Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 23

< June 22	June 24 >

June 23[edit]

Category:Characters with LL initials from Superman[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - I know the LL initials are a motif of the series but this is still a form of overcategorization by name. Otto4711 22:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe a list already exists. You're that despite the motif, it doesn't mesh with what WP:OC says about overcategorizing by name sameness. Doczilla 06:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 12:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

DC Comics objects[edit]

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

The result of the debate was upmerge to both parents --Kbdank71 17:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - small categories with little room for growth. All of the objects are already in the parent Category:DC Comics objects which has fewer than 40 articles, so clearly the categories are not being used for diffusion in any meaningful way nor is the parent so large as to require diffusion. Otto4711 22:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge contents of each to both parents, and Delete since this is to fine a split of what begin as small cats. - J Greb 07:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge following J Greb. (Emperor 15:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Upmerge per J Greb. Wryspy 09:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Terrans[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Terrans to Category:Terrans (StarCraft)

Nominator's rationale: Rename - many different science fiction stories use the word "Terran" so disambiguation is needed. Otto4711 21:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. The main article Terran (StarCraft) justly already has this qualifier. --Tikiwont 11:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Austro-Hungarian people by occupation[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 17:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: It's probably not in our best interest to start making categories by occupation for all amalgamation-nations that once existed. Bulldog123 20:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The politicians and naval officers seem hard to classify in any other way. The scientists (in fact only one article) I am not so concerned about. Equivalent UK categories take great care to distinguish between early Scottish and English, then British or UK categories, so I don't see why these should not follow the same principle. Not to mention the Ancient Romans or Byzantines. Johnbod 22:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This, unfortunately, isn't at all comparable to Ancient Romans or Byzantines as ethnic/nationalities were not precisely defined then. Here, they were, and I don't think its a great idea to have separate categories each time a nation merges or joins. Ie: Imperial Russian politicians. Spanish-Netherlands politicians. Bulldog123 22:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the state-related categories (Category:Austro-Hungarian Navy officers, Category:Austro-Hungarian politicians), where Austro-Hungarian is the relevant label; but the Category:Austro-Hungarian scientists could probably be usefully dispersed to Category:Austrian scientists and Category:Hungarian scientists. It would probably also be useful to have military and diplomatic subcats of Category:Austro-Hungarian people by occupation. --09:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep Definitely useful subcategorizing for clarifying both citizenship and period. Dahn 16:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod - and I shouldn't say Austria-Hungary was any more of an amalgamation-nation than the UK or the US. Xn4 00:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this category makes sense for people whose occupation was directly related to existence Austria-Hungary (or Austrian Empire or Habsburg lands). Only those politicians with a seat in Reichsrat or holding some of the highest A-H offices should be included, not every local mayor from a forgotten part of the empire. Scientists or e.g. artists from what is now Belgium should not be listed here. Pavel Vozenilek 14:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd removed the Category:Austro-Hungarian scientists and recategorised the single person in the tree. Please feel free to nominate it for CfD, it is not really good criterion. Pavel Vozenilek 14:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is highly relevant for occupations related to public service. Piccadilly 17:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hip hop albums by label[edit]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 20:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - another hip hop-specific category breakdown that does not appear to offer anything in terms of organizational utility. Otto4711 19:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly rename This is one of the few categories that does make sense and, I think, would be too broad for a list or article. Although many labels come and go, hip hop recently celebrated 25 years, I believe, and some of those original labels are still around. Many label owners launched their growing empires through their music labels and now have broadened to influence almost every aspect of pop culture from music to fashion to art and television, and increasingly, politics. I think some of the other categories like French hip hop albums by label might be premature as long as there is another category like French music labels they can also be in for user ease. Also increasingly music production is a multinational endeavor so categories limiting to one country might be a tad meaningless. After reviewing categories further the national categories do seem fine but maybe break down by continents for user ease. Possibly rename as "album" is becoming archaic to Category:Hip hop music by label which is useful. Benjiboi 22:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decca Records, Columbia Records, RCA Records, etc. have been around a lot longer that any hip hop label. The length of time that a record label or a genre has existed is not a good excuse for breaking down albums by genre and label. Otto4711 17:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of hip hop, it's very newness is actually the point. The birth and growth of hip hop directly parallels the growth of not only music television and videos but also the internet. This has meant that whereas older music genres have had established methods of distribution and sales and marketing and fan base usage, the newer music genre used many of those routes but also took advantage of new media. Benjiboi 21:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of which justifies creating an entire separate categorization system for hip hop. No one has felt compelled to create separate category schemes for disco or house or new age or trance or ambient or punk or new wave, all of which came into existence in the last few decades. While hip hop may have found all of these alternative ways to distribute itself (a claim I have yet to see backed up by a reliable source) such distribution methods are not exclusive to hip hop nor are they an endemic feature of hip hop. All of these hip hop categories smack of nothing more than "I like it so let's call attention to it." Otto4711 12:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hip hop record labels 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 20:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - another hip hop-specific breakdown that isn't mirrored in any other genre and is not useful. Otto4711 19:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I first doubted the usefulness I have reviewed some of the many nationality articles and they speak of national pride and history intertwined with hip hop which is musical poetry of the oppressed. The Hip hop genre is one of the few music genres that came of age alongside the internet and MTV. Older established genres have had to re-adapt to new media and, I believe, less prevalent on WP. Possibly rename to Category:Hip hop music by nationality as "records" is becoming an archaic term and some hip hop producers produce music but not complete albums. Benjiboi 06:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per my reasons when I nominated this before HERE. Overcat as per all of Otto's noms for the Hiphop by producer's nationalities, etc Lugnuts 06:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, the delete process was keep three months ago. has something changed in that time or what? Benjiboi 08:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change and for the record I did not notice that this had been previously nominated otherwise I would have included a link to that discussion. Otto4711 14:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So the answer is that nothing has changed and you're hoping the delete will go through this time. If there isn't a rule about a delete waiting period then I think there should be. Benjiboi 06:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's changed is the precendent in the over-catergorization of the hip hop genre being broken down into genre by nationality by location, etc, as per the other deleted cats that Otto has listed. Lugnuts 07:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:French hip hop labels[edit]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 20:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - this is the only by country breakdown of hip hop record labels. For whatever reason, hip hop has been broken down in ways that no other genre of music has been and none of it is particularly useful from a categorization standpoint. Otto4711 19:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I first doubted the usefulness I have reviewed some of the many nationality articles and they speak of national pride and history intertwined with hip hop which is musical poetry of the oppressed. The Hip hop genre is one of the few music genres that came of age alongside the internet and MTV. Older established genres have had to re-adapt to new media and, I believe, less prevalent on WP. Possibly rename to Category:French hip hop music to be inclusive to hip hop French music and companies producing it. Benjiboi 06:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per my reasons when I nominated this before HERE. Overcat as per all of Otto's noms for the Hiphop by producer's nationalities, etc Lugnuts 06:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Alumni of Watford Grammar School for Boys[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Old Fullerians. --Xdamr^talk 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Watford Grammar School for Boys to Category:Old Fullerians

