Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 11

< March 10	March 12 >

March 11[edit]

Category:Rugby league related lists[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 speedy delete by Vegaswikian under WP:CSD#G7. CounterFX 01:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created this category, unaware that Category:Rugby league lists already existed. GordyB 23:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per creator's request - WP:CSD G7. --Xdamr^talk 00:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:The Today Show[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is effectively a list of people who have worked on The Today Show. As stated before, it is infeasible to categorize people by the shows that they have appeared on, as people work on many shows during their careers, and the resulting category lists are too lengthy to read. Moreover, more informative lists are already given at The Today Show, so listification is not needed. Dr. Submillimeter 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent. Otto4711 22:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and precedent like the Tonight Show category, etc. Doczilla 23:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and precedent. --Xdamr^talk 00:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed based on precedent. Alex43223^{T | C | E} 01:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Anti-Ahmadiyya[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete, but not speedy. We don't generally cat people by opinion, per WP:OC. >Radiant< 14:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy Delete'POV categorization of biography articles. Potential violations of WP:BLP, and also a subjective POV categorization. Ragib 21:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I am not sure it deserves a speedy, but al least a discussion. I linked it to its parent Category Ahmadiyya RaveenS 21:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:How-to Wikipedia[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 14:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Stated purpose is "for building a How-to Wikipedia financed by Wikimedia Foundation...", but no such Wikipedia project exists (There is http://howto.wikia.com, but that is (and must remain) separate from Wikipedia). ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete unworkable, some variety of WP:NOT. --Salix alba (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons, and is "self-reference". -R. S. Shaw 01:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information #4 says, "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things,Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain 'how-tos.'" Therefore, the category could help direct people to good how-to sites, even though that's what an on-line encyclopedia ought to be. -- Chuck Marean 03:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you already created Category:How-to. While I'm not even sure if that category should remain, this new one, at the least, is redundant. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ There are how-to sites I now know about, although I think the first thing I looked up in Wikipedia was "house cleaning", and I didn't find it. It's something you'd think would be somewhere. I've now read six and a half books on house cleaning, and I still don't know what to do. It's a near impossible subject to find out about even in books on the subject. They're full of jokes like "scrub venetian blinds, and do so outside" and "put a lemon in that lemon of a dishwasher." -- Chuck Marean 04:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Chuck, are you voting to keep or delete? (and it probably is a good idea to scrub blinds outside, and I have heard that using a lemon can help clean a dishwasher - those aren't jokes). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've stricken Chuck's contradictory votes until we get clarification from him on what his true feelings are. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a proposal for a new Wikimedia project, not a new Wikipedia category. The creator should go to the Wikimedia site and propose it there (though I'm sure the issue must have been discussed before, as "how-tos" are one of the main exclusions from Wikipedia. Nathanian 12:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:California Ranchos[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 14:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:California Ranchos to Category:California ranchos

