Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 14

< March 13	March 15 >

March 14[edit]

Category:Domesticated animals by country[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 see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 15. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See March 15; since the proposal and templates have chnaged. --Peta 21:48, 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:Rudy Giuliani[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) 07:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The main article serves as a navigational hub for the articles in the category and there is insufficient material to justify an eponymous category. Note that we deleted a similar category for another presidential candidate recently, for Barack Obama, lest there be any worry that the nomination is partisan or political. Otto4711 19:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The concern I have is that at least one of the articles in this category, Political views of Rudy Giuliani, doesn't itself appear to have a good category. If that article or any similar articles exist as seperate subarticles specifically about Giuliani, we might want to keep Category:Rudy Giuliani to avoid orphaning them. Dugwiki 22:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political views of Mitt Romney is currently housed in Category:United States presidential election, 2008 (and also in Category:Mitt Romney which probably ought to be deleted for lack of content as well). Political views of Joe Lieberman is housed in Category:Politics of the United States. Political views of Barack Obama was orphaned by the category deletion. We could house the articles together in one of the existing categories I mentioned or create something like Category:Political views by candidate. I don't in general like the notion of keeping a category for a single article. Of course they're all housed in various categories for unsourced quotes or factual verification so that counts, right? :-) Otto4711 22:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think for consistency all such "Political views of X" articles should be handled in the same fashion. As noted above it sounds like right now it's sort of a hodge podge of schemes. Given that I think I'd support Category:Political views by candidate to house all such articles, and once that's created deleting any particular eponymous politician categories like this one that probably aren't necessary at that point. Dugwiki 17:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created and started populating Category:Political views by candidate and placed it as a subcat of Category:Politics. Otto4711 18:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Doczilla 05:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A substantial number of directly connected articles/sub-categories are required to merit an eponymous category. --Xdamr^talk 19:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clearly defined need. -- Samuel Wantman 00:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Premature, but recreate if he becomes president. Greg Grahame 13:50, 18 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:Video games by societal reaction[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) 07:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category only has one subcategory, Category:Controversial video games. It seems very odd to have a category "by societal reaction" when there's only one category involved. Recommend changing Category:Controversial video games parent categories to Category:Video games and Category:Controversial entertainment media and deleting Category:Video games by societal reaction Dugwiki 22:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and I'm not too thrilled about there being a category tree including the word "controversial" because of POV/OR issues, but I suppose that's a discussion for another nomination. Otto4711 22:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This category encourages the development of POV categories. It should be deleted. (Category:Controversial video games will be nominated for deletion shortly.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I concur with Dr. Submillimeter. --Rimshots 10:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and I echo the POV/OR concerns expressed about the tree. --Xdamr^talk 19:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vague and POV ("societal reaction" to most things is remarkably diverse). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 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 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:Washington Irving[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Washington Irving to Category:Works of Washington Irving

Nominator's Rationale: Rename and restrict to articles about his writings. I removed a few non-works related articles (on such topics as Irvington, New York) after verifying that they were all adequately interlinked to Washington Irving. Even with those articles there was insufficient material to warrant a separate category and the main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub for that material. Rename to bring in line with other similar "works of" categories for other writers. Otto4711 18:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --Xdamr^talk 19:21, 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:Art books[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. Vegaswikian 21:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Art books to Category:Books about visual art

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, More descriptive. Distinguishes these books from Artist's books which are books by artists as works of art. --sparkit ^TALK 17:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question? - are these all books "about" or are some at least books "of" art. I.e. containing example primarily. And also are we sure they are all "Visual" art. Just checking! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few are collections "of" art. I did consider the distinction in choosing a preposition for the title and figured that "about" would include "of" - in most cases "of" books, or published collections, also contain sufficient written explanatory and analysis to be considered "about". If at some point in the future there are more than 45 titles in this category a subcategory for "of"s could be created.

A few are not specifically about visual art, so perhaps an above category is needed named "Books about art" for the likes of Jim Henson: The Works and The Magic Behind the Voices books, but I hesitate to make such changes until a decision on the renaming is made. --sparkit ^TALK 13:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, on the basis you appear to understand the issues and are prepared to handle them. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Mowsbury 11:52, 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:Air Bud[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus Tim! 18:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The category is unnecessary to serve as a navigational hub for the film series. The articles are all interlinked through the use of lists and infoboxes. Otto4711 16:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination --Rimshots 17:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep have such a category takes some of the clutter away from the individual articles. For example the category becomes a subcategory of the genre meaning the individual articles don't need to have the genre category. Malla nox 23:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As much as it makes me want to hit myself on the wrist with a spoon for an hour and a half, this film series scoots itself (much like Air Bud before he gets his impacted anal gland squeezed by the vet) past the threshold of category-worthy. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Delete per Xdamr's point. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The category contains only iterations in a franchise. This is best accomplished through a series box cf Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 2#Category:Poltergeist films. Rather like eponymous bio categories, I think we need a substantial number of directly connected articles to justify categories like this.

Xdamr^talk 19:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This category isn't needed for navigation. ChazBeckett 16:31, 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 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:Books by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus Tim! 18:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe to Category:Works of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Merge, Naming convention; Category:Works of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe already exists. — goethean ॐ 17:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, having just tidied up the anomoly of "Work" categories being a subcategory of "Books" i'd rather not have the confusion of the same muddle being created, again. If this is merged don't for goodness sake make a super-category a sub-category. Do please have a look at the tidiness of Category:Books by author and see if we really want to go backwards on this. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. von Goethe has a diverse enough of a literary portfolio to merit these distinctive categories. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could someone please elaborate on this comment? They are all "works" of Goethe. He only has 26 works (including "books", whatever that means) listed at List of works by Johann Wolfgang Goethe. Why subdivide the category into two? I am genuinely confused regarding what you are trying to accomplish here. — goethean ॐ 17:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments on your talk page. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge either way. Yes, there's a difference, but yes it's redundant. >Radiant< 14:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not with "Works of" filed under "Books by" it isn't redundant, just messy. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't object in principle to what has been done to change the set up of these categories. The current arrangement is acceptable. However isn't it still an open discussion, and as such the action can be seen as a little premature. Just a small observation. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:21, 21 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:Canadian curlers by province or territory[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:Canadian curlers by province or territory to Category:Canadian curlers. No consensus to UpMerge subcats' contents. - jc37 12:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian curlers by province or territory to Category:Canadian curlers

