Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 4

< October 3	October 5 >

October 4[edit]

Category:British officers in the American Revolution[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; I was going to repopulate this and relist it, were it not for the explanation from Choess. Kbdank71 19:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. As pointed out by User:Kernel Saunters, the overwhelming majority of articles in the supercategory Category:British military personnel of the American Revolutionary War fall into this category; there are only one or two articles about individual British enlisted men of the Revolution. He's emptied the category, and there doesn't seem to be any value in keeping it. Choess 23:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As above, no point in having two cats for essentially the same set of people. The populated cat Category:British military personnel of the American Revolutionary War follows the generic naming convention for such categories and so is preferable Kernel Saunters 00:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and repopulate. This category seems like a viable and accurate sub-category of Category:British military personnel of the American Revolutionary War, and it was quite wrong of User:Kernel Saunters to empty a valid category simply because he didn't like it: if he thought it shoukd be deleted, he should have nominated it at CfD.
Once the category is repopulated, I'd be happy to consider a fresh nomination for its deletion or upmerger, but it's time that CfD took a stronger stand against being bounced into deletion by the pre-emptive emptying of a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The current populated cat follows the current Military history naming convention. The generic subcats by personnel are by Service NOT ranks. So we would normally have British naval personnel of the X or British army personnel by X rather than the British officers of the X (in this case of the Revolution not of the Revolutionary War). How many rankers are notable in the dataset as currently populated? Hardly any, so why is this a valid subcat when it neither follows the naming convention, will contain the same dataset as the milhistory taskforce specified category and doesn't follow the army/naval split for subcats? In terms of why depopulated prior to CFD, the existing situation was creating two populated categories for the same dataset so I made it a commonsense WP:BOLD task. If this was out-of-process then I'll take that on board. (I've raised several speedy and other CFDs prior to this). Kernel Saunters 11:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. The problem here is that now the category has been emptied, it's rather difficult for anyone else to make their own assessment of what you say. WP:BOLD doesn't work well when it comes to the emptying of categories, because the changes can't be reviewed simply by looking at the history. Related changes can be used to see what was added to a category, but it doesn't show what was there already. That's why an apparently superfluous category should be nominated at CfD, rather than depopulated: the bots can depopulate or merge it if deletion is agreed, so it also saves you some work :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't time for this - look any my contributions. Given that my arguments for the rename have been totally ignored I can't see the point. I would note that I populated at least half of the articles in the category in question so for most of the articles I self-reverted to move to the other category. I've also added in the normal course of the work I'm doing about eight articles to the Mil hist category. Kernel Saunters 19:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BHG - we are seeing far too many pre-emptied categories here. Johnbod 00:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps I should give the backstory behind this nomination. After discovering the existence of Category:British officers in the American Revolution, I started moving appropriate articles from Category:British military personnel of the American Revolutionary War into it. The result was that all but, IIRC, three articles were moved out of the latter category; of those, two were probably officers, although that was not explicitly stated in their Wikipedia articles, and one was probably not (a Loyalist artist who later died in poverty in New York). Kernel Saunters pointed out that the former category did not follow the usual practice of WP:MILHIST and overlapped to a very great extent with the latter category. (See my talk page.) I put up the CfD after finding he'd emptied the category; had he not, I would have nominated the category for merger into the military personnel category, on the grounds that the vast majority of articles on British military personnel of the American Revolution were about officers, and that the distribution of notable individuals could be expected to follow the same pattern. I agree that it would have been better to hold the CfD before emptying the category, but given our great paucity of articles on British enlisted men of the American Revolution, I don't see any reason to retain it. Choess 17:42, 8 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:Hindu law[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no reason for this category to exist, it even makes its way into articles that have nothing to do with "law" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.32.213 (talk • contribs) 23:34, October 4, 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep -- Maybe some of the articles need to be removed, but there are many good reasons for this category to exist, such as to improve navigation between all of the articles on Hindu law. LeSnail 01:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per LeSnail. The main article Hindu Law makes clear that this a long-standing topic, with extensive literature using this term for the subject. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Category:Hinduism-related controversies should not be a sub-category, and really the category should be divided between modern legislation specifically related to Hindus and Hinduism (the subject of Hindu law), and articles on legal aspects of historical Hinduism. Johnbod 15:44, 6 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: Political London (take 2)[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 17:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Rename or delete Category:Political London