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, No need for rancho to be capitalized; bring in line with category:California missions and category:California presidios. jengod 21:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename capitalization error. Otto4711 21:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per ~~above~~ Wilchett. --Xdamr^talk 01:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename --emerson7 | Talk 03:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Correct form for man-made places is Category:Ranchos in California. Wilchett 15:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Ranchos in California. per Wilchett. Nathanian 12:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as caps error. Alex43223^{T | C | E} 01:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Ranchos in California per building and structures convention. (Or possibly Category:Ranches in California, which is English). Wimstead 12:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me panelists[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as another inappropriate performer by project category. I'm reasonably sure this is recreated content, if so this should be speedily deleted and perhaps salted. Otto4711 20:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 23:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. --emerson7 | Talk 03:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inappropriate. Alex43223^{T | C | E} 01:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as 'performers by performance' category. --Xdamr^talk 18:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Zimbabwean Australians[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. --Xdamr^talk 13:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only contains one person, who is an Australian with Zimbabwean heritage. Overcategorisation and unclear category name. greenrd 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a more general African Australians cat that could be applied here. --Peta 01:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rhodesian or Zimbabwean immigrants are an important part of Australian population. RaveenS 21:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep the no. of articles is not relevant; the entire category structure for immigrants and emigrants is. Hmains 02:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Hmains Mayumashu 04:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep contains twice as many people now! (I added government minister Chris Ellison). --Canley 13:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:NFL Network personalities[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We previously decided not to categorize people by network because people appear on many networks during their careers. The resulting categorization is not meaningful but causes category clutter problems. Therefore, this category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 19:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent. Otto4711 20:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague cat per precedent. Doczilla 23:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Major League Baseball on ESPN[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - See the 4 Mar 2007 debates on related categories. This category should have been listed there but was not. Since similar categories for baseball on other networks have been deleted because they were effectively lists of announcer by show (which caused category clutter problems), this category should be deleted as well. Dr. Submillimeter 19:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent. Otto4711 20:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 01:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:The NHL on ABC[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - See the 4 Mar 2007 debates on related categories. These categories should have been listed there but was not. Since similar categories for hockey on other networks have been deleted because they were effectively lists of announcer by show (which caused category clutter problems), these categories should be deleted as well. Dr. Submillimeter 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent. Otto4711 19:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:The NBA on ABC[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - See the 4 Mar 2007 debates on related categories. This category should have been listed there but was not. Since similar categories for basketball on other networks have been deleted because they were effectively lists of announcer by show (which caused category clutter problems), this category should be deleted as well. Dr. Submillimeter 19:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent. Otto4711 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 01:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:SportsCenter[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is effectively a category of announcers by sports program. Such categories create category clutter problems, as sports announcers work on many shows during their careers. The resulting category lists are difficult to read. Please delete this category; I am tired of repeating myself. Dr. Submillimeter 19:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent. Otto4711 19:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:ESPN College Football[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - See the 4 Mar 2007 debates on related categories. These categories should have been listed there but was not. Since similar categories for college football on other networks have been deleted because they were effectively lists of announcer by show (which caused category clutter problems), these categories should be deleted as well. Dr. Submillimeter 19:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent. Otto4711 19:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Former NASCAR drivers[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Proponents of deletion are advised to renominate. >Radiant< 14:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former NASCAR drivers to Category:NASCAR drivers

Merge - In general, categories are not used to indicate status (such as "current", "former", "retired", "deceased", etc.). Therefore, Category:Former NASCAR drivers should be merged into Category:NASCAR drivers. Dr. Submillimeter 18:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - An identical proposal was debated in a 8 Sep 2006 discussion. The discussion was split even between keep and merge votes. Dr. Submillimeter 19:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- I really don't understand why this is being debated again. It was agreed that it would be kept, because it is very important to Wikiproject NASCAR. For the organization of the hundreds of NASCAR pages it is necessary to have this sub-category. Casey14 19:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. We do not categorize people by occupation in terms of "former" and "current." There are about 350 articles in the "former" category and less than 200 in NASCAR drivers. Combining the two does not make the category so unmanageable as to require breaking with SOP to keep this category. It was not "agreed" that this would be kept. The previous CFD closed with no consensus, defaulting to "keep." Otto4711 19:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Former NASCAR driver category is crucial to Wikiproject NASCAR. Yes, there may be only 350 some current articles in the category at the time being, but over 1000 are possible. There are well over 1500 forner NASCAR drivers that all, under Wikipedia's provisions, can get pages. The NASCAR wikiproject is quickly growing, with only two years ago it had a handfull of pages. It is a vital page to the Wikiproject. The former NASCAR driver page had been all included in current NASCAR drivers. The page was tremendously unmanageable, and this comes from someone that had to deal with the page. Casey14 21:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So categorize by state of birth, or year of debut, or team if applicable, or some other method. I see no reason to make this category an exception to the general consensus. I'm willing to bet there are at least 10 or 20 times more MLB players or NFL players than there are NASCAR drivers and those projects have managed to figure out ways to categorize them without resorting to "current" and "former" categorization. Otto4711 21:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's so easy for someone to tell someone else to organize it another way when they do not have to do it themself. This category saves hours of work. This category merge would lead to a loss of time used to help improve other NASCAR articles, and would stunt the growth of the wikiproject as a whole. It is quite easy for you to say that it needs to be changed, yet you don't pour hours into the maintanence of the project. Casey14 00:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Casey14. I've recently had to use the categories to organize templates for drivers. Without the separation, it would have taken ten times more work than usual. Take it from someone who has worked on this project. The separation is necessary. --D-Day 21:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge for consistency with general practice. AshbyJnr 01:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Comment If this category is essential to the work of the NASCAR WikiProject, which I will take on faith that it is, then it should follow the usual practice for internal WikiProject categorisation. That is to say the Project banner ought to be set up with a parameter to identify former drivers. Setting this parameter would then list these articles (or at least their talk pages) within a 'former drivers' sub-category of Category:WikiProject NASCAR. As far as general encyclopaedic categorisation goes, 'current', 'former', 'retired', etc, etc, are inappropriate.