Nominator's rationale: Alumni of this school are known as 'Old Fullerians' as the school's main article states. This rename will ensure that the category is named as per nearly all of this type, e.g. Old Etonians Kernel Saunters 18:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - "Old Fullerians" does not clearly identify the subjects of the category. The current name does. Otto4711 19:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename - The "Old Fullerians" name is less clear than the name using "alumni". Dr. Submillimeter 19:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename per Otto4711 and Dr S. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong rename current name is blatantly incorrect. English schools rarely, if ever, have alumni. DuncanHill 10:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename into British English. Haddiscoe 12:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Kernel Saunters and Haddiscoe - while this is not the US pattern, a brief glance at Category:People by school in England will confirm that the proposed name, as well as being correct, will be consistent with almost all similar categories for English schools. It may be obscure at first glance, at least until you click on it and see the summary, but Old Fullerians is on exactly the same pattern as the existing Old Alleynians for Dulwich College, Old Wykehamists for Winchester College, Old Cholmeleians for Highgate School, and one or two others. The very idea of someone wanting to change Old Wykehamists into Alumni of Winchester College makes me feel far from well! Xn4 01:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the English use ridiculously opaque names to describe these people doesn't mean that a category shouldn't use more transparant language. Otto4711 01:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto4711, the English are no more ridiculous than the rest of the human race. Hostility to another nation or group of people does not help anyone's case. Xn4 14:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expressed no hostility toward any person. I expressed hostility to language which is not understandable to vast segments of the English-speaking world. I would have the same response to categories named with ridiculously opaque Americanisms. Otto4711 14:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename~~Keep~~(got vote wrong way round) for consistency & principle of least surprise Johnbod 02:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But not for consistency with the rest of the parent category, People by school in England. And the principle of least surprise would be misapplied here, as it is a principle of programming language design, and ergonomics, not a Wikipedian principle. Xn4 14:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The principle is a very useful one in many WP contexts; please don't tell me it is misapplied here. Johnbod 14:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean it is a general and universal principle, the application of a general principle needs to be purposeful. Still, if your comments are supporting the renaming, we need not disagree! United States Secretaries of State clearly does not need to be renamed United States Foreign Ministers. Xn4 16:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We appear to have a choice between 1) a name that is incorrect and inconsistent with other related categories, and 2) a name that is correct and consistent. Which is more encyclopaedic - accuracy and consistency or inaccuracy and inconsistency? DuncanHill 14:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Xn4. Category:People by school in England shows that there are many schools in England whose former pupils are known as "Old Somethingorothers" - where that formula is used by the school, as here, it would be both correct per se and consistent with other existing categories to use that formula as the category name. Bencherlite 19:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per convention for similar English categories. Piccadilly 17:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Legion of Super-Heroes[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 17:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Listify and delete - per consensus against categorizing members of super-teams. Nominated once previously and closed no consensus. If retained, articles for members should still be listified and purged from the category. Otto4711 17:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ths category contains enough articles on the stories or the team itself that it is worth cleaning out with the AutoWikiBrowser and keeping. (On another note, look at Arm Fall Off Boy.) Dr. Submillimeter 19:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Again, while I agree that there is an element of "character by team", and to a lesser extent "Foes of Foo", the cat does contain a good measure of material on other subjects related to the comic book series. Since the characters included are almost solely used within those series, and the articles are not extensively interlinked, the cat looks valid. - J Greb 06:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - categories for character-specific supporting characters, including one for LOSH supporting characters, were deemed inappropriate and deleted per this CFD so the use of this category to lump characters together is inappropriate on that ground as well. Otto4711 14:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - move this out of "DC comics superhero teams" to "DC Comics", then listify the members (drop that list back into "DC comics superhero teams"). There are enough related entries, like Legion of Super Heroes (TV series), Legion Lost, Legion of Super-Villains, etc. for this entry to have purpose, it is currently being misused and is a mess in need of cleanup but not deletion. In normal circumstances members of the LoSH would be moved to their own sub-cat but this would be instantly listified, so I see moving them off to a list as cutting out the middleman in this process. (Emperor 15:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. This category is about more than team membership. Doczilla 07:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hindu denominations[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 17:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category is an AWFUL mess. See what it contains and you'll understand what I mean Kkrystian 17:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing all that much about the subject, I would be inclined to rename it to Category:schools and denominations of Hinduism and also put it directly under the main "Hinduism" category. Does that make sense? Johnbod 19:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Johnbod's proposal. However, I looked at the cat and it did not look like an awful mess to me. Could the nominator please be a little more specific? It seems like this is a very valid, utilitarian categorization used to group the subgroups within Hinduism.-Andrew c 21:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certianly a relevant category for wikipedia--Sefringle^Talk 22:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 22:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- this is obviously an important category since Hinduism is a major world religion. I'll add a cleanup tag to the category. --172.133.41.211 07:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. A vital category that should be cleaned if it is mess and I don't think it is anymore. Gizza^Discuss ^© 00:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact (despite what the template on the caegory itself says - these can be misleading) I'm not sure the nom was intending deletion. The category now does look cleaner than I remember it a few days ago, so thanks to someone. What about a rename as suggested above, to include "schools" - surely the more commonly used term? Johnbod 00:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acutally, from my knowledge both Hindu denomination and Hindu schools exist. The term schools is used for different types of Hindu philosophy whereas denomination is used for different sects. At the moment, the schools of Hindu philosophy [[eg. Advaita) aren't in the category, so I think it is fine as it is, though maybe another category called Schools of Hindu philosophy is needed. You can read the Hinduism page to see how the terms are differentiated. Gizza^Discuss ^© 00:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Green Lanterns[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 20:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - per consensus against categorizing members of super-teams. List of Green Lanterns exists so no additional listification is needed. Otto4711 17:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That's true. We've gone through and agreed to delete a lot of team categories. !Doczilla 05:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as "characters by team" cat consensus is to avoid. One additional thought though... as with the premise underlying Flash (comics) below, it may be a good idea to Upmerge the contents to the parent cat first. - J Greb 06:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you say parent cat what category do you mean? If it's anything other than Category:DC Comics superheroes it's still inappropriate categorization. Otto4711 15:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment isn't this more of an occupation category than a team? Like fictional members of the Delta Force, or fictional police officers of NYPD? 70.51.8.233 08:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge the above editor has an interesting arguement but it might be splitting hairs. (Emperor 15:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sinestro Corps[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 20:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - per consensus against categorizing the members of super-teams. An appropriate list exists in the lead article Sinestro Corps so no further listification is needed. Otto4711 17:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That's true. We've gone through and agreed to delete a lot of super-team categories. Doczilla 05:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as "characters by team" cat consensus is to avoid. One additional thought though... as with the premise underlying Flash (comics) below, it may be a good idea to Upmerge the contents to the grandparent cat first. - J Greb 06:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which grandparent cat are you suggesting? If it's anything other then Category:DC Comics supervillains then it's still inappropriate categorization. Otto4711 15:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Green Lantern. (Emperor 15:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Flash (comics)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 17:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - serving almost entirely as a container category for Flash villains, which by strong precedent is improper. Absent improperly categorized articles the remaining material does not appear to require an emponymous category. Otto4711 17:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This looks like it contains a few articles on the stories, such as Flash of Two Worlds, The Flash (TV series), The Flash (video game), and two lists as well as two subcategories that all belong in a category together. It would be better to clean this up using the AutoWikiBrowser than to delete it. Dr. Submillimeter 19:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I agree that most of the listed articles (30 of the 55... 57 if the objects cat is merged up) are supervillains/foes, they are also, for the most part (1 is arguable), characters used primarily or solely in comic book series revolving around the primary Flash characters. The remaining are articles covering primary characters, supporting characters, locations & items, in addition to the articles the actual comics and related media. Given that these articles are not extensively inter-linked, the cat seems valid. - J Greb 06:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - categories for character-specific supporting characters, including one for Flash supporting characters, were deemed inappropriate and deleted per this CFD so the use of this category to lump supporting characters together is also inappropriate. Otto4711 14:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Otto4711 is right. Defining characters by their appearance in comic books does not work, as characters will appear in many comic books. (Rick Jones (comics) is a good example.) I believe it even goes against the wishes of WikiProject Comics (which does not even want to categorize characters by team). Moreover, many categories for characters by adversary have even been blocked from recreation. Dr. Submillimeter 17:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point... but it does beg a question. If we remove all of the character (ie stop it from being a side step of the "No 'Foes...' and 'Cast...'" ban), is there enough potential in articles for the fictional locations, fictional items, games, comics, story arcs, etc to justify the cat? I think there may be, but I'm not sure. Thoughts?
(Side note: I think this is similar to Emporer's suggestion up page under the Legion CfD. Also, if may mean that the parent/grandparent Category:Green Lantern for the Green Lanterns and Sinestro Corps also needs to be looked at.) - J Greb 20:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The category would be small, but it would contain enough material to justify having the category. Moreover, the category has potential for growth. I could imagine many articles being written on the Flash comic books. Dr. Submillimeter 09:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (follwoign J Greb) but tidy out the villains. (Emperor 15:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per J Greb. Doczilla 08:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American Methodists[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 17:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Same as below - hopelessly broad. The Evil Spartan 15:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of hundred of religion by nationality categories, and there is no reason to single it out for deletion. Some are large some are small, but so what, that's just a reflection of the real world. Alex Middleton 00:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep part of Category:Methodists by nationality, which is similar to the other denominations divisions of Category:Protestants by nationality. Mairi 01:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alex Middleton and Mairi. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Process keep; I'd vote delete if all religions were nominated together, but we cannot pick just one. Carlossuarez46 18:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alex Middleton and Mairi. Xn4 00:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- any and all religious categories are very important and must be saved at any cost. --172.133.41.211 07:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Methodist politicians[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 17:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: A hopelessly broad category that could never hope to be complete The Evil Spartan 15:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per conventions of Category:Protestant politicians. Why single out Methodists for special treatment? -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ProveIt; however a group nomination of all the subcats of Category:Protestant politicians might be worth examining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It would have to be Category:Politicians by religion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Possibly; though there is also a case for considering upmerging the various denominations to Category:Protestant politicians. I don't think I agree with it, but it is a possibility. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for the same reason that I listed above. --172.133.41.211 07:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bonesmen[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion_discussion, which says "After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly". The nominator has not advanced any arguments which move the debate beyond the previous discussion less tan two months ago, which considered the issues at length, and (per WP:DEL) "it can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is the perfect example of a category that should be listified instead of categorized. Half the people on this list are presidents, and the category just becomes category-cruft under their name. This was nominated once for deletion before at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 26. The Evil Spartan 15:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a fraternity, which we've deleting left and right; and every fraternity is unique, but all are trivial; there is a list in the article of its notable members, if the membership is important to the biography it'll be mentioned there; if anyone cares to follow that link they'll see all the other notable members, so nothing is lost. Carlossuarez46 22:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Back to the Future music[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 20:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with no likelihood of expansion. All but one of the items are miscategorized and the one remaining aricle doesn't need this category. Otto4711 15:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a variation of Performer by performance ... popular songs would end up added to dozens of categories. Untenable. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Carlossuarez46 23:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ghostbusters music[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - of the seven items in the category, two are improper performer by performance articles for composers and three are for songs which were not written for the film. The remaining two do not require this category, which is small with no likelihood of expansion. Otto4711 15:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a variation of Performer by performance ... popular songs would end up added to dozens of categories. Untenable. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 17:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ProveIt. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ProveIt. Carlossuarez46 23:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lists of fictional places[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Lists of fictional places to Category:Lists of fictional locations