Merge - For the same reasons given for merging Canadian actors by province/territory. Otto4711 16:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFD for Canadian actors. Otto4711 16:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As nom of CFD for Canadian actors, I need to point out a slight distinction. That Cfd addresses sub-cats like Category:British Columbia actors, for example. This Cfd only addresses the parent Category:Canadian curlers by province or territory, not the sub-cats (at least not explicitly).--Vbd (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - curlers represent provincial teams at the Brier and the Tournament of Hearts so this cat is very relevent. Kevlar67 20:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the curlers listed in the two tournament articles are redlinked, so these categories are not serving in any useful capacity to capture tournament participants by province of origin. Otto4711 20:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early tournament are poorly covered but more recent ones are well covered. Either way it doesn't change the fact that curlers represent provinces at the most important curling events in the world. Kevlar67 19:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge all of the sub-cats of Category:Canadian curlers by province or territory, such as Category:Curlers from Alberta, into Category:Canadian curlers. These sub-cats are good examples of overcategorization based on "Intersection by location." Categorizing curlers by team would be a different situation.--Vbd (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this category and subcategories into Category:Canadian curlers - These curlers are being categorized by where their current and former places of residence, not by provincial teams. The categories should be merged into Category:Canadian curlers, as former places of residence may have little to do with these people's careers. Dr. Submillimeter 11:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dr. Submillimeter, and my below comments under the CFD for Category:Canadian sportspeople by province or territory and sport. Postdlf 14:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this category only There is no need for a subcat specifically designed to capture other subcats in this case. The Curlers by province subcat should be retained, however. Resolute 00:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this collects the subcats perfectly well. Mayumashu 16:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (well, merge this category only). They may have redlinks now, but they're going to get articles eventually. Besides, curlers represent their provinces. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, overly narrow. >Radiant< 14:16, 20 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.

Canadian ice hockey people[edit]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus to Delete or Merge. Rename "people" to "personnel". - jc37 12:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all "People" is too vague to be a useful categorization. The categories are being used to capture people who are or should be categorized by their specific teams and functions rather than lumped together under "ice hockey people." Otto4711 15:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to personnel to match Category:Canadian ice hockey personnel. This of course includes players, coaches, owners, officials, etc. Furthermore categorization of people by province already exists for all kinds of other things, so I don't see why hockey should be any different. Kevlar67 20:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Presumably the idea is ultimately to get rid of Category:Canadian sportspeople by province or territory as Category:Canadian actors by province or territory has been nominated for deletion. But if it is not, then these pages should be merged, not deleted. Mayumashu 03:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Canadian ice hockey personnel - We should not categorize ice kockey people by team, not by Canadian province. Presumably, where these people have lived has little to do with their careers, although the institutions that they have been associated with will be related to their careers. See Wikipedia:Overcategorization (where the very similar "Category:Quarterbacks from Louisiana" is cited as an example of the type of categories that we want to avoid). Dr. Submillimeter 11:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dr. Submillimeter, and my below comments under the CFD for Category:Canadian sportspeople by province or territory and sport. Postdlf 14:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comments below. Skudrafan1 17:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I oppose removing the cats ~~but would support renaming them all to personnel instead of people per Kevlar67's comments.~~ Changed my mind. I still oppose removing them but I think it should stay people. --Djsasso 20:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:CAT. Combined, these ten categories have 635 articles. Category:Canadian ice hockey players has 1235 articles at present. The need for subcategories is quite evident, and division by province of birth/origin is a logcal place to break it down. Resolute 00:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - per Dr. Submillimeter's rationale, division by province of birth/origin does not seem particularly logical. Sub-categorising by team seems to make more sense. (Or maybe listify.)--Vbd (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are already categories for teams, however the place of origin is a logical division as well. There is a certain level of pride exhibited by people of various regions in having players from their area. An example is a giant wall mural in the Pengrowth Saddledome in Calgary that documents every Hockey Hall of Famer from Southern Alberta. There is also the situation that not every hockey person will be associated with a specific team(s). It really is no different than the concept of the People by <location> by <Province> sub categories. Resolute 02:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do not understand why local pride in citizens who have achieved success (as hockey players or actors, etc.) is a logical reason to categorize them by where they are from! Even the word "from" is open to some interpretation, especially when various communities all want to claim someone famous as their own. What should be relevant about a hockey player is where they have played (i.e. what team(s) they have played for), not where they were born or grew up. Please see Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection by location for further explanation as to why combining someone's professional categorization with where that person is from has been deemed overcategorization.--Vbd (talk) 07:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Where they have played." i.e.:where these players generally played their minor hockey, and were developed? I bring up the pride aspect to point out that for many people, this is a distinguishing characteristic. ie: not trivial. IMO, the examples regarding overcategorization are more specified than this one is. ie:Quarterbacks from Louisiana. IMO, the overcategorization there is the quarterbacks part, not the intersection by location. The comparable analogy to this debate would be if we were putting up a category like Category:Goaltenders from Alberta. Resolute 22:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per Resolute's comment and that it s a good reference. a useful sub-cat of "province sportspeople" cat pages - the lists of players are so long! oppose rename to personnel - sounds to "corporate" (it isn t sports personnel after all) Mayumashu 04:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Resolute's comments and I support Kevlar67's proposed rename to personnel. Pparazorback 05:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - per nom. Distribute these into existing categories by appropriate function (players, coaches, executives, etc). Get rid of geographic breakdown as well as "people" (or "personnel") label. (I'd vote for latter designation if I had to.)--Vbd (talk) 07:25, 17 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:Canadian sportspeople by province or territory and sport[edit]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus - jc37 12:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a triple (or quadruple) intersection, nation, province, occupation and specific sport, which is overcategorization. Otto4711 15:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Category:Ontario sportspeople has 800+ articles and is growing all the time. Categorizing sportspeople by sport is pretty standard, and categorizing Canadians by province makes a lot of sense. If they happen to intersect nicely, as they do in this case, so much the better. Kevlar67 20:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - The subject of this Cfd is the category "Canadian sportspeople by province or territory and sport" (emphasis added). This category is distinct from Category:Canadian sportspeople by province or territory (note that there is no intersection with sport), which contains sub-cats like Category:Ontario sportspeople, which are not part of this or any other Cfd (that I know of).--Vbd (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the intersection is meaningless. I took a random selection: Mike Sillinger, who is in Category:Ice hockey people from Saskatchewan. He's a professional ice hockey player who is originally from Regina, Saskatchewan. However, he's not only linked to that locality by being in Category:People from Regina, Saskatchewan, but he never actually played ice hockey in Saskatchewan according to his article. The Sask. hockey cat is therefore doubly redundant for this person, in that other categories both identify his status as an ice hockey player and his origin from Saskatchewan; and it is also falsely suggesting that his participation in ice hockey and his association with Saskatchewan are somehow related. Categorizing team member categories by the province in which that team plays makes sense, but by failing to observe where someone actually performed in sports these categories aren't accomplishing anything but linking unrelated things. Postdlf 21:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

