domain are relevant categories, and demonstrate the problem. For instance, Category:Intellectual property law is solely a container for 3 categories (copyright, patent, and trademark) and one article (Philippines IP). It doesn't include trade secrets; it doesn't include related concepts like rights of publicity, neighboring rights, and so on. If the distinction you'd like to apply to Category:Intellectual property law is that it is "laws" (like statutes) then it is both overinclusive (because Copyright, Patent, and Trademark have lots of law-related non-laws in them, akin to the Category:Intellectual property) and underinclusive (because it misses trade secrets, among other things). Similarly Category:Intellectual property law is not well categorized at the moment, has 11 subcats (like "United States intellectual property law" and "Genericized trademark") and 117 pages (including "Trademark", the "Trademark Trial and Appeal Board") and so on. The distinction, frankly, is not really intuitive and not maintainable. ... The whole cat structure needs cleaning up, and this proposal is part of that. --lquilter 15:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I should out myself as an IP lawyer (copyright and trademark) and an IP activist. --lquilter 15:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the proposal to merge IP into IP law for clarity's sake and after meditating on Xdamr's comments. --lquilter 15:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Most, if not all, of the pages listed in the IP cat really do pertain to legal issues and concepts and would more accurately be categorised under IPL. This is true for the sub-cats Category:Intellectual property activism and Category:Public domain that BrownHairedGirl mentions. Category:Patent Medicines is a bit more out-of-place, but to the extent that it has anything to do with IP, then it is still an IPL matter. As noted above, all IP is a creature of "law." --Vbd 21:47, 13 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:Martial Artist Wikipedians[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 looks like UCFD sorted it. the wub "?!" 16:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Martial Artist Wikipedians into Category:Wikipedian martial artists

Category:Wikipedian martial artists into Category:Martial Artist Wikipedians

Merge, Category:Martial Artist Wikipedians of Category:Wikipedians by lifestyle & Category:Wikipedian martial artists of Category:Wikipedians by skill serve the same purpose. The former has a user box and the latter is older. The latter should probably be kept but I am not sure about userbox implications. TonyTheTiger 19:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Possibly merger should include notification of the userbox' existence to the latter category members. TonyTheTiger 19:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't this belong in WP:UCFD? ~ Bigr Tex 14:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please take this to WP:UCFD. >Radiant< 14:39, 10 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.

British royal consorts[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. the wub "?!" 16:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:British queen consorts,Category:English queen consorts,Category:Scottish queen consorts to Category:British royal consorts,Category:English royal consorts,Category:Scottish royal consorts - the proper plural is queens consort, but, anyway, royal consorts allows the inclusion of the few male consorts – D B D 17:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to queens consort form and create new categories for kings consort and/or princes consort. Otto4711 18:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I work at Blackett Laboratory on Prince Consort Road, named in honor of Prince Albert. The change would allow his inclusion in the category. Dr. Submillimeter 19:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nomination.

Xdamr^talk 00:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --lquilter 17:15, 18 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:ArbCom bumper stickers[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. the wub "?!" 16:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tongue-in-cheek way of promoting certain candidates for the recent ArbCom election; now that the election is over I don't think we'll need this any more. >Radiant< 14:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Carpet9 23:36, 18 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:Wikipedians by interest[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. the wub "?!" 16:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh-whee, check out the can o' worms I'm opening with this nom! First, if this has been discussed before, my apologies but I didn't see anything. Second, I realize that I'm supposed to tag all of the sub-cats as well but given the mess that resulted the last time I did a group nom I'm hoping we can simply take this as done so that we may avoid the comments like "keep this because I can't deal with group noms this big" and the like. So, OK, in looking through this cat and its various sub-cats, it strikes me that these are exactly the sorts of trivial categories that, were they applied to any group of people who weren't Wikipedians, would be deleted. It's unclear to me that there's any rationale for maintaining this sort of extensive categorization scheme to track trivia. Otto4711 14:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Relisted per Radiant, sorry, didn't realize there was a separate nominating process. Otto4711 14:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take it to WP:UCFD instead. >Radiant< 14:19, 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:Oxenstierna[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. the wub "?!" 16:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Oxenstierna to Category:Oxenstierna family

Rename, for clarity in line with most other categories for non-ruling families. Osomec 12:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:40, 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:Churches established in 1939[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. the wub "?!" 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Churches established in 1939 into Category:1939 establishments