Nominator's rationale: Merge - redundant. Otto4711 14:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Doczilla 17:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom Johnbod 22:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Metropolis Records Releases[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Metropolis Records albums, convention of Category:Albums by record label. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename as per nom. Lugnuts 17:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Old Citizens[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Old Citizens (City of London School) --Kbdank71 20:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Old Citizens to Category:Alumni of the City of London School

Nominator's rationale: Rename, because the present name in unclear: I first saw it in the article on Hal Miller, and assumed that it was some daftly-named new category for old people, along the lines of "senior citizens").
It turns out to be for former pupils of the City of London School, who call themselves "old citizens". That is of course their privilege, but while many other such names (such as Old Redingensians) are merely obscure, "Old Citizens" is a deeply misleading category name, and I would be surprised if as many as 1% of readers guessed that Category:Old Citizens was anything other than a category for old people.
Nearly all the sub-categories of Category:People by school in England are named in the "old Fooian" format, but one is called "Former students of Foo", and three are called "Alumni of Foo". I have no particular preference for either format, but have proposed "alumni of" since it is fractionally more widely used.
I have looked in the guidelines, and while WP:NCCAT offers nothing helpful, WP:COMMONNAME offers the following guidance: "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous CfR: Note that this category was previously discussed in December 2006, with no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - The "alumni" version of the name is very clear; whereas "Old Citizens" is not. Dr. Submillimeter 14:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for all the reasons I nominated it last time. The current name is ambiguous; the suggested rename is not. Otto4711 14:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. The current category name is just too confusing and, in any case, I don't see a good reason to deviate from the usual 'alumni of' convention here. --S ^up? 14:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This should not be singled out for deviation from the correct form for categories of old boys of British private schools. Alex Middleton 00:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Alex, did you see the guidance at WP:COMMONNAME? "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative". This is just such a case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this has been proposed before. Old Citizens is the correct usage, English schools rarely, if ever, have alumni. DuncanHill 10:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The present name is correct. Haddiscoe 12:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to City of London School Old Citizens. While I generally support Alex Middleton, DuncanHill and Haddiscoe's objections, I also see that Old Citizens has the same faults as Old Blues, a category I created for the former pupils of Christ's Hospital. After a discussion in May, Bduke (who had proposed Christ's Hospital alumni) and I agreed on Christ's Hospital Old Blues. City of London School Old Citizens is a little clumsy, but it would not upset anyone and there clearly is a problem with Old Citizens. Xn4 01:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Old Citizens (City of London School), since Old Citizens is the common name but ambiguous. --Tikiwont 11:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Old Citizens (City of London School), per Tikiwont - less clumsy than my suggestion. Xn4 14:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to one of the two new suggestions just above. Johnbod 14:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as proper usage for this particular school and standard form for Category:People by school in England, especially in absence of evidence that the category is actually being misued by people thinking that it is for elderly citizens (lower-case); failing which, rename to Category:Old Citizens (City of London School) if clarification is thought necessary, and as being far preferable to "Alumni" format (as school uses "Old" not "Alumni", and so do the majority in Category:People by school in England). Bencherlite 19:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI don't see any eveidence of editors misusing the category, but we are building the encyclopedia for readers, not editors, and short of useability testing, there is no way of telling how it works for readers. So we have to rely on our own judgement, and "OLd Citizens" is misleading. I'd be okay with Category:Old Citizens (City of London School) if otheeditors want to go with that ... almost anything other than the plain "old citizens". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Readers can find out what "Old Citizens" means by clicking on the category name at the bottom of an article, and they'll see the explanatory text "This is a category of alumni of the City of London School, known as "Old Citizens"." I would have thought this was sufficient to avoid any problems of the category name being "misleading" for readers. Bencherlite 21:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. This category does not give most readers a clue of what it contains from the name. Vegaswikian 05:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Other bodies of the European Union[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Non-institutional bodies of the European Union --Kbdank71 20:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Other bodies of the European Union to ~~Category:Non-insitutional bodies of the European Union~~ ~~Category:Non-instiutional bodies of the European Union~~ Category:Non-institutional bodies of the European Union

