Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 5 November 7 >

November 6[edit]

Category:Needs single infobox conversion[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 both as nominated. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Needs single infobox conversion to Category:Song articles needing single infobox conversion
Propose renaming Category:Needs song infobox conversion to Category:Song articles needing song infobox conversion
Nominator's rationale: Rename, Clarity, consistency, and precedent at Category:Song articles needing attention and Category:Song articles by quality. --PEJL 23:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nomination. Doczilla 03:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and move to talk page. Vegaswikian 03:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are populated by {{Newinfobox}} which is for use on talk pages, but also auto-populated also by certain incorrect values in {{Infobox Album}}. Unfortunately this means the articles themselves are categorized in the latter case. --PEJL 07:01, 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:The Trews[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) 03:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Trews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete eponymous category for a band, OCAT per numerous precedents. Carlossuarez46 22:01, 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:McLoughlin Brothers games[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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, without prejudice to recreation when there are more articles to categorise. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:McLoughlin Brothers games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: another from the orphanage: Delete not needed for the one entry; if kept, parent cats need to be found. Carlossuarez46 21:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete underpopulated category. Doczilla 03:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've added it to the parent Category:Games by company. Though it contains the only article on Wikipedia about a game from McLoughlin, that company did publish quite a few others which could have articles.--Mike Selinker 19:12, 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:National Treasure series[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) 03:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Treasure series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Really only links to 2 articles: National Treasure and National Treasure 2. The template is at TFD currently. I don't think the series is big enough for its own category, even if a third movie is made in the future. Axem Titanium 21:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of a real category to this category. Doczilla 03:25, 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:The Legend of Zelda locations[edit]

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

The result of the debate was upmerge into both parents. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Legend of Zelda locations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete: Contains only three articles, one of which has some interest in redirecting/merging two articles. Unlikely to receive significant expansion in the future. Upmerge articles into Category:The Legend of Zelda series/Category:Nintendo locations. Pagrashtak 20:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Not enough items to warrant a category. Axem Titanium 21:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 03:25, 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:Chinese American scientists[edit]

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

The result of the debate was upmerge. While there are strong arguments on the keep side, I found myself swayed against them by Black Falcon's statement that he'd support subcategorization for Chinese American scientists but not Thai American ones, on the basis of category size. This struck me as subcategorization for subcategorization's sake, rather than as part of any organized scheme.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese American scientists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Upmerge into both Category:Chinese Americans and Category:American scientists, relisted from an an ongoing discussion which was never tagged. -- Prove It (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese American scientists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category was deleted two years ago see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Archive debates/2005 July index. Also other ethnic-based scientists categories were deleted see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 1#Category:Fooian scientists.--T. Anthony 04:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not the standard. WP:CATGRS gives the standard as "where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created." (Field of study is already used, and this is not an either-or discussion.) --lquilter 21:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lquilter is right about the test, but I see no evidence offered here that "Chinese American scientists" is a "distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) \u2022 (contribs) 21:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that this category seems less likely to pass the test. Which we can hopefuly get a good sense of if we stay focused on the actual test and not the knee-jerk "no identity / professional intersections" that unfortunately come up all to often. --lquilter 02:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:American scientists and Category:Chinese Americans per ProveIt. Being Chinese American is defining, being a scientist is defining, but being a Chinese American does not have a defining effect on how one practices science. LeSnail 14:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The effect of ethnicity on "how one practices science" is not the standard. See WP:CATGRS. --lquilter 21:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - T.Anthony's original proposed deletion of several of these identity/professional categories in February was a WP:POINT by his own admission and language. They should have been challenged at the time, at least for some categories, and they should be revisited now in full. A blanket rule (and precedent-based rulemaking) is inappropriate for these intersections; see WP:CATGRS. Each category needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis to see whether a "substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) [could] be written" for the category. --lquilter 21:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. However Category:African-American scientists was speedy-deleted as recreation. So I feel that consistency on the matter is desirable. If someone wants to discuss all these "ethnicity/scientists" categories that'd be another matter. It would probably be one I'd be incompetent to debate at this point.