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.
Support Merge to match standard used by other categories in the parent. Alansohn (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom for consistent style in naming. Maralia (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator, and reprimande editor who created a rivaling, unneeded and unwanted category without thinking twice. Debresser (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2009 (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:Opponents of the hero (stock character)[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 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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. --Xdamrtalk 12:10, 26 August 2009 (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: When I think or hear "jeweler" I think of an occupation, but this category has more than occupations, so I think "bench jewelling" is more encompassing. Wizard191 (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand what the category is intended to included, and I agree that the current title is inadequate (even ignoring the capitalization issue). But a Google search for "Bench jewelling" finds only one link, making it appear that this is not an accepted term. Is there an alternative name for this grouping of "the art and craft of creating and maintaining jewelry items"? Alansohn (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point "jewelling" is not a typical term. If you or anyone else has a better recommendation I'm fully open to it. Wizard191 (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that including the skills that a bench jeweler uses or needs means that the current category name is wrong, other then the capitalization. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like this idea the best. Wizard191 (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2009 (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.
Support per nominator. Debresser (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2009 (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.
The result of the discussion was:Withdrawn. Fayenatic(talk) 17:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge and rename to Category:Antagonists. I believe both these categories in Category:Characters by role in the narrative structure are awkwardly named, as evidenced by the presence of both Category:Fictional sidekicks and Antagonist in Counterparts to the protagonist. I prefer Protagonists (per neatly named Category:Protagonists by role) and Antagonists as the two top level categories for heroes and villains, in Category:Characters by role in the narrative structure. Others may prefer "Heroes" and "Villains" as category names if they like their roles less Greek. (Protagonists and Antagonists would be less POV for a top-level cat, with villain and heroes as subcats, I believe.) Right now it's a mix of the two, with some pretty clumsy names IMO, and I think we could do a lot of cleaning up, regardless of whether you agree with this proposed solution, as a first step, or not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion for the moment on the merge proposal, but opposed to the rename. Consensus is strongly against the use of terms like antagonists, heroes, villains and the like because of their subjective nature. Changing the name as suggested will inevitably lead to individual characters being categorized. Whatever name results needs to reflect that this is for character types and not individual characters. Otto4711 (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. The nominated category exists for character roles that are neither protagonist nor antagonist, e.g. sidekick and romantic interest. However, some of the other current members have a less clear justification for being in this category, so perhaps as a small category it should be upmerged to Category:Characters by role in the narrative structure. - Fayenatic(talk) 21:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right: my apologies: "counterparts" is indeed for complementary rather than opposed characters, my bad. I'm going to WITHDRAW and renom the target cat. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2009 (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:Fictional cities and towns in Connecticut[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:Keep. User:Axem Titanium seems to be the editor responsible for depopulation. --Xdamrtalk 12:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. Clearly a part of a series and the contents need to be restored and the editor who did this needs to receive a warning. We probably need to make sure that other subcategories of Category:Fictional cities and towns in the United States are not also being emptied. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I checked the other articles in the US cat and there do not now appear to be any for which a state is specified. I found one CT article and moved it to the nominated category. Otto4711 (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You were probably checking my work as I restored about 11 articles to more specific categories. Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2009 (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.