Nominator's rationale: This is a category of miscellaneous and largely unrelated stuff in London which is somehow connected with London's role as the capital of the United Kingdom, and also some vaguely political stuff. There may be a role for a renamed and repurposed category (though I can't think of a name), but as it stands this category is too vague to serve a useful navigational purpose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete categorization is just too lose. It includes the HQs of government, government organizations, NGOs and royal family residence. There's just nothing solid to tie all of that together. There's also significant and unnecessary overlap with Category:National government buildings in London Circeus 22:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Circeus. I think Category:Politically-significant locations in London accurately describes the contents of this category, but that's not a good basis for categorisation. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that's not a good basis for categorisation, but I disagree that it's accurate: the embassies included are a governmental rather than a political topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I used a fairly broad definition of 'political' to include anything related to politics (including foreigns relations and the government). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:03, 5 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:Supercouples[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete per precedent and nomination. Kbdank71 17:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - no objective inclusion criteria. Some publicist declaring the latest flavor of the month celebrity pair a "supercouple" seems a poor basis for a category. If retained it needs to be split into fictional and non-fictional. Otto4711 20:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term supercouple is a notable term and it having a category is beneficial to the articles on supercouples (though I'm still fixing up the soap opera supercouple articles, which is a work in progress, but a lot of them are notable and have been written about in books, which I'll eventually add to their articles). Not all or most celebrity couples are called a supercouple, just as not all or most soap opera couples are titled a supercouple. This category doesn't just house celebrity supercouples, which is why I see that you suggest that it be split into a fictional supercouples category and a non-fictional supercouples category, which I can really agree with you on, Otto...except I would suggest that it be split into Category:Celebrity supercouples and Category:Soap opera supercouples. The category called Celebrity duos isn't really about supercouples, though it might house several, so it should be fine that a celebrity supercouples category exists. Flyer22 21:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about this subject more, and, yes, it really does seem that the best thing here is to keep Category:Supercouples, but to create the subcategories of Category:Celebrity supercouples and Category:Soap opera supercouples (and whatever other type of supercouple subcategory can exist in a valid way) within it. Flyer22 22:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (more added below) Johnbod 23:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If it's true that "not all or most celebrity couples are called a supercouple", we have no objective way of determining which articles about married couples to include and who to exclude. Might be more amenable to listification, but even then I'm not convinced it's a good idea. Snocrates 23:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a meaningful, objective way of determining which celebrities to include -- the ones that are without a doubt a Supercouple, such as Tomkat or Posh and Becks. The fact that not all celebrity couples are called a supercouple is the way that we know which ones to include into the category and which ones not to include...or else all celebrity couples (romantic or non-romantic) could be included within this category. Flyer22 00:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So how does a novice in this area, such as myself, go about determining if a celebrity couple is indeed a "supercouple"? If the only way to tell is that you must have some sort of intuitive "supercouple-sense" to determine that a couple is "without a doubt" a supercouple, the category is inappropriate, because novices like me are going to be adding and deleting categories. You still haven't explained what the "objective" method of determination is. Do they have to have a combined nickname, or are separate nicknames used together enough? It's ridiculous. Snocrates 03:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ridiculous. And I have explained and so has hmwith. I never stated that we must have some sort of intuitive "supercouple-sense" to determine that a couple is "without a doubt" a supercouiple. If you take a look at celebrity supercouples such as Bennifer, Tomkat, Brangelina (who don't have their own article yet, but should, considering the many sources citing them as a global-fascination couple), and Posh and Becks, you'll see that these couples (their couple nicknames) have either been entered into urban dictionaries, encyclopedias, or have multiple other sources citing them as a major celebrity couple. Those are the celebrity supercouples who are notable enough to have their own articles, and celebrity supercouples like them. Other celebrity supercouples who don't deserve an article on Wikipedia, if we go by the standards of the celebrity supercouples listed above, are sourced in the Supercouple article. And that is not a very long list because not any celebrity couple is titled a supercouple. Flyer22 03:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my opinion to delete and my statement that the category is quite ridiculous. As stated by the nominator, "[s]ome publicist [or I might add, tabloid editor or writer] declaring the latest flavor of the month celebrity pair a "supercouple" seems a poor basis for a category. Snocrates 05:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I stand by decision to keep. The category is far from ridiculous, considering that the term Supercouple is notable and applies to more than just celebrity supercouples. And it's certainly not about "[s]ome publicist [or I might add, tabloid editor or writer] declaring the latest flavor of the month celebrity pair a "supercouple"...considering that every celebrity supercouple within the supercouple article is titled a supercouple by several valid sources. Several valid sources can be listed calling each and every one a supercouple, only furthering the case that it is not some subjective issue. If any celebrity couple could be a supercouple, then that list would be a heck of a lot longer right now. And I suppose that would make couples such as Posh and Becks Super-supercouples. Flyer22 06:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, 