Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 22 September 24 >

September 23[edit]

Disneyworld restaurants[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. the wub "?!" 16:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Restaurants in Walt Disney World, overcategorization. -- Prove It (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. --Rtphokie 11:32, 24 September 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:Nas[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as re-created content. Songs and albums should never go into an eponymous category.--Mike Selinker 16:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Speedy delete - as recreated content. Recreated a week after being deleted by an editor who participated in the discussion. If not speediable, then delete as eponymous overcategorization. Coverage of Nas is not so complex as to warrant a category. Articles on his projects are already linked by text, template and album and song categories and what remains is easily interlinked. Otto4711 20:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i can make it bigger if that's the reason. West Coast Ryda 10:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, in fact it's much worse. It looks like all you've done is add the contents of Category:Nas songs and Category:Nas albums to this cat unnecessarily. Nas's songs and albums are all linked to Nas through text and a navtemplate. Nas's main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub for articles relating to Nas. Additionally, you recreated the category against the consensus of the community, which is in general not a good thing to do. Otto4711 15:24, 24 September 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:Afghan politicians[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 close. The same proposal (by the same nominator) was discussed at CfD only last week, and closed today with a clear "keep": see CfD Sept 17. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Afghan politicians to Category:Politicians of Afghanistan
Nominator's rationale: Rename, There are many reasons for this renaming. One reason is that Afghan politicians can refer to Afghan politicians in lets say America, and there are several Afghan politicians serving other countries, for example Zalmay Khalilzad. Politicians in Afghanistan or Politicians of Afghanistan would avoid this issue. Also, many of these politicians are not ethnic Afghans (Pashtuns). For example. Rashid Dostum is an Uzbek, Latif Pedram does not call himself Afghan but rather Afghanistan as he is a Tajik. Others are Hazara, Turkmen, etc. Roughly half of these politicians are ethnic Afghans. To avoid this issue the name change to Politicians of Afghanistan is a very simple solution to these problems. Behnam 20:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the notion that non-Pashtuns are non-Afghans is a quite strong pov assumptions. --Soman 20:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we already discussed this, it closed TODAY!. -- Prove It (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Checkmate personnel[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. Sam Blacketer 19:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Checkmate personnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete As per standing precident, we don't catergorize comic book characters by team or organization due to the fluidity of such memberships in that medium. J Greb 19:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ridiculous categorization. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete previous consensus is to have not team categories. (Emperor 23:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Even if categories like this were agreed upon, Checkmate isn't even a major enough group to justify having its own category. Stephen Day 23:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This info can be found at List of Checkmate members - 69.182.73.240 00:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We've established a clear precedent against this. Doczilla 05:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 02:41, 26 September 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:Famous cemeteries[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. After Midnight 0001 01:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous cemeteries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: "Famous" is point-of-view. Possessing an article is enough to claim a cemetery's notability. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:54, 23 September 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 characters who can fly[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. - jc37 12:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel Comics characters who can fly[edit]

Category:DC Comics characters who can fly[edit]

Category:Anime and manga characters who can fly[edit]

Category:Flying Pokémon[edit]

Nominator's rationale, Rename[edit]

