Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 29

< October 28	October 30 >

October 29[edit]

Category:PCP overdose[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as over-categorization by a Non-defining or trivial characteristic to start grouping people by their drug of choice, before we even get to BLP issues in maintaining such a category structure. (We have Category:Drug addiction but nothing along the lines of Category:Drug addicts or Category:People by drug addiction). Bencherlite ^Talk 21:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sole entry is notable as a rapper, not because of the particular type of drug he overdosed on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 03:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition to other objections, this is also a badly formed category name since it is ambiguous as to content (articles about the symptoms, cures, etc., seem more likely to be found here than an article about those who have experienced an overdose.) --lquilter 15:36, 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:Grand Masters of the Teutonic Order[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:Grand Masters of the Teutonic Knights. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Grand Masters of the Teutonic Order to Category:Grand Masters of the Teutonic Knights

Nominator's rationale: Rename, "Teutonic Knights" is the most common name for the organization, as well as the phrasing used in the rest of Category:Teutonic Knights. Olessi 21:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod 02:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Peterkingiron 00:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Insanity Plea[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. --cjllw ʘ TALK 10:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as categorization by WP:OCAT#Non-defining or trivial characteristic (e.g. would we categorize along the lines of Category:People who pleaded guilty?) If kept, rename to something like Category:People who have pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, unless there's a better idea... Bencherlite ^Talk 20:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think your suggested category could be defining—perhaps Category:People acquitted of crimes by reason of insanity would be a better category. Anyway, because the category is underpopulated right now and the one individual in it would not fit into the "acquitted" category, I agree with deletion, without prejudice to the future creation of one of the categories discussed. Snocrates 23:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categorisation by plea in court would generate massive category clutter. There may be a case for a category of verdicts such as Snocrates' suggested Category:People acquitted of crimes by reason of insanity, but even that seems dubious on a number of grounds, not least of which is the widely differing approaches to insanity in different legal systems. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (Side note: It's incorrectly capitalized.) Doczilla 03:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-defining. The "insanity plea" is a highly artificial legal definition that in at least some instances have little to do with having either committed the crime or with being insane. And is it people who pled it or people who pled it successfully? And is pleading successfully only determined upon final resolution of the case? The questions could multiply ad infinitum, as many as there are lawyers and creative legal arguments and wayward judges. Please just delete this as a biographical category. (Note: A category called Category:Insanity pleas or Category:Insanity plea that contained individual articles about M'naghten, the Model Penal Code, Durham, other particular approaches, history of reform efforts, and so on, would be fine.) --lquilter 20:29, 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:Rappers currently in prison[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 and salt. (Note to nominators: recreated content such as this can just have be tagged with {{Db-repost}}). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Speedy delete and salt, we just went through this. All four articles are in Category:Incarcerated rappers. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:38, 29 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.

Poker Player Halls of Fame[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 /Log/2007 November 5. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Either delete as overcategorization by award/non-defining characteristic, or rename with lower-case "i" in "inductees." Otto4711 14:31, 23 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 17:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom I'd think the hall of fame is sufficiently notable for a category, as suggested. If it was "Poker Magazine's player of the year" or similar I'd say delete, but hall of fame is reasonable enough. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The American hall of fame is awarded by a single casino and the European hall was created by a single person, if that alters your thinking any. Otto4711 02:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not really. I can't be bothered looking through the history of the page, but I remember one reason for it was that certain people/shows/etc win a lot of awards, so you end up with twenty categories if you start making categories for every award. I just think a recognised hall of fame, regardless of who organises it, is a defining characteristic for a poker player. Granted I'm not overly enthusiastic about some of the recommendations for induction to the European one such as Roland de Wolfe, but such is life. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since other more notable gaming awards have also been cleaned up this way. Not happy, but this is the established consensus. Vegaswikian 07:45, 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:People from Rothwell[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from Rothwell, West Yorkshire, to match Rothwell, West Yorkshire and not Rothwell, Northamptonshire. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 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:People from Rawdon[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from Rawdon, West Yorkshire, to match Rawdon, West Yorkshire. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 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:People from Shadwell, West Yorkshire[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from Shadwell, Leeds, to match Shadwell, Leeds. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 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:People from Windermere[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:People from Windermere, Cumbria. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from Windermere, Cumbria, to match Windermere, Cumbria instead of Windermere. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I agree that the category needs to be renamed to a less ambiguous title, I want to point out that the article Edward Allington, the sole member of this category, states that Allington was born in Lancashire county, which is separate from (and just south of) Cumbria county. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update. According to this source, Allington was born in Troutbeck Bridge, a village near Windermere, in Cambria. I have corrected the article to reflect this fact. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People from Morley[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from Morley, West Yorkshire, to match Morley, West Yorkshire, but not other places named Morley. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 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:Bomb victims[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 18:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bomb victims to Category:People injured in bombings

