Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 4

< November 3	November 5 >

November 4[edit]

Category:Nektar[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Single-article (+1 subcat) eponymous category for a band. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ... I was just getting ready to do this one ... -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:51, 6 November 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:Tennis clubs established before 1900[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Cut-off years can only be non-arbitrary in a specific context (e.g. 1933-45 in the context of the history of Germany); however, even then, the particular period should ideally be referred to in words (e.g. Category:Nazi Germany). Simply being a round number is not enough for categorisation, and 1900 is just as arbitrary as 1899, 1901, or 1910. I am also deleting Category:Tennis clubs, which will be emptied by this closure. As only two of the five are tennis-only clubs, and all are already categorised in their appropriate "Sports clubs" and "Tennis venues in ..." categories, deletion seems a better option than upmerging. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, 5-article category rescued from the orphanage, grouping articles by arbitrary cut-off date. All the artycles are already categorised properly, so need to merge; category is too small and trvial to listify. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 00:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain -- there is a string of tennis clubs which have recently celebrated, or will soon celebrate, the 125th anniversary of their finding. Without this sort of category, there is no easy way in Wikipedia of discovering the 'Who came first?' ranking of the tennis clubs around the world. Searching the 'Sports Clubs established in 18xx' categories is much too tedious. Rather than create another reason for installing the Semantic Wiki add-on, I'd prefer just to use the proposed category. In case you haven't noticed, many of the tennis club entries on Wikipedia are becoming moribund, having been whittled away by delete-obsessed administrators. Most tennis players have got better thigs to do than to fight these deletions. I haven't! Thegn 07:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not just create a list within the appropriate article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, why not 1899? or 1901? what's magical about 1900? 1901 was the end of the Victorian era so at least that may be less arbitrary for somethings, but tennis clubs isn't something one immediately thinks of in terms of Victoriana. Carlossuarez46 22:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because 1900 is a round number, and 1899 and 1901 aren't. 1899 and 1901 would be arbitrary choices, but 1900 is not. Ravenhurst 13:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlossuarez46 and BHG's nom. All dated categories have to contend with the problem of editors wanting or finding it convenient to have particular groupings other than standard year, decade, century, etc. It's a software and indexing problem that is currently handled by lists and infoboxes, not by creating random year intersection categories. --lquilter 15:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful historical category. Ravenhurst 13:50, 10 November 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:People from Sharon, Massachusetts[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 merge. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People from Sharon, Massachusetts to Category:People from Norfolk County, Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: Merge, single-entry cat for the small town of Sharon, Massachusetts. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Vegaswikian 06:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:54, 6 November 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:Roman Catholic Church murder scandals[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. There is no consensus for renaming to any one particular title (or, indeed, for renaming at all). The least problematic of the options offered below seems to be Category:Roman Catholic clergy convicted of genocide. However, it is still questionable whether that particular intersection is a significant intersection. If it is, is it significant in a general context or only in the context of the Rwandan Genocide (are the any instances of RC clergy being convicted of genocide outside of involvement in the Rwandan Genocide?). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as attack category whose described purpose is much broader than its name. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - hopelessly recentist of course, and I voted to keep the murdering doctors which were deleted recently. But the subject is surely notable, and I don't know how else all these would be found otherwise. Johnbod 03:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the introduction states, this is for 'extremely violent crimes'. So inclusion criteria is ambiguous. Also the tile does not give any indication that this is the purpose of the category so that it is misnamed at best. If deleted, a better named and correctly focused category can be created, I think that would be easier than cleaning this up. Vegaswikian 06:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How hard would it be to rename and redefine to Category:Roman Catholic clergy convicted of murder, which seems to cover all members? Johnbod 14:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If all of the articles have been checked, not hard. I also looked at Category:Murderers, which appears to be the better parent after the rename, to see if a category like this would fit. After looking, I have no idea. The subcats there are really an eclectic mix. I do wonder if this is over categorization by intersection. But I'm open to accepting if it looks like there is consensus for a rename like this. Vegaswikian 19:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The criteria are too broad and the current title too POV. I could support Category:Roman Catholic clergy convicted of murder, but half of the individuals in the category right now were convicted of genocide, not murder. (They are distinct crimes, and you can be convicted of genocide without you yourself having killed anyone (if you are a planner, for example).) I could support having two categories, Category:Roman Catholic clergy convicted of murder and Category:Roman Catholic clergy convicted of genocide, but these are getting dangerously close to non-notable intersections of occupation and criminal conviction. Snocrates 21:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how about Category:Roman Catholic clergy convicted of crimes against humanity which covers genocide, and the dirty war one, but would mean dropping Gerald Robinson, who is just a 1-to-1 murderer? Johnbod 22:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, because under current international criminal law genocide and crimes against humanity are distinct crimes. Genocide is not, strictly speaking, a type of crime against humanity. Category:Roman Catholic clergy involved in human rights abuses may be the type of thing you have in mind. Snocrates 23:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well then Crimes against humanity could do with some clarification. But I'd prefer Category:Roman Catholic clergy convicted of murder or genocide, which would cover all except possibly the Dirty War one, who was only convicted of "complicity" in about 30 murders. Johnbod 23:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This contorted effort to keep the category intact suggests to me that the best route may be to delete it and start from scratch. That's where I stand right now, anyway. Snocrates 23:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well it wouldn't be me doing it, & whoever did would have to do some digging. Maybe just contract to "genocide" letting the dirty war guy go. It would fit as a sub of Category:Rwandan Genocide people at present, with 4 members, but I think is notable, and may expand. Johnbod 23:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - we went through this with Doctors killing people, the conclusion of which was the profession of a killer is trivial, its his/her relation to the victim, leaving us with Category:Doctors convicted of murdering their patients, so the analogous category would be Category:Roman Catholic clergy convicted of murdering their parishoners. While tempting, the analogy breaks down because doctors are hired to cure their patients, quite the opposite of killing their patients - that's what makes it so anathetical and hence notable. Clergy aren't supposed to be concerned too much with their parishoners' temporal maladies, rather with the salvation of their souls, making the analogy of breach of duty to look like Category:Roman Catholic clergy who have consigned their parishoner's souls to Hell, which of course is unverifiable. So, this has no valid intersection, it should be deleted. Carlossuarez46 20:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that is far-fetched. Most of the Rwandans were in fact convicted of killing their parishioners/pupils, but it would be foolish to rename the category to that. I wasn't aware that RC clergy only had a duty of care to paid-up parishioners. Johnbod 01:17, 7 November 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:Eponyms[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 relist to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 13. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category categorizes articles by their titles, rather than by their subjects. Powers ^T 22:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This category gathers together articles about groups of places or things named after people. Carlossuarez46 22:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know what it does; the problem is that that's not how we categorize articles in Wikipedia. We categorize based on the subject, not based on the name by which they are called. Powers ^T 03:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. Actually, there are already a number of lists in the category. Changing vote to Weak keep- perhaps some eponymns are notable as such. Articles should not be categorized here willy-nilly, though. --Eliyak T·C 04:30, 7 November 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:Violoncello concertos[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Violoncello concertos to Category:Cello concertos