Xdamr^talk 01:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I looked over how other motorsport leagues organize their drivers. None organize by team. Many current drivers, including NASCAR drivers change teams every year. 1950s and 1960s NASCAR drivers would frequently drive for a team for a week or a few weeks, and then move to up to say 10 teams in a year. Look at the list of drivers for the Wood Brothers in the late 1950s and 1960s [1]. It's a huge mess that would take way too long to create and could never work anyhow. Nearly all NASCAR drivers ever are from the United States, so you can't organize them by country like other motorsport leagues do. Organizing my home state are not logical or useful, because only the top few drivers ever get refered to by state. I don't see how using year of birth or year of their first start are useful in any way, and would likely only result in a future CFD nomination. With over 1000 potential articles, there needs to be a way to subdivide the articles, and I see no better way than by active versus former drivers. The transition from active to former driver is generally decisive. It can always be easily undone. Royalbroil^T : C 05:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the other sub-cats of Category:Racecar drivers by series are subdivided by former and current status. As has been noted, the Project banner can be set to make the differentiation. Otto4711 06:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did review the other sub-cats of Category:Racecar drivers by series as I noted above. Plus I looked over the organzing methods for the NFL and NBA's athletes. I am a member of 4 racing WikiProjects, including the parent WikiProject Motorsport. The other WikiProject have far less drivers than NASCAR has had, and what works for them doesn't work in NASCAR. I would change the WikiProject banner if I knew how to. I would appreciate someone pointing me in the right direction on how to implement User:Xdamr's suggestion about the 'former drivers' sub-category? A link to an example would be sufficient. Royalbroil^T : C 15:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, for example, the WP:BIO banner ({{WPBiography}}) and how it internally sub-categorises articles according to the appropriate WP:BIO work group, as specified in the banner (eg.setting the Military work group flag places the article in Category:Military work group articles). Likewise with the WP:MILHIST banner. These are the two that spring most prominently to mind, though undoubtedly there are others.

Xdamr^talk 18:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sensible sub-division of a large category. If other categories aren't organised this way, then perhaps it's time they should be. Jheald 08:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete as a bad precedent. Wikipedia is not a sports results service. Wilchett 15:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and listify If the purpose of the category is for a specific project's adminstrative reasons, then seems to me the solution is to convert it to a list article and have the project use the list article. As noted above categories do not normally distinguish between current and former professional status. Dugwiki 16:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as a member of the NASCAR Wikiproject and someone who regularly votes on CFDs, it's my opinion that the way our project does it is wrong and that all of the NASCAR categories like this should be brought in line with Wikipedia standards. Lists are much better for conveying this type of information because they can cite sources and are more easily edited. Categories should usually be reserved for relatively broad groups of articles -- like people that have driven in NASCAR -- and do not need to be subdivided. Recury 16:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Recury. Wimstead 12:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It's preferable to be able to see all the most notable practitioners of whatever in one category. Craig.Scott 03:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Recury. Vegaswikian 08:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Aly & AJ[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 speedy keep, take it to deletion review if you actually think two for two against constitutes consensus to delete Tim! 17:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while the first CFD on this category just closed today, the fact that 14 other categories from the same parent Category:Categories named after actors were all nominated and deleted at the same time while this was the only one to survive warrants further examination of the category. From the March 4 CFDs, categories for John Wayne, Rudolph Valentino, Barbra Streisand, William Shatner, Olsen Twins, Ingrid Bergman, Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn, Hilary Duff, Mel Gibson, Steve Coogan, Sacha Baron Cohen, Fred Astaire, and Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers were all deleted as being improperly used as performer by performance categories whose contents were better served navigationally by being linked through the main subject article rather than a category. 14 deletions strikes me as pretty strong consensus against this sort of category yet this one survived despite having no material in it that wasn't already linked through the main Aly and AJ article. The subcats remain properly housed in categories for Album and Song by artist, just as similar categories for Streisand and Duff are housed, so that is not a bar to deletion. Given the strong expression against these sorts of eponymous categories and given that the survival of this one seems like an aberration, the category should be deleted. Otto4711 16:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Natives of Vilnius[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 Category:Natives of Vilnius to Category:People from Vilnius. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from Vilnius, convention of Category:People by city in Lithuania. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. - Darwinek 21:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per convention. AshbyJnr 01:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 22:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Sherlock Holmes actors[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. Arguments against listification convinced me. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Actors by role, per discussion of November 2nd. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete recreation per Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_2#Actors_by_role_and_subcategories. Doczilla 23:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but the gap is too great and the category too natural for many people to create for speedying. AshbyJnr 01:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. The previous discussion was held prior to the development of the {{listify}} template; some editors suggested it as an option, but it was not followed. In this particular case, a list of actors who have played Sherlock Holmes would be useful encyclopedic content, and could serve as an adjunct to the article Sherlock Holmes in other media. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify / Delete, You're right, this ought to be a list. Changing my vote. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not listify, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actors who have played Hamlet. Otto4711 16:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without listification given that AfD seem to have a dim view of these sort of articles. --Xdamr^talk 18:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Top Model Franchise[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 14:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Top Model Franchise to Category:America's Next Top Model spin-offs