Speedy Delete. Comment:I think this category must be deleted because the Astur-Leonese is not a language but a linguistic group (There is a Category:Astur Leonese Linguistic Group), and the few articles that were in this category have been moved into it. The main article is called "Astur Leonese Linguistic Group", so deletion is the most rational.--Abisch (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: I agree, this Category has no sense and has been empty for four days.--Undersucker (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2009 (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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. It would be nice if editors could dial back the rhetoric until it's clear to everyone what the other side is talking about. Vegaswikian never said anyone had done anything in bad faith or vandalistic, and the repeated assumption that he was implying this or using "code words" was an example of not assuming good faith.Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Technical nomination. Found as an out of process empty by TheFarix following this discussion which resulted in no consensus. TheFarix made the first nomination and in effect ignored the decision. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: without having gone into the details, I suspect this category has been emptied as a result of the articles being merged and redirected to a list as none of them are notable. G.A.Stalk 20:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an empty category which has remained empty for at least four days - I noted it was empty in my original !vote in the linked discussion on August 13, and I highly doubt any articles have been shuffled through it since then. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was closed as no consensus and it was not empty at one point. So it was an out of process empty of the category. The fact that it has been empty for 4 days, does not fix the fact that an editor decided to bypass the established policy for how to delete a category with articles in it. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not seeing how it was out-of-process (however, I'm not overly familiar with the deletion policy yet); if anything, it seems to me that the category would have received more attention as part of a CfD nomination than if it had simply been tagged with {{db-catempty}}. Also, the snapshot you provided is from August 1 (and I wasn't trying to say it's always been empty, merely that I didn't think any articles had been added and then removed from it between the time I originally noted it as empty and now). 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 22:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the category was emptied because all the articles were merged into a list (because of non-notability). —Quasirandom (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query - Could someone please unpack the jargon "out of process empty" as used by the nominator? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to empty a category, the correct way under the policy is to nominate it here for a discussion. Emptying and then using C1 for a speedy nomination is considered to be an end run around the established policy. Categories that are nominated are not always deleted. Some other outcomes include, merge, conversion to a list, or just keeping. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provide a link to a guideline or policy. Otherwise, is not "out of process". I have a strong suspicion that you are using "out of process" as code for "bad faith" and "vandalism". --Farix (Talk) 01:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing there that states that emptying a cat through cleanup/merging and then letting C1 take its course is "out of process". The only one who considers it that is you. --Farix (Talk) 11:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that it's illegal to clean up a bunch of, say, articles on fictional character of series X by merging them to a list of X characters unless you first nominate the category X Characters for deletion? That's whack. Categories are supposed to support the process of using and creating the encyclopedia, not the other way around. Editorial process comes first. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#C1. The articles that were in this cat were merged into the list, last one being merged on August 11, 2009. Also this "out of process" nonsense really needs to go as it is an assumption of bad faith by implying vandalism. --Farix (Talk) 22:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but what does "out of process" mean in this context? —Quasirandom (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it wasn't emptied just to bypass WP:CFD - it was emptied in the course of noncontroversial article merging and cleanup, and it would have had the same result whether it had been brought here first or not. Please, man, where's your common sense?! 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 16:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly why I said that Vegaswikian's use of the phrases "out of process" and "end run" around CfD are code words for "bad faith" and "vandalism". --Farix (Talk) 22:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will reinstate my support to Farix. Shawn, the cat is NOT emptied to bypass CFD, the cat is emptied to coop with the clean up of Gundam workgroup articles, and the clean up is a response to the general policy of notability of wikipedia. Taking the assumption of those articles are removed to bypass CFD is totally assuming bad faith. Check the history of those articles and you can see how bad those are and why they are merged. I assumed you replied in good faith, but you might want to be more familiar with the situation before backing up Vegaswikian's nomination. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 09:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although the discussion there ended in no consensus, it is quite important to note that the no consensus is for the Universal Century cats. Not much constroversy about the After War cats are stirred up, the only opposition to the renaming of the After War cats is from an anon IP. Also, the WT:GUNDAM discussion on reforming cats of the work group is at the work here. The said category is empty because all of the articles in it showed no notability, and it is not becuase the category is emptied to serve the deletion, but it is a simple process of the work group in clearing articles led to. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 02:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Emptied category of non notable individually articles. Thanks MythSearcher --KrebMarkt 06:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think got it. I think Vegaswikian is complaining because it looks like the category was removed from all the articles that once had it, thus emptying the category in order to delete it. Instead, though, all the articles that were in the category now no longer exist -- because they've been merged into a list, thus making it a null and useless category. Neither of these things was made clear to the other side of the discussion, resulting in more heat than useful light, as my father likes to put it. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2009 (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.
The result of the discussion was:Keep; now repopulated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Technical nomination. Found as an out of process empty following this discussion which resulted in no consensus. The cache did not show what the contents were. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See this. I'm requesting input on image categories. I find them redundant to Commons. Feel free to comment. ZooFari 20:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An FP having a page at Wikipedia just for the bronze star is not an exception to categorizing. The whole categorization here at Wikipedia is getting annoying. Commons can barely handle its categorisation and we don't have to make it more complicated for people. ZooFari 23:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose many images of the moon are not allowed on Commons, but there are many legitimate uses for them on Wikipedia, including illustrating the capablities of various spacecraft (ESA images are not allowed on Commons, for instance) 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many moon images aren't allowed? ZooFari 04:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It isn't empty any more. I did a quick search and found 17 images to add to the category - most on Wikipedia, but also some from Commons with Wikipedia categories due to current or former WP featured picture status. If you do an advanced search only allowing the File namespace, search for "moon" or "lunar" and you'll find dozens more like these. I found some hints among the featured pictures where it looks like this category got emptied as images in it were moved to Commons. Ikluft (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2009 (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:Fictional characters who've made pacts with devils[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:Rename. Per WP:CONTRACTIONthe use of contractions—such as don't, can't, won't, they'd, should've, it's—is informal and should be avoided. --LoЯd۞pεth 18:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not all the "devils" that the characters have made pacts with are Satan. For example, the devil Spider-Man made a deal with was Mephisto.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So at most, a See also tag on each category, I guess. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the contraction should be replace by a spelled out form. Could be the nominator's or AllyD's, as far as I am concerned. Debresser (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2009 (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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. --Xdamrtalk 12:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - small eponymous category, not needed for the material which is already extensively interlinked through text and template. Otto4711 (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2009 (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: Overcategorisation: As part of major cleanup of the existing Gundam categories per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Gundam#Gundam _Categories, it is proposed that all member pages of these categories be moved to category:Gundam, being the parent category. It is unlikely that theses categories will grow larger. G.A.Stalk 18:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I will have to confess the cat actually contained an article called Universal Century locations earlier as well, which was discussed to be merge with the UC main article and I performed it just yesterday, hence the cat reduced the number of articles by half, from 2 to 1. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 07:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's better. --Abisch (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2009 (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.