--T. Anthony 07:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is not the point, since the guideline makes it clear that results will vary and be particular to the intersection. So the Feb. 1 deletion might have useful arguments to refer to by analogy but one can't simply say "delete it for consistency's sake". It's really rather outrageous that so much work that went into identifying African American scientists was lost. That's a flaw of the categorization software, that makes it so hard to recover lost data, and makes lists better. But it means that it's an even worse idea to make a WP:POINT on deleting a category, especially a very big one as African American scientists was! Still a lesson for this category can be learned, and I hope people will consider it very carefully before tossing off a casual "delete". --lquilter 14:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but some level of consistency seems reasonable. Besides which doesn't it seem strange to have a Category:Chinese American scientists, but no Category:Asian American scientists?--T. Anthony 00:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If Asian American scientists ever comes up for discussion I'll support the existence of the category because I believe a good head article could be written for it. --lquilter 18:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge as per BHG, per precedent: no Fooian-American scientists cats. Carlossuarez46 22:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This precedent does not exist per WP:CATGRS. The standard is (I repeat) whether a head article can be written. Scientists are not magically isolated from ethnic, gender, and sexual identities any more than other types of academics, actors, sportspeople, musicians, and so on. --lquilter 04:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeat all you want, this was deleted. And perhaps you will tell us how Chinese-American scientists' work is different from their non-Chinese-American peers. Since you think it's different, are there areas where it's better? worse? should be trusted against authorities from non-Chinese-American scientists? should be discarded against such authorities. Bottom line is you can't. The term either exalts or deprecates, either way it's POV, because reality is: the work of Chinese-American scientists as a group differs in no demonstrable way from those of non-Chinese-American scientists. Carlossuarez46 18:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that lquilter's point is that this of interest as a cultural phenomenon, in particular to those in say Asian American studies. I don't really agree, and besides which that'd justify an Asian American category rather than a Chinese-American one. Still it's defensible and Chinese-American scientists have been an area of discussion.--T. Anthony 02:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carlossuarez46, I believe you are confusing my comments here with my comments for other CFDs, or other people's comments here. I have not asserted that there is a unique Chinese-American perspective on science, nor on experiences of science as a profession, nor any other argument that could made for this category. Regarding an earlier comment of T. Anthony's, I do think that a Category:Asian American scientists category would be quite useful and could have a head article written. There's certainly a lot of interesting demographics and social sciences data about the topic, although I'm not sure there are enough sources to write the article. However that category isn't at issue here; Chinese America scientists is; and readers should please note that (contrary to misrepresentations) I have not argued to keep this category. I have merely pointed out that some arguments to delete this category are not appropriate. --lquilter 18:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
T. Anthony's correction to Carlossuarez46 is right: Carlos stated that the work of Chinese-American scientists as a group differs in no demonstrable way from those of non-Chinese-American scientists. But again, there is no suggestion anywhere in WP:CATGRS that a head article or category about Chinese-American scientists has to be based on a difference in the type of work that Chinese-Americans produce. In fact that's a fairly labored construction of the category. It should be obvious that biographical categories are generally about the defining experiences and identities of the subjects. There is continuous confusion between the subject of science and the person of the scientist that confuses these conversations, but the distinctions are critical. --lquilter 18:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without such a requirement, it can be nothing but a list or a POV page. What can we say about Chinese-American science or scientists that is any different than about any other Fooian-American science or scientists? Nada. Carlossuarez46 18:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it turns out, one can say a lot about the impact of ethnicity on people's professional careers. To take one example: There are many, many biographical encyclopedias about African American scientists, African American inventors, and so on. That's one part of a bunch of ethnic studies fields and the history of science. In other words, it's a sociological approach to studying scientists and the sociology of science. I repeat, this is not the same thing as suggesting "African American science" or "Chinese American science" is a field of study. The argument that Cgingold is making above in the psychology/social sciences fields is a little different. Cgingold is saying