Merge - Looking at the parent category, it appears that no other notable churches were established in 1939. This category therefore will probably contain only one entry (unless this nomination prompts other people to fill in the category). It probably has limited potential for growth, and it is not part of a larger category scheme (as other "Category:XXXX establishment" categories contain no categories for church establishments). This category is therefore a form of overcategorization and should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 11:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nomination as overcategorization. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Seems weird that this category appears to be orphaned from other church related categories, and that there aren't other similar categories for other churches. As it stands, it doesn't look like there's any reason to keep this category. Dugwiki 17:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all the more because "Churches" categories are for the most part for articles about local congregations and church buildings, rather than denominational or confessional groupings as the sole existing entry is.-choster 22:03, 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:Executable files[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. the wub "?!" 16:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Patently unclear category. It lists it's main article as "executable", however that already has Category:Executable file formats as it's own category. Most software applications are executables, and we have categories to sort them by platforms. It is currently filled with some articles about Windows .exe files, nothing that shouldn't be under Category:Windows software or Category:Microsoft Windows. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unclear category as per nom and my comments at Category talk:Executable files --Pak21 11:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:41, 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:Faster-than-light communication[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. the wub "?!" 14:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four articles about a plot device used in science fiction. Feezo (Talk) 10:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: And? What do you propose we do? I see no need for any modification and the nom has done nothing but list a category with no recommended action. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be deleted. How is this a useful categorization? Feezo (Talk) 11:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are way too many examples, sometimes probably unintended. For example, in Armageddon Bruce Willis talked to his daughter via a real-time video link over the distance from Earth to the Moon. Did the writers intend it? Probably not. At the very least, rename to "...in fiction" to be more accurate. Xiner (talk, email) 15:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a container for works in which the technology is used; it's a container for articles about the technology. (Or it should be, anyway -- I see one work in the category). --lquilter 16:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Right now, it's a fictional technology. If we ever get some real examples then it can move to Category:Communications technology or whatever and there can be a fictional subcat for the current articles. But the Category:Fictional technology is big and needs diffusing and this is fine as these things go. --lquilter 16:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok list, neutral on category This might be an interesting list article. I'm undecided on whether or not it's useful as a category, though. Is it intended as a way to help organize Category:Fictional technology? If there were more articles involved I'd lean a little more toward saying keep. As is, without expansion, I'm pretty ambivalent. Dugwiki 18:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per lquilter. TonyTheTiger 19:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A more appropriate sub-categorization, based on existing Fictional technology subcategories, would be Fictional Communication Technology. Even then, I'm not convinced there are enough articles to merit an entire category. Kail Ceannai 07:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this suggestion; the current category doesn't sufficiently distinguish fiction from reality. Feezo (Talk) 07:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this suggestion is fine too (although with the right capitalization -- Category:Fictional communication technology) -- I'll do either keep or go to this category, whatever will generate consensus. --lquilter 04:44, 13 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:Wiki parodies[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. the wub "?!" 18:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly empty, contains a mixture of wikispace, articlespace and userspace pages. I'm sure this is covered by other cats already, such as Category:Wikipedia humor. >Radiant< 08:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not helpful for corroborating. Xiner (talk, email) 15:46, 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:A-sourced[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. the wub "?!" 18:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial nom from December 8. Found doing cleanup. Listing for discussion. Vegaswikian 07:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: category relating to a rejected proposal --Pak21 11:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pak21. Xiner (talk, email) 15:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should also delete Category:B-sourced, Category:C-sourced. TonyTheTiger 18:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete plus also Category:Wikipedia source grades, I created it for them, it's not needed any more. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an offshoot of a proposal that deserved rejection. Nathanian 15:46, 10 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:Political parties in Palestine[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. the wub "?!" 18:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Political parties in Palestine to Category:Palestinian political parties

Rename, inspired by Palmiro's comments as a clearer name. This will be more accurate since the modern parties exist in the Palestinian territories, and were not necessarily extant in Palestine. Tewfik^Talk 07:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this seems to me to be the best way of dealing with this. Also, in many cases the parties have been most active outside Palestine. Non-standard treatment can be the best way of dealing with exceptional circumstances. Palmiro | Talk 01:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as this is more accurate. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Tewfik and Palmiro. 6SJ7 23:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, exterme POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saying the truth (talk • contribs) — Saying the truth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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 dioceses of Canada[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. the wub "?!" 18:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic dioceses of Canada to Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Canada

Rename, For consistency with similar categories for countries/regions. MH au 07:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Shouldn't Category:Roman Catholic dioceses of the United States also be renamed? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose Categories for subdivisions consistently use "of". It is settlements and man-made objects that use "in". Nathanian 15:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both. Catholic dioceses are subdivisions neither of the United States nor of Canada. The Diocese of Steubenville is a diocese of the Province of Cincinnati, but it is a diocese in the United States.-choster 16:25, 10 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.