2 (= multiple) tabloid writers declaring a couple the supercouple of the month. It sounds like something totally amenable to and appropriate for listification and hardly a status arrived at by any objective standard (apart from previously mentioned opinions of editors of tabloids and other celebrity cruft publications). Snocrates 07:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just two. And it's not just the tabloid writers. A supercouple is a supercouple, and you don't get called one by several valid sources unless you are one. Newspapers such as The News & Advance and Chicago Sun-Times (which, yeah, can be listed) noting the term, citing you as a supercouple, being entered into a dictionary because your couple name intrigued the world so much -- yeah, that's not something amenable to and appropriate for litification. Flyer22 07:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "a supercouple is a supercouple" doesn't really bring a lot of clarity to the problem of definition--which still appears from your description to be based primarily on a subjective opinion of some "entertainment" editor(s), whatever the publication. Snocrates 07:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"My opinion" is not based on only entertainment editors. And my saying a supercouple is a supercouple is exactly what it means. No definition is missing here. Your disregard for these couples being cited as supercouples over and over again in not only tabloids but well-respected newspapers as well [1] and being entered into dictionaries all because of the media fascination with their couple name, for goodness sakes, as if this can and does happen with any celebrity couple is something that I cannot grasp. But it's clear that we aren't on the same page on this matter. However, I have enjoyed this discussion with you. My birthday wasn't all too steller. And I love debating with intelligent people, such as yourself, and ones that don't get too condescending in a debate. Flyer22 07:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine if it could be applied in the manner in which you describe, but as I originally stated, I don't think it will be and the category is bound to run into application difficulties. For example, Ike & Tina Turner are ("is" in supercouple lingo) currently in the category, but I see no reference in their article suggesting they attained this holy grail status of "supercouple". If the category is kept, it certainly needs to be cleaned up, and it will take perpetual monitoring to maintain. Snocrates 08:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand what you mean. Ike & Tina Turner need references period in their article. If this category is kept, I'll definitely go about keeping it up to the standards that you'd like it to be. That's what it should be and I agree with you on that, of course. I still want this category to be more like I stated below, however -- Category:Supercouples housing both the soap opera supercouples and the celebrity supercouples, but as subcategories. Flyer22 08:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only if renamed to Category:Soap opera supercouples, as I've seen at least a prima facie showing in various articles that it might be a meaningful, sourceable grouping under that term. When applied to real life celebrities, however, I can't see it as anything but transient, selective, and subjective, so it should be deleted if it is not narrowed to exclude those. Postdlf 00:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just answered above to the subjective issue of celebrity supercouples, which I don't believe the topic of celebrity supercouples is subjective at all, but I do, of course, agree that Category:Soap opera supercouples is a good idea. But that title also sounds like a subcategory, meaning that some other type of supercouple category may exist on Wikipedia, and that's where I feel that Category:Celebrity supercouples comes into play. Flyer22 00:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepSupercouples are a staple of soaps (daytime and night time). The catagory is relative and deserves to be here. It also relates to real life couples but is far and away a term that has been a notable term since the 80s. Even in high school Supercouples was a term many recognized even before the internet. CelticGreen 01:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Definitely keep Category:Supercouples, but this should only be for real people. Another category should definitely be created for fictional supercouples. However, as for objective esy of determining what is a supercouple, we'll take out the WP:OR, and not determine it ourselves, at all. They'll only be added if there's a reliable source calling them a "supercouple", sourced in their articles. нмŵוτн τ 01:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this category should remain but I do agree with either splitting the article into fiction and non-fiction or else using the "supercouple" article for soap opera couples and creating a different article for celebrity "power" couples. Before reading this article, I was very familiar with the term supercouple in relation to soap operas but had never heard celebrity couples referred to with that name. I think soap operas in the 80s coined the term and I'm sure there are a lot of references that can be added to the article to support not only the use of the term but also the criteria for defining a soap supercouple.Radiantbutterfly 02:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I had only heard of it being used with celebrities, and not soap operas. нмŵוτн τ 03:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. So now it's come down to which out of the two, soap opera or celebrity, should have the main category Category:Supercouples? I've stated this before, but both the soap opera and celebrity supercouples can share the main supercouple category, while they are split into subcategories within it — one called Category:Soap opera supercouples; the other called Category:Celebrity supercouples. Sort of how Category:Superheroes shares itself with plenty of different types of superheroes, but by subcategories. Sure, the term Supercouple doesn't have as many types as the term Superhero does, but I feel that following the example of Category:Superheroes is the best in this case, and it keeps them separate at the same time. Flyer22 03:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Supercouple was originally coined in the early 80s by a soapopera magazine in regards to a Days of our Lives (Bo and Hope) and a General Hospital couple (Luke and Laura). In all my years of worshipping gossip, I've rarely heard real life couples called "supercouples" but have heard since before I graduated high school of soap supercouples. I'm still a very strong keep but agree also with a split.CelticGreen 19:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful link to a keep decision. [2] The article starts: Supercouples: A Relic From the '80s or Still Alive and Kissing?— By Janet Di Lauro