he played in Regina till he was 19 and this is not insignificant. Nevertheless, looking at the larger picture I agree that this is overcategorization. (I d like to see a list eventual if place instead) Mayumashu 16:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- overcategorization. Contains two subcategories, each of which are being considered for merger or deletion (see above).--Vbd (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Kevlar67. When I have been adding these categories to articles, I have been making a point to remove the parent category (Category:People from Regina, Saskatchewan in the Sillinger example above) to avoid overcategorization. These specialized categories are helpful in sorting people with the province/territory. Why sift through hundreds of Saskatchewan sportspeople when I only want to see the ice hockey players from Saskatchewan? Skudrafan1 15:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment "People from Regina" is not a parent cat of "Ice hockey people from Saskatchewan"?? you mean you ve removed the links from "Saskatchewan sportspeople", yeah? Mayumashu 16:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I would remove both. Category:Ice hockey people from Saskatchewan is parented by Category:Saskatchewan sportspeople, which is parented by Category:People from Saskatchewan, which also parents Category:People from Regina, Saskatchewan. So, if my geneology is correct, Category:People from Regina, Saskatchewan is the uncle of Category:Ice hockey people from Saskatchewan. So I suppose I was incorrect to call it a parent, but it's still in the same family tree, and therefore I find it redundant. Am I wrong? Perhaps. Skudrafan1 17:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm happy to have someone who agrees with me on the issue at hand, I don't support removing the cat that tells where a person is from. Kevlar67 19:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very usefull cats as Skudrafan has mentioned. --Djsasso 20:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kevlar67 and Skudrafan's comments above. Pparazorback 05:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kevlar67's concerns about size seem to be quite common among wikicategorizers, but I do not think that size should be a main consideration when making decisions about categories. If the category makes sense, it will make sense with 20 articles or with 2000 articles. This issue has been bugging me for over two years now. The problem with chopping up large categories just because they are large, is that once these categories are created the tendancy is to diffuse the articles to the smaller categories. This means that generally useful (large) categories often get diffused into specialized (small) categories. Our categorization system has many roles. The main one is to help people navigate through all the articles and browse similar ones. Another function is to be an index of articles relating to a subject. A third function is to find specific articles -- a way of doing a database search. We can not yet do all three of these things effectively at the same time. It is for this reason that we have decided to deprecate the third function and avoid multiple intersections while we wait for better software to generate these intersections dynamically. Until then, we have to draw a line and decide when a large category is useful and meaningful. By doing so, we would put a stop on further division and diffusion. -- Samuel Wantman 06:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand the sentiment expressed and it seems good in theory (no to intersection by birthplace). It just so happens we categorize people by birthplace anyway. See Category:People from Toronto. Those types of cats are so big that size does become an issue. I would love software that could compare categories for me. In the meantime people have put a lot of manhours into trying to diffuse cats like Category:Canadian ice hockey players (still over 1000 articles) so why destroy that? Kevlar67 19:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. couldn t decide - and I think the above user has articulated a truth very eloquently, but I got to go with the hockey guys Mayumashu 16:21, 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 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:Artists who use seven-string guitars[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Seven-string guitarists. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Artists who use seven-string guitars to Category:Musicians who use seven-string guitars

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, in line with other categories for musicians. CalJW 13:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Seven-string guitarists to fit in with the other Category:Guitarists sub-categories. --Rimshots 14:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Seven-string guitarists for brevity. Mowsbury 11:53, 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:Mythology-based Role-playing games[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, empty. Postdlf 21:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, category is either a pointless intersection of two categories, or so broadly defined that pretty much all RPGs will fall into it. The name suggests that the artifical mythology is in some way the "basis" for the game, which isn't true of the only occupant of the category. Also, the 'r' in role-playing games shouldn't be in caps. Percy Snoodle 15:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears the category only has one article, D&D, and the main article for the category doesn't exist. Since D&D is presumably already sufficiently categorized elsewhere, seems like a safe deletion. Dugwiki 16:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the original editor who created the category has removed D&D from it - can we speedy this now the article's empty Percy Snoodle 18:54, 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:United Kingdom horse races[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:British horse races. This appears to be the common form for the parent and is supported by he names used in several related lists. No matter what the outcome here, there needs to be a rename for the several of the renaming categories so that they all are of the same form. There was complete support for a rename, the only issue was what to rename to. Vegaswikian 21:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United Kingdom horse races to Category:British horse races

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to correct adjective for the UK. Dominictimms 15:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Correct adjective should be used. The Proffesor 01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Horse races in the United Kingdom, per Wikipedia category naming convention. -- Mais oui! 00:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Horse races in the United Kingdom per Mais oui!. --Xdamr^talk 01:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:British horse races per convention of Category:Horse races by country. It should be noted that there is no single "Wikipedia convention". AshbyJnr 12:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:British horse races per AshbyJnr. Choalbaton 22:12, 17 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.

Fictional characters by power[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 Some consensus - It's been over 10 days and this nomination hasn't yet been closed. I am guessing it's because it could seem somewhat complex to someone not normally involved in the topic. I'm going to ignore the typical guideline which suggests to avoid closing discussions which you've been a part of (I added a comment below). If another admin wishes to overturn/modify this closure, they're welcome to do so.

First, some points:

Reference: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 23#Fictional characters by special ability

The point of that nom was consistancy in naming, the seeming point of this discussion (mostly) seems to be whether some or all of these should exist as categories, lists, or both.

Reference: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 7#Category:Fictional characters by superhuman power and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 13#Category:Fictional characters by superhuman power and subcategories

This nomination was as a direct result of User:Radiant's closure of that discussion, and the following DRV discussion. As such, I am taking these previous discussions into consideration in closing this nom.

It's mostly immaterial whether wizards, and/or other magical persons could duplicate such powers through magic. The superhuman power of such fictional characters is the ability to utilise magic. Through using magic, the character may or may not be able then to perform mundane, or supernatural actions, or have mundane or superhuman abilities. However, each of the categories should make it clear in their introductions that "magic-users" should not be categorised in these categories, due to the many concerns below. (Indeed, Category:Fictional magic users already exists.)
The same goes for having a magical/supernatural/super-science/futuristic object. In addition, an object may be "taken away" from a character, and as such, such powers bestowed are not intrisic to the character, and so the character shouldn't be categorised by such "abilities of the moment". (This would also include "temporary powers" such as one poster mentioned about Superman over the years.)

The above two points - magic and objects - have been discussed at length at List of comic book superpowers, and have previous consensus there. (Telekinesis has been discussed in a similar fashion, but consensus has not been stable due to various definitions of the term.)

There's a rather clear consensus that the ability to manipulate "something" (external to one's self, such as fire) is subjective in it's application (as I and others mentioned below), so since it's not clear-cut (including whether the ability "to generate" is similar enough to be grouped with the ability "to manipulate"), and such clarifying is better suited to a list (per WP:CLS), all such power categories should be listified.
The remaining categories should be sucategorised under Category:Fictional characters by nature (where more of such categories exist), but not precluding that someone, if they wished, may make a list of such powers to coexist with the categories (again per WP:CLS).

Note that a few of those left are subcats of those nominated, and should stay as subcats, rather than directly under "by nature". And the flight subcats havebeen depopulated, and should be repopulated.

Several renamed for consistancy and length, such as: "...with the power of..." renamed to "...with..."; and "...with the power to..." to "...who can..."
Night vision received a few specific comments below, but I'm choosing not to target any individual category for deletion, since this is a group nom. However, someone is welcome to nominate it for its own CfD.