that particular personal experiences are directly relevant to professional output in some fields. So African American journalists would be more likely to cover African American issues and have a distinct perspective. Either of those two arguments could form the basis of a head article that would be more than a list and that would therefore support a category under WP:CATGRS. Neither category requires POV of any sort -- simply demonstrated secondary sources supporting that the topic is studied and discussed. And again, I am not convinced that the literature is currently available to support a head article on the distinct professional perspectives or experiences of this category -- Chinese American scientists, so I haven't argued that we should keep it right now (nor have I argued that it should be deleted). But that's the standard, not any confusion about whether we're talking about "Chinese American science". (I mean, even grammatically this should be obvious. I'm not sure why people get so confused.) --lquilter 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Chinese scientist are part of important ethnic group within the American society, they are not WASPS nor they are Latin-Americans, Jews or Afro-Americans. the Category can tell us a lot about the successive absorption of the Chinese immigrants into the American life.--Gilisa 08:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These categories needto be considered independently. As they are, and the arguments presented, I think it will increasingly become clear the the previous overgeneral decision was in fact not correct, and not really currently cupported. It was 8 months ago, and consensus can change. DGG (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would like to insert two paragraphs that I originally posted a couple of days ago in the CFD for Category:Jewish American scientists, which are equally pertinent here, because they address the fact that this and other related topics have "already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources", as it says in WP:CATGRS:
There's an additional factor that needs to be taken into consideration with regard to this and other ethnic-related categories. Here in the United States, it is entirely commonplace for school teachers to give assignments that involve researching notable individuals of one or another ethnic background. Moreover, the education standards in most (if not all) states require that particular attention must be paid to the history and contributions of different (often specified) ethnic groups. And most of the history and social studies textbooks that are adopted by school systems in the United States must meet requirements in this regard that have been spelled out by the boards of education for major states, such as California and Texas.
I've always assumed, without really thinking about it, that most of this was common knowledge which didn't need to be mentioned. But it occurs to me that many editors -- especially those who don't live here in the U.S. -- are probably not, in fact, aware of this whole aspect of the issue. (I've never seen it referenced in any of the CFDs for ethnic-related categories that I've seen.) If Wikipedia is to truly serve the needs of its readers -- a great many of whom are American middle and high school students -- then surely this should weigh heavily in our considerations. Cgingold 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I am normally wary of any ethnicity-citizenship-occupation (ECO) triple-intersections as they often constitute overcategorisation and are prone to what might be crudely called "look at how many famous people belong to my ethnic group" syndrome. However, I believe this particular category may be justified.
Whether we allow a particular ECO intersection should largely depend on the relevance of ethnic divisions in a given society, particularly with respect to the occupation being considered. In general, ECO intersections are most significant when the occupation has a social and cultural orientation (e.g. politicians, writers, philosophers). However, if ethnicity is particularly salient in a society, then this significance can and should transfer over into occupational subdivisions. The implications of the preceeding three sentences for the category in question are mixed, bringing me to my second point...
Category:Chinese Americans contains 310 members, so subcategorisation serves a practical purpose in this case. I would not support subcategorisation for Category:Thai Americans, for instance, as that contains only 26 members. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
< nodding > This is completely in keeping with the sense that these intersection categories are best viewed as professional subcategories of ethnic identity categories (cross-linked into the professional category tree for convenience). Whatever one's view on ethnic divisions of professional categories (whether ethnicity plays a substantial enough role in professional opportunities/sociology/history/etc. to support a head article and a categorization), this approach is just about category management, and relates back to WP:CATGRS' admonition to not let these categories be the bottom rung of a professional category tree. --Lquilter 18:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Our deliberations on issues like this should not be conducted as though Wikipedia exists in some sort of hermetically sealed realm, separate and apart from the real world, where such supposedly outdated and perhaps bothersome concepts as race and ethnicity must not be allowed to intrude. It's abundantly clear that much of the opposition to this and other similar categories is rooted in a fundamental dislike or aversion for ethnic categorization in general on the part of various editors -- who are most assuredly entitled to their views on such things. But their personal views and feelings should not take precedence over all of the other considerations that support having these categories; nor should they dictate whether categories of this sort are allowed to exist.

I submit that the real question here is whether Wikipedia exists to properly serve the needs of its readers, including ethnic minorities (as discussed in previous remarks by myself and other editors) -- or is it enough to satisfy the preferences of a small number of editors?