Passionate pairs like ANOTHER WORLD's Steve and Alice, GENERAL HOSPITAL's Luke and Laura, GUIDING LIGHT's Josh and Reva, and DAYS OF OUR LIVES' Bo and Hope have inspired viewers' loyalty and devotion for over three decades and motivated soap scribes from East Coast to West to constantly be masterminding their next miracle match.

::I think keeping the soap couple catagory should be done since it is still referenced in popular and current publications. CelticGreen 20:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still used often for very popular or influential celebrity couples as well, of course. As for prime time and film, it's sometimes used for their couples (such as Nathan Scott and Haley James Scott from the television series One Tree Hill), but the term Supercouple really doesn't have to be used for a couple such as Jack Dawson and Rose DeWitt Bukater (from the 1997 film Titanic) in order for them to be considered a supercouple. It's quite evident (to those who were alive in 1997 and those who are still alive since and) by the source within the Supercouple article that their romance fascinated the world beyond belief, which, yep, that definitely makes them a supercouple. I would call them the top film supercouple, but, of course, that's only my feeling about who is the top film supercouple, ever. Flyer22 21:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree with the split. Keep and split. нмŵוτн τ 15:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: the arguments offered so far make a strong case for keeping an article on the topic, but as a category, it still has completely arbitrary and subjective inclusion criteria, and should be deleted with prejudice. Xtifr _tälk 12:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Followup: there are lots of terms that are widely used and are still totally subjective, e.g. "Rock God". The fact that people have been labeled with an arbitrary superlative, even in a reliable source, does not make that a defining characteristic in the encyclopedic sense. Reporters have opinions, but we shouldn't be classifying people on the basis of those opinions. Xtifr _tälk 12:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But everything in Wikipedia is based on reliable sources... нмŵוτн τ 15:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly, I completely disagree that this category has "completely arbitrary and subjective inclusion criteria". Valid newspapers declaring a celebrity couple a supercouple is because of that couple's impact on the world, not because they are the flavor of the week. If it was because they were the temporary new thing, then they wouldn't continue to be called a supercouple months after, and years after for every single one of them. How else are we to label a celebrity couple a supercouple if not for their impact on the world and if not for the media titling them a supercouple? I see nothing subjective about it. I see it as no different than the media titling a model a Supermodel, or someone a Cultural icon due to their impact. And the soap opera supercouples are certainly not a subjective issue. Flyer22 03:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note the absence of both Category:Supermodels (deleted/merged at CFD) and Category:Cultural icons (also deleted at CFD. Otto4711 13:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know about the deletion of those, Otto. Flyer22 19:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete there is no meaningful objective criteria for this cat. I expected to find household names in it and I've never even heard of most of the people in it. This cat is full of meaningless fancruft and hence it serves no useful purpose. Rlevse 03:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is meaningful objective criteria for this category, especially for the soap opera supercouples. This category does have household names in it. Household names for both soap opera supercouples and celebrity supercouples. If you haven't heard of some of the soap opera supercouples, that does not mean that they are not household names, but rather that you are not familiar with them. There are plenty of wrestlers from the WWE that are household names, but I can name more than a dozen people within my personal life who have never heard of them. Yes, this category should be split, as within, but not deleted. It makes no sense to have no category for all of the soap opera supercouples. And the celebrity supercouple articles may grow as well, but there should definitely be a category to house the soap opera supercouples. Flyer22 03:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I must say when I voted delete early on above I did not expect this nomination to be contested as it has been. As others have said, the criteria are totally arbitary, and usage of the term is essentially generated from the world of PR. People can't make up their mind whether it should be for only real or only fictional characters, and there will be endless trouble keeping any category reasonably restricted. Johnbod 03:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, of course, I disagree that this category is arbitary, seeing as not just any celebrity couple or soap opera couple is titled a supercouple; they have all had notable impact before being titled a supercouple. But as for keeping it reasonably restricted, it was when it was just limited to soap opera supercouples. I don't see why it will be any different with celebrity supercouples. This category should be about both...soap opera supercouples and celebrity supercouples, but split into sub-categories within it. But if I had/have to choose which aspect gets it...if it came/comes down to which one, I would choose the soap opera supercouples. Flyer22 04:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whatever you may be able to say about the term, it's much less widely used than Supermodel, and we decided there, as we should here, against having a category because its use in the case of individuals (or individual couples) is subjective and arbitrary. The arguments presented so far make it clear that we can have an article on Supercouple, but our standards for categories are much higher. This is CfD, not AfD, and so far, the only keep arguments I'm seeing are AfD ones. Let me clarify one more time: the term is not arbitrary, but the category is! Xtifr _tälk 18:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed - I have no problems with articles on either soap or celebrity type. Johnbod 18:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 19:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The objective critera for inclusion is them being proven to be supercouples within their articles.