Nominator's rationale: The category is only for people who survived apparently, yet people killed by bombs keep getting added to it. I'm not averse to deletion entirely if other think people shouldn't be categorised by being injured by a bomb, and neither am I averse to a change of name and/or scope of the category. But as it stands, it's problematic. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm reasonably sure that we've deleted other "attempted murder victims"-type categories in the past. In reviewing the articles it does not appear that having been injured by a bomb is significant to the notability of most or any of them. Otto4711 18:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Otto. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Seems defining for most. Where is Adolf Hitler? Johnbod 18:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if surviving can be shown to be notable enough. —Scouter Sig 16:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. We have shooting victims and stabbing victims, this one is just as legitimate. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a justification for this category. Maybe those two ought to be deleted too. Otto4711 03:56, 28 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 15:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of consistency, either this should be renamed to bombing victims or the others should be renamed to People injured in .... - Che Nuevara 17:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per, + defining enough characteristic. Lugnuts 18:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fail to see how being the victim of a bombing makes one notable to have an article here. Hence this is not really a defining event. Lets add a category for Category:Chemical victims since that is about the same or maybe Category:Fire victims if this is really defining. How do we determine 'defining enough'? We also need to review shooting victims and stabbing victims since the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTSlogic says those are also suspect. Surviving is not required by the category name and is a specious argument since death can be more significant then surviving. If this is intended to cover both then it may be too broad. Also bombing victim is overly broad. Does it cover the use of a smoke bomb used to scare or a smoke bomb used by law enforcement? In the end there are simply too many problems with this category. Vegaswikian 19:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Create new category with a more definitive title and rationale. I say this because bomb victims, in the strictest sense, do have a place here, but not under this ambiguous title. We should have 2 categories "People disabled or disfigured by explosions", "People killed by explosions" and I just thought of a third, which is "people made famous by being a victim of an explosion". These are obviously not nearly the optimal terminology we'd use, but these are what I'd rather see than the highly ambiguous existing title, which could well include myself, since I injured my leg from a pohar when I was 13, but it's not exactly a personal trait of mine. Someone on here you could list with the existing title is Bob Bryar, but I don't think he should, since he's centrally a musician... just a rather accident prone one. A way that defines people who simply have had a few explosion issues from those who have been seriously affected should be defined, and those whose reason is valid ought to be categorised, but all others left to the wayside. --linca linca 02:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while it may be defining to some, it's not necessarily so - and who is a person injured by a bomb? See Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. Carlossuarez46 03:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vegaswikian. Particular bombing attacks may be notable without the victims of the bombs being notable; and people who are otherwise notable are not likely going to have "bombing victim" be a defining attribute. ... Going by the classic definition of categories, you can see this: Are we going to have an article on "bombing victims" and discuss the common attributes they have? Bad luck? Risk seeking behaviors? No. --lquilter 15:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vegaswikian. Way to the Category:Victims of a strudel accident. Pavel Vozenilek 19:37, 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:People from Cheadle[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from Cheadle, Greater Manchester, to match Cheadle, Greater Manchester, and not Cheadle, Staffordshire. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 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:People from Denpasar, Bali[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:People from Denpasar, to match Denpasar. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:17, 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:Breweries in the United States by state[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 temporarily rename all. This whole area (not just the US) may need significant recategorization. When the recategorization happens, these categories may be split into Beer on one hand and Breweries on the other. But at the moment the US is an outlier, with breweries and beer collapsed under categories mostly named after breweries, and should be standardized.--Mike Selinker 15:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Breweries in the United States by state to Category:Beer and breweries in the United States by state