In closing, I want to point out that WP:CATGRS is not, in fact, an official "policy" -- as it has been mistakenly referred to -- but rather, a guideline. There is a significant difference: guidelines are advisory, whereas policies are pretty much binding. And this guideline, in particular, has been consistently misused with regard to ethnic categories: instead of reflecting the current consensus -- which it clearly doesn't -- it has been used prescriptively as a device for compelling adherence to that non-existent "consensus". That is completely contrary to what is clearly stated at WP:POLICY: "The purpose of a written policy or guideline is to record clearly what has evolved as communal consensus in actual practice, rather than to lead editors prescriptively toward a given result." (emphasis added) Furthermore, as lquilter has ably pointed out, its meaning has been repeatedly misconstrued and its purported requirements greatly overstated. In short, WP:CATGRS should not be used to override the compelling rationale in support of retaining this category. Cgingold 15:54, 15 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:Girl gang films[edit]

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

The result of the debate was upmerge to Category:Exploitation films. There's no genre here, but without the upmerge, these films will fall out of the genre genre of Exploitation films.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Girl gang films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete no real genre here, just films that someone thinks has something to do with girl gangs for which we have no article. Again, suffers from the failings of these films about categories: how much about the subject must it be and what 3rd party RSes tell us it's at least that much. Carlossuarez46 20:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —Ruud 20:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonexistent genre. Axem Titanium 21:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bogus category. Doczilla 03:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Phony genre. --JMay from tampa bay 06:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No one is saying it is a genre, but it is clearly a defining topic for these two 50s movies, which would otherwise be lost amid all the '000s of other films. They should at least be linked and more fully categorised. Never having heard of either, I found it a useful category. Were there more? Without a category, who can say. Johnbod 12:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two items is not enough for a useful category. A "See also" link would achieve the same purpose just as well and more efficiently. Axem Titanium 15:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The category was set up on Nov 1st. From a quick Google, we are missing : Girl Gang(1954) "She-Devils on Wheels" (1968), "Truck Stop Women" (1974),Switchblade Sisters (1975), "Reform School Girls" (1986).] and doubtless others. Johnbod 16:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three now added, so cat stands at 5. Having done this research, I'm even clearer that the nominator's qualms are not justified:"how much about the subject must it be and what 3rd party RSes tell us it's at least that much" - these clearly do not stray from the main topic very far. The sources are there, although I'm never clear that we actually need an RS to explain the plot or clear subject of a film or other artistic work. The work itself does that. Johnbod 16:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Reform School Girls does not IMHO fit in this category. It's a pastiche of the "women in prison" film genre/subgenre. There are not to the best of my recollection any girl gangs in it. As with so many such categories it's doomed by definitional issues. Otto4711 19:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the definitional issues are any larger here than in scores of other film cats, in fact they seem rather less. Johnbod 20:05, 8 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:Animals as dramatic characters in television[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:Television series about animals. – Black Falcon (Talk) 03:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animals as dramatic characters in television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete non-defining, as listed any even minor role of an animal in a tv series puts it in the category: would no doubt include most cartoons, many sitcoms, any crime show with a bloodhound (or a certain 70s crime show with a cockatoo). Carlossuarez46 20:05, 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:20 Year Club[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 speedily deleted as nonsense by Kingboyk. Procedural non-admin close. BencherliteTalk 21:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20 Year Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This so-called "20 Year club" is not an official group, and is probably something the creator just made up him/herself. The category only includes three articles, and the title is also quite ambiguous. - PeeJay 19:30, 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:20 year club[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) 03:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20 year club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Is this category really necessary? I don't think so. It will be very empty. Rjd0060 19:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this nomination, the user created another one, Category:20 Year Club due to the typo in the first (now empty) cat. - Rjd0060 19:10, 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:War of the Triple Alliance battles[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) 03:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:War of the Triple Alliance battles to Category:Battles of the War of the Triple Alliance
Nominator's rationale: Rename, convention of Category:Battles by war. Tim! 18:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. I created the category a bit ago, but renaming is needed to match the convention. Hmains 03:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nomination and per category creator's request. Doczilla 03:22, 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:Commercial software[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) 03:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Commercial software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A useless (absurd is an alternative)category. There are thousands of commercial software products. Suppose this category was populated with 100 of them, with 1,000 of them, ... would you ever use this category to find a product? Would you actually expect to find YOUR product? Significant products have their own article and are found by search. The user community is more rational than this category, meeting user's needs to locate software with subject orientated lists. See, for example, List of antivirus software. tooold 18:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, every software you can buy is commercial and that amounts to millions and millions, with more each year. Not defining. Axem Titanium 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --lquilter 01:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 03:22, 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:Metal recording studios[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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) 03:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Metal recording studios to Category:Recording studios