So to sum up:

Listify:

Keep, but subcat under Category:Fictional characters by nature:

Rename, and subcat under Category:Fictional characters by nature:

Keep the following subcats:

- jc37 04:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with these cats are the overlaps (e.g. people who can shapeshift into a flying creature, or create illusions of darkness). Another is the overly long names. A third is classification, because not all fictional settings obey "neat" schemes of who-can-do-what.

The main problem, however, is that these are apparently created for settings in which these powers are something special, such as the superhero genre. In other settings, some powers are nowhere near special; for instance, all Pini elves are telepathic, and all WOD vampires have superhuman strength. Worse, if we look at Category:Fictional wizards, we'd see that most of those wizards can do just about all of this. The same would apply to fictional witches, genies, deities, and several gadgeteers.

So if we were to use this scheme, we'd have to add several dozen long-named categories to the likes of Raistlin Majere, Gandalf, Mustrum Ridcully, Edward Elric, Albus Dumbledore, Merlin, Q and Willow Rosenberg. Clearly, that's not helpful. Look at the list of categories above, and consider whether you'd want it at the bottom of all articles of those wizards and deities I just mentioned.

Instead, what would be useful here is articles like flight in fiction, or like list of Marvel characters by superpower. So let's bring on the lists. Listify. And as before, changing a category to a list is not a loss of information (and changing to a list adds functionality for extra comments and remarks, as well as sort it in ways other than alphabetical). >Radiant< 13:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify - Lists would allow for detailed descriptions of the superhuman powers that cannot be described in the category titles. (We could skip lengthy debates on how to rename categories such as Category:Fictional characters with the power to generate and manipulate radiation so that they are technically correct.) Lists also allow for adding citations and for adding detailed descriptions for some powers (such as the nature of Cyclops's eye beams), thus avoiding categorization problems for specific characters. Finally, lists would allow for making some interesting comparisons, such as an ordered list of Marvel superhero characters based on how much they can lift (which Marvel Comics did publish in the 1980's). Dr. Submillimeter 13:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify As stated above, lists can be used to clarify inclusion and to allow for clearer comparisons. — J Greb 14:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I support these being categories until we discover that the problem that Radiant describes actually occurs. Till then, I'd be fine with a tag at the top that says, "This is for characters who frequently use the power of (X). Characters who have all-inclusive powers like magic use or godhood should be listed under broader categories like Category:Fictional wizards or Category:Fictional deities." But if the categories go crazy, I'd be fine with the listify-and-delete solution in the future. (As a side note, though, I'd like to see the ones that begin "DC Comics characters" or whatever merged into their parent categories. That's a three-way link, which I wouldn't suggest.)--Mike Selinker 14:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So essentially you're suggesting to rename these to Category:Fictional characters who frequently use the power to manipulate electricity but do not possess all-inclusive powers like magic use or godhood. Oookay. >Radiant< 14:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Funny. Not true, but funny.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Er, Ginji Amano is a perfect example of an otherwise normal person who can control electricity. And no, I do not think that we need to add god/magic users in the category title; see my reasoning below. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 16:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as, once again, I fail to see that this is anything other than a solution in search of a problem. While I agree that there are instances when categories should be deleted pre-emptively because of the potential of misuse, I don't agree that these categories would be such an instance. The simple fact is there has not been a mass rush to put wizards and genies and shape-shifters who can turn themselves into birds in the flight category or to put witches in multiple categories or what have you. The people who are actually using and maintaining the categories seem to be doing a reasonable job in using and maintaining them. If one or more individual powers categories become problematic in fact rather than theory then CFD them, make the case and the people will decide. Otto4711 15:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify per nom. --Maelwys 15:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify all per nom and per Dr. Submillimeter. The definitional problems alone are damning for the categories, but the groupings that these categories make across different works of fiction (and different "fictional universes") and different media such as TV, comics, film, etc., and different genres, are simply not meaningful without the ordering and comparative explanation that only article content can provide. I don't think these categories establish more than trivia, the equivalent of statements such as "fictional telekinetics includes characters such as Jean Grey and Gloria Dinallo." Postdlf 15:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify all per nom and Dr. S. It's impractical and inefficient to categorize by powers. Think how many categories would have to crowd Superman's article solely on the number of all present and past powers. In addition to his many standard powers, he's had a lot of other powers over the years. Doczilla 07:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep telekinesis, telepathy and precognition as useful in too many areas of media. Similarly keep speed, flight and super strength as essential comics/scifi navigation. Listify other useful categories as decided separately and delete silly ones like "night vision".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hasn't this conversation already happened? --Paul A 15:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but that discussion focused mainly on keep-vs-delete, and this is about listifying. >Radiant< 15:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but shorten names if possible. With regards to Radiant's idea on people who can do a lot of these, they're more or less deity-like or experienced magic users, therefore some of these would not be a best fit. I wouldn't put Willow from Buffy series in most of these simply because that's not her trademark. She's known as a witch. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 16:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So essentially you're suggesting to rename these to Category:Fictional characters who have as their trademark ability the power to manipulate electricity but does not have a lot of different powers. Oookay again. The point here is that those people who like these categories are all suggesting that we use them in a different fashion than suggested by their names, or "fictional characters who can do FOO, except". And that is where confusion starts. >Radiant< 16:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, what those of us who believe the categories are being used appropriately and are thus not resorting to facile WP:ILIKEIT arguments are saying is that those wo maintain and use the categories appear to be doing a reasonable job in utilizing their common sense in utilizing the categories and are adding characters to the categories which best describe the actual character. Otto4711 16:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify I would agree that most or all of these make for reasonable list articles. After all, if I wanted to study the various ways popular fiction treats something like telekinesis, a list article of characters with that ability would be quite handy and probably an interesting read. A list article would also have the advantage of being able to sort characters by similar treatment of the ability, or in chronological order, or could include a good encyclopedic section of analysis. A list also has the advantage of being able to compress groups of similar characters into one entry, such as saying "all vampire have super-strength" instead of listing vampires individually. So whether or not the categories are deleted, list articles sound like a good idea.