Nominator's rationale: Rename in line with main article Cello and parent Category:Compositions for cello. Note that Violoncello concerto is out of line with all the articles in this category, which use "Cello Concerto", but a move of that article has already been suggested on the talk page of that article (nearly 1 month ago, with no comments from anyone until me just now) and would make sense. (I'll resist the temptation to be bold and move it myself, to avoid any potential criticism for "fixing" the category contents in favour of the solution I'm seeking!) Bencherlite ^Talk 22:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod 00:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I have been bold and moved the article, as Bencherlite was tempted to. LeSnail 15:35, 5 November 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:Sanke cards[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 convert to article: see Sanke card. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Articlize and delete - An article in category space. Otto4711 21:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articalize and delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:38, 6 November 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:Molluscs of New Zealand[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. As many of the species in the category are endemic to NZ, perhaps its contents could be trimmed and relocated to Category:Endemic molluscs of New Zealand, possibly in cooperation with WikiProject Marine Biology and WikiProject New Zealand. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Although I am failing to find the precedent here, fauna by country categories have been generally frowned upon. This is the only existing "molluscs by country" category. Since many molluscs are very widespread, they would have to be in a great many country categories, which would result in a great deal of category clutter, if any more of these "mollusc by country" categories existed. A list would be much preferable. LeSnail 21:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Imagine the clutter on Human if there were 172 "Primates by country" categories. Powers ^T 22:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per LtPowers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - New Zealand isn't just a country, it's an island, so a potentially distinct bioregion. --lquilter 18:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but it's in the Category:Fauna by country hierarchy. Speaking of which... wow. My above facetious suggestion isn't so far off. Powers ^T 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for now. A sample I took were all species endemic (unique) to NZ. Other categories in this large tree look far more dubious. It has been agreed in the past they should all be sorted by bioregion eventually. Johnbod 21:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I realise I'm biased, being an Enzedder, but New Zealand is virtually a bioregion in its own right, as LtPowers points out - ISTR that some 80% of its non-introduced species are unique to New Zealand. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - New Zealand is a bioregion in this context, not just a country. Only molluscs which are unique to New Zealand, or to New Zealand and a few other places, are in this category.-gadfium 05:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite true - some are very widespread across SE Asia or the Pacific. Johnbod 01:18, 7 November 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:Jack the Ripper letters[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 merge Category:Jack the Ripper letters to Category:Jack the Ripper (I will also upmerge to Category:Letters; although this wasn't suggested in the discussion, it seems uncontroversial – please let me know if it's not); no consensus for Category:Jack the Ripper victims. Feel free to renominate the "victims" category in the context of a more focused discussion (also, it wasn't entirely clear whether the proponents of merging supported merging to Category:Jack the Ripper, Category:English murder victims, Category:Courtesans and prostitutes, or a combination of the three. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Jack the Ripper letters to Category:Jack the Ripper