This would seem to clear up confusion on all fiction characters who aren't limited to keeping their feet on the ground because of physical, paranormal, superhuman, technological, and supernatural means. For example, while Casper the Friendly Ghost is categorized in the parent cat., some may argue that ghosts do not fly, claiming that being an ephemeral entity is not the same as flying, and would most certainly go for other ghost-related beings in fiction like genies, or even real-life apparitions, see ghost and orbs. In Bleach anime and manga, the Soul Reapers tend to "air walk" or "air hop", or just stand still in the air, but not necessarily fly like Superman or most Dragon Ball characters. Hellsing`s Alucard does not quite hover like some fiction vampires, he can only defy gravity to an unknown limit. And heroes like Ultraman, Astro Boy or the Gundam Wing`s Mobile Suits fly with only technological support, so I think this rename would explain further why they are categorized here along with these flight-capable beings or entities in the first place. And there are those who levitate themselves or appear to "fly" by use of [advanced] telekinesis, Jean Grey from Marvel Comics and Mewtwo from Pokémon are such examples. If this rename proposal seems unuseful then a separate set of categories should be created to elude these potential discrepancies. Any additional thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thoughts:
    • The phrase "defy gravity" is as awkward as "fly" since it doesn't mesh well with mechanical/powered flight, wings or jet propulsion, or flight that isn't flight, the TK examples. In these cases flight happens, but not by ignoring gravity.
    • Most of what you've put forward argue for reshuffeling the subs by method rather than medium. ie "...fly by..." ...mechanical means, ...lighter than air, ... TK, ... defying gravity, etc.
    • It also argues that the cat should be converted to a list since placement would need some sort of citation. Lacking that it becomes POV and OR. - J Greb 20:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm really, really trying to not have these categories listified since WP:NOT#INFO, and that it risks a complete deletion. Technically, apparitions such as ghosts and vampires (unless in winged form) don't "fly" in the air, though I guess it depends on another person's view. What do you suggest J Greb? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Realistically? Treat it like a fire ant nest: leave it alone unless it's real life-or-death need to tinker with it. Right now we've had had previos CfDs on the entire family of superhuman powers cats with the result of delete some, listify others, and keep the rest. Mostly the debate, IIRC, was brought up on grounds of over catting and overly vague cats. Flight is one that sailed through, like super-strength, telepathy, and shapeshifting. That should have been goo enough and left things like this for debate on the cat's talk page.
      All that bringing it back to a CfD, even for renaming, does is open it back up to the same debate that's already been settled. "Flight" is specific enough for the purpose of cat here, discussing the flavor of flight may be something for an article such as Flight in fiction. Such an article would also lend itself to using a few examples of each method. - J Greb 21:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave category:Flying Pokémon alone. Flying Pokémon are a type of Pokémon, like category:Electric Pokémon. It does not mean "Pokémon who can fly," at least not necessarily. No opinion on the rest of the nomination.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't rename  "Defying gravity" sounds overly specific but not well defined. Everybody knows what it means for people or creatures to fly, and there's no need for technical arguments about the definition. —Michael Z. 2007-09-26 03:46 Z
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 parties in Taiwan (Republic of China)[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 reverse move, there was no consensus to drop "(Republic of China)". Kbdank71 17:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political parties in Taiwan (Republic of China) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: All the articles have been recategorized to Category:Political parties in Taiwan Jerry 18:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: User:Jerrch emptied the cat, created a parallel Category:Political parties in Taiwan, added as CSD tag on the category. This is not the way to deal with a controversial issue like Taiwanese nationhood. My personal opinion is to merge PRC and ROC parties categories, this is not a differentiation between two countries but two states claiming the (more or less) same area, and could thus be in both cats. Moreover, the two single most notable Chinese parties, CPC and KMT, predates the current divisions between PRC and ROC. Soman 18:47, 23 September 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:Spanish Letters[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. After Midnight 0001 01:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spanish Letters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:French Letters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Portuguese letters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Dutch letters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Albanian letters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Swedish letters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:German letters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Polish letters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Icelandic letters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Hungarian letters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Czech Letters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Group nomination of "foo letters" categories. All of these consist mostly of redirects so they're pretty pointless in terms of navigation. Moreover there are articles on these individual languages which cover the alphabet. Note that I am not nominating Category:Greek letters, precisely because it consists of well-developed articles which could not be categorized in any other obvious way. I'm not 100% sure I've nominated the whole list of cats of the above form so please feel free to add any others you might be aware of. Pascal.Tesson 14:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretty pointless indeed. Two things to note: If kept, then the capitalisation should be standardised, and also, one of the category names has the potential for somewhat embarrassing ambiguity. Grutness...wha? 00:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 05:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not needed and somewhat underpopulated, the German one has 2 entries, where I can think of at least 4. Carlossuarez46 02:44, 26 September 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.

Universities by grant[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete as repost of deleted content. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as repost of deleted content. -- Prove It (talk) 14:17, 23 September 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.