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, sub category on the Category:Television spin-offs Kinsts 15:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Seems like this is the proper parent category suggestion. The question is whether the subcategories should be upmerged. Most shows in this category are not a part of subcategories. I guess the number of subcategory members makes this category viable. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Radio programs on XM Radio[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: do not merge, but perhaps a convention needs to be formed on this. >Radiant< 14:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Radio programs on XM Radio to Category:American radio programs

Merge, we do not classify radio programs by whether they are available on particular satellite services, as far as I can see. greenrd 14:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the convention of categorizing shows by network. See for example Category:Air America Radio which houses Air America programming. Otto4711 20:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Otto has a good point. That could be a future possibility (what about SIRIUS?) Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 22:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Pan Am Games host cities[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. Already a list at Pan American Games. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pan Am Games host cities to Category:Pan American Games host cities

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, no reason to use colloquialisms. Punkmorten 14:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non defining attribute of a city. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Prove It. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcat. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 22:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify 132.205.44.134 22:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Popular organists[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 14:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming - Category:Popular organists to something which isn't POV. The category is meant for organ players who aren't classical specialists, so "organists for non-classical music", or "Pop organists", that sort of thing. Don't really know what to suggest. Category:Non-classical organists? Any suggestions welcome. MDCollins (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the convention (documented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization) is to categorize by nationality, instrument, and genre (e.g. Category:American rock guitarists). "Non-classical" would be categorizing people by what they're not, which we don't do. So all these people have to appropriately categorized. Not just blindly moved to some not- category. IMO. People who aren't exclusively organists should probably be recategorized into subcategories of Category:Keyboardists. (A category that should, itself, really be empty except for subcats.) Xtifr _tälk 21:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - they are not being blindly moved! If you look at WP:PipeOrgan you will see the debate that is going on, and the fact that we are tagging by nationality. I have mentioned this at WikiProject Musicians, and they said raise it here. We are not debating whether they are organists or not, just whether they specialise on classical music. Other sub categories of Category:Popular organists include Category:Hammond organ players and Category:Jazz organists which give a flavour of the types of players referred to (as opposed to pipe organ playing Category:Cathedral organists for example. It isn't just 'pop' being referred to either, as organists at baseball games for example have also been categorised, hence the category for all genres apart from Classical music. If it is too large, they will be sub-catted as appropriate. MDCollins (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying they are being blindly moved—I'm saying that they should not be blindly moved to a category like "non-classical". My comment about "blindly moving" was only addressed to that one suggestion. I suspect that the best thing to do is keep this category for now, but deprecate it, and create a proper structure per the WP:Musicians guidelines, and move the articles into that. Once this category is empty, then it can be simply and easily deleted. Xtifr _tälk 04:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Pop organists" seems okay, as (to me) it suggests the folk described above rather than "organists who are popular". Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What we're looking for is something that mirrors Category:Classical organists as a higher-level category in which we can put Category:Jazz organists, Category:Hammond organ players and the like as sub-categories. If Category:Popular music organists wouldn't be seen as suggesting that they were "pop" musicians, would that work? Bencherlite 11:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC) (WP PipeOrgan project member)[reply]
- Per the existing guidelines, Classical organists and Jazz organists should both be subcategories of Category:Organists by genre. Hammond organ players should simply be a subcategory of Organists, as it's not a genre. Xtifr _tälk 03:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. –MDCollins (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Pop organists and create under parent Category:Pop musicians by instrument I'd suggest renaming this to Category:Pop organists and place it as a subcategory of Category:Pop musicians by instrument. That would make it consistent with Category:Pop singers and Category:Pop pianists. Dugwiki 16:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but "Pop organists" suggests that they all play pop music, whereas they play "popular" (i.e. non-classical) music. What's needed is the best synonym for "non-classical" organists, and I don't think "pop" quite fits. Bencherlite 15:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Microcomputer software[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Rename sounds plausible but no new name given; suggest renomination after that's figured out. >Radiant< 14:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete - the classification has not been useful for some time. The majority of software in existence today runs on microcomputers - software solely for supercomputers and certain other specialised machines are arguably the only exceptions, if we take "microcomputer" to mean "a computer having microprocessor(s) as its CPU(s)". So, microcomputer software is the default kind of software - much like books with pages made of paper are the default kind of books, and there is little use in having a separate category for it, except perhaps inside a "historical software" category classifying very old (>20 years old?) software. greenrd 14:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and redefine - i.e. delete this category and establish a new one with a name denoting the multiformat µComp SW of the 70s and early 80s, which was originally the intent of this category. I saw the need for a category to contain µComp software and related concepts not connected to a specific machine and/or OS (-family) of 70s hobbyist and/or 80s home computers, for which separate categories the present µComp SW category is a parent. Two examples of such SW products are VisiCalc and Tiny BASIC. Maybe a suitable name for a new category, without said parent relation, could be "Multiformat early microcomputer software" or "Multiformat 8-bit microcomputer software"? --Wernher 14:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)}}}[reply]
Rename - The sub categories seem useful and need parenting. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (possibly rename and tighten up criteria what could be present here). Current contents is one big mess. Pavel Vozenilek 12:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Software tools[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. No, one rename won't fix a structure, but it's a start (and there was no actual objection to this particular renaming). By all means start a broader discussion. >Radiant< 14:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Software tools to Category:Programming tools