Support - there's not enough leaves on this twig of the ramified collection of Gundam categories. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the category seems a bit redundant in the current proposal given in WT:GUNDAM. If a better proposal is going to be given, then I might change my mind. I would say Support for now. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 07:05, 18 August 2009 (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.
The result of the discussion was:Do not merge; may be consensus to rename or to create a broader parent category. If a rename is wanted, feel free to renominate.Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as there are a very large number of these. This is not a case of overcategoriszation. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose large number of them, most of them if not all notable and the number of item in this category is bound to increase with video game adaptations of current & future installments of the Gundam franchise. --KrebMarkt 19:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. Also, lists and categories are not mutually exclusive but complementary. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are 33 articles in this cat and it is appropriate to keep them separate from other Gundam related articles. --Farix (Talk) 22:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative proposal Can we rename it as Category:Gundam games and include other stuff like the card games (Gundam Wars, Gundam Battline, etc.) or board games (like Gundam Collection Tactical Combat) in it as well? (I do not know if those have notability, but they exist), if not, I would have to oppose on this one as well. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 07:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support the alternative proposal. G.A.Stalk 04:51, 19 August 2009 (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.
Oppose as there are a large number of these (though not all have articles yet). This is not a case of overcategoriszation. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Farix's option (see below) Most of them failed to assert their own notability and either should deleted after Afd (won't happen thought) or merged to parent article. Spin-out article for novel adaptations like Mobile Suit Gundam SEED (novel), is not the MoS way to handle them. updated --KrebMarkt 15:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Supportper my comment below. This category can then be revisited after the major Gundam cleanup is finished, to see if there are enough articles still around to justify its recreation. Farix's proposal. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC) updated 16:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not convinced this is an overcategorization, and categorizing by media (as opposed to by some in-universe quality) is useful. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Universal Century. Except for Mobile Suit Gundam SEED (novel) which should be merged into its parent, all of the articles in this cat are part of the original Mobile Suit Gundam series, also refereed to as Universal Century. --Farix (Talk) 22:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This option seems more appropriate than my suggestion. Support Farix's optionG.A.Stalk 04:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Farix's option very reasonable in any sense. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 07:12, 18 August 2009 (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.
Support per nom. (Some of those aren't really about terminology, really, but are indeed Gundam articles.) —Quasirandom (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support upmerge not a great category at all in the naming & categorized article. --KrebMarkt 06:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not much articles in this one, all can be placed in the Gundam cat. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 07:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think it's better.--Abisch (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2009 (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.
Support per my below comment - and if this should somehow not happen, the category needs to be renamed to "Gundam models". 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support sounds like the best answer right now. Someone might want to AfD the Gunpla Grade article as well, totally WP:OR. I know the MG series received certain attention occasionally(Dengeki Hobby and Hobby Japan both made specials at MG 100) but others are unsourced and probably impossible to find sources. I guess I should keep this for the AfD though. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 07:18, 18 August 2009 (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.
The result of the discussion was:Withdrawn. Fayenatic(talk) 17:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete per OCAT; WP:OC#ARBITRARY, I'd say. For the most part, it is populated with unrelated articles. I just added a subcat for Category:Film and television opening sequences. Also worth retaining is the main article Scene (film), along with Anatomy of a Scene and Post-credits scene. The rest is a mish-mash of stuff: a lot of articles on film catchphrases, Dueling Banjos is an instrumental composition featured in a memorable scene, with Sex in film, Nudity in film and No-nudity clause clearly off-topic. Until such time as we have articles on noteworthy film scenes, something which I don't rule out if main articles on classic films become too long, there is no use for this category, I would argue. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2009 (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:Rename - "region" more accurately describes what the category is capturing and location has a specific meaning in relation to film. Otto4711 (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2009 (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.