Motorsport infobox template categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename all. the wub "?!" 16:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Motorsport infoboxes to Category:Motorsport infobox templates
Propose renaming Category:Auto racing infoboxes to Category:Auto racing infobox templates
Propose renaming Category:A1 Grand Prix infoboxes to Category:A1 Grand Prix infobox templates
Propose renaming Category:Formula One infoboxes to Category:Formula One infobox templates
Propose renaming Category:NASCAR infoboxes to Category:NASCAR infobox templates
Propose renaming Category:Sports car racing infoboxes to Category:Sports car racing infobox templates
Propose renaming Category:V8 Supercar infoboxes to Category:V8 Supercar infobox templates
Propose renaming Category:World Rally Championship infoboxes to Category:World Rally Championship infobox templates
Propose renaming Category:Motorcycle racing infoboxes to Category:Motorcycle racing infobox templates
Propose renaming Category:Race report infoboxes to Category:Motor race report infobox templates
Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with all other infobox template categories. Note: I would have nominated this for speedy renaming (because I think it's an uncontroversial change), but it didn't seem to meet the speedy criteria. Also note that the change from "Race report infoboxes" to "Motor race report infobox templates" is intentional. DH85868993 09:36, 23 September 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.

Motor racing venues categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 16:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Motor racing venues in Wisconsin to Category:Motorsport venues in Wisconsin
Propose renaming Category:Defunct motor racing venues in Canada to Category:Defunct motorsport venues in Canada
Nominator's rationale: Ones that were missed in the recent bulk rename of motor racing categories DH85868993 10:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both. --Mike Selinker 14:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename., per previous discussion. Could speedy rename the Wisconsin category as I started it. Royalbroil 12:48, 24 September 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:Latter Day Saint businesspeople[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. Sam Blacketer 19:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Latter Day Saint businesspeople (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A non-notable intersection between relgion and other status. I have examined the articles and I cannot identify anything that suggests that LDS businesspeople are unique among businesspeople in any way. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both religion and ethnicity are irrelevant here, see also discussion of December 8th. -- Prove It (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenton my rationale for setting up this category. Some people do want this information, that's why the List of Latter Day Saints was set up. I thought the use of a category was a better approach because the sources are already identified in the articles and it is easier to maintain. It may be helpful for someone writing a report, for example, on a certain businessperson to select one that is of a particular faith. The unique aspects of an LDS lifestyle in business is the subject of the book "The Mormon Way of Doing Business", so there is enough of a connection between the religion and business to warrant this publication. And, even if the preceding information is not compelling enough, what is the harm in having this category? Some may feel the connection irrelevant, others may not. Why not just include it? Alanraywiki 00:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer your last question, see WP:HARMLESS. The harm is setting a precedent for creating and allowing categories that merely are intersections of religion and other status. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's because religion is irrelevant to this occupation, and as such is non-defining. On the other hand, a list article doesn't have to be based on a defining characteristic, and it can be referenced. An article would be better. -- Prove It (talk) 14:38, 24 September 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:Cocktails with tequila or mezcal[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Cocktails with tequila or mezcal
Nominator's rationale: This category appears to have been created erroneously. The category has 3 members all of whom are also members of Category:Cocktails with tequila. It doesn't add anything to the sum of knowledge, AFAIK. The problem, though, is that I cannot see how articles are added to cat. Its not listed amongst the normal 'bottom of the article' category lists. It may well be through a template, but I cant see which one. HELP! MurphiaMan 05:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears to be automatically generated by {{WPMIXInfobox}}. I have no views at present on whether this is a useful category, but I will have let WP:MIX know of the nomination. BencherliteTalk 14:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm a little suspicious of the whole cocktails by ingredient structure but we definitely don't need a category for drinks which might contain one or the other of whatever alcohol. Otto4711 19:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any item by ingredient leads to the creation of too many categories. Doczilla 05:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have emptied the cat so it can be deleted if necessary. If/when it is, I will post on WP:MIX suggesting they change the template. MurphiaMan 06:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Doczilla, but deplore emptying of category before discussion is closed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 26 September 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:Voice teacher[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 - I moved the text to Voice teacher, but since there are currently two members in the category, I didn't delete the category. Feel free to re-nominate for deletion. - jc37 13:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to article Category:Voice teacher to article Voice teacher
Nominator's rationale: This category appears to have been created erroneously. The category page consists primarily of text about what a voice teacher is and does, which should be on an article page rather than a category page. There are two articles within the category, which could be recategorized in a new category Category:Voice teachers. Metropolitan90 04:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert, rename per nom, although great numbers of professional classical singers do masterclasses etc at some point, & really the new category should be restricted to those, like these two, who made it their main activity after a certain point. Johnbod 13:43, 24 September 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:Virginia Tech Hokies Athletic Hall of Fame members[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 16:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Virginia Tech Hokies Athletic Hall of Fame members to Category:Virginia Tech Sports Hall of Fame members
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The official name of the institution is the Virginia Tech Sports Hall of Fame, as noted at VT's official athletics site. Dale Arnett 03:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, but no objection to deletion. This doesn't sound like a particularly defining award. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 26 September 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.