Suggest merging Category:Jack the Ripper victims to Category:Jack the Ripper

Nominator's rationale: Merge - small categories with no growth potential. The parent cat is not so large as to require splitting down. Each cat should also be merged to its other parents. Otto4711 20:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merging of "victims" category. This is a perfectly good closed-set category that groups like with like. No opinion on the letters category.--Mike Selinker 20:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't appear to have a Category:Victims by killer categorization structure. No Category:Manson family victims or Category:Jeffrey Dahmer victims or Category:Night Stalker victims. This could (somewhat perversely I admit) be viewed as performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 21:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A more appropriate parallel is this one: Category:Victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks. It's victims by terrorist event, not by killer.--Mike Selinker 23:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The actions of Jack the Ripper don't strike me as in any way comparable to 9/11, as to the best of my knowledge Jack the Ripper is nowhere classified as a terrorist. Otto4711 00:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not by our modern definition, but it was a reign of terror in Whitechapel, and so these victims are thought of as more than just murder victims. It's worth keeping as a category.--Mike Selinker 05:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete - changed as there is a template ...victims, which is also a sub-cat of prostitutes & courtesans; Delete letters per nom. Johnbod 03:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete letters - since there are only 3 articles, each of which includes in its name a word that denotes its contents
Keep victims - since there are 6 articles, none of which are readily identified to the typical reader as victims of Jack the Ripper. Merging them to the parent cats would add unnecessary and avoidable clutter to the contents of those categories. Cgingold 04:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are fewer than 60 articles in Category:English murder victims and 81 in Category:Courtesans and prostitutes. How much "clutter" does six articles add to that? Otto4711 05:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We sure wouldn't want to lift a finger to help readers sort through that clutter and make it easier to find what they're looking for (and avoid what they're not looking for), would we? How silly to be concerned about trivial things like that! Cgingold 07:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge both per nom. In reply to Cgingold, the victims should be listed in the article Jack the Ripper, and a quick glance finds Jack the Ripper#Victims. That's where a reader would start to look for the victims of a particular cereal killer, in the article. We could consider whether further sub-categorisation of Category:English murder victims would be appropriate, but even if the category wasn't quite small, I suggest that geographical sub-categorisation would be more useful than a whole load of small killer-by-victim categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge letters - upmerge and templatise victims. As pointed out, we don't have similar categories for victims of other murderers, and this is a perfect example of a category with no room for expansion. As such, a template linking the articles is surely a cleaner-cut way to go (no pun intended). Grutness...wha? 00:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ripper victims}} already exists. Otto4711 01:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - sorry, I didn't realise that. Even less reason for a separate category, then. Grutness...wha? 00:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, changed above, though there is one less on it. Johnbod 02:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template includes the five canonical victims. The other articles in the category are for murder victims about whom there has been some speculation. They and several others are listed in the victims section of Jack the Ripper, which allows for the sort of explication for inclusion that categorizing doesn't. Otto4711 02:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template could easily be altered to include canonical victims in one section and possible victims in a second, which would also allow for easy navigation. Grutness...wha? 00:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep victims - that these people are thought to be victims of Jack the Ripper is the reason that they have articles. As there are six articles that share this primary charactaristic, a category is warrented. No preference between keeping and upmerging the letters cat. ×Meegs 21:35, 7 November 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:Chappelle's Show[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for a TV show. Most of the contents are performer by performance overcategorization or articles of such tenuous connection as a song that was parodied on the show. The rest, episode lists and the like, are interlinked through the main article for the show which serves as a navigational hub. Category is not warranted. Otto4711 20:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:51, 6 November 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:Tamora Pierce[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. The subcats and the articles are all appropriately interlinked and categorized (and most of the articles should themselves be deleted and are prodded). Category is not warranted. Otto4711 20:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:52, 6 November 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:Joe Biden[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Per many precedents, eponymous categories for individuals are not desired unless they legitimately include (i.e. exclusive of miscategorisation) more than just a handful of articles. The three articles in this category are interlinked and otherwise categorised. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. The three articles are all interlinked and appropriately categorized. Otto4711 20:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the primary and best category for the break-out articles. Ravenhurst 13:53, 10 November 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:Lupe Fiasco[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization per extensive precedent. Everything is appropriately categorized and interlinked. Otto4711 20:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just like other categories, includes nothing worth. Woop-Woop That's the sound of da Police 08:00, 9 November 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.

