Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 12

< May 11	May 13 >

May 12[edit]

Category:Rivers in Ettelbruck[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Rivers of Ettelbruck, by naming conventions for landforms, moved from speedy. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~. Comment: I disagree that there is a solid precedent on this. As a Londoner (and as London is probably the best-documented city on Wikipedia), I took the cue from Category:Rivers in London. Bastin 14:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC) I don't oppose this move. I merely opposed the assertion that it's straight-forward and uncontroverisal. Hence, as long as its CfR instead of CfR-speedy, I don't particularly mind. Bastin 15:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Landforms. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's by country. What about by town or administrative division? Bastin 15:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: One should also add to this nomination Category:Rivers in Luxembourg City and Category:Rivers in Mersch. If a convention can be agreed upon, it should certainly include those, which I created at the same time. Bastin 15:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'll include them in my umbrella nomination, along with the subcats of Rivers of England. -- Prove It ^(talk) 05:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Rivers in London[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Rivers of London, by naming conventions, moved from speedy. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it looks like members of Rivers of England all use the in form. However, I don't think it makes sense to have one standard for countries, and another for counties. If this succeeds, I'll nominate them all. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a controversial proposal, as illustrated below. Thus, not suitable for speedy. Bastin 15:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't particularly mind, so long as there is a debate. However, my vote in opposition was due to the denial of that debate by using the CfR-speedy procedure. Using this one, I have no objection, so long as there isn't a precedent across other countries. Bastin 15:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Wikipedia games[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: lack of consensus. I would suggest that a better way of tackling this would be by dropping the actual game pages on WP:MFD; if consensus is to delete those, this category should be deleted as empty. >Radiant< 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category promotes Wikipedia as a social network. Wikipedia is not a social network. That's it, really. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, fosters good-feeling among editors and allows them to explore articles they wouldn't have otherwise seen. Nardman1 22:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a denial of WP:NOT a social network. We deleted Esperanza, too. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oliver Han 11:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fosters collaboration amongst editors. Things on Wikipedia do not have to be directly collaborative to be helpful/useful/worth keeping. (Else we should remove all vandal patrols, Rfa, etc.) - jc37 21:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as the pages in it exist. Where else are you going to categorize Wikipedia:Wiki-Link Game, for example? Lesnail 20:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Railroad museums and tourist lines in the United States[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, because it is unclear what the nominator intended. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "X in Y" word order. Aviara 21:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Oliver Han 11:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, what? I find it hard to tell what is being proposed to rename to what. >Radiant< 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Structures celebrating the third millennium[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Structures celebrating the third millennium to Category:Buildings and structures celebrating the third millennium

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, in line with Category:Buildings and structures. Some of these things were buildings, whatever definition of "Building" one uses. Perebourne 20:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Oliver Han 11:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Dave the Barbarian[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete; given the low amount of articles and categories on this show, this supercat does not appear to be necessary. >Radiant< 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this category does not have the level of material that would warrant it. Otto4711 20:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepHold your horses I'll make the other pages needed, I'm busy at the moment
Delete tv show cats are rarely useful. Anything can and should be linked from the article. Carlossuarez46 18:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as multiple subcategories and articles. Tim! 16:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three articles, two legit subcats and one deprecated subcat. Hardly the volumes of complex material that would need a category to sort it out. Otto4711 19:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Dave the Barbarian cast members[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - improper performer by performance category. Otto4711 20:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Actors by series, or Performers by performance. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are lots of cast member categories and if they don't get deleted, then neither should this one and if this does get deleted I'll re-create it the next time I see a cast member category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AKR619 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 13 May 2007.