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Over-categorisation. It's not helpful, nor in most cases it is possible, to sub-divide recording studios by genre. This is the first category to attempt to do so and I suggest nipping this is the bud now would be a good idea. kingboyk 17:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge If there were thousands of recording studios, then it might be worth sub-cat'ing them by some of the main genres (metal, soul, hip hop, etc), but it's not needed now. Lugnuts 18:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge unneeded category that is poorly named and generally not distinguishing. Doczilla 03:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Johnbod 12:26, 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:US state government navigational boxes[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) 18:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:US state government navigational boxes to Category:United States state government navigational boxes
Nominator's rationale: Rename, US -> United States, which is standard for categories. —Markles 16:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I created the cat. I did it like it was because I felt as though "United States state" might be a bit confusing. I say weak keep because if it is changed, I won't be upset. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per standard. Doczilla 22:22, 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:Jewel Riders[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) 03:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewel Riders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - per extensive precedent, show article plus episode and character subcats don't warrant a category. Otto4711 13:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto. Didn't we delete some other version of this over a year ago? Doczilla 03:33, 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:The Zeta Project[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) 03:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Zeta Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - material doesn't warrant the eponymous TV show category, per hundreds of precedents. Otto4711 13:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Doczilla 03:21, 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:Allen Ginsberg[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 pages in the category, except Pull My Daisy (PMD), are visibly linked from the main article. PMD shouldn't appear in the category in any case, as it constitutes films by actor overcategorisation (I realise that the connection is slightly stronger, in light of Pull My Daisy (poem), but nonetheless ...). – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Allen Ginsberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - all of the articles are improper performer by performance overcategorization and the category itself is eponymous overcategorization. Otto4711 13:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Said it before, say it again - why is it OTT to categorise people's works and then put that into an eponymous category? If there's no Category:Allen Ginsberg then how are readers supposed to get from Allen Ginsberg to the (presumably useful) Category:Works by Allen Ginsberg? Imho, every artist or artisan with some kind of "works by" category (albums by, songs by etc) should have an eponymous category. --kingboyk 17:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably they would go from one of the copious interlinkages that are within Allen Ginsberg to each of his works that has a Wikipedia article. Otto4711 18:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You always say that, but having looked at the suitably rambling article, I found links to the three films hard/impossible to locate - one or two are in "see also" with no explanation. If deleted, a proper little "filmography", or whatever, section should be added to the bio. Johnbod 17:47, 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:Neil Gaiman[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 and repurpose. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neil Gaiman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Cat not needed for subcats and main article. Otto4711 13:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful collection of sub-categories. (Emperor 14:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Rename "Works by Neil Gaiman" (Emperor 14:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • No objection to a rename and repurpose. Otto4711 17:25, 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:Alumni of Westfield, University of London[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 as nominated, to match the title of the main article: Westfield College. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Westfield, University of London to Category:Alumni of Westfield College
Nominator's rationale: The name of the institution was Westfield College - "Westfield, University of London" is an anachronism, applying the current name structure for Queen Mary, University of London to the colleges it was formed from. Timrollpickering 12:12, 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:American film actors[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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) 03:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:American film actors to Category:American actors
Nominator's rationale: See below All Hallow's Wraith 10:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Most if not all of the actors by nationality categories are going to be enormous. The fact that someone like Brad Pitt gets miscategorized under both film and television doesn't warrant the merger. Otto4711 13:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is a perfectly ordinary build-out of profession-by-nationality categories that's needed. Redundancy between film actors and television actors should be handled by removing categories where they are used inappropriately. --lquilter 17:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose perfectly good categorization by nationality. Blame those who mis-cat actors, not the categories! Lugnuts 18:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per the rest. TheBlazikenMaster 18:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per conventions. Doczilla 03:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not the same thing as the parent, and obviously useful in its own right. Ravenhurst 13:45, 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:American television actors[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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) 03:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:American television actors to Category:American actors