Baltimore County roads[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 merge to Category:Roads in Baltimore County, Maryland. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge into Category:Roads in Maryland and Category:Baltimore County, Maryland, or at least Category:Roads in Baltimore County, Maryland. This is way too narrow to be useful. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge categories: I originally created the category about Northwest Baltimore County because I found that many articles fit into it, but I am thinking that perhaps, a category as such for all of Baltimore County may be a good idea. Sebwite 20:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Roads in Baltimore County, Maryland per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:56, 6 November 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:Winners of the Hans Christian Andersen Award[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. A good portion of the biographical articles mention the award; however, that does not necessarily mean that being a winner of the award is a defining attribute. Deletion should be reconsidered if information can be offered that suggests that it is a defining attribute. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Winners of the Hans Christian Andersen Award to Category:Hans Christian Andersen Award winners

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Naming in the same style as other winners category. JBellis 18:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest delete per WP:OC for award winners as there is a complete list in the lead article. Otherwise rename per nom for consistency. Why is this a child of Category:Science award winners? Am I missing something? Otto4711 19:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. As for "science award winners" -- oops. I think I missed something when I added that cat. I was probably doing both a science awards cleanup & a date/country cleanup. I'll take that incorrect parent off now and put the correct parents on in case this cat stays. --lquilter 18:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto. Carlossuarez46 22:53, 6 November 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:Winner of Kritikerprisen[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Norwegian Critics Prize for Literature winners. the wub "?!" 15:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Winner of Kritikerprisen to Category:Norwegian Critics Prize winners

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Use English translation of name and put winners at the end in the same style as others in the parent award category. JBellis 18:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Seems defining for these Norwegian writers. Johnbod 14:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Norwegian Critics Prize for Literature winners, to conform to the title of the main article: Norwegian Critics Prize for Literature. For clarity, and per precedent, the full name of the award should be used. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Norwegian Critics Prize for Literature winners to match main article. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:42, 13 November 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:Films about high school life[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. In addition to the noted overlap between this category and Category:Teen films (although this may not necessarily be the case, it is with the three articles currently in the category) and the difficulty of determining the degree to which a film is about high school life, there is also the issue of how we define "high school life". Is it sufficient if a film is set in a high school? If the main characters are identified high school students? If it involves themes of peer pressure, drug use, homework, teen sex, and whatever else high school students did and do ....? While it may be premature to suggest that there is no possibility of having a valid category for this subject, this category (with its title and contents) is not viable. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mild delete, somehow this seems a little too broad to be useful, major overlap with Category:Teen films. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete suffers from the same problems that nearly all "films about" suffer from: how much about high school life must the film be and what 3rd party reliable source tells us that it's at least that much. This could encompass lots of films tangentially related to high school/teen life/coming of age, etc. Immediately coming to mind: Taps, Brady Bunch movies, High School Musical, Carrie, Heathers, Dead Poet's Society, Porky's movies, Breakfast Club, 16 Candles, which have little in common. Carlossuarez46 20:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ... except being set in a high school (the first 2, and DPS, excluded)! KeepJohnbod 12:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - territory is covered by Teen films and Category:Coming-of-age films. No objective standard for how much "about" high school life a film needs to be. Otto4711 13:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The idea that "teen" and "high school" are much the same is U.S. centric. In much of the world, and through most of history, most teenagers have not been in school. Ravenhurst 13:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But throughout history in much of the world, most high school students have been teenagers. Otto4711 14:29, 11 November 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:Music with Place Name in Title[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - see also related nomination near the bottom of this page. These are categorization on the basis of a characteristic of name, a form of overcategorization. Otto4711 16:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as Otto4711 points out we do not categorize by name which is not defining. Plus -- of all the non-defining name categories this is one of the most non-defining-est I've seen. --lquilter 16:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How about Celebrities with dimples or People who died on their birthday or Generals whose names sound like car brands?-- Prove It ^(talk) 17:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I bow to your superior WP:CFD experience! Generals whose names sound like car brands. Wow. --lquilter 17:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Categorization by name. I have no objection to a list articles if someone wants to create them. -- Prove It ^(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do have an objection to list articles, as many many similar (if not identical) list articles have been deleted on the grounds that listing songs on the basis of having a type of name in the title or lyrics constitutes a directory of loosely associated items. Otto4711 17:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as categorisation by name, and don't listify (per Otto4711). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lots of precedents. Carlossuarez46 22:53, 6 November 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:Cycle racing clubs in Australia[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to List of cycle racing clubs in Australia to become a member of Category:Cycle racing in Australia, this is a list article in category space. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convert - per nom. Rudget _{Contributions} 16:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not convert. Unsourced list in category page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not convert. Unsourced WP:NOT#DIRECTORY of a bunch of nn clubs akin to List of Little League teams in the United States or some such. Carlossuarez46 20:14, 6 November 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:List of United States presidential electors, 2004[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 merge. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:List of United States presidential electors, 2004 to Category:2004 United States presidential electors