Xtifr, I still don't see this category as arbitrary. When there are as many articles on notable supercouples, as is here, then there should be a category to house all of them and for readers to sort through. This category was not at all arbitrary when it housed only soap opera notable couples or soap opera supercouples, because it really is rare for a soap opera couple to either be called a supercouple by the soap opera media or to step outside of the soap opera medium, such as appearing in a celebrity-dominated magazine. I just don't see this category as arbitrary, and especially not as subjective when all of the articles included within it will be of couples that are notable, noted as supercouples, based on the fact that Wikipedia does not allow articles on couples unless they are notable. It can easily be attained to only keeping the couples noted as celebrity supercouples in the celebrity supercouple subcategory of the main supercouple category. But if that is a worry due to the feeling that people may start adding some of the Category:Celebrity duos couples to the Supercouple category, I don't feel that what couples are included within the soap opera supercouple subcategory of the main supercouple category will be a problem, and I still feel that we can keep it maintained as applying to celebrity supercouples. I see it as no different than how the Category:Superheroes is maintained. With Category:Supermodels and Category:Cultural icons, the articles included within those categories weren't specifically about the matter of a supermodel or the matter of a cultural icon. The supercouple articles, however, are specifically about these couples being supercouples. Flyer22 19:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or keep and split. Soap supercouples are iconic in the genre. As Wikipedia is put together now, the catagory has validity.IrishLass0128 13:32, 8 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:Lawsuits in Singapore[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. Kbdank71 17:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lawsuits in Singapore to Category:Singaporean case law

Nominator's rationale: Per other national categories in Category:Case law (I wanted to suggest "Singaporean court cases", but all such cats are topical subcategories of a "case law" categories, and no countries without case law seems to have a courtcase category.). While the category contains one criminal case (National Kidney Foundation Singapore scandal), it is not primarily about the court case itself. Circeus 20:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support in order to maintain consistency with Category:Case law. Jacklee 22:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 5 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:Political London[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy close I can see the Deletion rationale (though entirely unrelated to this ridiculous statement), but you need to be less pointy. Circeus 20:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Political London to Category:Miscellaneous and largely unrelated stuff in London which is somehow connected with London's role as the capital of the United Kingdom, and also some vaguely political stuff for which editors couldn't think of a better category

Nominator's rationale: Rename, as a better description of the category. Or, alternatively, delete, or devise a better name. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: for London politicians, elections, etc, see Category:Politics of London, part of the see Category:Politics of England. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:45, 4 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:Motown songs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Vegaswikian 22:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - categorizing individual songs by the record label on which they were originally released is overcategorization. Otto4711 15:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Motown isn't just a record label, it's very distinct genre/sub-genre. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (changing my !vote). The more I think about it the more defining this category is for the articles and subcats within it. Oh, and Otto should be troutslapped for nominating it (supportively and non-violently, of course ...). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Primarily classification by genre; if necessary another sub-cat could be added for motown songs from other llabels, but in this case the label and genre are essentially co-extensive. Johnbod 18:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Motown represents a style of music and is a widely-used term to classify it, so in this case sorting by record label is appropriate. Not to be a precedent for other labels (with a few possible exceptions). Rigadoun (talk) 19:58, 5 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.

Boston, Massachusetts[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename all as nominated (Category:Foo in Boston to Category:Foo in Boston, Massachusetts). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:Streets in Boston to Category:Streets in Boston, Massachusetts
Category:Bridges in Boston to Category:Bridges in Boston, Massachusetts
Category:Churches in Boston to Category:Churches in Boston, Massachusetts
Category:Museums in Boston to Category:Museums in Boston, Massachusetts
Category:Skyscrapers in Boston to Category:Skyscrapers in Boston, Massachusetts
Category:Sports venues in Boston to Category:Sports venues in Boston, Massachusetts
Category:Universities and colleges in Boston to Category:Universities and colleges in Boston, Massachusetts
Rename all: For consistency with all other Boston, Massachusetts categories. (I missed nominating these last time, since they weren't directly in Category:Boston, Massachusetts.) LeSnail 15:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom, for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom for consistency. Boston, Indiana is getting shafted again. Snocrates 03:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't forget the original Boston ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:59, 5 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.

