Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 24 October 26 >

October 25[edit]

Category:Articles to be expanded since August 2006[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: already speedy deleted as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Articles to be expanded since August 2006 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: same as others below, cleared out. Guroadrunner 23:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Articles to be expanded since September 2006[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: already speedy deleted as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Articles to be expanded since September 2006 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. Guroadrunner 23:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

no longer used, cleared out[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification since December 2006 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. Guroadrunner 23:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Churches destroyed in the Great Fire and not rebuilt[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, but since the new articles were already created and the articles moved, I'll just leave them there for disambiguation purposes. Both sides brought up strong arguments, the strongest being the existence of the two lists, which have much more information than the categories do.. Kbdank71 20:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Churches destroyed in the Great Fire and not rebuilt to Category:Churches destroyed in the Great Fire of London and not rebuilt
Category:Churches rebuilt after the Great Fire but since demolished to Category:Churches rebuilt after the Great Fire of London but since demolished
Nominator's rationale: Disambiguation purposes. Great Fire redirects to List of historic fires, which lists at least 24 historical fires called the "Great Fire of X". These categories also both have good list articles, and possibly the categories should be deleted and the contents upmerged to Category:Churches in the City of London, depending on the consensus. Snocrates 22:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both per nom, and keep. Johnbod 22:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can someone explain why this is a defining characteristic of these churches? Vegaswikian 02:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, am I missing something? Whether the church has been in existence for the last 350 years, or not, and whether it is medieval or baroque, would seem to be pretty defining! Johnbod 12:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if the church was destroyed in the fire, why is that defining? If the church was destroyed in the fire and rebuilt, why is that defining? The latter seems better for a list with information like when reconstruction started and when it was finished. Vegaswikian
  • Delete Small cat with little or no room for growth. Lugnuts 12:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Careful reading of the nomination will show there are two categories included; one has 7 members, the other 26. The policy describes 'Small cats with little or no room for growth' as those with 2 or 3 members. Johnbod 12:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no magic number of articles that make a category exempt from the guideline. Otto4711 16:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Magic or not, the policy refers to 2 or 3, and categories containing 7 members are routinely accepted here. Let alone 26. Johnbod 16:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OC is a guideline, not a policy, and it reads in relevant part: Avoid categories that will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country. It offers as examples categories for The Beatles' wives, of which there are I believe seven, and Elizabeth Taylor's husbands, of which there are I believe also seven. Otto4711 18:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes - I see someone has changed the policy, apparently with no prior discussion that I can see on the talk page. Was that you by any chance? I shall raise the matter on the guideline talk page. Johnbod 20:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've tracked the change to Radiant! so apologies (if appropriate). He originally chabnged the wording to a "handful"; I dread to think what Dr S would have said about that. Few is no clearer, as we are seeing. I've raised the issue on the talk page. Johnbod 20:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The smaller cat with 7 members could conceivably grow to to three times that number. The parish reorganisation that followed is probably quite complex and might also benefit from an article 18:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephebi (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as being unnecessary intersections of several properties. Make a subcategory of Category:Former buildings and structures of the City of London for buildings destroyed in the Great Fire, then try to convince me that it needs further subcatting. Notice also that the categories already exist as perfectly good lists. —Blotwell 06:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom - The Great Fire of London was a very significant event in the history of London. I suspect that there were in fact rather more than seven churches that were not rebuilt, and some of these had a long hisotry before their destruction. "Churches rebuilt ..." is a genuine (and valuable) category. Its converse, those not rebuilt ought therfore to exist. Listifying would only be appropriate if there were a significnat number of red links to be included in a list. Howevcer generally categories are to be preferred to lists. Peterkingiron 00:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nominator) : someone has pre-emptively emptied the categories, replaced them with the proposed renamed categories, and redirected the old catgories to the new ones. Permission to slap the editor, please. Snocrates 08:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we're getting far too much of this - at least this time there is a trail. Johnbod 11:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all 4. List of churches destroyed in the Great Fire of London and not rebuilt and List of churches rebuilt after the Great Fire of London but since demolished cover this in greater detail. In fact, if it was not for these two categories I suspect that we would have a single list which would actually be better then the two lists. There is no preference between categories and lists, they both have different uses. Here the lists appear the better choice since they can address the issues like partial rebuilding and towers left standing. Categories fail when you need that level of information. A notable event does not make everything else affected notable. So also delete as not a defining characteristic since the fire did not cause the churches to exist. Also the lack of red links does not mean that the list is not the right choice over a category. Vegaswikian 19:58, 30 October 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.

Geobox categories[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. Despite the majority of commentators wanting to keep these categories, insuffucient reasons were advanced as to why the geobox template should breach policies and guidelines against having internal wikipedia categories in mainspace. There has been a consensus to retain categories relating to problems of article quality such as for unreferenced or possibly non-notable articles, which I believe those are issues of quality and reliability which shoukd be rawn to the attention of the reader. However, no clear argument has been here made for why the {{geobox}} template should, apparently alone among infoboxes, be an exception to this convention; any benefit to editors from having these categories would apply equally to dozens of other widely-used infoboxes.
I am aware that this closure will appear controversial to some editors, and I would urge any concerned editors to discuss the matter with me before considering a deletion review (in any case WP:DRV requires such an attempt to seek resolution before using the DRV process). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll just repeat the same comment I placed at the original discussion:
This feature is definitely not a must for the Geobox template. It was added after some requests (no better solution was suggested) and just some like it some don't. I had read carefully WP:CAT before I set this functionality up and didn't find anything that would suggest the Category can't be used this way. You say you're sure there's something in WP:CAT. Do you mean the line saying: Categories relating to the Wikipedia namespace should be added only to the talk page of articles. For example, tags suggesting the article needs work would be placed on the talk page as they are relevant to editors and not an aid to browsing in the way ordinary categories are.?
Then almost every wiki page is breaking this rule, take e.g. Prague. There are four (sic!) maintenance categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since September 2007 | Articles with unsourced statements since March 2007 | Articles needing additional references from August 2006 and no one seems to object to this even when it is obviously breaking the rule I quoted. Not talking about this breaking other rules from WP:CAT, e.g. the first category is superior to the second one and therefore it should be there at all. One category is placed here by the template (and other maintenance tags often placed at the very top of many articles do the same) that displays the This article needs additional citations for verification text, where the other come from I do not know. I doubt anyone can actually find any use to a category Articles with unsourced statements since March 2007. Yet it is diplayed at a major article, in the main namespace. And Prague is not an exception.
The auto-category doesn't primarily serve to trace the usage of the Geobox template but rather denotes articles in a given area which are described using easily parseable geodata (any outer parser, such as Google, can easily make use of them).