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of existing category which doesn't match existing naming convention (see Category:United States presidential electors). Bencherlite ^Talk 15:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:47, 6 November 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:People from Middleborough, Massachusetts[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 merge. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:People from Plymouth County, Massachusetts, convention of Category:People by county in Massachusetts. Single member category, and Middleborough, Massachusetts is a town, so it doesn't go with Category:People by city in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:54, 6 November 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.

Eponymous categories and similar subcategories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep all. the wub "?!" 15:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete It is overcategorization and seems pointless. - LA @ 14:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if for no other reason than the various categories provide me with an easy place to look for eponymous categories that should themselves be deleted. If kept, suggest rename all of the "named after" categories to "named for" because the "named after" construction has bugged me for a long time but never enough to nominate them. If deleted then the contents need to be merged to an appropriate parent (such as Category:American politicians for Category:Categories named after American politicians) to keep the categories and their constituent articles in the proper category structures. Otto4711 16:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now... These are all parents to many children, and as long as any of the children remain, the parents should continue to exist. Arguably, many of the children ought to eventually go, but that's another discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my !vote to Merge all of the named after categories. There is no reason why the contents of these categories can't go into the directly named parent. There's no navigational benefit that I can see to having categories grouped on the basis of what they're named for when they can and should (and in most cases I would hope already do) reside directly in the parent. Otto4711 17:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are suggesting that Category:New York Tribune become a child of Category:Companies even though 14 of the 16 article are about people. Does not seem like a good merge. Vegaswikian 19:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at that specific subcat but if that many of the articles in it are for people, I would suggest that it might be person by project overcategorization. Otto4711 20:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about Category:Categories named after companies. The issue is where do you really put categories that categorize all of the elements of a company? Many of these exist today and since they include many companies and products they don't have a good parent unless you want to include tons of material that don't belong under the parent. Now if the discussion is going to decide that we should not categorize by company but instead use a template, then that may be a fine solution. However we will need a work queue for the templatise work items. The problem with this category is that the articles already include the correct categories. Vegaswikian 19:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Ohhh my gawd.<gasp> I'm afraid this is a singularly misguided nomination -- in two respects. First, it's just not appropriate to throw such a disparate array of categories into one gargantuan deletion discussion -- regardless of the particulars. It's virtually impossible to give that many separate categories proper consideration and arrive at well-informed decisions. It would have been far wiser to nominate one category (or perhaps 2 or 3 that are closely related), and then, depending on the outcome of the CFD, perhaps go back and nominate some more.