Comment - It has been well established through any number of CFDs that categorzing actors by the shows in which they appear is overcategorization. A huge percentage of the existing cast categories have been deleted over the last several months and that process is continuing. Threatening to disrupt Wikipedia by recreating deleted material is generally not a good way to get your point across. Otto4711 05:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing what Otto said: We should get rid of those cast member categories as fast as possible to avoid new creations like this.--Mike Selinker 14:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced editors can help. The list of categories to be listified is here. I believe there are about 65 in the queue. Vegaswikian 21:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all of those who helped out. The queue is now empty. Vegaswikian 02:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The anon keeper seems to be threatening a disruption. Carlossuarez46 18:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and numerous precedents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as actors by series category. Tim! 16:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And we should make an exception to the strong consensus and numerous precedents against such categories...why exactly? Otto4711 18:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:The Drew Carey Show[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another TV show category with pretty much nothing in it that needs its own category. Otto4711 20:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete TV show cats are rarely useful. Anything can and should be linked from the article. Carlossuarez46 18:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Music in Skins[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - categorizing songs based on being used in a TV show is overcategorization. Popular songs could end up in dozens of film and television categories. Otto4711 20:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Abberley2 20:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Skins actors[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as improper performer by performance category. Otto4711 20:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lots of performer by performance precedents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as actors by series category. Tim! 16:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And we should make an exception to the strong consensus and numerous precedents against this sort of category for what reason? Otto4711 19:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to continue the consensus against this class of category. I believe that all of the other ones, including the logical parent being suggested above, have already been deleted. Vegaswikian 21:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Buddhist deities, boddhisatvas, and demons[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: unclear. Suggest renomination with a clear suggestion to rename it to. >Radiant< 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category contains a punctuation mistake in the name & the combination "deities, boddhisatvas, and demons" seems unjustified to me Krystian 19:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you nominate the right category? I know there was a problem with a template at the time and that may have allowed you to miss the error. Vegaswikian 19:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see what is wrong with this. If there is a punctuation mistake that I'm not seeing, it can be fixed by renaming. I see no reason to delete. Lesnail 20:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Aminullah 11:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ideally renaming without final comma to :Category:Buddhist deities, bodhisattvas and demons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Johnbod 03:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cupid (TV series)[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one article, one subcat, canceled show, not gonna expand. Otto4711 18:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TV show cats are rarely useful. Anything can and should be linked from the article. Carlossuarez46 18:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Melrose Place[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - category has nothing in it but the show article and a slew of actors from the show. It's a de facto performer by performance categrory and should be deleted. Otto4711 18:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, can someone explain why today suddenly I'm getting the gobbledy-gook instead of the proper category links? Otto4711 18:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a bad edit. I think it is fixed now. Vegaswikian 19:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TV show cats are rarely useful. Anything can and should be linked from the article. Carlossuarez46 18:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Notable Shastris[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as unrelated subjects with shared names. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Abberley2 20:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oliver Han 11:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All these people should be on Shastri (disambiguation) so that if you wanted to find the right Shastri having landed on the wrong one, you'd be able to. Carlossuarez46 18:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Seiyū management companies[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Seiyū management companies to Category:Japanese voice actor management companies