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The term "other" is vague. The term "non-institutuional" is used in the category description and the text of the corresponding article on the topic; teh category name should use that term instead. Dr. Submillimeter 09:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. "Other" is not helpful for category names, because the word "other" has meaning only if it follows one or more items from which it is being distinguished. Unless the reader is looking at the parent category, the is no context to explain to the reader what "other" might mean. (This really ought to be spelt out in WP:NCCAT#General_naming_conventions). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The intention is to distinguish between these and the 5 Institutions of the European Union formally established by treaty, which are in the parent category of that name. In fact a number of other bodies are in that cat too. I'm not clear, for example, why General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union is not in the category we are discussing. The use of "non-institutional" to describe the European Administrative School and some others seems liable to confuse. Perhaps something like Category:Subsidiary bodies of the European Union or Category:Administrative bodies of the European Union might be better? Some articles might be transferred from the parent to here also. Johnbod 19:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I like the "administrative bodies" suggestion. The website http://europa.eu/institutions/index_en.htm gives a number of names to these organizations, such as "Interinstitutional bodies" and "Consultative bodies". Two miscellaneous organizations are listed under "Other specialized bodies"; maybe Category:Specialized bodies of the European Union would be appropriate? Dr. Submillimeter 20:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to one of the new suggestions above - following consensus. NB There is a spelling mistake in the proposed new name in the nom. Johnbod 22:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Spelling mistake in the nomination fixed. Dr. Submillimeter 23:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply not quite (you were still missing one "T"). I have taken the liberty of correcting the spelling (and probably also ought to recommend Firefox 2.0 with its built-in spill-chucker :) ). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Unofficial Football World Champions[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I note that no rationale for deletion has been offered. There are categories for winners of World Cup, European Championship etc: why not for this title? Kevin McE 08:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (This looks a proposal that was not completed by the nominator (whi is not Kevin McE), so I will provide one.) This is a category for teams which have "won" the Unofficial Football World Championships. The championship is won based on beating the last "champion"; in other words, it is football interpreted as having a title system similar to boxing. Since the title is unofficial, it conveys no real meaning aside from a few fans. Categorizing teams by whether they have won an imaginary title seems inappropriate, which is why the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Submillimeter Alex Middleton 12:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hollywood inspired[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hollywood inspired to Category:Bollywood films inspired by Hollywood films