It is really not a major feature of the Geoboxes. Nonetheless, this functionality adds some value that users find useful while using a standard Wikipedia tool, the Category. Given what the Category is used for (often multiple temporary technical/maintanance categories, that often hang with the article for quite some time, of low informative value and probably no value for editors at all) I do not think we're breaking any rule/guideline here.
  • Comment:
    • Several types of maintenance and dispute templates are listed among accepted exceptions in WP:ASR#Examples of self-references. The full list of main namespace templates that are accepted ASR exceptions is accessible on the subpages of Wikipedia:Template messages, e.g. Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes;
    • The only ones of these registered ASR exception templates that carry an included categorisation are cleanup templates or other templates that name an issue requiring some attention (e.g. also stub templates), and dissappear after such issue has been conveniently addressed (the examples given above by Caroig all belong to this type). For reference, even the WP:FA marker (a star upper right on the page) was denied a complementary categorisation. Generally, self-referential categories that are intended to stay indefinitely after an issue has been addressed (if a missing geobox can be seen as an "issue that needs addressing"), have thus far always been denied (or moved to the article's talk page - e.g. WP:GA templates and their categorisations have been assigned to article talk pages, after a brief sejourn in main namespace). --Francis Schonken 16:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First I would suggest anyone commenting on Geoboxes as such to at least have a look at what they are before suggesting such a far fetched measure as to ditch the whole system used to add geography related Infoboxes in thousands of pages. And I must strongly object to the language used in this discussion. There are some statements which are not, I'm afraid, correct at all.
I asked him to alter the Geobox code but he don't want to do that. While one user has certainly the right to suggest things, he or she can't force other users to do things unless he or she has at e.g. admin status. Besides, the original post went May I have a suggestion? which I really understood as an invitation to a debate. No-one wrote user who created them argues they are needed, the only statement concerning this was that some users requested such a feature and many find it useful. In my first reply I clearly stated: it's not a major feature so should it indeed break some rules or should majority of users object to it, it can be removed. I also don't understand why the debate couldn't be kept at the original place but has been split onto several pages.
I don't think anyone suggested creating some sort of bot application so I simply don't understand this point. To sum up, creating the auto category is an idea, no-one says it is a must. I've given my points why I think it doesn't break any rules and I sort of expected those who object this to quote the point(s) in the guidelines it allegedly breaks. It might well be the case but general statements I think it breaks something in the WP:MOS aren't particularly helpful. – Caroig (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I've read the post at the Village pump. I do not understand why the debate couldn't continue at the original place and was split to several rather unrelated pages. Could you please continue the debate at the appropriate {{Geobox}} talk page: Template talk:Geobox#Auto categories. – Caroig (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a very helpful tool for those of us who use it. On the Illinois Project, I can keep track of what is done, and what isn't done. I don't agree with that other's reasoning at all, so I am going to stick with keep. There are so many other categories that should be deleted that aren't useful, that I don't see the point of deleting something I find useful.--Kranar drogin 22:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I must say that nominating without debate or contacting the creator is just bad form.--Kranar drogin 23:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: per Kranar drogin. This is another case of Wikipedia policies and guidelines be applies to the letter instead of in spirit. Rules are meant to be ignored for the improvement of the encyclopedia. These categories are helping to improve the encyclopedia by assisting editors in determining which settlements have the geobox, which ones need it and which ones need to be changed. If your goal is to make the work more difficult, then by all means delete them, if your goal is to help the project keep them. IvoShandor 01:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As Kranar said, this is a very helpful tool for people who use it.--mikeshk 05:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename delete (and possibly merge categorisation to usual geographical categories) - "Geobox", an in-wikipedia abbreviation, should not be part of content displayed in main namespace (per WP:ASR and general naming conventions). As part of a wikipedia category name "geobox" is also not suitable while it is singular, and category names should be plural, per WP:NCCN. I expect some constructive proposals on this from those who think the category:geobox2 system is a useful system. If you want to keep it as a system, then get it right per naming conventions and other relevant guidelines. Lack of willingness to proceed with an acceptable naming scheme, would make me change my opinion to "delete". --Francis Schonken 10:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional explanation for my change of thought: nothing to do with "cooperation", which was fine, tx Caroig et. al. - I explained why I changed thought at Template talk:Geobox#Auto categories: I recommend to follow a course comparable to wikipedia:persondata (and its template {{persondata}}), that is: without categorisation. Maybe start wikipedia:geodata? --Francis Schonken 17:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can see some merit in that, but it could have been simply brought up on the Template talk rather than having wasted people's time here.--Kranar drogin 10:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One would rather expect some constructive proposals and participation in the discussion from those who oppose something that is actively being used by others than issuing instructions (Which wiki policy is that? I always thought the policy was to discuss first.) At last it has been clearly stated what the problem is. If an Infobox template generates a category (which is just an aid for wikipedia, not a major feature) that some find badly named it creates no ground to suggest the removal of the template as such, that's just ridiculous. – Caroig (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - We don't label articles based on the infobox they use, unless someone finds a good reason. There are existing categories used for city locations (probably WP:CITY discussed that). I don't know if there is a need for Category:Articles with coordinates but the template Whatlinkshere is more accurate because coordinates might be omitted from Geobox. (SEWilco 15:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Discuss further It seems there's just one issue with the auto-category feature and that is its badly chosen name as it contains the word geobox which is an abbreviation whose meaning is not clear to a general reader. The doscussion on the topic is here: Template talk:Geobox#Auto categories. – Caroig (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - IMO, Infoboxes are junk. I would never agree that geoboxes should be merge into infoboxes, but I do feel the other way around.--Kranar drogin 03:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep yet rename, the current name is obvisoulsy bad, esp. as it's not clear to a normal reader what the category's about. This comment is just for the record, I haven't given my vote yet. – Caroig (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Categories in the main namespace are intended for the reader, except in a limited number of (temporary) cleanup or deletion categories. Categories which are otherwise intended for editors should go to the talk space (like project tags) or be removed completely. Fram 15:13, 30 October 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:Lists of fictional characters[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 all. BHG brings up a good point that real-life people can be in film, radio, etc, but Lquilter is correct when these people would be referred to as people, not characters.. Kbdank71 20:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of fictional characters in comics to Category:Lists of comics characters
Propose renaming Category:Lists of fictional characters in film to Category:Lists of film characters
Propose renaming Category:Lists of fictional characters in radio to Category:Lists of radio characters
Propose renaming Category:Lists of fictional characters in television to Category:Lists of television characters
Propose renaming Category:Lists of fictional characters in written fiction to Category:Lists of characters in written fiction