Palestinian territories[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. the wub "?!" 18:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename categories which organise entries relating to the 'modern' "Palestinian territories" to reflect that instead of the current incorrect ending of "Palestine," which refers to the historic region and not substituents of these categories, and in any event refer to different geographic areas (the previous CfD mixed too many different renames and many of the votes were confused and self-contradictory). Tewfik^Talk 07:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Transportation in Palestine to Category:Transportation in the Palestinian territories
Category:Economy of Palestine to Category:Economy of the Palestinian territories
Category:Football in Palestine to Category:Football in the Palestinian territories
Category:Football venues in Palestine to Category:Football venues in the Palestinian territories
Category:Mayors of places in Palestine to Category:Mayors of Places in the Palestinian territories
Category:Cities in Palestine to Category:Cities in the Palestinian territories
Category:Towns and villages in Palestine to Category:Towns and villages in the Palestinian territories

'Oppose based on nominator's edit history, suspect POV-pushing, and anyway, this has been debated recently. DuncanHill 12:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "nominator's edit history, suspect POV-pushing", maybe you'd care to elaborate on what you mean or why WP:AGF ceases to apply here, or perhaps actually present an argument as to how the articles in these categories relate to Palestine and not Palestinian territories? You are correct that there was just recently a CfD (which I linked to), however the bloc nature lead to confusion with several opposes per Palmiro, who as I understood it actually supported renaming these, which is why I am relisting the renamings separately. Tewfik^Talk 19:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This kind of thing has been voted on before and usually just causes an argument which ends in no concensus anyway.--T. Anthony 23:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as I may have been confused.--T. Anthony 03:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this is consistent with our usage elsewhere and clear. Palmiro | Talk 01:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as this would be more accurate. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Tewfik and Palmiro. 6SJ7 23:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose & WP:SNOW this out of here on grounds that we just dealt with this, nomination is in no way substantialy different suffers from problems pointed out there, esp this is nn, as bringing into line with 'israeli' usage. ⇒ bsnowball 10:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support they are not the country "Palestine", it doesn't exist, but rather they are the "Palestinian territories", a sub-region of Israel, although with vague legal and suffrage status similar to South Africa's bantustans. --70.48.240.99 03:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment please note, despite tewfik's somewhat tendentious interpretation, it is reasonable to assume that the 'oppose per palmiro's in the previous afd are to be interpreted as opposing block nominations. other than that, nom is misleading as it is not substantially different (one or two categories removed & does not provide any new reasons not addressed in previous debate). also deletions should not be revisited so quickly (esp. not when more or less indentical to the last) & this is a case in point, as most editors seem not to have noticed this was a new proposal. ⇒ bsnowball 12:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not being one of the people who voted "oppose per Palmiro", I'm not in any position to state authoritatively whether Tewfik misinterpreted their intentions or not, but I'm quite satisfied that he didn't misinterpret mine. There is a big difference between this proposal and the one that failed: this is very clearly not a block proposal but a proposal relating to specific stated categories, and moreover to ones in relation to which, as far as I can see, the proposed new category would be clearer and more precise. Palmiro | Talk 00:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Palestine is a region, and for better or worse does not coincide with emerging autonomy in a subset of that region. DuncanHill should read up on rhetorical fallacies. Just because you disagree with an editor on some issues doesn't mean you have to disagree with him/her on others. --Leifern 12:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Leifern. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support reasonable and consistent with Wikipedia practice. Beit Or 19:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this rename is only based on POV... Saying the truth 15:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC) — Saying the truth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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:Fictional Italian-American mobsters[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. the wub "?!" 18:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Underpopulated and, more importantly, completely redundant as long as we have the fictional mobsters cateory. --T smitts 05:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would like to see this category go as it seems to stereo type an ethnic group as mobsters. I also hope that T smitts is not implying that this cat is redundant because all fictional mobsters are Italian-American. --- Safemariner 05:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. I meant it's redundant because the category fictional mobsters covers mobsters of any nationality. There's no need to create a smaller subcategory simply for ones of Italian descent. --T smitts 06:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete underpopulated and overly specific category. Doczilla 06:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Prolog 10:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's pointless at best, and could be construed as an ethnic insult at worst. Redeagle688 21:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to spotlight a common stereotype. User:Dimadick

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:People with Multiple Personality Disorder[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. the wub "?!" 13:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inappropriate category.

(1) Title is archaic; the modern term is dissociative identity disorder.

(2) Title is inaccurate; it would have to be something like "People diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder" or "People claiming to have multiple personalities".

(3) Do not categorize people based on states of mind. DID/MPD is an Axis I state disorder, meaning that it is not considered a permanent trait. Rather, it is a state that the person is undergoing. The fact that it is rarely seen among the elderly would suggest that it is not permanent.

(4) While not all professionals agree that it even exists, it is in the DSM-IV-TR, which means it is an acceptable encyclopedic term. However, even professionals who agree that it exists argue vehemently over its frequency and its misdiagnosis. I believe Chris Sizemore had it. I don't believe Truddi Chase did or does. Who am I to say? Other professionals who worked with Shirley Mason assert that Dr. Wilbur used the term only to sell books and have produced tapes that cast doubt on many of Dr. Wilbur's claims about Shirley's famous case. We cannot verify what really goes on inside their heads. Billy Milligan was a famous case that professionals have always argued about. Many, many people have always believed he was faking, although he has always had his believers.