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, more accurate description, and in line with the new name of the main article of this category. greenrd 13:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oppose The category structure in this area is messed up; this one change will not fix the problem. What is needed first is a discussion of what are good categories for 'software' as a whole; once that is concluded, then it can be implemented by having the necessary category and subcategory structure set up and moving articles to their proper location. Hmains 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:London events[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:London events into Category:Festivals in London. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:London events to Category:Festivals in London

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to the standard form for this kind of thing as per Category:Festivals in England. I have moved the three sporting events to the very well populated category:Sport in London. Greg Grahame 13:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. AshbyJnr 01:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to cat above Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 22:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Professionalism of Exercise Physiology[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lists are not categories. This contains a list of books and one article, which is actually what should be the "main article" link, so arguably it contains no articles. greenrd 13:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Actually, that link doesn't count as a main article - it merely provides context, so it shouldn't be in the category.--greenrd 15:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is just an arbitrary list of references. It is not even worth making this into an article. Dr. Submillimeter 18:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as list of refs that are not needed as a seperate category. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 22:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Projects cancelled before service[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 Category:Projects cancelled before service to Category:Abandoned United States military projects. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Projects cancelled before service to Category:Engineering projects cancelled before service

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The current category name denotes a larger scope than the intended scope of the category, which seems to be only about cancelled engineering projects, not all cancelled projects. greenrd 13:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename but to something more fitting. All items I see are related to US military. Pavel Vozenilek 12:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Abandoned United States military projects. Cancelled is not in my spell checker. Vegaswikian 09:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Practices which elevate body temperature[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not needed - the fact that the practice elevates body temperature can be noted in the articles, where it is relevant. greenrd 13:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Recury 16:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lasallian schools[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 14:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lasallian schools to Category:Lasallian educational institutions

Merge. Usage of the term "school" varies regionally, covering colleges and universities in North America but not in the United Kingdom. Since the Lasallian Brothers have a global presence, this ambiguity is giving rise to confusion, with several of the 'schools' included in the category not really belonging. CounterFX 10:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Although Category:Lasallian high schools appears to be better defined, it nonetheless has several erroneous entries, and is still susceptible to regional interpretations (check out the usage of the term "high school" in the United Kingdom and other languages). In some countries, the term "high school" is obscure and virtually unheard of; categorising secondary schools from such countries into Category:Lasallian high schools goes against the spirit of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Thus, I would also propose merging it into Category:Lasallian educational institutions as well. CounterFX 11:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Honbicot 12:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: It appears that the merger of Category:Lasallian schools into Category:Lasallian educational institutions may go ahead. I will leave it up to your judgement on whether to merge Category:Lasallian high schools as well. If you decide against it, please state your counter-arguments to the points I mentioned above. CounterFX 10:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Converts to Islam[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 14:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Category:Converts to Islam