Games by company[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 per nom. - jc37 11:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Nearly every article in these categories is a game, and this conversion would allow these categories to be put into category:Games by company, a la Category:Cheapass Games games. Almost every other article is a person, and I'd argue that this constitutes a kind of "performer by performance" relationship, as it's common for people to jump from company to company. Regardless, if people want these person articles to stay in their categories, it would be easier to move all these categories and then recreate the original names as umbrella categories. Fair warning: I'm fairly biased on this nomination, having worked with several of these companies.--Mike Selinker 14:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What about the base article on the company itself? Those are generally included in these categories (and definitely are, in the cases I'm familiar with), and are certainly not games. --Rindis 17:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As with category:Albums by artist, the company's name would go in the header. Only (as in the case of Games Workshop) when there are a lot of non-game related articles would there need to be a category that contains the name of the company other than category:Game manufacturers.--Mike Selinker 19:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I generally agree with the complaint about people, though Roberts (for AH) and Dunigan and Simonsen (for SPI) are tied up enough in the history of the company as to give me some qualms. --Rindis 19:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The same could be said about any company founders. The rub comes in though that the person and the company are already cross-linked. And the person should, at the least, be mentioned in the articles for any products he or she had a hand in, if not having a biblio for cross-linking. This is the same as with actors, writers, etc. - J Greb 19:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at the cats, and their subs, it's arguable that both the TSR and White Wolf cats should be treated in the same manner as GW since there is a good chunk of articles there that relate to elements and concepts from the games, not just the game products themselves. Other than that, the move from eponymous cats to "Games by ..." cats makes sense. - J Greb 19:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • TSR looks like all games to me, but I can see your point on White Wolf.--Mike Selinker 00:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually I was looking at the subs as well, D&D specifically. That sub holds articles dealing with game concepts, game elements, a TV series, publication, websites, and its own subs for more concepts, more elements, novels, and images. - J Greb 00:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Everything in D&D extends off the game, and every game category contains the kind of contents you're describing. I think it's OK.--Mike Selinker 02:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I created the White Wolf games category as a subcategory of White Wolf. I'm not convinced on TSR, but someone else might be.--Mike Selinker 04:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was about to close this, but I want to ask first: is "...Inc. games" correct? - jc37 12:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grammatically? I'd have to say yes since "Inc." is an abbreviation, and abbreviations should be punctuated. - J Greb 13:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Music from Leipzig[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: speedily closed because nomination withdrawn, with no votes to delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Music from Leipzig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, as musicians are usually only categorized by country. Alksub 01:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn. --Alksub 21:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Awards and decorations of the military of Germany[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 16:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Awards and decorations of the military of Germany to Category:Lists of Knight's Cross recipients
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match contents. Category also duplicates Category:Military awards and decorations of Germany. Alksub 01:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand the category tree here Surely there are other German military awards, and we would appear to need categories for them. DGG (talk) 23:01, 23 September 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:LGBT rights in the United States[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 withdrawn. Kbdank71 16:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:LGBT rights in the United States to Category:LGBT political advocacy groups in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Merge as duplicate. Alksub 01:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Nom withdrawn. --Alksub 22:12, 23 September 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:Indian pilots[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Indian pilots to Category:Indian aviators
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Duplicate. Alksub 01:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only member of category at present is Guy Gibson, who may have been born in India but was not Indian (born in India to British parents who moved back to UK when he was three, according to the article's sources). If the situation remains the same at closing, then deletion is the preferable option. BencherliteTalk 16:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I have removed Guy Gibson from the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 23 September 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:Landmines[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename as proposed. Sam Blacketer 19:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Landmines to Category:Land mines
Nominator's rationale: Rename, For consistency with the article land mine, and with the English dictionary.  —Michael Z. 2007-09-23 00:42 Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_23&oldid=1088120778"