Nominator's rationale: Rename all - current names are fairly non-intuitive. "Fictional characters in written fiction" is redundant. Otto4711 17:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't think that the current names are particularly clumsy, and the new category names are rather ambiguous. "Lists of foo characters" could include non-fictional characters, such as radio or television personalities, and even "Lists of characters in written fiction" could include a list of historical characters portrayed in fiction, such a list of ancient Romans including Claudius in the novel I, Claudius, or Julius Caesar, Marc Anthony and Brutus in Shakespare's Julius Caesar (play). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the new names are much more concise and elegant. "Fictional characters" is redundant. Those categories that relate a variety of real people to various topics usually use the format "X people", which is pretty clearly distinguished from characters. Using "characters" to describe "people" would be frowned upon for a category name, anyway, since it doesn't just mean "people", it means "people with wacky personalities or habits". --lquilter 02:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I don't think the "fictional" stops the kind of miscategorization that Otto worries about, so a simpler name is fine.--Mike Selinker 16:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per BHG 132.205.99.122 19:33, 29 October 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:Flavor of Love[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 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flavor of Love (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - half the articles are performer by performance and all of them are appropriately interlinked and categroized. Unnecessary eponymous TV category. Otto4711 16:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Category isn't as helpful to organize these articles as the article. --lquilter 17:26, 25 October 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 classic[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:Chinese tea classic texts. Reading this, I thought you were talking about varieties of tea . Kbdank71 20:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chinese classic to Category:Chinese tea classics
Nominator's rationale: Per talk page suggestion never completed, "Chinese tea classics" is a recognizable genre that can reasonably be subcategorized under Category:Chinese literature and Category:Tea (the font of this category). The current name (Category:Chinese classic) is altogether too generic and confusing, as well as redundant of pre-existing Category:Chinese classic texts (which would be for the non-tea classics, natch). --lquilter 15:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I was under the impression (perhaps wrong) that "tea classic" was basically a genre name. I get the possibility of confusion, though. --lquilter 21:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be, but I doubt if enough people are aware of it. Johnbod 22:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the criteria "enough people must be aware of it". The article Tea Classics uses that phrase, and I think that "Chinese tea classics" is just the national subcat (since there are also Japanese tea classics apparently). Seems like we should name it in conformity with the relevant article and the previously-conducted discussion by folks working on that page, rather than coming up with new nomenclature. --Lquilter 17:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I had seen a category called Category:Chinese tea classics, I would have expected a category of varieties of tea or something. Your nomination is already (rightly) departing from the article name for the sake of clarity, but I think we should go further. Category:Chinese tea classic texts would preserve the article name, if in a rather clumsy fashion. Johnbod 02:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On Category:Chinese tea classic texts - It's a bit more awkward and I'm not convinced of the need to distinguish "classics" in a literary category structure, but I agree it is unambiguous. I wouldn't oppose. (If only someone other than the two of us would join the discussion!) --lquilter 15:30, 30 October 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:Simple living adherents[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Simple living adherents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Most of the individuals in the category predate the concept of simple living by centuries. In fact, the only person that really seems to accurately fit in the category is Richard Gregg, the rest are just individuals who happened to hold similar view, but are by no means adherents of simple living. Category seems too specific as well, and the notability of the philosophy as a defining characteristic is in question in my mind. Andrew c [talk] 15:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had never heard of Simple Living until today, when I saw this on a page I was watching. But, the concept of simple living has been around for centuries. Just because the term hasn't always been used doesn't mean that the ideas are novel. New words are often created to describe behaviors/characteristics that have been around forever. I do have concerns about the term for other reasons, but the rationale above doesn't merit deletion. Keep.Balloonman 20:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since most of the individuals in the category predate the movement, being an "adherent" to this lifestyle is not a notable feature of the individuals. If we include Jesus, couldn't we also theoretically also include every religious person that takes a vow of poverty, like priests or nuns? If people such as this can be shoved into the category, the category is too broad. If only those who are "officially" adhering to the movement since the invention of the term are included, it's too narrow and will be underpopulated. Snocrates 23:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Simple living adherents have been around ever since the first civilization and the emergence of consumerism. This should mean that there are many individuals that could be added to this category, but strangely this is not so. True adherents are few and far between. nirvana2013 14:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Snocrates, far too vague. Johnbod 16:39, 26 October 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:Cavite Actors and Actresses[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 consenus. There appears to be agreement to set aside this nomination and consider the broader question of sub-national categories of actors, in the hope of achieving a consistent outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cavite Actors and Actresses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Upmerge into both Category:Filipino actors and Category:People from Cavite, or at least Rename to Category:Cavite actors. -- Prove It (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge into both parents per nom. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards Rename per nom to Category:Cavite actors. It seems like a reasonable subcategory to both its parent categories, if renamed per WP style. Filipino actors category is pretty large, and a regional subcat seems reasonable on the face of it. (We have Category:American actors by state, for comparison.) Similarly, Category:Cavite people would have 22 articles if it were upmerged, but they all fall into either actors or politicians, so it seems reasonable to have two professional cats. --lquilter 12:14, 20 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, Kbdank71 15:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to the parents - I am no fan of categorizing people by occupation and sub-national unit and it's frequently taken to ridiculous extremes. Let's not start another such splintering here. Otto4711 18:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should be consistent: Either we have categorizing by career/subnational units, or we don't. It looks to me like we have it right now. --lquilter 19:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree we should be consistent and would be happy to discuss the notion of upmerging all such subnational splinter categories to their national parents. Otto4711 19:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold this one and open up the broader discussion, then? I have no vested interests either way. --lquilter 21:29, 25 October 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:WikiProject Update Watch participants[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, CSD G7 by creator request. -- Prove It (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Update Watch participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No longer in use by the project, this project has no members as such, deletion requested by WikiProject Update Watch creator ℒibrarian2 14:44, 25 October 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:Rock of Love[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. Kbdank71 19:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rock of Love (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous TV show category. Otto4711 14:29, 25 October 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.