As far as the categories go, though, I think I agree with Radiant that there are some potential problems with using these characteristics as category tags, especially because of the cross-genre implications. Thus I'd lean toward deleting the categories once they are converted to lists, and then working on improving how the lists are crafted to make them more like an encylopedic style analysis than just a list of names of characters. Dugwiki 16:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until Listified - That seems to be the best compromise I can come up with. --Basique 17:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we may have a problem any "keep and listify", even "llistify" (kind of common sense that to listify, the cat needs to be intact until the list is done...). Seems User:Cyde is 'bot-nuking the cats based on Radiant's close of the original mass nom. — J Greb 17:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's going to create a lot of work for someone. I specifically asked for a delay while this could be worked out.--Mike Selinker 22:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete. This is the best thing to do, in my opinion. They would be better as lists. Take someone such as Rogue for example: if you want to be picky, she probably has used all the powers at some point. Listing them all as categories is useless overcategorization. RobJ1981 18:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP ALL- but shorten names. Maybe instead of Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate earth it'll just be Category:Fictional characters who can manipulate earth or something like that. Deleting all these catagories and listifying them would make it difficult to find information on a certain character. If I wondered if Sylar could freeze things, instead of searching for List of fictional characters with the power to manipulate ice or cold and scrolling down a long list looking for the name Sylar, I'd instead just go to the character's page and see Catagory: Fictional characters who can control ice/cold and stuff like that, you know? --Piemanmoo 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Cyde kinda jumped the gun there, as seen in his discussion page, and I paraphrase "the bot kinda runs itself". --Basique 04:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've given Cyde the parameters of the bot's actions in this category, and he seems to think he can put the material back. I guess when we have have post-closing disputes like this, the right thing to do is to move the categories off of the WOrking page so this doesn't accidentally happen. Now I know.--Mike Selinker 04:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - For just his 'bot account (CydeBot) or both that and his account? Both were running with "robot" edits to remove the cats. — J Greb 04:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll follow that up. Meanwhile, I've removed the listify categories from the Working page.--Mike Selinker 13:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I've taken the liberty of fixing a few of the catagories that Cyde and Cydebot had gotten rid of without permission. If the majority of wikipedians want those catagories gone, that's one thing, but so far it seems that people just want the catagories organized better, and simply wiping them all off the map (while much easier) is not the best solution.--Piemanmoo 08:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see the loopholes have been brought up again. However, reinventing the wheel is no way to solve a problem, because it will create a new batch of problems. (In this case, what would happen if a character fits into more than one list? I can understand the flight in fiction example, to a degree, but the Marvel characters by superpower? That'll just create a mess. Plus the continuous editing associated with maintaining such lists.) Try to repair the problem at hand first, before proposing an entirely new system. My original decision stands: weak keep pending a revision of the current system. --JB Adder | Talk 08:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If a character fits in multiple lists, you put him in multiple lists. Why is that a problem? The problem at hand is that if the categories are used in the way that their titles indicate, they (1) make groupings of unrelated characters by trivia, and (2) add a lot of categories to multi-powered characters, such as the MANY fictional wizards, witches and deities. We propose a revision by using lists instead, that is hardly "entirely new". >Radiant< 08:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I take it you read the first sentence of my vote, and I specifically used the word "loopholes". Unfortunately, yes listification is not "entirely new", but it's as different from categorization as chalk from cheese (thus my point). I keep saying that guidelines need to be created, and I will keep saying it until my face turns blue, because these categories do need a little regulation. --JB Adder | Talk 23:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone ever written a script or bot that creates and fills a list using a populated category? --Basique 23:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes. List of blue plaques was created by a bot following a WP:CFD discussion to delete a category that listed people with blue plaques. Doesn't the list look much better than what could be put in a category? Dr. Submillimeter 08:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify all and delete - Well, this surprised even me. In the past I was a strong supporter of these categories, but over time, it's become apparent that "features of fictional characters" are just better treated as lists (we've talked about bald, wealthy, etc., in the past). In this case, the power type is rather subjective. How useful is a category of fire-based powers, if it includes someone who breathes fire; who can cause things touched to become hot; who can cause jets of flame from their eyes, or fingers, or some other body part; whose hair bursts into flame; whose whole body bursts into flame? Or for that matter, distinguishing whether such flames also harm the user. (Being able to spontaneously combust could make you the Human Torch, or a pile of smouldering ooze and bone chips.) We could delve into this even more with all the various powers, but I think it's rather clear. Oh, and another bonus of listifying, is that the list can be organised: by publisher; by media type; etc. This also has the benefit of making linkable lists for List of comic book superpowers to use as examples. If anyone wants more reasons or examples, please feel free to ask : ) - jc37 10:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete per nom. These cats are an incredible mess, and it is getting somewhat old seeing them added and deleted from articles on a fairly regular basis. We might even do well to have some sort of policy against this sort of thing, depending on the result of this CfD. All I know is that the long-name categories are an eyesore, personally. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- So, wouldn't it be better to simply make the catagories more organized than to simply get rid of every single one? Its seems to me that everyone who supports the deletion of these catagories claims that the names are too long and there needs to be more division of catagories. This can easily be accomplished by shorteneing the names, as many people have pointed out, and the catagories can be subdivided. That way charcaters who can manipulate fire can be seperated based to whether they spontaneously combust, breathe fire, ect. based on what jc37 said. It just seems to me that too many users are going for the delete simply because it's easier than reorganization. --Piemanmoo 22:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Some of these don't apply to people with ability to do everything. For example, that fire man in Fantastic Four, can fly, make fire. That's just about everything. TheBlazikenMaster 20:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No preference Apologies to Piemanmoo, who went to all the trouble of canvassing my vote here, but the list scheme would have some substantial advantages. The one significant problem I can see with it is how we work in the wikilinks to the lists from the articles, which was the main advantage of the categories. (People suggesting we use whatlinkshere to get to the list get WP:TROUTed because casual readers do not know what whatlinkshere is.) If that is a big enough problem, then a new categorization scheme in which it is specified that the category must be a significant ("trademark") ability of the character would deal with the problem equally well. --tjstrf talk 20:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All and Rename to be Shorter, where applicable These categories are useful and essential, and their deletion would mean the loss of a level of organization. Any cases where the inclusion criteria could be clearer should be made clearer, but it's not as though there's a plague of non-clarity afflicting these categories. It's not necessary to fudge things by putting characters with generalized magic or Q-power that let's them do all these things into all of these categories, only those with specific abilities. Wizards best fall under fictional wizards, for example, and Q under characters with the power to warp reality, since that is how they accomplish their many feats. -- Noneofyourbusiness 20:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All None of the problems listed are reasons to delete a category. Sometimes it can be difficult to categorize certain powers, but anything can be difficult to categorize; for example, is a member of a fictional secret police force a fictional policeman, a fictional secret agent, both, or something else? It's the same thing here; those problems should be handled by themselves on a case-by-case basis. Some characters, such as Doctor Strange, have so many different powers that it would be inefficient to list them all individually and be more efficient to simply list them all in a general sense, such as calling Doctor Strange a fictional wizard; in those cases, we should do just that, not delete the categories. I would also like the point out that, regardless of the above, these categories do serve a purpose and can be used for it; for example, we can undoubtably categorize Human Torch, Pyro (from X-Men), Sol Badguy (from Guilty Gear), and Mohammed Abdul (from JoJo's Bizarre Adventure) all as "Fictional characters with the power to manipulate fire". Cosmetor 20:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - The decision whether to include a certain character in one of those categories is only relevant to the character; it is not a reason to delete all of the categories (although some of those categories are ill-defined, but that's another issue.) The consensus generally seems to be exhibited or defining powers that deserve a category; omnipotent beings can choose to stretch themselves or control the weather, but they generally choose to use more godlike abilities instead. I'd imagine listifying by powers would run into much the same supposed problem of the "incredible mess" of the categories, unless excessive subdivisions were made (see the lengthy List of comic book superpowers, and those are only a very broad power classification.) To give an example, there are numerous variations on a healing factor. Can the character regrow limbs? Reincarnate after death? Regenerate from a single cell? Regenerate even after complete disintegration? Does re-forming one's body shape (Hydro-Man, Clayface), or repairing oneself (Cyborg), count as healing? And lastly, what about varying depictions of the level of power? --Pentasyllabic 21:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I'm the first to admit these cats can get messy but I think we'd be better off keeping them. As someone interested in the superhero genre these cats are interesting and useful. I would like to see lists but only as well as the cats. All the problems with the cats can be fixed, usually with a tighter definition of what belongs there and in some cases Renaming. As for WOD vampires being included in telepathy; Isn't that why we subcategories, so, as someone interested in depictions of telepathy I can find WOD Vampires? And as for wizards; That's why there are categories such as "magic users." Palendrom 21:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now (with same caveats as first CFD, which this is a continuation of). The concerns at the DRV do not seem to be addressed; these categories are apparently used for navigation, something hindered by listification (since it would presumably be taken away from the individual articles). Same with "short summation of important info on topic," which these categories fulfill. Listification would straightened out entry conditions, which is good, but I don't think that these categories are so hopeless as implied; if Lord Ultra gets the ability to fly for an episode of a TV series airing in 1983 then loses it at the end, I think it should be pretty clear to not include it. There'll be edge cases, but similar tough issues appear in other categories. (Still delete for power to poison, night vision, and affect other powers; those ARE too loosely defined and don't even merit a listification.) SnowFire 21:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all and objection to listification. I see that way of approaching it as undoing a lot of good work that has been done. Katsuhagi 00:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, as per many reasons given above, especially those by Otto4711, Piemanmoo, and Cosmetor. If this gets deleted I don't see why we should have any categories for fictional characters at all. All I can say is that it is much better keeping them categorized as they are a lot more convenient and faster than going to a long and troublesome list to search for articles on fictional characters with such abilities. DivineLady 04:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all per Piemanmoo and because these categories are incredibly useful and convenient for individuals doing research on superhers and their abilities, not to mention the relevance and cultural importance of comics! If anything, why not have both lists and categories as this way we can appeal to those interested in each format and who finds each format user friendly. So, keep or recreate the categories AND make lists! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep allThey all deserve to stay! Wikipedia devotes a lot of its resources to fictional characters. Many of these characters have special powers. The categories dealt with powers that are not vague they are in fact staples of the sci fi communities. Telepaths, telekinetics, and empaths are found in many mediums as are shape shifters and elementals (people with the power over the elements) Plants, light, and sound were unique but not vague or shallow. Some categories were not needed like vocal persuasion and force fields on account of them being to limited but they were removed. The powers can be backed up by facts, so they are not option oriented like fictional overeaters. They are just as important as fictional occupations! Please give them a chance. User:Avatar73