Nominator's rationale: Rename - existing name is vague. Or delete as non-defining and requiring OR to establish membership. Otto4711 07:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, as per nom. Way too vague. Lankiveil 07:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. None of the articles I looked at had any RS that established what movie the Bollywood homage was based on. 'May be loosely based on' and 'may have been inspired by' screams OR to me. --S ^up? 15:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective, vaguely named category per S|S. Doczilla 17:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The inclusion criteria are very subjective and therefore not useful for organization. Dr. Submillimeter 20:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. Haddiscoe 12:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Sub. Carlossuarez46 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above--Sefringle^Talk 22:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hollywood dance agencies[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category, seems unlikely to expand. Not part of a larger structure of dance studios by city. Otto4711 07:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hollywood Rose[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. The members subcat and name article do not require a category. Otto4711 07:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 17:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wayans family[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. As with many other show business family categories, the articles are extensively interlinked. There is no need for the eponymous category for navigational purposes. Otto4711 06:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom with oh so many precedents. These aren't the only people in the world named Wayans. Doczilla 10:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- these so called "precedents" don't exist unless you consider Otto's personal dislike of these family categories a Wikipedia precedent... --172.133.41.211 07:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Doczilla. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep -- OK, we all know Otto4711 personally despises any and all family categories (is he letting his personal POV cloud his judgment when it comes to these family categories?). But his original intention was to only delete those family categories that had a head list/article that listed all of the family members in one place and allowed for even quicker interlinking. Now he has changed his mind (for whatever reason) and has started nominating articles without these (once required) head lists/articles. He may say that "the articles are already extensively interlinked" but categories are always the easiest and cleanest way to group similar information, and it's best if a user can see it all in one place; "interlinking" doesn't even come close to the usefulness of categories, and we all know that. Also, Category:Hollywood families continues to dwindle as more and more of these subcategories are deleted. Finally, there is a definite paucity of African-American categories/articles/topics on Wikipedia, and I say that the more we can retain the better. The Wayans family is a very notable African-American show-business family in America, and they deserve a category just as much as any other notable family. For all of the aforementioned reasons, I vote to keep. I'm also surprised at your vote BHG: have you now given up on family categories too? --172.133.41.211 07:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Why We Fight[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with no potential for growth. All of the films are linked through the main article and a navtemplate. Why We Fight (2005 film) is unrelated to the series except for being named for it, making it overcategorization by name in common. Otto4711 06:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 17:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:IRL 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:IRL films to Category:Films about interracial romantic relationships