Collège de France[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. Kbdank71 19:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both into Category:Collège de France faculty, no need to distinguish between current / former. -- Prove It (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both per nom and per precedent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No need to distinguish between current and former? Are you aware that the College de France exists since 1530, so the list of former faculties is quite big. Whereas the list of current faculties is already quite big, and if you have any idea of what this institution is, you would doubtlessly consider that all of these people need a Wikipedia article if they still haven't. Tazmaniacs 22:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both There are also a very large number in such categories as Category:Members and associates of the United States National Academy of Sciences; the current members are distinguished by being on a List of members of the National Academy of Sciences. Works fairly well.DGG (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. "Works fairly well" is very relative indeed. Such a category is bound to be overpopulated. Classifying between former and current is one way of avoiding such overpopulation, another possibility could be classifying by scientific genres; the College itself does this, see here where it distinguish Mathematical Sciences, Physical Sciences, Natural Sciences, Philosophical and Sociological Sciences, Historical, Philosophical, Archaeological Sciences and finally Annual Chairs. Someone looking about stuff concerning, say, historians will not be very interested, in most of the cases, in having the whole list of physicians since 1530. Tazmaniacs 21:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both per WP:NCCAT#Occupation: Occupation categories should not be divided into "current" or "former" categories. No reason why this should be an exception. BencherliteTalk 19:08, 31 October 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:1020s BCE deaths[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 all. Consistency across a category is a long-established convention, and any change to current convention of using "BC" should be applied consistently to all sub-categories of Category:Deaths by year. Those seeking such a change should make a group nomination for the whole of Category:1st millennium BC deaths, Category:2nd millennium BC deaths, and Category:3rd millennium BC deaths and their sub-categories. However, in view of the huge number of categories involved, I suggest a wider discussion before bringing the matter to CfD, to attempt to define the issues involved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:1020s BCE deaths to Category:1020s BC deaths (created 2 Feb 06)
Nominator's rationale: There are dozens of categories in the "deaths by decade" and "deaths by year" sequences that all use the BC format, and all these categories originally conformed to that scheme, but were redirected (apparently without discussion) by individual users to the BCE format. This appears to violate WP:DATE, which states that it is unacceptable to convert a title from one acceptable style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so. In any case, the formatting of these few category names is inconsistent with all other similar categories, and inconsistent with the formatting in templates such as {{DeathsInCenturyBC}}. I vote to redirect all of these to the BC equivalents (all of which already exist but contain a {{category redirect}}). Russ (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I added the original date that the BC Category was created. The BCE categories were all created on 7/17/07---subsequent to the original category.Balloonman 23:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as I understand the MOS, existing articles using one set of dates consistently are not to be interfered with. I think this would apply to existing categories also. DGG (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you are missing to point to the nomination. EACH of these categories existed as a BC page PRIOR to July 17, 2007 when USER:Java7837 unilaterally redirected the original categories to a new category. In doing so, JAVA7837 violated WP:DATE and WP:MOS which says that you shouldn't change dates. Thus, based upon your stated logic above, you should be supporting the name change.Balloonman 22:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nomination. I checked 7 of the sets, and all seven the BC page existed PRIOR to the BCE one. Thus, per the MOS, the ORIGINAL dating convention should be maintained. If the change that JAVA7837 made on July 17th isn't reverted, then we reopen the debate over BCE/BC.Balloonman 22:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point. if the arrangement has lasted this long, it should not be changed back. It's like a revert war--given that it is consistent and that it is one of the permitted forms, it is better to keep as is that to do a reversion. Leave well enough alone. DGG (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per DGG. Since it currently meets one of the permitted forms, there's no need to lengthen the war by changing these again. Snocrates 23:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Balloonman that it was wrong to have changed it to BCE. But it is simpler and less disruptive now to simply leave it. It would be wrong, though in a much lesser degree, to change it back. it doesnt affect the overall integrity of the MOSDGG (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, the moral would be "it is ok to break the rules if you don't get caught?" But Russ does make another valid point. There IS a compelling reason to change these back to their original form---Consistency. I just did a quick check, and Russ is correct the convention for the other deaths in centuries BC/BCE is BC not BCE. So if we look at the universe of BC/BCE death categories as an article, then we should be consistent in their usage.Balloonman 05:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Simply put, they should not have been renamed. Once they are returned to the form of the vast majority of the entries in the parent categories, someone is free to try and name the entire tree at a later date. Vegaswikian 01:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, for consistency with the great majority of categories in this tree. Johnbod 02:21, 30 October 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:Emperors and empresses[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.. Kbdank71 19:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Emperors to Category:Emperors and empresses
Propose renaming Category:Empresses to Category:Emperors and empresses
Nominator's rationale: Rename, Per Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality and also the fact that monarchs eg. kings and queens are not divided by sex. Tim! 13:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amendment to nomination: whoops there is Kings and queens, however there ought not to be! They have been nominated Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 26#Category:Kings and queens. Category:Monarchs of the United Kingdom contains both the male and female monarchs which tricked me into thinking we were actually following the guidelines. Tim! 08:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality specifically states that "a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest." While it is true that not every empress is a "female head of government," enough of them are that a gendered category is a reasonable exception to the guideline. The emperor and empress categories should be subcategories of Category:Monarchs. Otto4711 16:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per the policy quoted by Otto above, and even more because the jobs are usually totally different; if ruling Empresses like Maria Theresa and Catherine of Russia were separated out, I might support merging them, but spouses with (usually) far less power, who are the great majority of the Empresses, should be kept separate. Should we merge US Presidents and First Ladies? Johnbod 16:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of Empresses here are not heads of state either, but spouses, or consorts in the royal terminology. You seem a bit confused by all this. Johnbod 20:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not at all confused. The categories are in a complete mess and this is an attempt to sort it out. Can you for example explain why Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is not in any consort category and Victoria of the United Kingdom is in Category:Indian Empresses but no couterpart exists for male Indian Emperors? Tim! 20:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree they seem confused, but this nomination will only increase that, without doing anything to improve the examples you mention. Philip is on a UK royal consorts template, which some people regard as preferable to categories. Johnbod 21:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are confused because they violate the basic categorisation principles of not dividing by sex. If this nomination is successful then there will be other nominations to clear up remaining issues. Tim! 21:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, as Otto has shown, you are not quoting the policy correctly. Secondly the distinction is usually one of role, not of gender. Johnbod 21:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Otto has not really shown any such thing as this nomination will decide whether the guideline applies, not assertions by you or him. No actual benefit has yet been demonstrated of keeping these categories divided by sex. Tim! 21:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No actual detriment has been shown either. If you want Prince Philip in a consorts category, put him in one. If female heads of state categories are legitimate and Empresses can be heads of state then the benefit of the female head of state aspect outweighs the possible detriment. Otto4711 22:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the guideline "Whenever possible, categories should not be gendered." It is possible for these not to be gendered and no benefit to them being gendered. Tim! 07:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Kings and Queens which the proposer misunderstood. The policy specifically excepts such notable roles because of their encyclopaedic nature. Colonel Warden 08:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Whenever possible, categories should not be gendered." is pretty clear. Tim! 09:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest" is also amazingly clear. Otto4711 14:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, folloqing the reasoning of Otto and Johnbod. DGG (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as DGG. Queen Victoria became Empress of India, and was succeeded by Edward VII as emperor, Queen Alexandra, Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth (the late Queen mother) were all Empresses of India as well as queens consorts to their husbands. Victoria and Elizabeth II chose not to make their consorts king, but both Queens Mary did make their husbands (Philip of Spain and William III) kings. Peterkingiron 00:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Historically it would be inaccurate to represent emperesses and emperors as the same. For example, in China there were two Emperesses who ruled the country... one who did so publically, the other from behind the curtains. There were other emperesses in Chinese history, but they weren't the head of state.Balloonman 06:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to Category:Ruling imperial monarchs and Category:Imperial monarch consorts - then re-sort. 132.205.99.122 19:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per Otto and Johnbod. Joséphine and Tsar Nicholas II should not be in the same category (they both belong in individual "by nationality" categories, but the category trees should remain separate). Historical accuracy should outweigh any desire for gender neutrality. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:10, 31 October 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:Not orphan[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 relisted on oct 31. Kbdank71 19:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Not orphan to Category:Wikipedia images not orphaned
Nominator's rationale: Rename, For consistency, since most subcats in that cat are named "Wikipedia images XYZ". Also, its current name does not provide sufficient description. Esprit15d 13:01, 25 October 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:Images by subject[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 relisted on oct 31. Kbdank71 19:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Images by subject to Category:Wikipedia images by subject
Nominator's rationale: Rename, For consistency, since the majority of the subcats in that cat are named "Wikipedia images XYZ". Esprit15d 12:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Logically, then, should all the subcategories be renamed "Business Wikipedia images," etc. ? --Eliyak T·C 00:53, 29 October 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:Images by source[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 relisted on oct 31. Kbdank71 19:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Images by source to Category:Wikipedia images by source
Nominator's rationale: Rename, For consistency, since other subcats in the category are called "Wikipedia images XYZ". Esprit15d 12:55, 25 October 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:Images by copyright status[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 relisted on oct 31. Kbdank71 19:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Images by copyright status to Category:Wikipedia images by copyright status
Nominator's rationale: Rename, To keep the category names more consistent, since the vast majority of the others in that category are called Wikipedia images XYZ. Esprit15d 12:52, 25 October 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.