Housekeeping from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 4, I believe there is consensus to delete these categories, but some were not tagged or listed in the nomination. Tim! 10:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There's no reason to subdivide like this. Sounds like point-scoring to me. — coel acan — 00:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all --Java7837 04:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong do not merge - It is pointless to lump all individuals into one enormous category that does not differentiate by national origin. I thus strongly object to this merge proposal. Badagnani 04:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nationality is a very useful piece of context in these cases. Wilchett 15:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong support. Having this list by nationality is very POV pushing and is done on purpose to make it seem like there are a lot more converts to Islam than there really are. It is better as one category, like we do with converts to all other religions.--Sefringle 23:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the by-continent categories. No comment on the by-nationality or by-former-religion categories at this point, but some of them look a bit underpopulated. If they're kept they should be subcategorised into Category:Converts to Islam by nationality and Category:Converts to Islam by former religion. cab 05:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't buy the idea that it is POV pushing, and the other categories should get subdivided as they grow. Craig.Scott 03:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong support for merge all Islam does not deserve special treatment compared to the other religions. I agree with Sefringle 100% --ProtectWomen 06:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support for deletion and merge all further subdivision works to create a lot of categories with only one member .. like 'Jamaican converts to Islam'. Keep it the same as converts to/from Christianity.DavidYork71 07:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per Sefringle. Arrow740 07:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Massacres in the United States of America[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 Category:Massacres in the United States of America to Category:Massacres in the United States. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Massacres in the United States of America to Category:Massacres in the United States

Nominator's Rationale: Rename United States of America >> United States, consistent with other U.S. hist cats. jengod 09:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. CounterFX 10:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom to match parent and sibling categories. Hmains 16:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, consistent and shorter. — coel acan — 00:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.RaveenS 21:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Antiques experts[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antiques experts to Category:Antiquarians

Merge, it seems they are the same thing. A soft redirect is probably in order. Eliyak T·C 08:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Not the same thing at all. The term Antiquarian was used mainly from the 16th to the early 19th century, and the people to whom it was applied were engaged in very different activities from the antiques experts who appear on the Antiques Roadshow. Honbicot 12:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some antiques experts may be considered antiquarians, but by no means all. Nobody would ever call a specialist in a particular genre, say Wedgewood, an antiquarian. And antiquarians need know nothing about physical antiques. Merging or renaming these two categories is an absurdity. Quatloo 20:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What Quatloo said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengod (talk • contribs) 11 March 2007, 21:21
Keep as Honbicot and Quatloo. Bencherlite 17:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Antiques experts as there is no objective definition as to who is or isn't an "expert" in antiques. Otto4711 22:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The people on antiques shows are notable primarily as antique experts, so it is essential that they are categorised as such. Nathanian 12:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Money of Lithuania[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 speedily deleted by Garion96 under WP:CSD#G8. mattbr³⁰ 12:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, orphaned talk page of a moved category. ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Hulk Hogan[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the articles are for films or TV shows in which Hogan appeared, making it an improper performer by performance categorization. The other articles on such things as Leg drop and The Fingerpoke of Doom are already appropriately categorized elsewhere. The family subcat is already appropriately housed in a category for wrestling families. This category should be deleted. Otto4711 06:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Doczilla 23:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well ya know, Mean Gene, I'm going to say delete. Same reasoning as Doczilla. Everything is categorized sufficiently elsewhere and also linked from main article. Dugwiki 16:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Gerry Anderson[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to "Supermarionation" and move character articles to subcats. >Radiant< 14:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the category is being used as a placeholder for sub-categories for television series produced by Anderson, making it an improper person by project categorization. The bulk of the articles so categorized are also improper as person by production and it's also being used to capture articles on actors who appeared in one or more of his productions. The topics are linked through his eponymous article. The category should be deleted. Otto4711 06:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Honbicot 12:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meaningful grouping. These '60s sci-fi puppet shows shared a very distinctive look, and largely the same creative team. It makes sense to group them together. Rename the category if you want to, but Gerry Anderson's name is how they tend to be collectively referred to. (And for the record, the categories appear to contain a fair number of articles other than just person by production) Jheald 13:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, they also contain a number of articles for individual characters from the series, which is completely inappropriate. Those should be categorized under the series, not under Anderson. Otto4711 15:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, the various series categories should themselves be categorised together. That is my point. Jheald 00:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Doczilla 23:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That section was added to Wikipedia:Overcategorization on March 7, so it's not exactly settled as part of the guideline. (I'm not a fan of that page anyway, but that's me.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, it has only been added recently. However it reflects what had already become widespread consensus on CfD, a consensus which came about long before the 7th.