(5) The title suggests that it is present and ongoing in the person's life. Chris Sizemore has not had extra personalities since the '70s.

(6) Category is redundant to a list of famous cases in the Dissociative identity disorder article. A list can be properly annotated with citations and external sources. Doczilla 04:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 10:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename and redefine to Category:People diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder The nominator above makes a good point that the category should be based on an actual diagnosis of a medical condition, and it should use the proper term for that condition. However, it is appropriate under Category:People by medical or psychological condition to categorize people by previously diagnosed psychological disorders, even disorders from which the person later recovers. For example, the subcategory Category:People diagnosed with clinical depression is intended to hold all people who were at one time diagnosed with clinical depression, even people who have recovered. Since there do exist people who are verifiably diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder, even if other professionals in the field might disagree with the particular diagnoses, this category would be a natural way to sort those people under the Category:People by medical or psychological condition parent category. Dugwiki 18:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should not categorise people by the stigmatising labels which may have been applied to them (possibly briefly) by the psychiatric industry. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per User:Dugwiki. I got the sense DID does exist in some fashion, but MPD is anachronistic and unhelpful.--T. Anthony 23:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BrownHairedGirl. Nathanian 15:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another unhelpful piece of pyschi-babble. Pinoakcourt 13:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The category is useful but the diagnosis itself may be subject to revisions and re-interpretations in due time. Better keep the title factual. (By the way the current title does not suggest the condition is "present and ongoing in the person's life". Categories tend to cover individuals across history rather than current cases alone.) User:Dimadick

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:John Wayne films[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. the wub "?!" 20:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the terrible problem with Category:Films by actor. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 04:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Otherwise, a film with sixty cast members could get sixty additional categories. Even an early film where Carrey or Kidman had a bit part would get included. Doczilla 06:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for actors that have done more than 100 films? Lugnuts 08:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't a reliable mark of distinction. Many little known actors have made over 100 film while many major stars have made many less than 100. Pinoakcourt 10:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also impossible to police categories that are not clearly defined by their category names. --lquilter 21:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And this would certainly favor modern actors over historical actors. --lquilter 21:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previous similar discussions. This is overcategorization. Prolog 10:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 10:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all performers by performance categories -- Samuel Wantman 11:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- although, wouldn't this be a performance by performer category? <g> it should still be deleted! --lquilter 16:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, this is an example of a films-by-actor category. These categories present potential problems such as a film having numerous categories, one per actor involved. In addition, these categories are entirely redundant with their associated main articles because any reader actually interested perusing links for the films can see all those links in that article. For example, a reader interested is surfing through John Wayne films can very easily go to that article and go to the Filmography section. Not only does his filmography list all his films with links, but it also includes the year of release and side notes that can't appear in a category. Dugwiki 18:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nathanian 15:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Has anybody actually looked how untidy the filmography of John Wayne is. The category has an A-Z of his film far far easy to browse rather than a long list. I would only suggest though that only major actors have there own category. PLEASE PLEASE do not delete the John Wayne category. I agree with Lugnuts only the super actors should have a category. e.g actors who have starred in over 100 films and are regarded as iconic. E.g delete Nicole Kidman and many of the other actors who have only done a handful of films when clearly their films can be seen neatly in their filmographies. However John Waynes is huge and a category is much easier to navigate for them Ernst Stavro Blofeld 10:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the filmography is too long, seperate it out into a new list, and make it a table that can be sorted either alphabetically or chronologically. -- Samuel Wantman 11:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Sam. If the problem is how the list is formatted in the article, then improve the list. There's still no need for a category. Dugwiki 18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sort of compromise Ernst Stavro Blofeld advocates just isn't sustainable in a wiki environment. Who is going to fight the constant battle against all the fans who think their favourite is iconic? Pinoakcourt 13:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment but how many actors have done as many films as John Wayne and are as well known/noteable as him? I agree that it's stupid to have a category for every single actor, but in this instance I think it's justified. Lugnuts 19:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you are looking at this backwards. The problem is not the category but the category listings for an article. If John Wayne is a category for a movie in which he had a small role, others will logically expect that the stars of that film should have a category. After all, why just put the film in the category of a minor character? This is how categories like this spread. Having any actor categories in articles about their perfomances cause this problem. -- Samuel Wantman 21:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The thin end of a very unwelcome wedge. Osomec 15:32, 15 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:Digimon by type[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, including all subcats. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm nominating this category and all its subcategories for deletion. This is a fairly useless category, and will become even more useless once the digimon articles are merged (Digimon Wikiproject is in the process of rearranging many digimon articles). There are actually over a hundred Digimon types (not all of them have categories yet). Some types include dozens of digimon but many types include just one or two digimon. So basically, we're looking at trying to classify a few hundred digimon into over a hundred different types. "Type" in digimon is a fairly trivial and casual classification - it's pretty meaningless, digimon of the same 'type' don't nessasarily have much to do with each other. If we want to sort each and every digimon into these type categories (unlikely, i really can't see many people bothered to do this) - we're just going to end up with a VERY complicated set of categories that are not very helpful to readers (and to editors). We already have several useful and meaningfull cats for digimon species (e.g. digimon by level, digimon by attribute, X-digimon...etc). We can get rid of this one, it's not doing much more good than a "yellow digimon" or "digimon who can fly" category. Saintmagician 02:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - this category has 34 subcategories (for 34 different types) which are all bundled into this nomination. I'm not going to bother listing all of them here, but i have tagged all of them with CFD tags --Saintmagician 02:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We're breaking away from the idea that Wikipedia will have every last detail about Digimon anyways, so this level of detail is on it's way out on more than just categories. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft. Xiner (talk, email) 15:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorisation of a commercial branding exercise. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with all of the above, particularly Ned Scott and BrownHairedGirl Kail Ceannai 07:26, 11 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:Michigan Freemasons[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. the wub "?!" 21:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Michigan Freemasons into Category:American Freemasons