Keep all but initiate serious discussion about definitions of these categories. In my opinion, these should be a) restricted to how the characters are most frequently depicted (e.g., Superman should not be placed in Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate electricity just because he could for a while in the 1990s), b) clearly defined on the category page, so as to avoid arguments over whether so-and-so's power constitutes "ability to manipulate radiation", etc. Character groups with these abilities in a context in which they are not extraordinary (such as Radiant's examples of Pini elves and WOD vampires) could be placed in the categories as a subcat (that is, a possible Category:Pini elves could be a subcategory of Category:Fictional telepaths). The issues being raised are legitimate ones, but I don't see how they're arguments for deletion of all categories by power. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Disclaimer postscript: My opinion was solicited by Piemanmoo (talk · contribs), as part of an aggressive cross-posting campaign. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Delete: No listifying. Personally, I don't see how listifying will help the situation. I mean, the problem wasn't with the categories, right? The problem was deciding what defines the power in the category. How will making a list help that?

For instance, Rock Lee definitely fits under Category:Fictional characters with superhuman strength and Category:Fictional characters who can move at superhuman speeds. The debate stems from whether his second gate qualifies him for Category:Fictional characters with the power of accelerated healing, or if running around Gaara fast enough to create a localized twister constitutes Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate wind. So, when it comes time to listify, what good have you done? Instead of deciding whether he qualifies for Category:Fictional characters with the power of accelerated healing, you're now deciding if he qualifies for List of fictional characters with the power of accelerated healing.

Unlike the comparatively limitless capacity of categories, certain articles (List of fictional telepaths, List of fictional characters with the power to manipulate fire, List of fictional characters with superhuman strength, and especially List of fictioinal characters with the ability to levitate or fly) will fill up fast due to the kb limit, at which point you'll have to break up the list into multiple articles (List of fictional characters with superhuman strength (A-M), List of fictional characters with superhuman strenght (N-Z)), which is a bit too messy and easily discourages readers. In my opinion, that would be a pointless waste of time and effort.

So, keep it or delete it. That's a whole 'nother debate, but listifying is not the solution. You Can't See Me! 07:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All As i said before these are all very useful and well thought out categories. There is no real problem, the issue that MAY happen has not and i doubt it will. If and when it does we can do something but until then just arbitrarily deleting these will be seriously jumping the gun.18-Till-I-Die 16:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Haven't We had this discussion enough times? We just discussed this last week, and the discussion was once again to delete: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 7#Category:Fictional characters by superhuman power. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentYeah, and the decision on that one was 17 to keep and 9 to delete. That's the whole reason we're doing this vote right now--Piemanmoo 04:15, 25 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:Caregivers[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) 07:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as vague term, underused category. I think I can see what the category is trying to do, but Caregiver is a disambiguation page listing several rather different contexts, and without clarification at the least, this category could include such disparate roles as someone caring for a sick relative, a professional carer in a care home, or a nurse. I think that this category would probably be better deleted than left so ambiguous, but I would much prefer to see some solution which allowed those other roles to be categorised. I can't think for now what that solution would be, but all the roles I have listed above can sometimes be defining characteristics, and we should have some way of categorising them ... but this is not it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This category currently contains one article, which has sufficient and suitable categories without it. CalJW 13:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Too vague to serve as a proper basis for categorisation. --Xdamr^talk

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:Edublogger[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) 07:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism, non-defining attribute. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 19:32, 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:KMCSC official[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) 07:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not likely to grow in the foreseeable future. Rimshots 12:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Original author went a little overboard (some refs were actually WP mirrors). — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib}

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 19:31, 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.