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Rename category and 38 subcategories to be consistent with the other regions in the Beer and breweries by region tree. A trivial discussion took place here: [1]. Thetrick 16:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if this nomination is suitable for speedy renaming please let me know. --Thetrick 16:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose and reverse split. Beers are beverages that fall under the parent Category:Beer which is a child of Category:Fermented beverages. Breweries are either subcats of Category:Companies since this is the company that manufactures the beer or Category:Buildings and structures since this is the building used to make beer. Combining them appears to be counter to the common use of categories. Even the lists for these combined categories have one for beers and another for breweries. Vegaswikian 18:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will add one additional possible problem. I think what the family of categories is calling Category:Breweries is in many cases really Category:Brewing companies since there is a further distinction between the companies making the products and the building used to do the work. Vegaswikian 18:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we avoid confusing these companies with Category:Buildings and structures please, as the brewery's buildings or plants are seldom described and are rarely notable. Previous attempts to categorise retailers & companies with the category make for a mess. Thanks. Ephebi 14:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Categories do not form a tree." Per WP:CAT: Each Wikipedia article can appear in more than one category, and each category can appear in more than one parent category. Multiple categorization schemes co-exist simultaneously. In other words, categories do not form a strict hierarchy or tree structure, but a more general directed acyclic graph (or close to it; see below). So the fact that beer and breweries are in different "sub-trees" is irrelevant. - Che Nuevara 17:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct which is why they can be split out into as many parents as necessary. This combined category serves no useful purpose. Right now it covers three different things and as such is ambiguous. As one other editor said, it is confusing. Vegaswikian 07:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on these categories before and it was all very confusing. Category:Brewing companies by state seems a good idea. As far as breweries themselves, they are just buildings by state, maybe not enough for Category:Breweries by state. As far as the beer products/labels, does anyone care that they come from a certain state or another? Maybe these only need to be at the country level like Category:Beers of the United States. Hmains 02:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point about beers by state. Which state brews Bud? Vegaswikian 05:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also this discussion. Vegaswikian 20:43, 24 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 14:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-!voting comment: Many of the larger brewers have facilities in many different states. Anheuser Busch is headquartered in St. Louis, but I know they have a brewery in Newark, NJ. Take that into consideration, as you'll have articles that have "Brewing company in MO", "Brewing company in NJ", "Brewing company in etc, etc, etc" at the bottom. Just a thought. --Kbdank71 14:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is another strong argument for splitting the companies which are based in a single location from the production facilities in multiple locations. In the case of AB, the various production brew houses can be redirects to the company article with the Category:Breweries (buildings) at the redirect level. An accurate way to portray the various flavors of this. I guess we don't need a discussion to create the building category. Vegaswikian 20:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment. The company is based in SL, so that is what should be in the article as the only company location. If the various plants are notable, then their articles would be in Category:Breweries (building) since the building itself must be notable. The only AB one that may meet this is the one that was in the LA area with the wildlife park attached to the brewery. And yes, it was nice to taste beer while walking around the grounds! Vegaswikian 22:27, 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:Travelers to Russia[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 to "Western writers about (X)". There is no consensus to delete, though there are some reasonable concerns about explosion of categorization. There is consensus that something should change, though. The decided upon wording wasn't exactly suggested by anyone in the debate, but it seems to adequately cover the myriad concerns about the new names.--Mike Selinker 15:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization of Non-defining or trivial characteristic. DionysosProteus 14:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - not a defining characteristic of these people that they visited Russia. DionysosProteus 14:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom or upmerge to Category:Travel writers. We don't and shouldn't categorise people by the places they've visited (it'd be different if they had explored these places, but this does not seem to be the case here). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, although the thought of the category clutter we could end with for TV travel documentary presenters such as Michael Palin if we tried hard enough raises a smile! Bencherlite ^Talk 21:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. This think of the number of category entries that would generated every day in the world's airports if this form of categorisation spread. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepCategory:Travelers to Muscovy and Category:Travelers to Imperial Russia which both contain only writers of significant books about Russia, very little-known in the West in this period. These categories are about people who travelled & then wrote about it, and should be renamed to reflect this. For all of these except A. Dumas it is certainly defining - they are only notable for these books. The Soviet category in fact mostly contains similar people, with a few others like John Dewey of library fame, and Isadora Duncan. It should also be restricted to people notable as authors on Russia and renamed. One was actually a Russian emigre who perhaps should also go. We are actually oddly undercategorised in this area; Category:Travel writers is sub-divided by origin, not destination, which for the earlier periods is the more significant. Not that all these can be described as travel writers. Johnbod 02:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply You have almost persuaded me to change my !vote :) However, the strong case you make for keeping these category is as a category of travel writers. They are not notable for having travelled, but for having written about their journeys, so if they are to be kept, they belong under Category:Travel writers and should be renamed appropriately (e.g. to Category:Travel writers about Russia, though that feels a little clumsy).
  The question, though, is surely whether we want to start a new Category:Travel writers by destination tree? I can see a case for starting one, but it would create horrendous category clutter for modern travel writers like Dervla Murphy and Michael Palin, and even for some 19th century writers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Possible renames (to exclude Michael Palin): Category:Western authors writing about Muscovy, Category:Early Western writers on Muscovy. The same for the "Imperial Russia" one, or maybe merge both to a "pre-Revolutionary Russia" category. Many of their books were histories and political and economic analyses, so travel books does not really cover it. Most of the books themselves do not have separate articles, & are covered under the authors. I think similar cats for China, Japan, Africa etc would be very useful, but mainly limited to specialists and the odd best-seller like Dumas. Johnbod 13:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment IF these get deleted, 'UPMERGE' all articles to the parent category Category:Travelers Hmains 02:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travel writers would be better - see above. Category:Travelers is odd & very underpopulated, with many people like Bonaventura Vulcanius who should not be there. Johnbod 13:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we go down this route, how do we limit the scope as you suggest to avoid the Palin problem? I'm wary of categories whose scope is restricted by a category note to something much tighter than the name reasonably implies, so I would not want to see Category:Travel writers about China turning out in the small print to mean "European travellers to China in the 19th century who are notable for having written about the country".
Your suggestion of (for example) Category:Early Western writers on Muscovy does seem very narrow, and although it might be well-populated, do we have any stable precedents for categorising writers by topic in such a narrow way? --BrownHairedGirl

(talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think, as Marshall Poe says below (and he should know - see his article), there is enough study of these earlier writers as a separate phenomenon to justify a category of their own fairly easily, though I agree definition and naming is a problem - I think the solution is do it by period. There was an earlier discussion about Early Islamic "travel" writers, though I can't remember how it went. Johnbod 15:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Category:Travelers to Muscovy and Category:Travelers to Imperial Russia and Category:Travelers to Soviet Russia, or at least keep the essence of the category if recategorized. Particularly for the early period (Muscovite and Imperial Russia), the writings of travelers to Russia as such are very important historical sources. There are dozens of academic books about them and several major bibliographies listing thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of titles. For this reason alone, it makes sense to keep them categorized in some separate way. I can see why some object to "Travelers" (too broad), so perhaps we could go for "Category:Foreign Descriptions of Russia" (with subcats for Muscovite, Imperial, Soviet, etc.) As I've said, there are literally thousands of these, so the category would not be obscure. It's a little clunky, but could be replicated across Wikipedia, e.g. "Foreign Descriptions of France" etc. Again, the use of writings by foreigners is important for the history of many countries (think of Tocqueville and the history of the U.S.), so we need to keep the category in some form. This would also enable us to keep two kinds of things out of the category: a) people who traveled to Russia but who didn't write anything--we clearly aren't interested in them; b) people who traveled to Russia and wrote "travel literature" or "guide books"--these being very different from the country descriptions that historians find so valuable. On thing to note: The Wikiproject Russian History is working on these categories. (BTW: the standard division of Russian history is into five periods: "Kievan," "Muscovite," "Imperial," "Soviet" and "Post-Soviet"). MarshallPoe 14:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you here, but "descriptions" would suit a category of the books better than the writers, as here. Johnbod 15:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - I think "travel writers by country" (or some grammatically pleasing variant) would be the best choice, and it would serve the literature and biographical categories better than "travelers". "Travelers" is itself unfortunately easily confused with very diverse groups of people including explorers, colonial settlers, and travel writers; and "travel writing" / "travel literature" are easily understood and common terms so there's no reason to not use them. --lquilter 15:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more like the "by country from" categories we already have in Category:Travel writers. Maybe Category:Western writers on pre-Revolutionary Russia, merging the two early cats, and Category:Western writers on the Soviet Union, for the later one.