Nominator's rationale: Both "American film actors" and "American television actors" are pointless, since most, if not all, actors are included in both categories. Most actors who appear primarily on television have had at least a minor film role at some point (and thus are usually added to "film actors") while most film actors have usually had at least a few television appearances (i.e. Brad Pitt on Friends) and thus are placed into the television category as well as film. Therefore, there is really little reason for these categories to exist separately, so I propose merging all entries in film and television actors into simply "American actors". All Hallow's Wraith 10:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Categories are supposed to help define what individuals are notable for, not for what they may have happened to have done once in their lives. Most actors are notable for either their work in television or film, but only more rarely is an actor notable for work in both. This seems to be more a problem of application than any actual problem with the pre-existing categories. (Also, having separate categories will maintain consistency with every other sub-category in Category:Television actors by nationality and Category:Film actors by nationality. No reason to merge the American ones if the other nationalities are being kept separate.) Snocrates 11:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Most if not all of the actors by nationality categories are going to be enormous. The fact that someone like Brad Pitt gets miscategorized under both film and television doesn't warrant the merger. Otto4711 13:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is a perfectly ordinary build-out of profession-by-nationality categories that's needed. Redundancy between film actors and television actors should be handled by removing categories where they are used inappropriately. Brad Pitt is not defined by any television appearances and should be removed from those categories, for instance, but he is defined as a film actor. --lquilter 17:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose perfectly good categorization by nationality. Blame those who mis-cat actors, not the categories! Lugnuts 18:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per the rest. TheBlazikenMaster 18:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per conventions. Doczilla 03:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not the same thing as the parent, and obviously useful in its own right. Ravenhurst 13:45, 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:Cases profiled in the CCM[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 subject of cases profiled in a publication is more suited for the main article about the publication than a category. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cases profiled in the CCM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is for criminal cases profiled in the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation's Crime Classification Manual. That a crime is talked about in a book is not a defining characteristic. szyslak 09:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: So what is your nomination? You're arguing for deletion, right? Doczilla 22:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, on the grounds of "not a defining characteristic". szyslak 09:25, 8 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:Planet of the Apes Films[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. – Black Falcon (Talk) 03:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Planet of the Apes Films to Category:Planet of the Apes films
Nominator's rationale: Speedy rename. The word films should never have been capitalized. Doczilla 08:25, 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:Drinking songs[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, but prune. This is a legitimate song category, but songs that are not primarily sung in a drinking context should be pruned from the category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drinking songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Very divisive category; just what qualifies as a drinking song? This category is way too broad and way too hard to define (note that Friends in Low Places is among those listed). Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too hard to define. What level of acceptance or widespread use does it have to have to qualify? Snocrates 05:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a per article question that rests on (a) notability (if nobody ever sings it ever in any context then it doesn't belong in WP) and (b) definingness of the category for that particular article. --lquilter 17:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to arbitrary inclusion criteria. If you spend enough time at the pub, you'll soon discover that all songs are drinking songs. szyslak 09:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but it appears that some songs are defined as "drinking songs". See, for example, "The Goddamned Dutch" which is described in its lede as "... a traditional drinking song"; "Fathom the Bowl", described as "an English drinking song, probably dating from the nineteenth century"; "Barnacle Bill the Sailor", described as "an American drinking song". --lquilter 17:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And despite its subject matter, I don't think "Friends in Low Places" is truly defined as a drinking song. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that's a miscategorization problem with the article, not a problem with the category. It doesn't seem to me to be inherently problematic: Yes, I know that all songs can be song while drinking, but all songs can be sung by a cappella, too. ... It appears that the problem is that it is listed as a "Category:Songs by theme" which suggests a different meaning than "Category:Songs by genre". I would recategorize based on the discussion on the article that this is a genre, and put some "needs work" template on the article. --lquilter 14:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Browsing and looking at the articles it appears that a number of these songs are not in any other genre category, and there is a head article (Drinking song) which indicates that it's a specific genre. Responses to comments above. --lquilter
    • But how does this deal with the lead article being so arbitrary and inclusionary? Every song can not be a dirking song. Without a focus this is a catgory that is not focused. Vegaswikian 03:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Drinking song is currently tagged as OR. Not sure that is a strong endorsement for supporting article inclusion in this category. In addition, I read the article a few times. It appears to me that any song sung while drinking is defined there as a drinking song, so any song on a karaoke machine is a drinking song. Unless the main article is rewritten, deleting is not an unreasonable action since the inclusion criteria is ambiguous. Vegaswikian 18:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per lquilter. Johnbod 01:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete for arbitrary inclusion. This ought to be fixable, but probably isn't. Doczilla 03:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepPer lquilter. --JMay from tampa bay 06:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeep There are sufficient articles that clearly fit, and individual ones that possibly don't can be discussed at the relevant individual article talk pages.
