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:delete all. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's the whole concept that bugs me really. I understand the distinction the creator wishes to make, but that's a distinction for a list, because this grouping is pretty much the same as any other grouping, and the currently published is also asking for trouble. What happens if they kill a character off? Do we remove it, only to wait until it restarts a month later? And why only superheroes? And the questions go on. If the intent is to list characters created during the golden age of American superhero comic books, I suggest that a list may be the better way forwards as long as such a list is not original research. I'd also be a little concerned as to whether these are essentially the same characters as were published way back then.Is the Robin Hood seen on television today the same Robin Hood written of in Victorian fiction? Complex. I don't think categorising superhero characters by both era and current publication status is as objective as it should be. HidingT 15:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. HidingT 15:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hi. Thanks for your message, but i really don't see the problem here. this category seem basically straightforward, and fairly useful. Anyone wishing to look into this issue might want to first take a look at the category Category:DC Comics superheroes. it is rather large, and could probably use some futher refinements and sub-categorization. Doing so with this new sub-category seems like it might be a good way to start (rather than doing so for example based on membership in Justice League of America, or other in-universe distinctions). Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some proposals for how to categorise Superhero characters are being worked on by members of WP:COMICS. I agree that the parent category is large, but I don't agree that your proposed category structure is the right way to do it. And the number of entries may eventually drop as the cleanup backlog gets reduced and dependent on the outcome of discussions regarding notability for fictional characters. HidingT 15:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is parsing beyond the pale, it's of highly dubious use even to fans, let alone general-audience readers, and the "currently" seems a WP:DATED problem that, since characters come, go, die, are revived, fade away for a while, come back, etc., also comprises a heavy logistical load. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Weak listify) - The great bloat of overcategorisation that would begin if this example were followed... I'm thinking of things like the Golden age of ancient Greece and Rome. - jc37 20:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - a category structure based on original publication date might posibly be useful but happening to have been published in a particular decade is non-defining. Any character could have been published in any decade on the whim of a writer or editor. That a character happened to have been used in a particular decade, either in a limited fashion or as a series, is trivial. Otto4711 (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2008 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other categories within Category:Railway stations, that consists of 300+ categories using "railway station" and one using "train station". Arsenikk(talk) 13:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency. Suggest adding that other cat. to this nom. Of course that's optional. Pie is good(Apple is the best) 19:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that one category is this one. Arsenikk(talk) 21:51, 12 September 2008 (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:Wikipedians who like The Dead Zone (TV series)[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.
Nominator's rationale: A category with no benefits at all. Cats with users who like something tend to be bad ideas. Undead Warrior (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does'nt this belong on WP:UCFD? And while we're at it, delete for having no benefit to the project. Pie is good(Apple is the best) 19:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes it certainly belongs at UCFD. That also makes your delete void, surely? I don't know if this should be kept or not, but the nominator is wrong when he says, "Cats with users who like something tend to be bad ideas." No, we have many of them, that's why we have the huge cat "Category:Wikipedians by interest", and have Userboxes too. Deamon138 (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2008 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: The Red Sox may have been infomally named the Somersets at one time, but the main official reference tools for historical team names do not indicate that is was an official team name. MLB.com says they were the Pilgrims for a stretch, while Baseball-reference.com and Retrosheet.org, indicate that they were the Boston Americans from 1901 through 1907, then the Boston Red Sox from 1908 until present. The two players in the category are already in the appropriate category, no need to merge. Neonblak (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2008 (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.