Merge - This is currently the only subdivision by state for anyone in Category:American Freemasons, and it is overcategorization based on arbitrary geographical boundaries. Dividing by state is unwieldly, as people move from state to state many times during their lifetime (which is true of the one person currently in this category). The Michigan category should be merged into the American category. Dr. Submillimeter 01:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Splitting this category fifty ways would make it less useful for navigation. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Masonry is extremely varied in form, ritual and custom by state. For instance, bylaws, financial laws, customs, observances and such can be very different. I'm not sure that this is enough to justify subcatagorization, but it is worth keeping in mind. Wintermut3 04:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Articles should cover any differences. Xiner (talk, email) 15:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorisation on arbitrary geographical boundaries. However I see that there are already 374 articles in Category:American Freemasons. State boundaries are too arbitrary, but is there any other useful and non-arbitrary division of a category which is likely to grow? --23:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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:Genesee Wesleyan Seminary alumni[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. the wub "?!" 16:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Genesee Wesleyan Seminary alumni into Category:Syracuse University alumni

Merge - Genesee Wesleyan Seminary was the older name of Syracuse University, and so Category:Genesee Wesleyan Seminary alumni is a subcategory of Category:Syracuse University alumni. However, Wikipedia does not contain any other categories for Genesee Wesleyan Seminary, nor does it contain an article on the seminary nor even a redirect at Genesee Wesleyan Seminary. The category should be merged into Category:Syracuse University alumni. Dr. Submillimeter 01:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous arguments re historical accuracy. roundhouse 02:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Historical accuracy could be handled by placing a description in Category:Syracuse University alumni indicating that it should also include the alumni of Genesee Wesleyan Seminary. Dr. Submillimeter 09:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Categories are not created for historical accuracy. Xiner (talk, email) 15:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for historical accuracy. Seminaries tend to produce a lot of notable people, so I would expect the category to be further populated in future. The category is only two months old, so please give it a little longer. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The seminary itself does not have a Wikipedia article. If the seminary is not notable enough to be in Wikipedia (or if no one else cares enough about the seminary to write an article on it), why should we have a category for one alumni from that seminary? This is putting the cart before the horse. Dr. Submillimeter 23:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps, given the patience advocated above, the horse will appear in the shape of an article. roundhouse 02:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Give me some time. I have an article for the seminary coming! Thanks. Pastorwayne 02:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The horse has now appeared, at Genesee Wesleyan Seminary. roundhouse 15:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for historical accuracy! Thanks. Pastorwayne 02:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And for what its worth, the article is begun: Genesee Wesleyan Seminary. Pastorwayne 16:09, 13 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:Smoking cessation[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/redirect. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect into Category:Tobacco cessation. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge No need for redirect. Xiner (talk, email) 15:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary a Redirect is very necessary as I for one would be more likely to use the first term. Nathanian 15:50, 10 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:Hawaiian religious 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. the wub "?!" 13:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is being used to divide American religious leaders by state. However, it is ambiguous as to whether it refers to people who work in the state or who were born in the state. It is currently being used for both, which is not useful. Given that we do not yet divide other religious leaders by state and given the problems with actually tracking religious leaders by state, this category should be deleted. (Also, see the discussions on Category:Hawaiian bishops and Category:Hawaii Catholic bishops from 2006 November 22 and 2006 November 23. This category should be deleted based on the precedent from November.) Dr. Submillimeter 01:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People were putting this on articles without it being a category. I made a category based on that, but I'm not saying it should exist. However I'm not saying it should be deleted either. Hawaii is a slightly different case from other states. Hawaiian religion, the indigenous religion of Native Hawaiians, probably did have leaders or priests of some kind. There was also the Church of Hawaii.--T. Anthony 01:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is being used for Christian leaders (either Christian leaders from outside of Hawaii who travelled to Hawaii to work or people from Hawaii who became religious leaders); Native Hawaiians would especially dislike being grouped with missionaries. If it is going to be used for Native Hawaiian leaders, then it needs a less ambiguous name. (It may also be worth checking to see if an appropriate category beginning with "Native Hawaiian" already exists.) Dr. Submillimeter 01:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We do divide some (not UM, yet, pending article creation, bishop creation) American religious leaders by diocese - is Hawaii a diocese? (One of the categories in Nov was deleted, the other merged. Which is the precedent?) The name is certainly ambiguous. roundhouse 03:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The one diocese in Hawaii that is currently identified in Wikipedia is the Roman Catholic Diocese of Honolulu, which has its own categories for bishops. Dr. Submillimeter 09:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (after further investigation, penny having dropped) It is probably redundant anyway. roundhouse 03:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hawaii was it's own Nation, as well as a U.S. territory and (now) State. It should therefore be treated differently than other U.S. States. I have added inclusion criteria to the cat indicating this. Thanks. Pastorwayne 12:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Including people who have worked in Hawaii both before and after it became part of the United States is not helpful. These kinds of categories mangle the category system. Moreover, this does not deal with the problem brought forward by T. Anthony, whereby grouping Native Hawaiians leaders with Christian missionaries may be inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 12:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not quite what I said. If missionaries are seen as valid religious leaders by the Native Hawaiian people I'd have no problem with them being in with those leaders of indigenous religions. Possibly Hawaiians also had their own forms of Christianity the way the way American Indians have the Indian Shaker Church.