Nominator's rationale: Rename - the existing name makes absolutely no sense and the rename is in line with other subcats of Category:Films by topic. In the alternative, delete as non-defining, since films with such relationships are not necessarily "about" them. Otto4711 06:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, listify if anyone wants to. Lists are much better for this sort of topic, because a list could explain the significance of the interracial romantic relationship(s) in that film: "Illicit love between a Nazi stormtrooper and Gay Jewish Gyspsy in Poland in 1942", "Film about an orangeman in Derry; one minor character is his estranged sister who married a papist"; "Romantic comedy about an eskimo who marries a bedouin and goes to live the Negev desert"; "Story of a South African rugby team in the 1950s, one minor character is dropped for marrying a black woman", etc --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BrownHairedGirl. At the first I thought it is about this IRL. Pavel Vozenilek 14:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that IRL=Ireland; I would never have guessed that it referred to interracial romantic relationships. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Generally, categorizing films by content does not work well, as films may discuss multiple subjects. Moreover, it may be difficult to determine whether such a relationship anyhere in the film is sufficient for meeting the vague inclusion criteria. For example, if two minor characters form a mixed-race couple, would that film be included in the category? What a biograhpical film where a person is briefly in a relationship with a person from another race? An article discussing the topic in general while citing a select few specific examples would be much better. Dr. Submillimeter 16:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename There is no reason to delete this category. And the majority of the films are based on the relationship or the relationship has a significance in the film. Like LGBT-related films, some it may not be directly related but it deals with it and is important in interracial love/relationships and miscegenation history. And also Dr. Submillimeter, yes some of the films may talk about other topics as with most films do but it is still significant and important for some, enough to be mentioned.--Migospia †♥ 23:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. -Sean Curtin 05:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ultimately vague, POV, non-definitional, and not encyclopedic. "Inter-racial" is a very US or Western centric viewpoint. What defines race? What defines whether the movie is "about" it? And as (US/Western) society's attitudes about race change, films "about" inter-"racial" relationships are less remarkable or defining. Carlossuarez46 19:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Subcults[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: unnecessary parent caegory, only contains one hild cat, New Religious Movements, and is also POV since it is classed under "cults" implying that the groups mentionned under New Religious Movements are also cults. Sfacets 03:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When we're supposed to avoid the term "cult", subcult seems even worse. Doczilla 10:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alex Middleton 12:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless empty intervening category, and to remove the POV issue. Many of these seem not be cults, even if one uses that word in that sense. Johnbod 22:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Johnbod sums it up quite well.-Andrew c 03:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all those above. Carlossuarez46 19:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Russ Meyer actresses[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as performers by performance. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 10:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; see related discussion for Hammer actresses here. Otto4711 14:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pe rnom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 19:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Black Wall Street[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for what appears to be almost a vanity label that according to its article has released only one album. If kept, it needs to be renamed Category:The Black Wall Street Records to match the lead article. Otto4711 00:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 17:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Hulk Enemies[edit]