Nominator's Rationale: Rename to match Category:Japanese voice actors. Neier 13:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really clear to me that the name of the other category is the one that's correct, since the article about the profession is at Seiyū and not Japanese voice actor. Can you clarify this? Dekimasu よ! 07:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is Category:Voice actors by nationality which is probably why there is not a Category:Seiyū, since it would break that naming scheme. Stubs are also marked with {{japan-voice-actor-stub}}, etc. So, although the article is titled Seiyū, most of the rest of the time, it seems the Japanese word is replaced with English. Neier 11:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - The English term "Japanese voice actor" is more easily understood by English speakers than "Seiyu". Dr. Submillimeter 09:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:666 Satan (Manga)[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename, and if the "religious, over-caffienated zealous [come] to complain", we'll tell them that Wikipedia is not censored. >Radiant< 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:666 Satan, to match 666 Satan, disambiguation is not needed. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the category has three articles, each of which has at least one other category, and a sub-cat. This categoyr is not needed for navigational purposes. Otto4711 14:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the category was made inorder to keep pages organized, i made the category inorder to do just that, and i modeled it after the same way other articles have it, and it did not have 3 articles there were 5. AND as the creator of this Category i should be informed about this discussion but i was not... now something just doesn't add up here now does it...Ancientanubis, talk 16:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it is your choice to be informed or not. If you selected to not watch the page, that was a change you made by choice. If you choose to not use your watchlist, that is another choice you made. But the nomination would have show up in your watchlist if the category was included. If it did not, then there is a bug. Vegaswikian 22:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated. Prove It is correct that the disambiguator isn't needed.--Mike Selinker 17:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my reason as to throw (manga) in front of it was to not confuse it with number of the beast....Ancientanubis, talk 17:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pre disambiguation is something that is discouraged. This is what you have created. The number of the beast may be 666 but it is not 666 Satan so there should not be any confusion. Or am I missing something? Vegaswikian 22:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Ok where to start? First off as a half Christen, half Jew person I do go to church every now and then (about once a month), and the priest there told me once that 666 Satan and 666 can be used interchangeably. I've also been to other churches across the country (Every state except for Virginia, Rhode Island, Alaska, and Hawaii) and have gone to church there as well. My point being that each priest used 666 Satan and 666 interchangeably. Oh and I've been to Catholic churches in France, England, Spain, Germany, Poland, and Holland and they too use 666 Satan and 666 interchangeably. So it can be said that it is the same thing. Sam ov the blue sand 23:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Not this again... what is it with people's obbession with trying to modify 666 Satan? Its correctly titled as it is since it refers to the manga. Next thing you know, we change it to Cat: 666 Satan and here come the religious, over-caffienated zealous to complain that it should be changed to 666 Satan (Manga) and refered to under disambiguation while Cat: 666 Satan should be used for all religious articles in reference. Please leave it alone and keep it at that. Thank you.Evilgohan2 19:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the objection to having the article and category using the same name? Vegaswikian 21:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think its because we here at wikipedia usually pride ourselves in keeping things very organized so seeing us here try to not keep things organized is a little awkward....Ancientanubis, talk 00:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind it as well, but theres no point in creating ambiguity. Evilgohan2 03:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename- if the disambiguation were needed, then the article would have it as well. I wouldn't object to the article being moved to 666 Satan (Manga) instead, but the category and main article need to match. Lesnail 14:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and to be honest i'd have no problem moving 666 Satan to 666 Satan (Manga), i mean it helps to better organize pages so why not....Ancientanubis, talk 16:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match main article The main article is title 666 Satan, and category names should almost always match the spelling of their main article. Since "manga" doesn't appear in the article title, it shouldn't appear in the category title either. Dugwiki 20:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or if kept Rename to Category:666 Satan. Deletion should really be considered. Most magma series only need the parent article listed in the magma series category. This category is really best covered in the main article since it is not really that large. Given that there is no need for membership in multiple categories, a template may also be a preferred solution to a category. Vegaswikian 02:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match the article, or at the very least fix the title so that (Manga) is lowercase. --tjstrf talk 07:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional magic users[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: listify. The problem with "is a user of magic in any way whatsoever" and "depending on artistic license" is that it groups a lot of characters that are not meaningfully related, given that "magic" means very different things in different settings. Merlin's powers are entirely diffent from Gandalf's, and both are different from Khelben Blackstaff. Rincewind is a wizard who is incapable of using magic, and in Isaac Asimov's books, the "magic user" is actually an alien with high-level technology - does that mean all high-tech aliens are magic users? Why or why not? A second problem is that in some settings, the term "magic" is ill-defined. Are the metas from Julian May's books "magic users"? Why or why not? What about Corwin of Amber and family, or the Witted from Robin Hobb's books? And whether divine intervention qualifies as magic depends on whom you ask. Since it requires an explanation why a character is or is not considered a "magic user", this should be a list rather than a category, as suggested by both WP:CLS and WP:OCAT. I'll reiterate that changing a category to a list is not a loss of information. >Radiant< 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional magic users - Vague inclusion criteria. (Essentially the same reasons as the TK nomination below.) - jc37 10:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and Delete - as nominator. - jc37 10:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete per nominator Bulldog123 21:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but keep subcats which are much less vauge--Piemanmoo 03:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for vague inclusion criteria. Doczilla 07:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually say keep. Problem is, a lot of these characters are similar in a lot of ways and the category inclusion is almost occupational. Category restrictions are getting so tough, it makes me wonder why there's a category system at all :P. I don't think the inclusion category is that vague anyway. "Is a user of magic in any way whatsoever" covers it. For example, we have a category of fictional plumbers... but since the rename of "fictional magicians" we don't have any strong category to group say Doctor Strange, Doctor Fate, Zatanna and John Constantine. I think the inclusion criteria should mirror that of the real world, and as such depends on the artistic license and how characters identify within the original media, which is how this category has worked and operated without problem since it's original creation as "fictional magicians".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A way to "save" the concept, at least, would be to break down the main cat into subcategories. But even then the inclusion criteria would likely be subjective and arbitrary. That's often the trouble with fictional character related categories, the definition of a term is limited only by an author's imagination. - jc37 21:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete impossibly POV and vague; one person's "magic" is another's "prayer" or "divine intervention". Carlossuarez46 18:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But "magic" is the most broad, easily-defined term available, encompassing "significantly advanced technology", divine intervention etc. etc. If the decision is to delete, definitely keep the subcategories which establish their own independent criteria.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, by that definition anything that is superhuman can be considered magic. Which, of course, makes this a rather useless category. - jc37 11:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zythe; unique, unambiguous category that fills a needed role in the fictional character category scheme. If you delete this, you might as well nominate the rest of Category:Fictional characters by occupation and Category:Fictional characters by nature, because there are few fictional character categories less obvious or more thematically appropriate than this one. -Sean Curtin 01:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this category is the grandparent cat. for Category:Magic users in comics. Still, I don't see what's so vague about it. There are several types of magic uses out there in fiction and, instead of creating & naming all the categories on their respective names (black magic, white magic, etc.) one category should make do as the name for all of them. ~I'm anonymous
Keep, there is nothing vague about grouping people who use abilities that are described as magical within their universes. --tjstrf talk 07:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Zythe and Curtin hit the nail on the head. TheJoust 20:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional characters with telekinesis[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: listify. if it's "difficult to define" as Piemanmoo suggests, then it is not a "valid category", but should be a list instead - see also unclear inclusion criterion. Aside from that, it is indeed a problem that this category attracts characters with "nebulous do-anything powers", as Sean states - for these people, telekinesis is not a defining characteristic. Since it requires an explanation why a character does or does not "have telekinesis", this should be a list rather than a category, as suggested by both WP:CLS and WP:OCAT. I'll reiterate that changing a category to a list is not a loss of information. >Radiant< 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with telekinesis - Vague inclusion criteria. The problem is that the definition of "Telekinesis" (TK) has become more than just lifting a rock in the air. It's become a "way" to have superhuman powers. (Essentially the ability to "move" anything with your mind, through mental action, rather than through physical action.) Since the ability to "move" atoms has now been considered TK (see Jean Grey, for example), nearly every superhuman power listed at List of comic book superpowers can be done or duplicated using TK. So, since the application, and limits of each user in their TK ability needs defining, this is better grouped as a list, per WP:CLS. - jc37 10:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and Delete - as nominator. - jc37 10:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete per nominator. If possible, merge into a parent list of fictional people with supernatural powers Bulldog123 19:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as it is still a valid category, albeit difficult to define just like Fictional characters with superhuman strength. If possible, we should create subcategories for such variations as mutants (like Jean Grey) with TK, or ones that use it as an facet of other abilities like magic, such as wizards and witches. Come to think of it, they shouldn't have this category on their pages for that same reason. Since characters that use magic are all, in effect capable of telekiesis, those should be removed. That'll cut out a lot of useless additons right there.--Piemanmoo 03:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listfy and delete for vague inclusion criteria. Doczilla 07:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify (or not), cannot objectively tell who's in and who's out. Carlossuarez46 18:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Most of what's in here is used for characters with magical, nebulous "do anything" powers, rather than a stricter definition of psychokinesis. Since telekinesis redirects to (and is essentially a subset of) psychokinesis, this should also be renamed to Category:Fictional characters with psychokinesis. -Sean Curtin 01:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a direct arguement for listifying to explain each manifestation and/or usage. - jc37 11:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per reasons stated by Piemanmoo; however, a rename to Category:Fictional characters with psychokinesis would make more sense for consistency with the article in question. Any thoughts on this? ~I'm anonymous