--T. Anthony 19:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I lived in Hawaii for six years. In my experience, people of Native Hawaiian descent attended the same churches as everyone else. Historically, the most influential Christian leaders were the Congregationalists who arrived in the first half of the 19th century. Although Congregationalism was seen as a type of official religion in Hawaii (which even fought off early missionary efforts by the Roman Catholic church), I do not know that many Native Hawaiians still identify with the religion or want to identify with the religion today. (The missionaries, plantation owners, and Captain Cook are all particularly disliked to some degree.) I will, however, qualify that I could be mistaken; I expect that someone who spent his or her entire life in Hawaii could contradict me. Dr. Submillimeter 19:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I imagine that's correct. Still most American Indians are members of multi-racial denominations like the Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, and Russian Orthodoxy. What I gather ethnic Hawaiian religions or Christian movements are small or extinct, but I was uncertain they're non-existent.--T. Anthony 23:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Some Native Hawaiians do actively participate in a form of traditional Hawaiian/Polynesian belief system. Those people should be listed under a better category name that includes the words "Native Hawaiian". However, I cannot even identify an article in the Category:Hawaii category tree that describes the belief system (aside from the articles in Category:Hawaiian mythology), so I do not know if such a category is warranted. The people in the category discussed above are all the clergy of traditional Christian churches; they would not belong in a category on traditional Native Hawaiian beliefs. Dr. Submillimeter 00:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or at least rename. It can't cover both types. Xiner (talk, email) 15:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is also Category:Bishops of Honolulu which is given as a subcat of Roman Catholic Bishops (and not of Category:Hawaiian religious leaders). It is all very confused. roundhouse 21:16, 10 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:Airlines of the Middle East[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. the wub "?!" 13:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We tend to not categorize by region. The articles are already included in the by country categories. If this nomination gets support, there will be a need to add some additional categories. Vegaswikian 01:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of the airlines do not have a country category --- Safemariner 03:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were there more then 3? Vegaswikian 07:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were, but not any more. ---Safemariner 00:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no pages in the category. Xiner (talk, email) 15:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many of the country categories only have a single categorised page. Wouldn't it make more sense to maintain a master regional category for them rather than creating these new categories? Tewfik^Talk 19:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The common way of doing this seems to be to list by country. So categories with a single entry are acceptable. Vegaswikian 22:22, 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:Cheng Qiang[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 10:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is not in English and no articles are contained in the category. There are already categories for buildings and fortfications in China. Niohe 01:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete empty undefined cat. ---Safemariner 02:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't make out what it is. Xiner (talk, email) 16:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Creation was related to this out-of-consensus page move which has since been reverted. cab 22:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Empty, with non-English name. --Danaman5 05:27, 10 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:Treaties involving territorial changes[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. the wub "?!" 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't really see what function this category fulfils in Wikipedia and the English is not very elegant either. Unless someone finds a substitute name for this category, I suggest that it be deleted. Niohe 01:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Almost all treaties (agreements, conferences etc, by whatever name) during and after wars between nations end up involving territorial changes. Almost all medieval treaties were about territory. --- Safemariner 02:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That seems to speak in favor of deletion as it would be enough to refer to the treaty only.--Niohe 03:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not because, especially in the modern era, there are a LOT more treaties that have nothing to do with war and so do not speak of territorial changes. Most of the modern treaties are trade treaties. One major modern exception is the Sino-British Joint Declaration which transferred Hong Kong to China. --- Safemariner 05:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - So many treaties result in territorial changes that this is not defining. Moreover, some territory changes are disputed after such treaties. Would those treaties be placed here? Dr. Submillimeter 09:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That sounds interesing and easy to find the changes in territories.--Ksyrie 18:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "That sounds interesting"? You are the one who created this category!--Niohe 05:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please donn't go against the idea just for against me.In my opinion,even though this time someone delete this category,someone else will create the same category in the future.--Ksyrie 00:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Informative despite possible controversies. TonyTheTiger 19:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A useful way to distinguish from trade and arms control treaties; but more thought may need to be given to balancing it with other subcats of Category:Treaties (e.g. there is a Category:Arms control but no Category:Arms control treaties. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can't really see what makes this category different from Category:Peace treaties. Look at most of these treaties, and you will find that they involve territorial concessions.--Niohe 05:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Soviets signed a lot of "Peace and Friendship" treaties with a lot of countries that did not involve any territory --- Safemariner 01:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are any of these treaties to be found Category:Peace treaties? Please give a concrete example!--Niohe 01:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - CommentTo advance my POV,check the ceasefire treay of Korean War,this treaty is not the peace treaty,and it involves the territorial changes.--Ksyrie 00:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What are you talking about? No treaty was signed after the Korean War, there was just a cease-fire which has lasted to this day. Are we creating a special category for cease-fires? By the way, I didn't think Wikipedia was not about advancing POVs, but about NPOV, but I may have missed something.--Niohe 14:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This will cover such a large and random selection of treaties from different eras and continents that there is little point in grouping them together. Osomec 15:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful in keeping track of territorial changes. User:Dimadick