Indian Crypt-something[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 Category:Indian cryptographers, and Delete the other two. - jc37 11:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three new categories, all containing the same one person (and only that person). There is some precedent for categorizing cryptographers by nationality. The other categories don't even have corresponding super-categories. Rimshots 11:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for cryptographers; Strong Delete for cryptologists and cryptanalysts. --Rimshots 11:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for Category:Indian cryptographers, which is standard cross-categorisation. Delete the other two as global categories do not exist. CalJW 13:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the cryptographers one. Delete the other two as overcategorization: You can't be a cryptanalyst (someone who analyzes codes) or a cryptologist (someone who studies codes) without being a cryptographer (someone who understands codes).--Mike Selinker 14:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indian cryptologists and cryptanalysts, and keep cryptographers per CalJW and Mike Selinker. Postdlf 21:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -ers, Delete others, as above - it's REALLY hard to be one without the other... — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 12:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cryptographers, delete the other two. In Crypto, -analysists is really a subcategory of -ographers, but it's a distinction we don't need to be making in categories for any nationality, and especially not -ologists, which is basically the same as -ographers. Which is probably why those global categories don't exist, per CalJW. Mango juice^talk 18:10, 22 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:Indian Personality[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 DELETED, empty, duplicate, spam. Postdlf 15:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New category created as a vehicle for advertising a web site. If it had been a regular article rather than a category it would have been a candidate for speedy deletion. Bonadea 10:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - as a category it's meaningless and as an article it is POV.--Bonadea 10:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily deleted - Empty category, duplicate to Category:Indian people, created for spamming - Mike Rosoft 10:48, 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:Industrial areas[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 - jc37 11:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, category provides no context whatsoever. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term "industrial area" explains itself to most people. Industrial areas are very important to nations' military and economies and should be catalogged. Anthony Appleyard 12:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no objective definition of an "industrial area". There is some industry in towns and cities, but services are predominant in most parts of the developed world. This category is likely to be misused. Wimstead 12:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, largely duplicative of the much better defined Category:Industrial parks (see Industrial park). Postdlf 15:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Areas such as the Ruhr Area and the Black Country were never organized as one "park", but developed piecemeal naturally. Anthony Appleyard 17:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Industrial area" covers most of the developed world - or at least it used to. Mowsbury 11:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: prone to mix traditional industrialized regions like Ruhr or Donets Basin with technology parks. The category provides no hint what should and what should not be present here. Pavel Vozenilek 11:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not time specific. It seems to take decades for an economic transformation of an area to post-industrial service economy to register in the popular imagination, so it is pretty much a given that if this category is widely used it will be inaccurate. AshbyJnr 12:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:53, 22 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:Hard fantasy[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) 07:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC) This term supposedly refers to "fantasy in which the world (unlike other fantasy settings) closely follows the laws of science". Apart from the apparent fact that this term is ill-defined, the cat contains primarily settings that are heavy with magic, such as Tolkien's and Steven Erikson's. Sure, the settings follow the law of gravity, causality, and other basic scientific facts, but so does just about every fantasy novel of which I'm aware. >Radiant< 09:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whether or not a story "closely follows the laws of science" is really open to subjective interpretation. Also see the debate on Category:Hard science fiction. Both these categories were created by the same person. Dr. Submillimeter 11:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Term not in common use. Many articles included do not meet criteria. The Proffesor 01:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 05:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subjective criterion. --Xdamr^talk 19:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as starting over from scratch would be just as easy, this is a mish-mash of authors and books. I think it could be done, but there's little need to do it at the moment. Hard fantasy itself needs to be fleshed out more. FrozenPurpleCube 05:20, 18 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:Iron Arrow Honor Society members[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) 21:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The general consensus has been not to categorize people by membership in any college honor society, mainly because the achievement has little to do with the people's notability. This category therefore should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 08:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This category is useful because it is the highest honor at this major university and the group has been around for decades and serves not just as an honor society but as a social organization. It's arguably the most important organization--and is definitely considered the highest honor--at this university and the category is a helpful encyclopedic addition. Perhaps it should be renamed to Category:Iron Arrow Honor Society to recognize the entire organization not just its members? Just one idea, but the category itself--in some format--is definitely useful. MiamiDolphins3 19:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; not defining, not itself indicative of notability. List instead. Postdlf 21:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete University social clubs are even less defining of their members in later life than honour societies. Mowsbury 11:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an honor society. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where the membership is important it should be mentioned in the article about the society or the person. Categories are not intended to serve as database tool. Pavel Vozenilek 12:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (reply) Under this logic, how is the Category:Bonesmen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) about Yale's Skull and Bones Society justified, or many other similar student organizational examples? This organization is comparable for the purposes of categorization to many other similar ones that currently exist, with Bonesmen being just one example, and they all seem good, helpful and legitimate categories. MiamiDolphins3 17:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note to administrator - This should not be counted as a "keep" vote; it is a second comment in favor of keeping by MiamiDolphins3. Dr. Submillimeter 07:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - A few broader honor society categories (such as for people in Phi Beta Kappa) have already been deleted. The deletion of this category would be consistent with those previous deletions. Moreover, many fraternity/sorority categories have aso been nominated for deletion, although no consensus has been reached on those categories. Dr. Submillimeter 07:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Category:Members of Phi Beta Kappa Society has NOT been deleted, which supports the inclusion of this category too, in my view. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pavel Vozenilek. Choalbaton 22:13, 17 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:Conspiracy[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) 07:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The original author wants deletion (see my talk page). Also, it is not likely to grow as there is a Category:Conspiracy theories already. Rimshots 08:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, obvious & author's request (mistyped). Pavel Vozenilek 12:03, 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:NBC Nightly News[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is effectively the categorization of television journalists/anchors by show, which is effectively overcategorization. Given that these journalists appear on multiple shows and networks in their careers, categorization by show is infeasible, as it will lead to long, difficult-to-read category lists. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 08:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent. Otto4711 15:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty much identical to a cast-list category for a television series. Dugwiki 16:20, 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 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:Prince Edward Island Senators players[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. Vegaswikian 21:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prince Edward Island Senators players to Category:Prince Edward Island Senators