I agree that "travelers" is a bit vague, but the kind of book that is intended for this category is not "travel writing" and the writers are not "travel writers." Using this terminology to describe books by foreigners that describe Russia in the 17th century would be very anachronistic. How about "Foreign accounts of X" where X is a country or region. This still has the problem mentioned above by Johnbod (the entries are for people, not books, and people can't be "accounts"), but in the case of most of these folks they are in fact most famous for the books they wrote about country X. Tocqueville is one case in point, but there are many others. MarshallPoe 16:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't want to distract too much with what may be my lack of basic knowledge in this literary genre, but it seems to me that you're defining "foreign writers on X" as distinct from "travel writers on X" based on, what, length of stay? That seems a mite fine to me, but if these are two distinct literary genres, then go for it. As long as something is changed, because "travelers" doesn't capture this distinction at all. --lquilter 17:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lquilter, that's a good question. And maybe you are right, that the distinction is too fine. In any event, I wasn't basing the distinction on length of stay, but the kind of book they write. "Travel writing" is for the most part about going places and coming back, whereas a book like Tocqueville's Democracy in America or Hedrick Smiths The Russians is a more or less analytic description of a country. It is a question of genres. Still, I might go for "Travel Writing about X" where X is a country. Thoughts? --MarshallPoe 18:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if I understand correctly, then the structure would look like: Category:Travel writers > Category:''Nationality'' travel writers (capturing travel writers from a place, since they might travel to many places), and Category:Travel writers > Category:Travel writers on ''place'' (capturing travel writers like de Tocqueville who are primarily known for their in-depth commentaries on a particular place). That seems okay, but if, as you say, the distinction is only a "for the most part" kind of distinction, then I'd worry about being able to maintain a distinct and non-redundant and easily distinguishable category structure. I imagine that the "TW on place" category will end up being applied to a lot of works of the voyager-sort hitting multiple locations. The problem is, as Otto4711 below says, that this is basically categorizing writers by their subjects, and so it's necessarily awkward. (I wonder why it doesn't work just to have the works in a "travel writings about X" structure and the writers in a "travel writers" structure. Otherwise, if Beaumont had commented on 3 or 4 nations he'd have to get 3 or 4 categories. That doesn't seem like good categorizing practice to me.) --lquilter 20:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lquilter has me pretty much convinced to give up on "Travelers to X." I think it would probably be better (as s/he and Otto471 suggest) to have the work categorized as "Travel Writing on X." Some of the books won't be travel writing per se, but what the heck. Also, it might lead to a lot of book entries, and Wikipedia (so I'm told) is not a bibliography. Anyway, I'm ready to get rid of "Travelers to X" at the very least. MarshallPoe 23:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with that is it will create a precedent for a plethora of travel-writers-by-destination categories, when only a few are really justified, and maintainable. Johnbod 02:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Category:Travelers to Muscovy and Category:Travelers to Imperial Russia and Category:Travelers to Soviet Russia, I am taking a course at the University of Iowa specifically about these travellers to Russia. I do agree that category:foreign descriptions of Russia would also be a good name for the category. These categories are important to us because they make our research a lot easier. Thank you. Eifrid2 17:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eifrid2, perhaps you could suggest a helpful way to rename the category to avoid the confusion that has led to the "deletion" suggestion. Surely you can agree that "travelers" is vague and doesn't really capture the literary genre nuance you're studying. --lquilter 17:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Category:Travelers to Russia I am also taking a class about Russian history at the University of Iowa, and documents in this category are the sources for our papers! These foreign descriptions are academic documents and are an important topic among historians. I agree with Dr. Poe in renaming the category Category:Foreign Descriptions of Russia with subcategories more specific to the period, e.g. Category:Foreign Descriptions of Imperial Russia, etc. Pencil geek21 18:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, class. I think we are all agreed on the need for renaming. The articles are all biographies, and the category name must reflect this under the rules. How about Category:Foreign writers on pre-Revolutionary Russia, merging the two early cats, which are pretty small, and Category:Foreign writers on the Soviet Union? At any rate we need to agree something soon, or the present unsatisafactory title will stay. Johnbod 18:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all to Category:Travel writers for dispersal to an appropriate by origin subcat if applicable. Categorizing writers based on the sort of writing they do and the subject of that writing is untenable and will quickly lead to category clutter as there is no Earthly limitation on the subject matter of travel writers. If the work of these people qualifies as history then group them in an appropriate subcat of Category:Historians. Otto4711 19:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge subcats to Category:Travel writers and rename to include travel writers in the subcat names if kept. I agree that using travelers in the category name is problematic and needs to be fixed. Vegaswikian 19:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep but RenameCategory: Travelers to Russia. The name Foreign descriptions of Russia indicates to me that what I should find at this page is a listing of foreigners or non-Russians who visited Russia and left a description of the country as a record of their visit. These descriptions are valuable because they can be used by historians and others researching the various periods of Russian history.Debko55 19:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep but Rename and possibly Upmerge. I believe that this grouping is significant to a branch of scholarly research regarding Western descriptions of Russia throughout history. The Western perception of Russia is a critical part of European history, especially regarding the numerous conflicts and incursions between Russia and the West. Therefore, I believe that these travel accounts are of great value regarding Western perception of Russia. I do agree that the category could do with a renaming and possibly being upmerged into foreign travelers writing accounts in general. Irishsportwriter 21:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename If necessary, merging the categories now into two main categories sounds good to me. Category:Foreign Descriptions of Pre-Revolutionary Russia and Category:Foreign Descriptions of Post-Revolutionary or the latter could be Soviet Russia instead of Post-Revolutionary. The main thing is to keep "foreign descriptions" somewhere in the category: it serves as both necessary parts of the category. Pencil geek21 19:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination originated from finding the category on Romain Rolland's page, where there is no indication (except in the very vaguest of terms) that he provides what the renames suggest. Might we discuss the possible criteria for inclusion in any renamed category? DionysosProteus 01:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! He wrote: Salut à la révolution russe (Salute to the Russian Revolution) in 1917, apparently without visiting, and then went in 1935, possibly for 2 years. I think we are mostly fairly clear that we are talking about foreigners who have published descriptions, histories or similar works on Russia, based on having travelled there. Rolland does not appear to qualify, as his visit was long after what seems to have been his only book on the subject (a true French intellectual). Johnbod 17:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not a defining characteristic and could lead to proliferation of such categories (Category:Travellers to Abyssinia, Category:Travellers searching the source of the Nile, ...). Early historical travels may be covered by an article that provides enough of context. Modern travel guide writers should not be categorised by country. Pavel Vozenilek 18:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I believe the Category:Travelers to Russia provides users of Wikipedia and Historians alike with a tag that assists in locating first hand accounts of Russia from a travelers literature. By tagging travelers to the specific country of Russia, the Wiki tool will offer the information necessary to locate primary sources that deal with Russia. Through primary sources that these travelers offer, the west can divulge deeper into the political, cultural, social, and religious history of the East. CIue44 18:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That which is desired from this category can only be provided by an article. While I appreciate the desire to have a handy reference tool for the history of Western perceptions of Russia, that is a subject that can be covered only through an article. By their very nature, categories are simplistic things: they convey only a limited amount of information about their members and say practically nothing concrete about the topic. Renaming to Category:Foreign descriptions of Russia (or something similar) is not a viable option since the articles contained in these categories are about people, not "descriptions of Russia". But that's just one aspect of the issue. What kind of precedent would be set by the retention of this category? How many "Travelers to ..." and "Visitors to ..." categories would litter the articles of politicians, explorers, adventurers, humanitarians, researchers, and the like? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not the case that just because a particular category exists all other apparently analagous categories have to be allowed to exist also; one can see this here any day. But it is unfortunate many strong keepers above have not grasped that this is a biographical category, whose name must reflect this. I have made my suggestions above, and won't repeat them now. Johnbod 00:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Category:Travel writers currently subcategorises only by nationality. Although categorisation by destination is possible, I think this would still be problematic on the whole, since many writers travel to and write about multiple places. Also, while the existence of one category does not immediately justify the existence of an analogous one, the retention of a category at CFD sets a precedent for others (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies less to categories than articles because of the desire for consistency across multiple category trees). Perhaps a list would be better suited to such purposes (e.g. List of travel writers to Muscovy) since, unlike a category, it can provide context and additional details? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Renaming to Category:Travel Writers or worse Category:Travelers is not as helpful as Category:Travel Writers to Early Modern X or Category:Travel Writers from Imperial Southern X. I believe in more and more sub-categorization. For people who are coming to an encyclopedia, one of the most important bits of knowledge they are looking for is "How do I categorize or classify this?" This is especially true for the travel literature which is vast and in need of categorization. How is Thomas Jefferson different from Marco Polo or William Least Heat Moon or Paul Theroux? Your answer depends on how you classify them.