  • KeepPer lquilter. Ravenhurst 13:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Encyclopedia Britannica has a "drinking songs" article. See here [1]. Now if there is miscategorization of songs, then that will have to be argued out on the individual article discussion pages. But to deny the category seems a bit silly. serendipitousstl (email) —Preceding comment was added at 21:23, 12 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:Buscando a Timbiriche, La Nueva Banda contestants[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 conclusion, for now. The subcategories of category:Reality television participants suggest we do keep these types of categories. With no prejudice to a global nomination of contestant categories, this one is too obscure to serve as a precedent for categories like Category:Big Brother contestants.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buscando a Timbiriche, La Nueva Banda contestants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete another category for these reality show contestants another (apparently the ones making the finals) is nominated below. Carlossuarez46 20:31, 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, Black Falcon (Talk) 05:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete contestant category. Doczilla 03:30, 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:Pakalomattom[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 Category:Saint Thomas Christians people. This rename wasn't suggested by any of the voters, but everything seems to think some rename is necessary. Both the group and people in the group have the same name (that is, we can't split like Category:Protestantism and Category:Protestants). The closest analogue I could find is Category:Jehovah's Witnesses people, so that's the direction I'm heading. Definitely no prejudice against another nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pakalomattom to Category:Pakalomattom family
Nominator's rationale: Rename, apparently this family has been famous in India for centuries and is unlikely to be interlinked as would be normal in a family confined to two generations or so. The main article is poorly sourced and may have much OR, which if removed would cast doubt as to the continuity and extent of this family, but that debate is probably appropriate first at the article's talk page and best now just to decide whether this family category is correct and to rename it as per other family cats. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename - trying to read through the...um...challenging main article, it does not appear that this is a "family" in the sense that families are categorized on Wikipedia. It seems more like a religious sect or denomination. Not appropriate for a family category. Otto4711 01:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Otto, though clan or caste might be better terms - there are 98 sub-families listed there, which rather takes it out of the usual ambit of family in English. Johnbod 17:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can anyone suggest something better than the stand-alone Pakalomattom? do we pluralize it? If it's a caste, should it be deleted as we don't categorize by caste? Any thoughts? Carlossuarez46 21:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In trying to get through a number of the articles, many of which are in as poor a shape as the main article, and in looking at some Ghits, I find myself coming to the conclusion that this may be part of a walled garden. The articles are extensively interlinked and are appropriately categorized in multiple categories such as Category:Indian bishops and Category:Saint Thomas Christians so I question the need for the category. Otto4711 18:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 05:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although there is no consensus for the proposed renaming, there isn't really consensus for the status quo either. An opportunity for additional discussion and consideration should prove more useful than an ambiguous "no consensus" close. – Black Falcon (Talk) 05:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my reasoning above. Possible walled garden, ill-defined category based on highly confusing main article, contents appropriately interlinked and elsewhere categorized. Otto4711 13:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The definition is pretty clear - they are all members of an extended family or clan. The articles cover subjects from C17th clergy to living politicians, so hardly represent a "walled garden". The fact that the main article, and others, are indeed "confusing" is surely an argument for keeping the category, not deleting it. We don't have good coverage of South India, and should build on what we have, not remove it because it does not meet the highest standards. I'm very open to a rename, but can't think of a suitable one myself. Johnbod 17:39, 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:Great Midwest Conference men's basketball tournament venues[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) 03:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Great Midwest Conference men's basketball tournament venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete we shouldn't be categorizing arenas based on what sporting tournaments have been held there - various venues are used for numerous events and giving a category for each to each would be cat clutter. Carlossuarez46 23:16, 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, Black Falcon (Talk) 04:57, 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:Bioinformatics Software[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bioinformatics