Merge, Sub-cat with stubs about players can be "up-merged" into team category, which only contains single article about team. Vbd (talk) 08:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Up-Merge as per Vbd. --Rimshots 13:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as an appropriate piece of the category tree under Category:American Hockey League players. Otto4711 15:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - standard format for teams, also less ambigous when compared to Category:Canadian senators from Prince Edward Island. Kevlar67 20:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question/Comment from nom. - What's the point of the parent category (Category:Prince Edward Island Senators)? Perhaps this Cfd is too limited -- merge all of the category tree Category:American Hockey League players with their respective team categories.--Vbd (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it would be like renaming Florida Senators players to Flordia Senators, considering that there are politicians who are senators, this would be a very bad idea. 70.55.91.139 06:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As previously noted (but which seems to be ignored), the category Category:Prince Edward Island Senators already exists. This Cfd is not about whether it is a confusing or ambiguous category (if it is, then nominated it for deletion. This Cfd is about whether its subcategory, Category:Prince Edward Island Senators players, should be merged into it because the distinction between the two is negligible.--Vbd (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep part of a wider structure. AshbyJnr 13:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per others. team name players is a standard category across the entire hockey structure, and most sports teams. I am not sure what User:ccwaters was intending to do when he created all of these team categories (and he should be asked for his input, IMO), but the upmerging of the players categories is not a good solution. These categories already exist in Category:American Hockey League players. The better solution would be to CfD the main categories, ie: Category:Prince Edward Island Senators, and merge the team articles into Category:American Hockey League teams. Resolute 01:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:53, 22 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:Zee TV Shows[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, miscapitalized and empty duplicate of populated category. Postdlf 21:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, correctly-titled alternative at Zee TV shows (with lowercase). Lenoxus 07:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. --Rimshots 13:32, 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:Wooden Ballparks[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 09:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as non defining, or Rename to Category:Wooden baseball venues. Probably most built before some date would qualify. -- Prove It ^(talk) 05:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hard to define. AshbyJnr 13:07, 17 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:The Simpsons Hit and Run[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 09:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, category members seem to be simpsons episodes referenced in the game. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any metion of episodes referenced in H & R is best done in that article and not via a category. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 12:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the entries can be accessed from the H&R page (I think). Regardless, it's not necessary to have that page. Dazednconfused693 22:31, 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 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:Schools in the Baltimore Urban Debate League[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. RevRagnarok's suggestion to upmerge seems reasonable, so I'll do that. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as non defining. Already a list in Baltimore Urban Debate League. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wimstead 12:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait up, it just an easy reference for the schools, there's no legitamate reason to delete it. It's not like having a category for it is bad. Plus what if people don't want to have to go to the BUDL or BCFL articles for a listing of the schools? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thx2005 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 2007 March 14 (UTC).
Delete - This type of categorization seems too refined. I am also left with the impression that this category is being used as part of a campagin to advertise the league. Dr. Submillimeter 18:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its not meant to advertise. There's no information on Baltimore schools, and I think that its cool to have a complete listing of all the member schools. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thx2005 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 2007 March 14 (UTC).

Please sign your posts using four tildes ~~~~ Otto4711 19:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, an annotated list exists in the article and I can't imagine that anyone interested in the league would be unwilling to go to the article about the league. Otto4711 19:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Public schools in Baltimore if they're not in there yet (currently a sub). — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 11:08, 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:Schools in the Baltimore Catholic Forensic League[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 09:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as non defining. Already a list in Baltimore Catholic Forensic League. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not allowed on Wikipedia. Bigman17 03:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a rather minor fact in terms of how these schools should be categorized. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 03:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shouldn't be categorized so deeply. Alex43223^{T | C | E} 03:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait up, it just an easy reference for the schools, there's no legitamate reason to delete it. It's not like having a category for it is bad. Plus what if people don't want to have to go to the BUDL or BCFL articles for a listing of the schools? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thx2005 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 2007 March 14 (UTC).

Comment User:Thx2005 signed the above comment with a name other than his own, and also edited the previous comment. I undid this and substed an {{unsigned}} tag. --Rimshots 10:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This type of categorization seems too refined. I am also left with the impression that this category is being used as part of a campagin to advertise the league. Dr. Submillimeter 18:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as a list exists in the article and there is no reason I can imagine why someoen interested in the League would be unwilling to go to the League article. Otto4711 19:41, 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 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:Tecumseh Fox[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus Tim! 18:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Small, without potential for growth. (Only three novels in series, series not famous enough to be likely to be continued by other hands.) --Paul A 03:28, 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 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:Ron Paul[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 09:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there's only two articles, I'm not sure this is needed. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. Only two articles, and one of them is questionable at best. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 03:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - each of the two aricles is linked to the other so there is no need for an eponymous category to serve as a navigational hub. Otto4711 03:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Bigman17 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With only two articles, delete. They already mention each other, anyway. Alex43223^{T | C | E} 03:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too few directly connected articles to merit an eponymous category. --Xdamr^talk 13:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Doczilla 05:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Youngamerican. Greg Grahame 13:51, 18 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:","[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete, as nonsense. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I believe this nonsensical category was speedily deleted before, and it appears that the same user recreated it. Anthony Rupert 03:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Bigman17 03:45, 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:Folk songs by nationality[edit]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Vegaswikian 21:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Folk songs by nationality to Category:Folk songs by country

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, as a follow up to the recent decision to merge the "country" and "nationality" song categories to category:Songs by country. Haddiscoe 00:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm having trouble finding that decision. Can you hook us up with a link? Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He's talking about the March 4th discussion. The What links here button is your friend. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Rename per Abberley2's comment about songs not having a nationality on the March 4 CfD. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 03:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename regardless of discussion - only people can have nationality Mayumashu 04:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity, though I disagree strongly that only people can have a nationality. Laws have a nationality; so do plenty of industrial products; and mnay aspects of culture (including music and literature) have a distinct nationality. The term "country" is clearer, but "nationality" is not inaccurate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree: folk songs often appear much before modern states are born, there's no 1 : 1 relation between a state and nationality. Folk songs do not have nationality but are tightly tied to them, much more than to states. Pavel Vozenilek 12:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I think that you are right: nationality is a more appropriate term, and I note that we have Category:Culture by nationality rather than Culture by country. Both concepts are a bit flawed, because neither fully accommodates the likes of cross-border cultures such as the Catalans or multinational cultures such as Arab. But the term "nationality" is probably less directly tied to the modern nation-state, so seems better, and it's best to follow the terminology of Category:Culture by nationality. I have changed my vote, below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --Xdamr^talk 19:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Pavel Vozenilek's comment applies to hundreds of topic areas, but it is most convenient to have the articles sorted by modern country. Dominictimms 21:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply please look at Category:Culture by nationality; it accomodates both by-country categories such as Category:North Korean culture and those less closely those tied to the modern nation-state, such as Category:Catalan culture, Category:Jewish culture, Category:Slavic culture, Category:Silesian culture and Category:Berber culture.
Oppose renaming: changing my 'vote' after discussion above. Best to follow the naming of Category:Culture by nationality; if that is renamed to "Culture by country", then there would be a clear case for renaming this cat., but we ain't there yet. The nominator's rationale seems to me to a little flawed; folk songs are by definition a product of the culture which has sustained them, and that culture may cross national boundaries. That is a different situation to a modern song, which will be written by an individual (or team) who can be clearly tied to one or more countries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:54, 22 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:Forgotten Ohio[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 09:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, category for things mentioned on Forgotten Ohio, a website by Andrew Henderson. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Kind of neat, but a very arbitrary way to categorize things that happen to be inside the same geopolitical boundary. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree. Wikipedia isnt the place to categorize stuff for private websites. Corpx 00:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous contributors. Haddiscoe 00:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as agreed on. Bigman17 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated, arbitrary way to categorize (or over-categorize). Alex43223^{T | C | E} 03:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but would make an interesting list on the website article, if that website meets our inclusion standards. --W.marsh 20:24, 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 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.