old template categories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete as empty, outdated maintenance categories. --12:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Category:Articles to be expanded since March 2006 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: cleaned up. Guroadrunner 10:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Articles to be expanded since April 2006 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: cleaned up. Guroadrunner 10:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Geography of Hebrew Bible places[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. Kbdank71 16:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geography of Hebrew Bible places (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This subcategory of Category:Hebrew Bible geography apparently explores the geography of places mentioned in the Hebrew Bible in greater detail than they are actually dealt with in the text. For example, Category:Geography of Egypt contains many places found nowhere in the Bible. I think that the existing categories such as Category:Hebrew Bible cities and Category:Hebrew Bible rivers, etc. cover all the relevant points. --Eliyak T·C 10:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This is just a parent category for the geographical categories of 4 middle-eastern countries, without any attempt to select the places which existed in biblical tines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both above. Johnbod 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as BHG described it, this is not a particularly useful or accurately named category. --lquilter 21:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per User:BrownHairedGirl. IZAK 10:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 01:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this category gathers together some sublists that may be helpful to people studying biblical archeology. Teachers and those studying the bible on their own also like to see how the biblical places fit into modern political geography. It can help make the text more meaningful. Some editions of the bible even go so far as to have overlay maps showing how ancient and modern locations line up. Categories exist to help people find things. Are we really so certain that no one is looking for the list or its sub-categories? Egfrank 10:04, 31 October 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:Localized film and video games reviews aggregators[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. Kbdank71 16:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Localized film and video games reviews aggregators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The category is an orphan and its only child is Category:Film websites. The category text contains little more than an unrelated red link. And finally, there's already Category:Video game review aggregators and Category:Film review websites. Waldir 09:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per overcategorization.--Esprit15d 13:28, 25 October 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:Pirate metal musical groups[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. Kbdank71 16:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pirate metal musical groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is useless. Janadore 07:14, 25 October 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:Accounting 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 delete. Kbdank71 16:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Accounting software companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Ended up being untenable to category software companies by the 'category' of software they produce. So many companies either cross industries or the product defies categorization in that sense. Cander0000 05:11, 25 October 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 herbs[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. Kbdank71 16:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional herbs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The material does not justify a distinct category. The sole category member already appears in Category:Middle-earth plants, which is a subcategory of Category:Fictional plants. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:57, 25 October 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:Books written in (invented) dialects[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:Books written in fictional dialects. An ambiguous list is no better than an ambiguous category since it'll be nominated at AFD within hours of its creation . Kbdank71 19:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books written in (invented) dialects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The inclusion criteria for this category are unclear and seem to be self-contradicting. Although the category's title seems to restrict its scope to books written in invented dialects only, it does not specify who the inventor must be? Must the dialect exist solely in a work of fiction or can it be a real-world dialect? The talk page and category description seem to suggest the latter. In that case, does a book that includes a few sentences of conversation carried out (i.e. written) in one of the dialects that comprise American English (or any of the other dialects at Category:Dialects) qualify for inclusion in this category? If so, then the category's scope is simply too broad.
I've been unable to think of a solution that preserves this grouping and believe the problem to be inherent to the topic. It is something that is better suited to a list, which can provide much-needed context. However, I don't favour listification as an outcome, since listifying an ambiguous category will simply result in an ambiguous list. It would be better to start anew, creating one or more focused lists with clearly-defined inclusion criteria from the outset. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, restrict & and Rename minus () Vernon God Little, to judge by the article, is wrongly categorised & should be removed. In Cloud Atlas, again per the article, only a smallish? part of the book is in an invented dialect. Otherwise I don't see a problem. Clearly only dialects with no real-world existence should be included, & the talk page should be told this. Johnbod 07:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either of those would be fine by me. "Invented" ought to be clear enough, but apparently not. Johnbod 21:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no particular bad feelings about ambiguous lists per se. Some topics are interesting but inherently ambiguous. Ambiguous lists are better than ambiguous categories, because they can include discussions & descriptions of the nuance in the list; that can actually form the germ of a very interesting article. At any rate, I want to strongly suggest that this is a good category. Here are a few reasons why not. (1) In not all instances will a book that might fit in this category necessarily have this as one of the book's defining features -- for instance, a book might be much more notable for other features. Then we're categorizing by a trivial aspect of a book. (This in fact is a good example of the problems with categorizing by literary analysis.) (2) How do we determine what is a fictional dialect. A good-faith attempt by the writer that is so bad it does not correspond to reality? A character in the book deliberately speaking in a fake dialect? I imagine the category creator wanted to only use those conlang-type dialects where there was careful construction of dialects, but a category can't encompass nuance - it's either on or off. --lquilter 13:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can't see these issues causing problems. More of a problem is that some books are only partly in such dialects. Johnbod 21:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ' fictional is unclear in this context. I suggest imaginary DGG (talk) 01:08, 28 October 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.