Xdamr^talk 18:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Gerry Anderson television series are widely regarded as sharing a visual style and themes. There is also substantial overlap among the people who worked with Anderson on the various series, and the techniques used in them. I see nothing wrong with categorizing the people who worked with Anderson by that association. However, I acknowledge the general opposition to "person by production" — but this is an argument for removing individuals from the category, not for deleting the category. Pages like Supermarionation and AP Films have an obvious association with Anderson, and there is no reason why the articles sharing an obvious subject should not be categorized together. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that per numerous previous CFDs, eponymous categories are largely unnecessary when the articles that would be housed in them are or should be properly interlinked to use the main article as the navigational hub. Otto4711 14:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But why shouldn't there be a category for Captain Scarlet, Fireball XL5 and other productions by Gerry Anderson? They've got as much in common as, say Category:Pixar films. This could be considered categorization by production company, except that at some point in the 1960s the company changed its name from AP Films to Century 21 Productions. Even if there is a general argument against categorization by name, some category should exist to group the television series produced by Anderson and bearing his distinctive style. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason why there shouldn't be a category drawing productions together by production company. If you want a category named after the production company to house the productions, I certainly have no objection. It's not a problem that the name changed, as we routinely change the names of articles and categories to reflect name changes in the company. So make Category:Century 21 Productions and note in the category description that it encompasses projects from the company's entire history including its time as AP Films and then delete this category since the relevant articles are all interlinked through Gerry Anderson. Otto4711 21:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sufficiently important as per Wikipedia:Categorization of people#By the person's name. Tim! 17:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from the improperly categorised 'person by production' articles, there are too few articles/sub-categories to justify an eponymous category. Just because something is connected with Anderson, that is no reason to categorise it under his name. This is as per the guideline in Wikipedia:Overcategorization. I'm afraid that I fail to see anything in Wikipedia:Categorization of people#By the person's name which indicates that 'importance' is a valid criterion for an eponymous categorisation. My reading of it leads me to conclude that the sole basis of judgement is a significant number of directly connected articles.