Also the wikipedia American historians had a similar categorization issue a while back. How are "American Historians" different from "Historians of the US?" Thus historians are categorized by nationality and by subject matter. --RedJ 17 01:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Open flat horse races[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Zafonic's scheme below. There is strong desire for change, and that's the one that makes the most sense to me.--Mike Selinker 15:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge all as overcategorisation by arbitrary inclusion criteria, as already proposed CfD for flat races for mares and fillies, for the same reasons: this sort of information would be better presented in a list or lists, which could record the actual length of the races, and if done as a sortable list it would be much more useful to readers.
I can't think of any other categories which are sub-divided by closely-grouped numbers. We don't have Category:Towns of about 6,000 people, Category:Towns of about 7,000 people, Category:Towns of about 8,000 people and so on; we don't have Category:Roads of about 60 mile long, Category:Roads of about 70 miles long etc; we don't have Category:buildings about 60m high, Category:buildings about 70 metres high.
Even Category:Mountains has only two by-height categories, both which record relatively small groups of unusually high mountains: Category:Eight-thousanders and Category:Alpine Four-thousanders (although Category:Mountains and hills of the United Kingdom has sprouted a series of dubious by-height categories under Category:Peak bagging in the British Isles, which look to me like candidates for listifying).
Even under Category:Athletics, Category:Running by distance is divided by length of race in broad groups except at the extremes (e.g. we have Category:Short distance running rather than Category:100 metre running, Category:200 metre running etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or lump together into broader groupings. Towns aren't deliberately designed to have set populations, and roads are designed to stretch from points A to points B via the vagaries of rampant geography - not to go for a set distance then stop. Neither are mountains designed to have set heights (unless the great creator has some Grand Plan for them). Horse races, however, are specified to particular lengths. Upmerging them to a smaller number of broader categories (...one mile and under, ...between one and two miles, ...two miles and over) would be acceptable, but one broad category is not, for the same reaon we don't lump marathons in with sprints. As to "other categories which are sub-divided by closely-grouped numbers", check out Category:1950 births, Category:1951 births, Category:1952 births, Category:1953 births... Grutness...wha? 01:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation by date is not the same as categorisation by measurement (the halfway point between 1951 and and 1952 is not 1951½), and while mountains aren't designed to a set height, buildings are designed that way. The most useful comparator, though, is probably athletics, where events are also designed to particular lengths, and that comparison needs a closer look.
These horse-racing categories cover a range from 5/8 Furlongs (1000km) to just 2 miles (i.e. 3.2km). Most of the "at least 2 mile" races are actually 3200 metres or less, which is less than two miles, so we have a range-span of less than 4:1 between the shortest and longest races covered by these categories (the exception is about 4 races of over 2 miles). By comparison, a marathon is 420 times as long as a 100metre sprint, which is why we separate out marathons as an exception.
In athletics, sprint (race) includes races from 60 to 400m, a 7:1 range of lengths. All the horse races fall within the same range as the sprint category. and there is nothing here remotely approaching a "horse marathon". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These distances include distances run by both sprinters and stayers, the horse-racing equivalents of sprint and middle-distance runners. Horse anatomy being different to human anatomy, the differentiation in racing between short and medium distances varies between the two species. Given the distinct division in horse racing between sprinters and stayers, it would be wrong to group all of these races into on category. The point about the marathon is taken, but only if it is automatically assumed that races of "two miles and over" will only ever include races of "two miles and slightly over". It is the category that would naturally be used for any far longer races. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are making a good case for a category of "races over 2 miles", which would include the existing articles on races of 2.2 miles or more, but not the many 2mile/3200metre races. It will not at present be a heavily populated category (3 or 4 articles, I think), but if it defines an event of significantly different quality, it's worth having. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge all per nom. Otto4711 17:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all per nom; far too specific groupings into some non-specific categories. What's "about 1 3/8 miles?" 1.374 miles presumably qualifies, but what about 1.44 (which is just a tad nearer 1 1/2 miles, but still "about" both of the numbers for most people's usages); I genuinely question categories based on "about" numbers. Carlossuarez46 23:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To casual observers it might seem like one horse race is pretty much the same as any other. But this is not the case and the three basic variables are age, sex and distance. Combining the three to make category titles is not easy, as the present clumsy titles demonstrate. But to merge them and lump together races as diverse as the Flying Five, the Chester Cup and the Prix d'Ispahan would be a huge mistake. -- Zafonic 18:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply As discussed above, two of the same variables in apply in human running races, but we don't try to micro-categorise them; it's hard to see a massive qualitative difference between races of 6 furlongs and those of 7 furlongs, and categories are not well-suited to classifying every attribute of a set of articles. Triple intersection categories are routinely deprecated at CfD, and this strikes me as a task to which sortable lists and navigation templates are very well suited. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:38, 28 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 14:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatge merge Have "up to 2 mile" and "over 2 mile" as the distance criteria, rather than so many, but still some differentiation is needed. --linca linca 04:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support that split. --11:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)
Suggestion. The categories contain 302 races below 2 miles and just 20 of 2 miles or more, so the split is a bit unbalanced. Perhaps we should try to mirror the SMILE system used by the Internatonal Federation of Horseracing Authorities. This comprises five distance categories (Source: IFHA World's Leading Horses):
- S - Sprint (5 to 6.5 furlongs / 1000 to 1300 metres)
- M - Mile (6.51 to 9.49 furlongs / 1301 to 1899 metres)
- I - Intermediate (9.5 to 10.5 furlongs / 1900 to 2100 metres)
- L - Long (10.51 to 13.5 furlongs / 2101 to 2700 metres)
- E - Extended (13.51 furlongs plus / 2701 metres plus). -- Zafonic 20:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Thanks v much for details of the IFHA system; it's the first such reference we have had in these discussions. The purpose of the proposed split is not to create a balance, but to separate out the exceptional races. I would happy to follow the IFHA definition of "extended" races for the split-out category proposed as over 2 miles, but not to replicate the entire IFHA classification in the wikipedia category system. The IFHA division of the shorter races suffers from the same problem as the existing categories, of being far too finely-grained a distinction. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IN Britain race lenghts are still expressed in furlongs (of 220 yards). There is thus no reason in principle for not having all categories as subcategories of Category:Open flat horse races. The proposal for grouping them according to the IFHA categorieswould also be appropriate. A single category of over 200 articles would be difficult to use. Peterkingiron 00:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative merge. There are several problems with the IFHA system:

1. The Sprint and Mile categories differ slightly in North America.
2. The races categorised as "Long" are more commonly known as "middle distance races".
3. The races categorised as "Extended" are more commonly known as "long distance races".

With this in mind, I propose merging the ten present categories into four new ones, which I think reflect the main distance divisions of the sport:

up to 6.99 furlongs / up to 1399 metres

7 to 9.99 furlongs / 1400 to 1999 metres

10 to 12.99 furlongs / 2000 to 2599 metres

at least 13 furlongs / at least 2600 metres

-- Zafonic 10:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional amusement parks[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.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The material does not justify a distinct category. Of three category members, one is miscategorised (the article's subject is a real TV series episode) and one is a redirect. The article Pleasure Island (Pinocchio) should probably be merged into Pinocchio. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fictional carnivals and amusement parks, and also bring Category:Fictional carnivals into that.--Mike Selinker 15:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my reply regarding the merge at #Category:Fictional carnivals. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because of the activity there, I'll change this vote to Keep. These articles need somewhere to go in the "Fictional (X)" tree, and this seems as good a name as any.--Mike Selinker 19:43, 26 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 14:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deltete and Listify. The list can be included in Category:Fictional places. What makes these defining places? Vegaswikian 22:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that a list of 3 members would be quickly deleted via WP:PROD. Dream Park is an article about a novel, and Wally world is a redirect (from a non-standard title, incidentally). Perhaps the category could be deleted and Pleasure Island (Pinocchio) – the only article that is unambiguously about a fictional amusement park – could be relocated to Category:Fictional businesses? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect entry really covers several different uses and as such should not have a category, especially this one. I pointed it to the existing dab page. That leaves only two entires. Clearly Delete should be the action since two items is too small. If someone wants re recat those two that should be allowed. Vegaswikian 00:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cars (film)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 18:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The material does not warrant a distinct category; the articles are adequately interlinked via Template:Cars and various "See also" and in-text links. Please also note that one of the members (Category:Cars characters) has been nominated for deletion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:48, 21 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 14:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Otto4711 16:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 03:21, 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:Cold Case 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 delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Currently empty. Contained only one article (List of Cold Case characters) for a very long time. MaxVeers 05:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 03:21, 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:Roller coasters by height[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename both Category:Roller coasters by height and Category:Types of roller coasters to Category:Roller coasters by type and then manually move some articles to Category:Types of roller coasters.--Mike Selinker 15:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roller coasters by height to ~~Category:Roller coasters by class~~ Category:Types of roller coasters

Nominator's rationale: Rename. While the criteria for some of these is based on industry established heights, not all of these are height based. They are way to classify type of coasters that is not by the material used or design style. I'm open to other ideas here. Vegaswikian 00:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move the other subcategories to Category:Types of roller coaster. --Eliyak T·C 02:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not move them all to Category:Types of roller coaster since the height is not mentioned in the category name? Vegaswikian 02:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I decided to modify the nomination. Since several of these are already included in Category:Types of roller coasters, why not just move them all there. Vegaswikian 07:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. ~~Oppose for two reasons.~~ First, we already have Category:Types of roller coasters (plural "coasters"), and I see little reason for these categories to remain separate. Second, the articles contained in the subcategories are primarily not about types of roller coaster, but rather about individual roller coasters. ~~Thus, rename to Category:Roller coasters by type (a separate nomination will be needed to merge the other category).~~ – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since Category:Types of roller coasters already includes both the coaster types and coasters of each type, why not do the merge and then create the structure to split out these two uses? The split would need to be done manually into Category:Roller coasters by type unless this is something controlled by the template, but even then it is still a manual change. Vegaswikian 23:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That seems fine. A separate discussion would be need anyway in order to separate articles about individual roller coasters from articles about types of roller coasters. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was here to close this discussion, as there seems to be a consensus. However, I am not sure what the consensus is. If there is agreement, could someone please be more clear on what should (or should not) be done to this category? Or if someone else can figure this one out, feel free to close it.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think consensus is to merge Category:Roller coasters by height to Category:Types of roller coasters then split out Category:Roller coasters by type. Actually, since this is going to be a manual move, it may be easier to let the bots move Category:Roller coasters by height and Category:Types of roller coasters to Category:Roller coasters by type and then manually moving a much smaller number of articles to Category:Types of roller coasters. In the end, Category:Roller coasters by type will be contain a bunch of categories and Category:Types of roller coasters will only have articles. Vegaswikian 01:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Shamrock Rovers managers[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:Shamrock Rovers F.C. managers. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Shamrock Rovers managers to Category:Shamrock Rovers F.C. managers

Nominator's rationale: to match main article, Shamrock Rovers F.C.. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Support Rename - Djln --Djln 22:38, 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.