Iguanas/Iguanidae[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. Kbdank71 19:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Iguanas to Category:Iguanidae or vice versa
Nominator's rationale: Both categories currently describe the same thing (members of the Iguanidae family). I don't have any preference as to which one of the two stays, so I'll see what the consensus turns out to be. – Swid (talk · edits) 01:39, 25 October 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:30 Rock[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:30 Rock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorisation for a TV series: there is not enough material to justify a distinct category. All relevant articles (e.g. list of epsiodes) are adequately linked in the main article and via Template:30 Rock. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. I put the episodes in an episode cat per convention. Otto4711 03:47, 26 October 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:Dangerous spiders[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. "Dangerous" is not objectively defined. The assumption is "to humans, under certain circumstances", but without a definition, it could be anything. It's been pointed out that it could be renamed to "Spiders that are (insert your adjective, target, and circumstances here)", but Category:Spider species whose bites deliver sufficient quantities of venom of sufficient toxicity to humans that they may pose health risks to humans is pretty long, and it does open the door to other animals hazardous to humans categories, and my common sense gland won't let me type that again. We cannot assume what "Dangerous" means or implies, even as in Category:Spiders dangerous to humans, as it is clear from this very discussion that one person's definition of dangerous may not match anyone else's. Kbdank71 19:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dangerous spiders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I don't know whether this category should be deleted, merged, renamed, or listified, but I don't think it should remain as is. The current name does not accurately convey its purpose, since it does not specify for whom or what the spiders are dangerous. Renaming to Category:Venomous spiders won't work, since most spiders are venomous but (according to this) only about 200 species "can cause severe human envenomings", mostly non-fatal. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I want to say 'delete' on the grounds of tautology, because all spiders are bad for my nerves, but that's probably not a valid reason for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename - If they are all just poisonous, then change to "Category:Poisonous spiders". However, if they are dangerous for other reasons to, then keep it or change it to something like "Category:Spiders hazardous to the health of humans". However, "dangerous spiders" would be shorter, and perhaps more concise than that. --Emesee 05:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term "venom" has a specific meaning in zoology and is used in preference to "poison" when referring to toxic substances injected by living organisms. For that reason, Category:Venomous spiders would be more preferred to Category:Poisonous spiders. However, when I wrote that "most spiders are venomous", I was referring not to the spiders in this category, but to all spiders. Most spiders carry venom, although the bite of most spiders is not hazardous to most humans. Thus, Category:Venomous spiders would include practically all spider species, making it redundant to Category:Spiders and its various subcats. Category:Dangerous spiders, while undoubtedly concise, is also ambiguous, since it fails to answer the question: dangerous for whom or what? – Black Falcon (Talk) 05:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Black Falcon. Seems to be ambiguous and no solution to fixing. The only possible rename I can think of would be to Category:Venomous spiders that can kill humans, but I'm not sure if this is the way to go. Vegaswikian 05:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Is there a viable "medical" approach to this? I"m thinking that ER docs et al. may have lists of spiders that are considered dangerous to humans. I'm sure that such lists would vary from region to region, but assuming they exist, all of those spiders would presumably meet the criteria for a properly named category. Cgingold 10:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG objection to proposed cat renames; listify - (1) Strong objection to Vegaswikian suggestion "Category:Venomous spiders that can kill humans" or Emesee suggestion Category:Spiders hazardous to the health of humans or any other category name that includes a medical diagnosis or risk analysis. It is not a good category concept, because "... can kill humans" is dose- and sensitivity-based classification that is widely variable. For instance, children, immune-compromised humans, and allergic humans might well have different responses to different spiders, and of course dose obviously plays a significant role. In fact I think these proposed category names are dangerously misleading. (2) Original category name: Listify. One proposed name might be "Spiders and human toxicity". Cgingold makes the point when using the term "lists of spiders". A list could include information about levels of toxicity, numbers of actual fatalities, etc. I leave it to the spider-ologists to determine whether "venomous spiders" and "non-venomous spiders" are useful categories for spiders generally, but please leave medical diagnoses out of the category. "Dangerous spiders" is subjective and I really believe a list is better, but it doesn't pain me as a category. --lquilter 13:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis. The dilemma is that not all (or even most) bites from the 200 or so spider species in question are fatal. Death can result, but it depends not only on the type of spider (and thus the type of venom and the dose delivered), but also on numerous factors that are unrelated to the spider species, such as: the location of the bite and the victim's health, weight, and access to medical treatment. A black widow bite will not have the same effect on a three-month old baby as on a healthy, 100 kg adult. There is also the issue of allergies: assuming that the chemical composition of venom differs from species to species (I'm not a biologist, but I think it's a safe assumption to make), humans with particular allergies may be more vulnerable to certain species. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Spiders dangerous to humans. I think we are making rather heavy weather of this. Johnbod 21:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sounds good to me. Rename to Category:Spiders dangerous to humans. It doesn't specify the degree of danger, it merely indicates that they are in some way dangerous to humans. The specifics can be (and presumably are) spelled out in the articles. Any spider whose potential for harm is not stated in the article is not eligible for the category. Cgingold 21:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with this rename. Solves the nominator's misgiving. Robert K S 16:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it a good category precedent? Are we going to have lots of "animals dangerous to humans" and include things that might trample or eat or sit on us? Just pondering. --lquilter 17:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think that renaming to Category:Spiders dangerous to humans will solve the problem with the category. It would still be a case of "spiders dangerous to some humans in particular circumstances". A black widow is probably not all that dangerous to a healthy, 100-kg adult with quick, easy, and reliable access to a treatment center. The same person could suffer a fatal reaction from the bite of a Pholcus phalangioides if s/he has an allergy to the spider's venom. A person with a arachnophobia and a weak cardiovascular system could suffer a heart attack from seeing a spider dangling in front of their computer screen. A tarantula's bite is generally non-fatal, but someone could swallow and choke on one... :P I guess what I'm getting at is that "dangerous" cannot be objectively defined and that the danger posed by any spider is not determined solely or primarily by the characteristics of spider. The phenomenon in question here is spider species whose bites deliver sufficient quantities of venom of sufficient toxicity to humans that they may pose health risks to humans; the phrase "dangerous to humans" just doesn't capture that. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree - that is exactly what it conveys to me. What else could it mean? Your examples are getting very far fetched. Just because treatment is available does not make a species not dangerous - what if you don't have "quick, easy, and reliable access to a treatment center" - as most of the world does not. 5% chance of death from a black widow bite with no treatment apparently! We pussies in the UK call that dangerous. Nor does "dangerous" necessarily imply "potentially fatal to a normal person". Johnbod 02:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The examples are far-fetched largely because that is what I intended (the last two are mostly tongue-in-cheek). You'll note that I defined "dangerous" as something that "may pose health risks to humans" rather than just "potentially fatal", but whether a spider species poses a health risk to humans is, to a significant degree, a factor of the environment and the characteristics of humans. I don't think that the threat posed by a spider species can be a defining factor for the species when the level of threat is determined largely by factors that have nothing to do with the spider. This is in addition to the difficulty of defining "dangerous" in a manner that makes inclusion in the category is mostly objective and unambiguous? "Dangerous" is, after all, a word prone to significant original interpretation. – Black Falcon (Talk) 03:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't put my fingers on it earlier, but "original interpretation" is sort of what I was thinking of -- "dangerous to humans" is subjective in the classical sense, and it seems like not such a good category on those grounds. I mean, yes, human subjectivity is probably okay in wikipedia <g> and not a violation of NPOV but there just seems something impermanent about such a perspectival-oriented category. --lquilter 15:34, 30 October 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 bodies of ice[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, empty. Kbdank71 18:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional bodies of ice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The material does not justify a distinct category. The two category members are already categorised into Category:Greyhawk locations and Category:Cthulhu Mythos locations, both of which are first- or second-level subcategories of Category:Fictional locations. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Fictional locations is fine for this sort of thing, and in any case my trawls through the articles in this sort of category rarely reveal any race of notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's no other body of water type these can be, so under my belief that everything fictional needs a specific "Fictional (X)" category, this one stays. (BHG, I'd say notability is irrelevant. If you want an article deleted, it can go to AfD. But if it lives, it gets categorized properly.)--Mike Selinker 04:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - small category with little or no growth potential, I don't believe it fits the exception to that guideline as embodied by Category:Albums by artist and the like. One of the articles doesn't support inclusion in the category and the other is categorized elsewhere within the Fictional locations category grouping. Otto4711 12:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't so much as have a problem with it being overcategorization or too distinct. But when would anyone ever use this? It seems crufty.--Esprit15d 13:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other option that occurs to me is to make this part of Category:Fictional deserts.--Mike Selinker 14:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That could work. The Land of Black Ice is describe as an "arctic wasteland", which seems to qualify it as a desert, defined as "a landscape form or region that receives very little precipitation". – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI suppose it could also work for Water Tribes, being versions of the north and south poles. Perhaps a better name is all thats in order?--Piemanmoo 23:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the article Water Tribe seems to be about a fictional group of people, rather than a fictional body of ice, so it probably doesn't belongs in this category. – Black Falcon (Talk) 16:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Mike that all fictional locations should be categoriezed by the type of place they are, regardless of whether or not they are also categorized by source material. As such, all natural features need a home somewhere in Category:Fictional natural features of Earth. For the most part, I support merging the overly specific or underpopulated ones into broader categories, but I'm not sure there is a adequate target for this one. ×Meegs 08:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to get technical about it, the articles in this category are not fictional features of Earth since they are located on non-Earth locales. Otto4711 18:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't be opposed to renaming the umbrella "Fictional natural features" then.--Mike Selinker 02:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, it's obvious that all natural features should be categorized somewhere in a tree like this one (even if it's just at the root). A rename along the lines of Mike's suggestion would be a good idea, though; it doesn't make much sense to segregate features found on Earth from ones found elsewhere. It's also not always clear whether a work is set on our Earth or not. ×Meegs 06:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have merged the contents of Land of Black Ice into Flanaess. Although I believe it could have been deleted even without the merge, the category is now empty and there is no reason to keep it. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:54, 31 October 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 springs[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. Kbdank71 18:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional springs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The material does not justify a distinct category. The two category members are already otherwise categorised. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:19, 25 October 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 airlines[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. Kbdank71 18:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional airlines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The material does not justify a distinct category (it's questionable whether Virtual airline even belongs in this category). All of the articles are otherwise categorised. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:16, 25 October 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 glades[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:Fictional plains. Kbdank71 18:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional glades (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The material does not justify a distinct category. The sole member is already categorised in Category:Middle-earth locations, which is a subcategory of Category:Fictional locations. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Fictional locations is fine for this sort of thing, and in any case my trawls through the articles in this sort of category rarely reveal any race of notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move into Category:Fictional plains. This seems close enough to one, anyway.--Mike Selinker 04:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the one article as Mike suggests and delete. We should categorize fictional locations by the type of places they are, but broader cats are better. ×Meegs 07:49, 26 October 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 gulfs[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 one article is already in middle-earth bodies of water. Kbdank71 16:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional gulfs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The material does not justify a distinct category. The sole member (tagged for merging, by the way) is already categorised in Category:Middle-earth bodies of water, which is a subcategory of Category:Fictional bodies of water. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:12, 25 October 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:Pocket pets[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:WikiProject Mammals/Pocket pets work group articles. Kbdank71 16:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pocket pets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The classification "pocket pet" is ambiguous; for instance, not everyone classifies a rabbit or a ferret as a 'pocket pet'. Moreover, the material does not justify a distinct category: all of the category members already appear in Category:Animals kept as pets. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:01, 25 October 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:Pet spiders[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. Kbdank71 15:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pet spiders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Being a "pet spider" is not a defining characteristic of the spider species which appear in this category. As far as I know, there are no spiders bred for the express purpose of being kept as pets, so a "pet spider" is just a spider that someone has decided to keep as a pet. Anyone can capture a spider, take it home, and begin to feed and care for it, so spiders from all species have the potential to be pets. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's possible that only certain species are commonly kept/sold. If this is so, the category seems justified. --Eliyak T·C 10:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although certain species are more popular as pets than others, there is nothing stopping any species from being kept as a pet. Thus, the mere fact of being one of the more common spider species that is kept as a pet does not seem to be a defining characteristic. Moreover, it's not possible to have an objective cut-off point for the category: how popular/common must a certain species be in order to merit inclusion in this category? (This is why I originally raised the issue of spiders bred for the express purpose of being kept as pets, since those would certainly belong in the category). – Black Falcon (Talk) 16:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Category:Animals kept as pets would seem to have the same issues. I would think that all animals in Category:Domesticated animals are kept as pets, maybe that category already serves the purpose of Category:Animals kept as pets and the one listed here. Even if you included a category for breeding, it would be a problem since we can not determine that no one is breeding a specific species as a pet or for domestication. So, maybe this really needs to be simply deleted along with the parent and all of the children categories. Vegaswikian 19:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is actually a test nomination of sorts ... several of the other subcategories have the same problem and, if there is consensus to delete this category, I will likely nominate the rest. I'm not yet certain whether the entire Animals kept as pets category tree needs to be deleted (some articles, such as Green Iguana in captivity and Domesticated hedgehog seem to fit), but it definitely needs to be reorganised. I will work on the category over the next few days, but much of what I do will depend on the response to my argument that the possibility of being captured and kept as a pet is not a defining feature for wild animals. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - whatever happens with the parent category, this one needs to be renamed; as it is, it sounds like particular (named, owned) pets. If it exists go with something like "spider species kept as pets" (although I tend to agree that it's not a defining attribute). --lquilter 21:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per discussions. Not a defining characteristic and ambiguous. Vegaswikian 00:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per discussion above. Spider-lovers will keep any type of spider as a pet. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:59, 28 October 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 plateaus[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. Kbdank71 15:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional plateaus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The material does not justify a distinct category; the sole member is already categorised in Category:Fictional plains and Category:Cthulhu Mythos locations. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Fictional locations is fine for this sort of thing, and in any case my trawls through the articles in this sort of category rarely reveal any race of notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is already in the plains category, so this category can go.