Xdamr^talk 18:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unlike many of the other eponymous categories, this is useful in drawing together the many projects and companies that Gerry Anderson has worked with. Bob talk 19:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:Josiah Rowe's arguments regarding the comparison to Category:Pixar films. --DeLarge 20:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Supermarionation or somesuch. 132.205.44.134 23:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of the comments above talk about how the category is useful for bringing together "projects he worked on". But in fact his main article already does just that! Why go to this category to look up the television shows and other things this person did when they are already neatly listed in his main article? Therefore listing his television series and other works is not sufficient reason to keep the category. What might be a reason to keep the category is that some of the articles might be considered subarticles about the man. It's that type of article that might convince me this category is useful, not the shows he did. Dugwiki 16:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also support the suggested Rename to shows by production company as mentioned above. If that's done, it should be named after the company, not the founder. Dugwiki 16:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Xdamr. Everything in this category can be easily found in Gerry Anderson and vice versa. The category is redundant and encourages overcategorization. -- Samuel Wantman 08:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Super Friends[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Previous CFD closed no consensus, however, I believe there is strong consensus against categorizing super-team members by team. The bulk of the articles in this category are individual team members. Removing them would leave the articles for the shows, which should be categorized at either Category:Superhero television programs or Category:Television programs based on DC Comics, and a couple of miscellaneous articles on the toy line and the headquarters. all the non-character articles should be linked through each other and the main Super Friends article and the characters are all listed in the main article. The category should be deleted. Otto4711 05:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the previous superhero team category deletions. Plus, we can't categorize every character based on every media venue in which the character has appeared. Doczilla 06:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia:WikiProject comics apparently decided not to categorize fictional characters by affiliation for reasons that have been stated previously. This should be deleted for consistency. Dr. Submillimeter 09:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as previous removals of "Team member" cats. Nothing about this category makes it an exception of those reasonings. — J Greb 20:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Over the Hedge 2 characters[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 semi-speedy delete. – Steel 13:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Over the Hedge 2 characters. WP:NOT a crystal ball. FMAFan1990 04:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 06:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and that there are no individual character pages. mattbr³⁰ 12:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Polygamists[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_3#Category:Polygamists greenrd 03:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per discussion of February 3rd. -- Prove It ^(talk) 05:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - We previously decided not to categorize people this way. Moreover, it would not be useful in some cultures or countries. Dr. Submillimeter 09:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - As I had already opined a month ago. Pascal.Tesson 14:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Since we already deleted Category:Polygamists it doesn't make sense to keep the subcategories for "polygamist by nationality", etc. Dugwiki 16:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Prominent Anglicans[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. As noted, these articles already are in a better subcategory of "Anglicans" so merging would be rather pointless. >Radiant< 14:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Anglicans, we assume that if they weren't notable in some way they wouldn't have an article at all. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're probably right. But what happens to the pages with the old category? -- InkQuill 04:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I've looked at Category:Anglicans, I believe Prominent Anglicans is a subcategory of Anglicans, which lists anyone who happens to be Anglican. How about changing Prominent Anglicans to Anglican and Episcopal Bishops as a subcategory of Anglicans? -- InkQuill 05:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge means that all would become members of Category:Anglicans, even if they weren't already. I would also support merging into Category:Anglican bishops if that that would make more sense, and someone wanted to check them all. -- Prove It ^(talk) 05:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Anglicans - For reasons stated above and in Wikipedia:Overcategorization, we do not use words like "prominent" in category names. PResumably anyone with a Wikipedia article is "prominent". Dr. Submillimeter 09:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Straight delete It looks like all these articles are in more detailed Anglicanism categories already. Honbicot 12:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV. Quatloo 20:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge POV—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 23:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV and unnecessary additional category. I'm happy to help clean up and recategorise if consensus is against keeping this category - let me know if I can help. Bencherlite 17:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Sponsorship and Funding in Australian Universities[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: merge as suggested. >Radiant< 14:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goes against WP:SPAM to give organisations publicity like this. Ansell 03:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete the category doesn't make a lot of sense; and sponsorship isn't typically used as a category on wp. --Peta 01:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless a viable alternative is proposed. The category doesn't go against WP:SPAM and I don't really see how a category could. If the category doesn't make sense, fine, suggest an alternative. Elaborating on what doesn't make sense about it would be helpful. I created this category precisely because the article in it didn't fit into an existing category. To suggest that we cannot deviate from what is typical is akin to stopping someone going to the Moon because they haven't been before! Mallanox 03:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is so special about the only article in the category that it could not fit into the Category:Australian university groups at best, or the encyclopedia as a whole at worst. The category as it stands does not even have a viable definition. Should any company who donates money to a university be able to get into such a category? And if they could get in just by being able to donate money why should wikipedia recognise their donation with a category of knowledge? Ansell 07:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Fair enough, then why not move the article into that category and have it speedy deleted as an empty category then? Mallanox 00:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - In all truth I didn't realise that the other category existed at the time. I also thought that this would provide a better forum for discussion than quietly speedying a category where there seemed to be an issue at stake. Ansell 13:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Ottoman-Saudi war[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 Category:Ottoman-Saudi war to Category:Battles of the Ottoman-Saudi War. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ottoman-Saudi war to Category:Battles of the Ottoman-Saudi War

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for consistency with naming standard of parent category. greenrd 02:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom; to match naming use around it Hmains 16:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and associated conventions. (Most of the articles in it need to be renamed to something less cryptic as well, incidentally.) Kirill Lokshin 18:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:ObjectWeb[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 14:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ObjectWeb to Category:OW2 Consortium

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The organisation has merged with Orientware, and as a result, has changed its name. greenrd 02:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Order of Lafayette[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 10:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only contains one entry after over three months. greenrd 02:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:National Magazines[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is not useful to classify magazines into such a category. The creator was probably thinking "United States" when they wrote "National", which is improperly US-centric for Wikipedia. greenrd 01:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only current member is already in Category:American magazines. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the previous comments. mattbr³⁰ 12:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Honbicot 12:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Izzy259[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; user category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Created by a new user, contains only themselves. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Neocron 2[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 10:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, contains only one real article, over four months after creation. greenrd 00:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Movie studios[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:Movie studios into Category:Film studios. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a reorganisation was proposed on Category Talk:Movie studios in 2005, but this proposal hasn't been acted upon, therefore the category is defunct. greenrd 00:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Film studios -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Prove It. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into and to Category:Film studios. mattbr³⁰ 12:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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