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:Former Unitarians[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. the wub "?!" 13:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In general, I dislike these former religion categories, as leaving a religion could consist of simply not going to a place of worship, attending the place of worship of a different denomination, publicly stating a departure from a religion, or taking formal steps to join a different faith. In the 2007 January 1 discussions, it was decided to delete Category:Former Christians and several subcategories for people formerly belonging to sub-denominations for these reasons and because it was not necessarily notable to leave a denominations within Christianity for another. This category may or may not be similar to Category:Former Lutherans and some of the other categories or it may be different, as some forms of Unitarianism are forms of Protestantism and others seem to be separate from Christianity altogether. Anyhow, because other "former religion" categories were already deleted and for the reasons given above, I suggest deleting this category. Dr. Submillimeter 01:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The main utility I had is that in looking for articles to fit it I discovered that we seem to have two articles on Frederic Dan Huntington. Otherwise I'm not sure anyone refer to themselves as an "ex-Unitarian" in the way people call themselves Ex-Catholic or Ex-Mormon, or Apostate from Islam. Lawrence Watt-Evans, in discussions I've had with him, sort of calls himself an ex-Unitarian at times but the term is used almost as humor.--T. Anthony 01:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I also wanted to express this in my nomination, but it was long enough as it is, and your statement is much clearer than mine would have been. Dr. Submillimeter 01:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable category --- Safemariner 02:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as before - if any competent precis of the biog of X mentions Unitarianism and the leaving thereof, then X sits in the cat. There is no great difficulty here. Frederic Dan Huntington/Frederick Dan Huntington is a good example - both the long and the short versions include it. It should be mentioned that some of the 'former religion' categories in 2007 January 1 discussions were not deleted. roundhouse 03:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a whole the categories that survived were ones where their former members are noted for discussing their former religion or defining themselves as a former member. For example ex-Jehovah's Witnesses gets over 30,000 ghits and there's even WATCH the TOWER-Official Web Site of Ex-Jehovah's Witnesses. Ex-Scientologist gets over 19,000 Google hits. "Former Unitarian" gets 587. Still I withdrew my nomination on Former Christian Scientists, which would likely have gotten no concensus anyway, and that's a term that gets only 182 ghits.--T. Anthony 04:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination as a non-defining attribute. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is a defining attribute? (I have looked and the only relevant mentions Google finds are 2 or 3 in cfds. A mascot is said not to be a defining attribute for a school, for instance.) roundhouse 21:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think of a "defining characteristic" as something that would be used by most people to describe a person. For example, Shaquille O'Neal could be described by most people as a former Orlando Magic and Los Angeles Lakers player becuase he achieved recognition as a member of those teams. It even says this in the first paragraph of his article. With this category, would you refer to someone primarily as a "former Unitarian"? I would not; I would probably refer to them by the religion that they held during most of their life (e.g. United Methodist convert). This does bring up another issue: If someone switches religions a few times, would he get several "former religion" categories (if most of them still existed)? That does not seem like it would be useful. Dr. Submillimeter 00:00, 11 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:Quinn Martin Production[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. the wub "?!" 13:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion -- This is currently a separate sub-category under Category:Television production companies of the United States. It is really an article (or stub), not a category. I have taken the liberty of creating a new page for it -- Quinn Martin Productions. (Qstn: Does the history need to be migrated over to the new page?) Vbd 00:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note the category is not tagged. Were it tagged my question would be whether the production company itself was called "Quinn Martin Productions" or simply "Quinn Martin." If the former, then I would rename the cat to Category:Quinn Martin. If the latter than rename to Category:Quinn Martin Productions. Otto4711 15:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, good god, here's yet a third page that claims the production company was called QM Productions. So if that is the actual name then rename the cat to Category:QM Productions. Sheesh. Otto4711 15:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 16:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is a speedy delete of a category justified by the creation of an article (which has already been redirected to the main Quinn Martin article)? Note that I have re-written both the category description and the article. Otto4711 16:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, Otto, please lose the attitude (eg "sheesh"). I recommended this subcategory for speedy deletion for consistency's sake. In the main cat, Category:Television production companies of the United States, the majority of companies are listed as pages, not as subcats. That's true for other significant prod. cos, like Merv Griffin Ent. or Spelling Prods. (to stick with eponymously named companies). Each of those pages then provides links to individual program pages. I don't see any reason why Mr. Quinn Martin's prod. company deserves its own subcat.
Also, it seems to be a common practice on Wikipedia for individual TV/film producers to have their own biographical pages in addition to separate pages for their corporate identities. In your efforts to "clean up this mess"(more attitude), you have eliminated any and all Quinn Martin-related production company pages for him and redirected them to his personal page. There are two problems I have with that:

(1) It is inappropriate -- no, wrong -- to list the "Quinn Martin" page under category:Television production companies of the United States as you currently have it because . . . he is not a production company! That's why I created a page for Quinn Martin Productions (which I did not realize, at the time, should have been QM Productions).

(2) I'm still figuring out who decides what, but the issue of eponymous articles and overcategorisation is up for discussion. (see Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization). Granted, I did add a page, but I find it odd that you took it upon yourself to delete it without any further discussion. And we still haven't resolved my original qstn of the unnecessary subcat.

I renew my suggestion that we speedy delete the subcat Category:Quinn Martin Production and that the pages listed within it be included in an article about QM Productions, which would then properly be categorized under Category:Television production companies of the United States. (Note: depending on the resolution of this example, there are five other prod. co. listed as sub-cats that I would recommend re-casting as pages and deleting as sub-cats.--Vbd 17:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, the "sheesh" was directed at the notion that there were three different pages all dealing with the same topic under three different names. Why you chose to take that as some sort of personal affront is beyond me. Second, I didn't redirect your "Quinn Martin Productions" page to Quinn Martin. That was done before I ever even looked at this. I redirected another page that I found separately at "QM Productions" to Quinn Martin because it contained little or no information that wasn't already contained at the eponymous article. Finally, the subcat for the production company (whatever the production company name turns out to be) is appropriate to capture articles for programs produced by that company, which is the purpose it is serving now. There is no need to delete the category containing show articles because of the existence of an article about the production company. If a substantive article is written about QM Productions, then by all means list it as an article under the Production companies category and change the redirect for Quinn Martin Productions that someone else set up to point to QM Productions. Absent such an article, or even in addition to it, rename the category (this is categories for discussion) to Category:QM Productions and leave it as a subcat of the Production companies cat. Otto4711 14:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, I didn't take it personally, I just read attitude into your comments. This is an imperfect medium when it comes to tone. And I apologize for not checking the history of who moved what.--Vbd 07:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are trying to address two separate issues in one discussion:

(1) The problem with the subcat QM Productions (or Quinn Martin Productions or any other TV prod. co. for that matter) -- and the reason why I recommended its speedy deletion -- is overcategorization (and consistency). As I have already explained, Category: Television production companies of the United States is intended to capture all TV companies, including QM Productions. There is no reason why this particular company should have its own subcat. (The articles about specific programs that are in the subcat. should, more appropriately, be referenced or listed within an article about the company.) Again, it is an example of overcategorization.

(Otto earlier expressed disbelief: "How is a speedy delete of a category justified by the creation of an article" (his emphasis). Here's a quote from the Wiki guidelines for categorizing award entries: "If an award doesn't have an article, it certainly doesn't need a category (and not every award that has an article needs a category). If a production company doesn't have an article, it certainly doesn't need a category. . . . Does that help? Not everything needs to have a category!!)

(2) The question of how to deal with eponymous TV shows has come up in another forum. Perhaps a similar discussion about TV (or film) producers and their eponymous prod. cos. needs to be held. When I created the Quinn Martin Productions page (which I now realize should have been QM Productions), I was trying to maintain consistency with other examples of separate articles for producers and their eponymous cos. But this is only indirectly related to the speedy delete request.

At this point, there has been nothing speedy about this process. And I'm tired of it. I had no idea that a post about a relatively insignificant entry would generate such a headache. So if someone wants to make a decision about how to untangle this, that would be great.--Vbd 07:25, 17 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.