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

Category:Health Promotion[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, since there was no clear proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree with the category that Health Promotion has been placed... i believe it should be put into a health care genre, not specific to an occupation.(it is currently placed in a nursing category)

as meantioned in the ottawa charter, which was extensively quoted with the health promotion wiki, health promotion doesnt just occur in hospital settings. the portion of the ottawa charter that discusses re-orienting of health services ie: allowing access to health care and information, is also a reason as to why health promotion should be placed in a more general health care category

additionally, those that promote health arent only nurses... doctors, community development workers, health promotion officers, allied health clinicans etc

therefore i feel that it is appropriate that the health promotion wiki should be moved to a different, more generalised health category WikiGremlin 10:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you suggesting? Merge this category? Where? >Radiant< 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably linked to public health, as opposed to a particular occupation. WikiGremlin 07:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Arimaa[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had one member, moved to parent chess variant. Voorlandt 08:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Asia Miles[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Miles is the FFP of Cathay Pacific. The category serves mainly as a repository of links to companies upon which miles may be collected. It is, or should be, covered within Asia Miles. Category:WorldPerks was a similar category which was recently removed, and was based on the same as Category:Asia Miles Russavia 07:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a defining characteristic for other airlines. Greg Grahame 12:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see a reason to not follow past consensus. Vegaswikian 22:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-defining. Carlossuarez46 18:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Templates for deletion[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Templates for deletion to Category:Wikipedia templates for deletion

To follow other top/near-top level template subcategories of Category:Wikipedia templates. David Kernow (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom. David Kernow (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hard to figure out why this category was created. There's not a lot that can go into the category, and everything that could go into it should easily be found and linked in the article itself. —Kevin Myers 04:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 12:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Foundations of Belgium[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foundations of Belgium to Category:Foundations based in Belgium

Merge, to duplicate that follows the conventional form. Wilchett 02:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Greg Grahame 12:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People associated with Dark Shadows[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ersatz performer by performance category. Per strong precedent against such categorization. Otto4711 01:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 12:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the other vague "associated with" categories. Doczilla 07:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & per Doczilla. Carlossuarez46 18:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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