Second, it's crystal clear that all of these grouping categories were created to deal with the problem of sub-category clutter. To eliminate them would unleash a veritable tidal wave of sub-cats, thereby making a huge mess out of the parent categories. To take one example, Category:Categories named after scientists has 22 sub-categories, all of which would be unceremoniously dumped into the parent cat, Category:Scientists, which currently has 48 sub-cats -- thus bringing the total up to 70 sub-categories. Those 48 sub-cats are mostly for significant sub-divisions of scientists -- which would suddenly have 22 relatively trivial sub-cats strewn hither and thither among them, making it incredibly difficult for users to sort through all of the clutter and find what they're looking for. Whatever one's opinion of the value of the individual eponymous categories, these grouping categories are, in fact, serving an indispensible function, and should not be heedlessly discarded. Cgingold 20:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per Proveit & Cgingold, & to save Otto so much time looking. The composers one seems heavily underpopulated - Bach & Wagner don't have categories? Unlikely. The nom would also leave many of these categories orpphaned, which is a bad thing in itself. Johnbod 03:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Helps finds categories named after notable figures--Java7837 15:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some eponymous categories are valid and have been upheld here, gotta put them somewhere. Carlossuarez46 22:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Helps find a lot of categories that are hard to find in the bottom of a page. Woop-Woop That's the sound of da Police 08:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Very useful for navigation and of great value as a way of tidying up parent categories. Ravenhurst 13:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Seems obvious to me. The entries in these categories have nothing to do with each other at all. Powers ^T 22:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ability to go through these types of categories is highly useful for me, especially when we're doing things like subcategorizing Category:Musicians by band. It would be harder to do such things without these, so I'd like them to stay.--Mike Selinker 13:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Ravenhurst (talk · contribs), and actually all of the keep sentiment expressed above have some pretty good points. It's great for navigation. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 09:04, 14 November 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:Tamil-language films by actor[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete both. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, We've already discussed Films by actor many times. Nearly every film could belong to dozens of actor categories. See also this discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per zillions of precedents to avoid the horrendous category-clutter which this would generate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as performer by performance. Carlossuarez46 21:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ravenhurst 13:56, 10 November 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:People from the Czech Republic[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. The Czech Republic is an independent political entity that has existed only since January 1, 1993. To identify as "people from the Czech Republic" individuals who died prior to that date or who left the area encompassed by the territorial boundaries of the Czech Republic prior to that date is factually inaccurate. We would not identify Julius Caesar as a person from the Italian Republic (Repubblica Italiana) or Tsar Alexander I of Russia as a person from the Russian Federation.

It is not necessary to keep and rescope this category, since it employs non-standard naming. For instance, in lieu of Category:People from Italy or Category:People from Russia, we have Category:Italian people and Category:Russian people. Similarly, Category:Czech people (and its subcategories) is appropriate here. Since this category includes a mix of expatriates, people who lived in the Czech lands but before the existence of the Czech Republic, and possibly others, a straightforward merge is not possible. However, so that the articles in this category are not completely taken out of the Category:Czech people category tree, I will attempt to manually recategorise most entries. It will take some to do that, and deletion of the category will be delayed until it has been completely emptied. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further investigation, it seems that most of the articles in this category already appear in appropriate subcategories of Category:Czech people. Thus, recategorisation is unneeded. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Normally we use People from Foo to indicate residents or natives. For citizens we'd use Category:Czech people. However, this is neither of those ... by looking at the members, this seems to be people who were born in what is now the Czech Republic, and then moved somewhere else. It looks to me like most of them really belong in Category:Czechoslovak emigrants or Category:People of Czech descent.-- Prove It ^(talk) 14:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Category:Czech expatriates is much bigger (and more accurately named) than Category:Czechoslovak emigrants, and they should probably be merged too. That most of the people here left Cz is probably a reflection of WP biases, there are Havel & many other remainers. It needs careful merging, by hand, removing remainers, Slovaks etc. Johnbod 03:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - This is an excellent category. It lists people born in the today's Czech Republic. It is very helpful to know that so many important people hail from this small European country. I had no idea that Freud, Albright or Mendel were originally from there!! Have you?85.70.121.251 07:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge per nom. Freud, Rilke, and Mendel weren't from Czech Republic any more than Pocahontas was from the USA or St. Patrick was from the United Kingdom. (I hope I didn't just commit a WP:BEANS.) The Czech Republic did not exist when these people were alive, and so to say they are "from" it is patently false. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 17:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The right vote for the wrong reason. To avoid total chaos we take the current national borders (as a minimum) as the basis for such categories, resolutely ignoring people who pop up to claim there were no Italians, Germans, Czechs, Indians etc until fairly recent times. If it were to stay, a rename would be in order though. Johnbod 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But notice, for example, that it is called Category:British people and not Category:People from the United Kingdom. Note also that Pocahontas is in Category:People from Virginia instead of Category:People from the Commonwealth of Virginia. We use today's borders (for the most part) because they represent long-standing social and cultural distinctions, but we name the categories after those distinctions, not after the political entity. And no matter what we normally do here on Wikipedia, to say that these people are "from the Czech Republic" false, period. They are, in fact, "Czech people", but that is something entirely different.

The "take the current national borders" strategy is fundamentally flawed because political entities are ephemeral while cultural identities are historical. We need to (and, for the most part, we do) make a distinction between the historical region and the political entity. Jesus doesn't go in Category:People from the State of Israel. Why? Because he was from the Land of Israel, a completely distinct entity.