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

The result of the debate was deleted and salted --Kbdank71 18:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, apparently you have to fight them in the Incredible Hulk (video game). Not defining. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt as a recreation of the deleted and salted Category:Hulk villains. Otto4711 00:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest also salting the likely variations "Hulk Enemies," "Hulk enemies" and "The Hulk enemies." Otto4711 01:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and use gamma-ray emitting salt - The Hulk's enemies are apparently impervious to deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 09:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt recreation that also happens to be incorrectly capitalized. Doczilla 10:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt Based on the nom's comments this is likely an inadvertent recreation, but it is still a recreation. And I second Otto's comment, it may be wise to salt the variants, if they aren't already. - J Greb 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New Age female spiritual 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 18:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Isn't spiritual leader subjective? Or at least rename to Category:New Age spiritual leaders. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think it's an interesting phenomenon that in the New Age movement it is women who often become spiritual leaders. Though there are many male New Age leaders, this category is at least interesting. Copy Editor 06:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The term "spiritual leader" seems to be used to broadly encompass authors or people with any level of leadeership position in any New Age movement. Using more specific categories would be more appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter

Comment With the exception of Helen Schucman, all people currently listed in this category have led congregations or spiritual groups at some point. And I might add that A Course In Miracles, the book that Helen Schucman wrote (or allegedly channeled from Jesus), has been used as the basis for various churches, such as Endeavor Academy. Laughing Jesus 08:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to the broader and gender-neutral Category:Leaders of New Age movements. Looking at Category:New Age, it appears that there is no general category of new age leaders, and we should start with an ungendered one before diving by gender. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per BHG Johnbod 19:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the more female-related categories the better. --172.133.41.211 07:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Game[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. The material does not require this categorization to interlink it. Otto4711 00:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 17:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Johnbod 19:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.