--Mike Selinker 04:37, 25 October 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 waterfalls[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. Kbdank71 15:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional waterfalls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The material does not justify a distinct category. The sole member is already categorised in a subcategory of Category:Middle-earth locations, which is itself a subcat of Category:Fictional locations. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Fictional locations is fine for this sort of thing, and in any case my trawls through the articles in this sort of category rarely reveal any race of notability. A quick trawl through over a dozen articles in Category:Middle-earth locations (including this one) revealed none which came anywhere near meeting the notability criteria set out in WP:FICTION. We don't need dozens of underpopulated categories for articles about non-notable locations in fiction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing else this can be, under my belief that everything needs a specific "Fictional (X)" category.--Mike Selinker 04:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what it's worth, but this article appears in Category:Middle-earth rivers, which is a subcategory of Category:Fictional rivers ... the reason for my uncertainty is that placing an article about a waterfall into a category for rivers does not seem entirely appropriate. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I wouldn't. I'm all for merging into simpler and fewer categories when possible, but here these things aren't really the same. And if you buy my supposition that everything needs one of these types of categories, I can't think of what else a waterfall can be than a waterfall.--Mike Selinker 12:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No river, no waterfall. A waterfall is part of a river, and I see nothing inaccurate in categorising them together. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't exactly agree with that premise (that every fictional object needs a corresponding Fictional (X) category), but I can see the logic behind it. Since most of the articles affected by these various nominations are either miscategorised or short stubs in need of merging, I'll see if I can simplify the situation for some nominations by simply merging a few articles. – Black Falcon (Talk) 16:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sounds great.--Mike Selinker 22:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have redirected the category's sole member, as explained at Talk:Falls of Rauros. This category is now empty. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Then delete. (By the way, when you turn a Middle-earth article into a redirect, you should also put into Category:Middle-earth redirects, as the editors on that project keep an extensive set of categories of these. I did it for this one.)--Mike Selinker 12:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thanks. I had specified "class=NA" inside the WikiProjects tag on the talk page, but I was unaware that they had a category specifically for redirects. I'll keep it in mind. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:00, 28 October 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 rainforests[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. Kbdank71 14:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Fictional rainforests into Category:Fictional forests
Nominator's rationale: The material does not justify a distinct category. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:41, 25 October 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 volcanoes[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. Kbdank71 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional volcanoes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The material does not justify a distinct category; the category's sole member is already present in Category:Middle-earth mountains (a subcategory of Category:Fictional mountains). – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Fictional locations is fine for this sort of thing, and in any case my trawls through the articles in this sort of category rarely reveal any race of notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Fictional mountains. Volcanoes are clearly mountains in this context.--Mike Selinker 04:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentatively merge with Category:Fictional mountains, but resplit later if there arrive any fictional volcano articles that are not clearly mountains, including supervolcanoes, calderas and holes in the ground, and then link to Category:Fictional mountains with see also link. - Gilgamesh 08:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This and the other "fictional X" nominations that I've started all focus on the absence of material to categorise, so I agree that any deletions should be without prejudice to recreation when there is adequate material. – Black Falcon (Talk) 16:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and do not merge. The one article doesn't need to be a direct member to Category:Fictional mountains. Membership in its subcategory Category:Middle-earth mountains is sufficient. ×Meegs 09:19, 26 October 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:Controversial flags[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. Kbdank71 13:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Controversial flags (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category for "controversial and contentious flags" suffers from the same problem as virtually all other Controversial X categories: it has no clear criteria for inclusion. Controversial for whom, where, for what reasons, and in what circumstances? How controversial must a flag be? Is a single flag-burning incident sufficient evidence of controversy? Is the flag of an organisation that is banned in one or more countries 'controversial'? If not, why? I suppose that a decent response could be formulated to each of these questions, but the responses would inevitable involve an element of original research. Finally, flags themselves are generally not controversial; it is the use of particular flags in particular circumstances that generates controversy. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all reasons well-explained by nom. Snocrates 00:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom, and as a duplicate of Category:Flags, because every flag is controversial in some place. (Even the white flag of peace will be deeply controversial if a squaddie hoists it while his commanders have other ideas). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's rationale. No end in site. Bearian 01:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom and BrownHairedGirl. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 11:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Comment: Obviously this category can't be kept, for all the reasons that have already been well explained. However, I'd like to point out that we do have Category:Controversies, which has quite a few articles and 9 sub-cats with names "XXXX controversy(ies)". There could easily be a full article written about Confederate flag controversies, and that may be true for other flags as well. If that were the case, Category:Flag controversies would pass muster. Just looking ahead. Cgingold 11:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm OK with the concept of a category called "Flag controversies" if the articles are about those controversies (e.g., Flag desecration). But not a category with this name.--Mike Selinker 12:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was shocked to see my favorite flag not included, the Flag of Angola. That said, this category doesn't really work. Many of these flags have nothing common except an abstract concept of "controversy". The reasons why these flags are controversial are unrelated, and to equate the proposed Iraq flag with symbols of hate simply doesn't work. -Andrew c [talk] 15:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt it. Where to start? Else rename as Category:Flags of countries that Yankees have fought Ephebi —Preceding comment was added at 18:05, 25 October 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:Pet amphibians[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Pet amphibians to Category:Animals kept as pets
Nominator's rationale: An intermediary layer is not necessary for just two subcategories, especially when the proposed target currently contains only ten subcats. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (1) It is not defining category, (2) inclusion of all the species and subspecies of frogs and salamanders makes the whole "category" rather joke. Pavel Vozenilek 00:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a defining characteristic. It includes all frogs! Why not simply say all animals? Vegaswikian 02:38, 26 October 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:Flags of insurgent organizations[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. Kbdank71 13:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Flags of insurgent organizations into Category:Flags
Nominator's rationale: The material does not justify a distinct category. If there is no consensus to merge, then rename to Category:Flags of militant organizations. The term "militant" is less emotive and more encompassing than the term "insurgent". – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that "insurgent" was morally-neutral (unlike "terrorist", "freedom fighter" or "resistance"). If not, I'd be OK with Category:Flags of militant organizations. --GCarty 11:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but ... would a more appropriate destination category be Category:Ensigns? I know it's not perfect, but it I would tend to place it there rather than in the more general category. Snocrates 00:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • An ensign is the flag of a military unit, but Hezbollah is not solely a military organisation – it is also a political party. If I'm not mistaken, the military and political wings of Hezbollah use the same flag. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:37, 25 October 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:Big Syke[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. Kbdank71 13:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Big Syke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorisation for a musician: there is not enough material to justify a distinct category. All relevant articles (discography, albums) are adequately linked in the main article and via Template:Big Syke. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; not notable enough or large enough category, either. Bearian 01:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per precedent.--Esprit15d 13:30, 25 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_25&oldid=1138389090"