We cannot and should not use categories that make patently false claims just because it is convenient. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 17:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revolving Bugbear can you explain to me the diffrence between Category:People from Virginia and Category:People from the Czech Republic?? Both are also geographical areas defined by borders. The Czech lands have further sub-divisions Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia. Czech Republic is also a political entity. I work at the U.S. Embassy in Prague and that is how the locals explained this to me. BY the way, it by no means mean that person born in the Czech Republic is Czech. I am born in Prague, my mother is American (the US)and my father is German. I hold ONLY the US passport. I am not Czech, yet I am from what is today the Czech Republic. Also, former secretary Madeleine Albright is born here. An American, but often says that she is from the Czech Republic (even though she was born in Czechoslovakia). Thanks. 85.70.121.251 18:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between Virginia and the Czech Republic is that "Virginia" is a geo-historical region which coincides with the modern-day political entity "Commonwealth of Virginia", whereas the modern-day "Czech Republic" is a political entity which coincides with the geo-historical region of the "Czech lands". The people in this category were no doubt from the Czech lands .... and I would not be averse to a Category:People from the Czech lands. But "the Czech Republic" is an entirely political distinction. As I said, Saint Patrick was from Britain, but not from the United Kingdom. Pocahontas was from Virginia, but not from the USA or from the Commonwealth of Virginia. Jesus was from Israel but not from the State of Israel. Modern political states are not identical with geo-historical regions, even if their borders roughly coincide. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 19:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well we do, to avoid total chaos, as stated above. Johnbod 00:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revolving Bugbear I understand your concerns and I would agree for the category to be renamed as Category:People from the Czech lands. Bolekpolivka 11:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As stated by Johnbod - the single purpose of this category is to group people who were born WITHIN THE BORDERS of today's Czech Republic... I am sorry if caused any problems by creating this subcategory. Thanks Bolekpolivka 07:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; people who were born within the borders of a country at times when that nation didn't exist is a mix of apples and oranges, this is especially true in Central and Eastern Europe where borders and populations have changed markedly over the years. Albright was born in Czechoslovakia. Kafka was born in Austria-Hungary. Both were born in Prague but neither were from the Czech Republic. (As a side-note, Albright being from the Czech Republic would be one of those ambassadors who is "of" one country but "from" another, as being debated elsewhere). Take another example of the less savory variety, Konrad Henlein, Nazi Sudetenland leader, was born in Austria-Hungary, in what is now the Czech Republic. Another person from the Czech Republic, no doubt? (see the whole Category:Sudeten Germans. If this is kept, someone plumb that category to make sure that all eligible entries there are also placed in this category because the accident of their birth on Austrian territory that is now Czech places them in this cat. And add John McCain to Category:Panamanian people and create Category:People from Panama for him too, because his little birth spot has changed hands - hmmm, our first Latino president? (does seem rather worthless) Carlossuarez46 23:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, no People by nationality categories at all for Eastern Europe then?