Software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Found this error onus category, the correct category is Category:Bioinformatics software (lower case "software"). I've merged the 4 entries that had been here into the 44 entries of the correct category. tooold 04:07, 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:Systems software companies[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 speedily deleted by BrownHairedGirl per the below. Procedural non-admin close. BencherliteTalk 21:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Systems software companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Found it empty. History shows a prior attempt at deletion. tooold 02:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as empty and because creator of category was the one who tried to delete it, using prod instead of {{db-author}}. BencherliteTalk 08:50, 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:Mainframe software companies[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Vegaswikian as empty. – Black Falcon (Talk) 03:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mainframe software companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The one entry here, Digitek - a 1970s company, was recategorized Compilers. New entries here seem unlikely. tooold 01:46, 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:Ann Rinaldi[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) 03:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ann Rinaldi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Otto4711 01:30, 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:Chinua Achebe[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinua Achebe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for a single article. Otto4711 01:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, delete. The intended purpose of this category was taken care of by Category:Works by Chinua Achebe. Since I created it and agree it should be deleted is there a way to make this speedy? --JayHenry 01:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is now. Speedy delete per user request. {{db-author}} does the trick too. BencherliteTalk 08:51, 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:Austen family[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Austen family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous family overcategorization. The members of this small category are all extensively interlinked. Otto4711 01:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Little or no potential for expansion without a posthumous baby boom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, although there are in fact many other borderline notable relatives. Johnbod 02:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These aren't the only people in the world named Austen. Doczilla 03:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all, especially Doczilla. LeSnail 19:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful subdivision of the parent categories. There is at least one more person who should have an article. Ravenhurst 13:48, 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:Fictional swimmers[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:Fictional competitive swimmers and rescope, without prejudice to renomination. With regard to retention of the category, this is essentially a "no consensus" close. Although most of the character biographies mention competitive swimming, in some cases it's mentioned as a part of a character's "early life" and so may not be a defining attribute. However, the suggested rename at least relocates the category to a more accurate and appropriate title. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional swimmers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as non-defning. Just because these 9 characters have at some time been shown to swim does not make this a defining quality. Doczilla 00:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Fictional competitive swimmers. Haven't reviewed every article but that appears to be the intent of the category and for at least some of the characters being a competetive swimmer seems at least somewhat defining. Otherwise delete. Otto4711 01:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not particularly defining and not a very large number of items either. Axem Titanium 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is this really a defining characteristic? Vegaswikian 03:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm fighting a losing battle here, but I already explained my reasons for resurrecting the article as swimmers are sportspeople. Conquistador2k6 15:34 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • But how does that make this trait a defining characteristic? Adding competitive to the title may help, but are these characters only notable because of this activity or are they notable for other plot elements that they are involved in? Vegaswikian 20:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or rename to Category:Fictional competitive swimmers if necessary. Six of these characters (Caitlin Atkins, Ric Dalby, Invisible Woman, Liberty Belle (comics), Aspen Matthews, and Shanna the She-Devil) have sections in their articles referring to their competitive swimming exploits at the Olympic or other level. (As I don't know Baywatch or Neighbours, I don't know about the other three, though the internet suggests Cody Madison could belong in here.) I added a header that explains that this is not for every mer-person, but only for competitive swimmers.--Mike Selinker
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_6&oldid=1074799436"