Olympic gymnast subcats[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 as nominated. Kbdank71 17:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per common practice, and more recently, this CFD, we do not subcategorize single Olympic disciplines such as gymnastics. These three cats represent overcategorization within the Olympics tree. No merge within the Olympics categories is necessary, as I have verified that all of the current category members are in both the by-year cats (eg, Category:Gymnasts at the 2004 Summer Olympics) and the by-country cats (eg, Category:Olympic gymnasts of Ukraine). However, it is appropriate to upmerge each of the three to their non-Olympic parent cats (Category:Artistic gymnasts, Category:Rhythmic gymnasts, and Category:Trampolinists).

Merge to non-Olympic cats, as nominated. Neier 11:17, 28 September 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 14:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom and per precedent, although I think that the nom could have been clearer. I read it to mean

Upmerge Category:Olympic artistic gymnasts to Category:Artistic gymnasts
Upmerge Category:Olympic rhythmic gymnasts to Category:Rhythmic gymnasts
Upmerge Category:Olympic trampoline gymnasts to Category:Trampolinists

Is this the nominator's intention? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks for the restatement. Neier 14:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Olympic gymnasts. Individual pages would be in that category, plus any of Category:Artistic gymnasts etc. as appropriate. Andrwsc 00:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. They should not be put in the Category:Olympic gymnasts, which holds the by-year, and by-nation categories as mostly a {{parent category}}. Since all of the articles in these three cats were already in both the by-nation and by-year cats (sorted as appropriate), then there is no need to put them in any other Olympic category. What BHG wrote above is the only upmerging that is required. Neier 14:54, 7 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:Katie Melua[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) 22:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Material is interlinked and appropriately categorized; eponymous category is unwarranted. Otto4711 14:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Otto. LeSnail 21:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and ample precedent for eponymous categories. Snocrates 03:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure I agree with that decision, but as it was agreed on by consensus for other artists, there's no reason for an exception here. Rigadoun (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the only reason there aren't more articles in this cat is because Otto removed them.[3][4] Not good. --Hera1187 05:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with doing category cleanup. Even with those articles (about her manager and the record label he founded) this material doesn't warrant a category. Otto4711 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and ample precedent. Otto's actions before nominating the category were entirely appropriate. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:20, 6 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:Nine Worthies[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) 22:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - not strongly defining of its membership and already listed at the article Nine Worthies. Otto4711 14:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't think this could be said to be a defining feature/status of any of the nine members. Snocrates 23:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining or trivial characteristic. This may be significant to the development of the historical chivalric culture in Europe, but it's not a defining characteristic of the individuals themselves. Xtifr _tälk 12:18, 6 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:African American Economic 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 proposal 1. Kbdank71 17:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination also includes Category:Economic Organizations of the United States

Proposal 1
Proposal 2
- Rename Category:African American Economic Organizations to Category:African American economic organizations
- Rename Category:Economic Organizations of the United States to Category:Economic organizations based in the United States
- Categorise Category:Economic organizations based in the United States into Category:Organizations based in the United States and Category:Economy of the United States
- Create Category:African American organizations
- Categorise Category:African American economic organizations and Category:African American professional organizations in Category:African American organizations, which should be a direct subcategory of Category:Organizations based in the United States