Carlossuarez46, the problem is that Kafka, Porsche, Rilke, Henlein, Albright and others HAVE some Czech ancestors or ancestrial roots and ties in what is today the Czech Republic. That is in addition to being born there. John McCain has no relation to Panama other than his birth. He would qualify however, for category People born in Panama. Bolekpolivka 11:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, we don't care how miniscule the Czech blood is in anyone, or whether the Czech state existed, it is a category premised solely on fact of bith in the place with one drop of place's current inhabitants' blood in them that qualifies admission to this category? Certainly, subjective, OR, and non-defining. What sort of sourcing would be required to find Czech ancestry for Kafka, Porsche, Rilke, Henlein, Albright - especially since intermarriage between Jews and Czechs was quite rare, or between Germans and Czechs, and how can we really ever be sure that somewhere in the distant past some husband wasn't really the father of the kids they raised. It's all so nebulous and imprecise to be categorized upon. Carlossuarez46 18:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bolek ---- Carlos, you are mixing apples and oranges (your logic is flawed), because then there are no Americans or Australians or Brazilians or Mexicans... The logic beyond your arguments is just silly. By the way Jewes are not nationality (like Czechs or Germans). There are Czech Jewes and German Catholics and French Protestants... Best Tommy 85.70.121.251 19:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jews are an ethnicity as well as a religion. And your logic is flawed: for ethnic Czechs of the 19th century, your logic is that they are Austro-Hungarian Czechs (or Austrian Czechs) because their nationality was Austrian or Austro-Hungarian because Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic did not exist. Czech nationality only came into being in the 1990s, prior to that there was Czech ethnicity but not nationality, which was variously Austrian, Austro-Hungarian, Czechoslovak, Bohemian, Moravian, German, Saxon, and whoever held various pieces of the territory currently occupied by the Czech Republic. Carlossuarez46 07:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you failing to take into account is that Czechs and their states always existed on territory of today's Czech Republic, they had different names, but were in fact states of Czech people (e.g. Kingdom of Bohemia for example). Even under the A-H Empire there was KINGDOM of BOHEMIA, an entity with it's own language, culture and history. I guess, we would not have this talk if in 1992 the Czech government named the country The Republic of Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia. By the way see the comment by Peterkingiron... Some good ponts there!! 85.70.121.251 08:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If I remember correctly the Czech Republic had two precursors, the Kingdom of Bohemia and Margravate of Moravia. Both titles were long held by the Archdukes and later Emperors of Austria. They were thus distinct polities, with clear borders. Czech is also a language, spoken by many of their residents. The problem is that the present natioanl name is Czech Republic, not for example Czechia, so that we cannot adequately form an adjective from the country name, as disticnt from the language. It is clear to me from the discussion above that we have a series of overlapping categories. The extents of these need to be defined clearly and used systematically. "People of Czech descent" would be a valid category, but should have a headnote defining its intended extent, covering those outside the country. "People from the Czech Republic" should similarly be defined to cover nationals and redidents of the republic. This and similar eastern European national categoreis evidently need work (but not by me!). Peterkingiron 20:00, 11 November 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:Video games based on Image Comics[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very small category, the contents basically duplicate the Spawn video games category. Contents should be moved into Category:Video games based on comic books. RobJ1981 11:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems a reasonable subcat of the video games based on comics category. Otto4711 13:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, cjllw ʘ TALK 10:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Some of its sister categories have fewer articles. - LA @ 14:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, additionally Upmerge the Spawn video game cat, or delete it if it is duped in the company cat. - J Greb 15:53, 10 November 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:Seekers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 15:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete a supposedly fan-created category for a certain type of Transformers. No source is provided to confirm anything about it. Doczilla 08:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A fan-created term may be fine if the notability of the term is established, but so far it isn't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept it needs a rename as this is name ambiguous. Vegaswikian 19:16, 5 November 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:Software by owner[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 relist to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 11. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Software by owner to Category:Software by company

Nominator's rationale: Rename, See Category:Computing by company. The almost consistent naming for "company" subcategories is "... by company". These requests change exceptions, vendor and owner, to company. tooold 07:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - looks like neither Category page has the Cfn tag. Likely I never clicked save. After all, I am tooold 17:20, 4 November 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:Computer hardware by vendor[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 relist to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 11. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Computer hardware by vendor to Category:Computer hardware by company

Nominator's rationale: See Category:Computing by company. The almost consistent naming for "company" subcategories is "... by company". These requests change exceptions, vendor and owner, to company. tooold 07:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - per nom. Rudget _{Contributions} 16:52, 4 November 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:Main cities with a main Central Business District[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 merge. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Main cities with a main Central Business District to Category:Central business districts

Nominator's rationale: Seems like a redundant category containing articles on various central business districts throughout the world. All of these articles should either be moved from one or the other. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom to Category:Central business districts. The "Main cities with a CBD" category is misleading, because the category contains the CBDs rather than the cities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Only American cities count? Rudget _{Contributions} 16:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all above. Johnbod 21:00, 5 November 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:Songs with Place Name in Title[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. If the goal is to have a grouping of articles for a WikiProject, there are two options. The first is for the WikiProject to maintain its own lists as subpage of the main project page. The second is to create a project banner to place on article talk pages (see Wikipedia:WikiProject#Creating and maintaining. On a side note, it might be a good idea to make a WikiProject proposal before starting the project. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Categorization by name, see also many precedents. I'd be fine with a list article though. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:OCAT#Unrelated_subjects_with_shared_names. Most of these seem to me to be rather too trivial for lists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:OC. No list. Many similar lists based on the content of lyrics or title have been deleted over the last several months. Please let's not start that cycle again. Otto4711 03:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC and do not list. No. Doczilla 08:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per overcategorisation. Rudget _{Contributions} 16:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - serves no useful purpose. --Merbabu 12:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I can see where you guys are coming from, I have recently proposed the following project: Music With Place Names, trying to link music and geography, Its a bit of a work in progress if you want can you see here I tried to come up with a simple idea to start with, categorizing all songs bands and albums with place names by using this template, eventually moving on to suggested topics like where bands come from etc. If there was a way to list the article by using a template, that would be great!

Any thoughts on my talk page, cheers PhilB 12:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You may want to consider the following as well:

Category:Music with Place Name in Title

Delete all four. Cats need to be based on more than just similarities of names. I'm skeptical about using lists too. ×Meegs 21:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:15, 9 November 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.