These categories need to be made to conform to the convention of Category:Organizations based in the United States, but I have no preference as to which of the two suggested pathways is chosen. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:13, 27 September 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 14:29, 4 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 femme fatales[edit]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE per prior CFDs as noted below. Postdlf 00:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - preferably speedy as we've deleted a fictional femmes fatales category at least once. If not speedy, then because the category inclusion criteria are vague and POV. Otto4711 14:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact we've deleted this category under a variant spelling four times so definitely speedy delete and salt both spellings. Otto4711 14:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I still think it should be femmes fatale and also because it's a bad idea to do role-based categories, analogous to "protagonist" and "antagonist" and "villain" etc. .... --lquilter 17:27, 4 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:Windows-only games in seventh video game console generation era[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 17:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization; categorizing one subject area by criteria drawn from another subject area also seems arbitrary to me. The category is additionally problematic because the specific date of the generation's beginning appears to be unclear according to History of video game consoles (seventh generation) and the category's own definition ("The Seventh generation era began at 2006 or near for home consoles"). All the articles in this category already belong to the most likely merge target Category:Windows games, so I suggest deletion and using the Category:21st century video games subcategories instead. --Muchness 13:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The category is a part of Category:Single-platform_software Only Xbox360 games, only PS3, only Wii and here now only Windows games in the same era! The Lists sorted only original and exclusively pc games, not multi plattform titles from all times and for all crasy ports, similar Undercategorization Category:Windows games without all filter! --Fidelfair 13:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Video game console eras have nothing to do with these games. By their very nature, Windows-only games are released without reference to console releases. If you're going to categorize based on generations, you would do better to look at PC-based methods for distinguishing technology levels; say, Category:DirectX 10 games. GreenReaper 14:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge into Category:Windows games per GreenReaper. If there is a need to subcategorise that category (and there seems to be), it would be better done per GreenReaper (e.g. Category:DirectX 10 games) or by year (e.g. Category:2000 Windows games). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Windows-only games. Console generations are irrelevant to non-console games. -Sean Curtin 02:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This category is very vague and would be very difficult to maintain or even update later on. There is way loads of PC games that is been released every single day. There is no need for this sort of category to exist. --SkyWalker 14:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many people buy only pc games without console development artifacts or without mass-market target, they need this and the way to update is very easy, see at example all other cats in Category:Single-platform_software we have no problem there, we worked. --Fidelfair 09:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, equating console generations to PC makes no sense. --Voidvector 11:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we different exclusive pc games from multconsole mass-market games here! there is no equating, equating is only in Category:Windows games where nobody can see what windows 3.1 game is or windows vista game or only multiconsole Conversions! --Fidelfair 23:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly sure what you said, but I believe you are referring to "System requirements", which can't be distinctively categorized. --Voidvector 01:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, As noted, PC games have little to do with seventh generation console games anyways. Do PC games even have generations? I suggest a delete. - XX55XX 23:42, 8 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:Muslim hip hop 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 relisted on oct 11. Kbdank71 17:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Muslim hip hop groups to Category:Islamic hip hop groups

Nominator's rationale: Per the title of the parent category (Category:Islamic music) and the main article (Islamic music). Also, the groups themselves are not Muslim; the proper adjective is 'Islamic'. See also the 2007 Sep 27 CFD that renamed Category:Muslim music to Category:Islamic music. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and precedent. "Muslim" is a person; "Islamic" is the adjective. Snocrates 05:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Snocrates' helpful observation that "Muslim" is a person and "Islamic" is the adjective doesn't actually to resolve the issue. If these groups are producing Islamic music (defined in the article as religious), then the correct adjective is "Islamic", but from reading the article in this category it seems that none of these groups are producing religious music: they are bands of muslim musicians, producing music for both muslim and non-muslim audiemces, but their themes are social, political and cultural rather than religious. The adjective therefore applies to the band members rather than to the music, so "muslim" is appropriate here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, shouldn't the category simply be deleted as overcategorisation? After all, it amounts to categorising groups by the particular affiliations (in this case, religion) of their individual members. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is per BrownHairedGirl, and remove articles that don't fit the description. This one was kind of tricky -- almost went the other way. There are four groups whose members are Muslims, but only three of them (Mecca2Medina, Native Deen, Soldiers of Allah) appear to perform "Islamic music"; the fourth (The Brothahood) appears to perform music about social issues facing Muslims. The group DAM is Palestinian, with one Muslim member and two members whose religion is not mentioned. Outlandish has two Muslims and a Catholic; Closer Than Veins is merely one of their albums. Cgingold 13:39, 8 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:African-American studies scholars[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. Kbdank71 17:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:African-American studies scholars to Category:African American studies scholars

Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the parent category (Category:African Americans), the indirect main article (African American studies), and the direct main article (African American studies). Originally proposed at WP:CFD/S, but contested. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, preferably to Category:Scholars of African American studies which would match some other "scholars by subject" where the other way round doesn't work smoothly. Or per nom. Johnbod 03:16, 4 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 fundamentalists[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 17:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Single-member category, for which no objective and non-arbitrary inclusion criteria can be defined. The category description states that it is for "overtly religious fictional characters", but that raises a new question: how do we define or measure overt religiousity, especially without delving into original research? If kept, rename to Category:Fictional religious fundamentalists, to differentiate from other types, such as market fundamentalism. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The term fundamentalist is simply too ambiguous and susceptible to misinterpretation to be used in the name of a category. I'm puzzled as to why this category was created to begin with, seeing as there are already numerous sub-cats of its parent cat, Category:Fictional characters by religion. Cgingold 06:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom and per Cgingold: there is no consensus over the definition of "religious fundamentalist", and this category's attempt to redefine "fundmentalist" as "overtly religious" is one of the worst abuses of the term I have seen. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ~~the fact there is no analogous non-fictional category implies these difficulties. Rigadoun (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)~~ Never mind, I see they are in Fundamentalism, with these same problems. Still, delete per others. Ned is already sorted by religion reasonably enough, as others would be. Rigadoun (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, arbitrary and over-categorization. --Voidvector 11:45, 8 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 United States Independents[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Fictional United States independent politicians. Kbdank71 17:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a category for fictional Americans "who were not members of supporters of any party". Thus, it is effectively a "not" category (Category:Fictional Americans who do not support any political party). If kept, rename to Category:Fictional United States independents, since "independents" ought to be capitalised only when it refers to an actual political party. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre category - no Homer Simpson, but the woman from Commander in Chief, who is elected as Vice-President on a Republican ticket. In fact this is not about supporting at all, but running for office on an independent ticket, which is totally different. But I can't be bothered to suggest a better name. Oh, alright: Category:Fictional Americans who ran for office as independents. I suspect there are a good few more. Johnbod 03:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rename to Category:Fictional Americans who ran for office as independents~~ per Johnbod, then go and have a stuff drink before I think too much about why wikipedia has this category and why I bother commenting on it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial overcategorization. For the vast majority of fictional characters, running for some non-partisan office or other is a passing story restricted to one episode or rarely a two- or three-episode story arc. It is a single event in what is usually a long and involved fictional "life." Not defining of the character at all. Otto4711 19:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, how can you say that about President Jack Ryan! Johnbod 23:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment broaden to category:fictional americans who are not Democrats, Republicans, Whigs, or Federalists 132.205.44.5 22:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Category:Americans who are not Democrats, Republicans, Whigs, Federalists, Libertarians, Democrat-Republicans, Reform Party members or Greens? Otto4711 23:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

category:fictional americans who are not Democrats, Republicans, Whigs, Federalists or Democrat-Republicans - because Greens, Reform, and Libertarians are most definitely third party. (along with Dixiecrats, Bull Moosers and Socialists, plus Confederates) 132.205.44.5 21:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename - Okay, I admit I rolled my eyes when I first saw this one. And I almost went along with the crowd -- until I performed due diligence and found that it's actually part of an established categorization scheme, and is consistent with Category:Fictional United States Democrats and Category:Fictional United States Republicans. It's also consistent with the real-life Category:Independent politicians, which I've added as an additional parent cat (the same as for Democrats and Republicans). What's strange is that, so far nobody has bothered to create Category:United States independent politicians to go along with the other sub-cats by country. (I'll probably do it myself shortly.) The only question is, what is the best name for this category to be renamed to: Category:Fictional United States independents or Category:Fictional United States independent politicians. The latter has the virtue of added clarity and is consistent with the real-life cats, but I can live with the former if others prefer it. Cgingold 07:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Changing my !vote) Rename to Category:Fictional United States independent politicians per Cgingold. Since there doesn't seem to be a consensus for deleting the category, this title at least restricts it to fictional politicians, rather than leaving the category as a catch-all for all fictional American characters who were not declared as Republicans or Democrats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with that. Johnbod 17:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, arbitrary categorization. Political affiliation should already be stated in the article if it is relevant. --Voidvector 11:42, 8 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 cancer sufferers[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. Vegaswikian 22:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional cancer sufferers to Category:Fictional characters with cancer

Nominator's rationale: An equally descriptive but less assuming title. Alternatively, rename to Category:Fictional cancer patients to match the category for real people (Category:Cancer patients). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-defining. One aspect of what in most or all cases is a long and involved fictional life. Otto4711 14:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is this category meant to include the fictional analogues of Category:Cancer deaths, Category:Cancer patients, and Category:Cancer survivors? The first suggestion would more accurately cover them all, whereas the second more strongly implies only those who do not die or recover within the fictional material (which, like real life, could cause recategorization later). Rigadoun (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defining; a character mentions s/he has cancer next week it's gone and maybe gets mentioned 2 months later. Unlike the real thing, fictional characters' cancer can come and go and may play little role in the character's development or relevance to the story. Carlossuarez46 19:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcategorization. Doczilla 20:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doczilla's remark. --Voidvector 11:39, 8 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:Fat Albert[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. Vegaswikian 22:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorisation for 3 articles, which are adequately interlinked in the articles themselves. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a TV show. All contents are interlinked. Otto4711 14:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. LeSnail 21:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 20:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.IrishLass0128 13:33, 8 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.