Delete Since the two sub-cats are also already in the series specific categories, this cat really isn't need, nor should the sub-cats be upmerged into the main cat. If that makes sense to anyone.Delete all These articles are already categorized in their appropriate series category. They do not belong in the more general Category:Gundam. --Farix (Talk) 17:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. Could you unpack that a little? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have clarified the suggestion above. G.A.Stalk 17:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the naming of Gundam Wars is faulty anyway, since there is a card game of the same name. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 17:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as clarified, per nom's rationale. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2009 (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.
WP:NC-SHIPS recommends using the most basic ship type for names (i.e. 'cruiser' instead of 'light cruiser'), so I believe that the original proposed name—Category:Königsberg class cruisers (1905)—most accurately reflects that. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The convention addresses article titles, but the title of the parent article describes it as a "light cruiser". The best way to address this is to rename the parent article to match the convention and then rename the category to match the corrected title. Alansohn (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the loop is closed, I am in agreement on the rename and have modified my vote accordingly. As I know nothing about such ships or their naming conventions, I would have been unwilling to consider a rename on my own. Alansohn (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming per nom, for proper disambiguation. Maralia (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. Debresser (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2009 (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.
Will support if it's an upmerge. One cat for everything SD Gundam related would be fine. --KrebMarkt 17:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked suggestion a bit by inserting "then" G.A.Stalk 17:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support after clarification. --KrebMarkt 18:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Over categorisation maybe a little too weak to describe the current situation, too many cats under the Gundam cat. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 17:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a slightly different tack on Gundam cleanup that is just as necessary as the ongoing article and template work. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:38, 17 August 2009 (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.
The result of the discussion was:Upmerge all to parents. I will list these on WP:CFD/W/M. This is going to be a long, hard, manual slog, so don't expect it to be done at all quickly. Of course, is anyone feels that they are burdened by an excess of spare time, then feel free to help out ;) --Xdamrtalk 13:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-contain between one and five articles (many of which could be merged) the eponymous article, which is a member of the parent cat, singles and doubles, or men's singles, men's doubles, women's singles, women's doubles. Upmerge [(to all parents)] and deleteRichFarmbrough, 15:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose as nominated. I think I would agree if the nomination was modified to be upmerge to all parents. Without that change some articles would fall out of other categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as nominated. Agree with Vegaswikian: upmerge each to all its parents. Occuli (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that this is going to be a mess to close and the multiple upmerge will be a manual processs? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what we like about you. You're not afraid of a little hard work. :)) Debresser (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But I do tend to avoid a lot of hard work. I'll note that my edit count does not include any bot or script assisted edits. But this will need someone with a script to deal with. Its just too many to deal with manually. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The upmerges shouldn't be hard. Don't we have a bot for this sort of thing? RichFarmbrough, 14:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
We do not have a bot to do these. That's why there is usually a backlog of these in the manual section. Yours are the easy ones where it is a simple upmerge to all parents. Some of the others are splits or other variations. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per nominator. Debresser (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per modified nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support upmerging of these to both parents for each. I was going to close this, but I'm unsure as to how we will process these. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:51, 2 September 2009 (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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. --Xdamrtalk 12:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unneeded eponymous category, per WP:OCAT. Karppinen (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small eponymous category not needed for the included material, which is appropriately linked without the category. Otto4711 (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per principles outlaid by Alansohn in discussions below. There are some 30 articles and a template here. That is enough justification for calling this category "needed" IMHO. Debresser (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two articles, a template and two sub-cats. Not 30 articles, even if one were to consider the sub-cat contents as being directly in the category. Otto4711 (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2009 (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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. --Xdamrtalk 12:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unneeded eponymous category, per WP:OCAT. Karppinen (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small eponymous category not needed for the included material, which is appropriately linked without the category. Otto4711 (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I agree with the points Alansohn has made in other discussions below about the principles, this specific category is very small. Debresser (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2009 (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:Delete. This category doesn't even make sense to me. Is it because its just phrased poorly? JBsupreme (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stongly keep. This is very stub. This category categorises not specialist for antisemitism, but authors. --Gudshead (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please rephrase whatever you're trying to say in the form of an English-readable sentence. Please? JBsupreme (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Antisemitism authors. There needs to be a category something like this, but it also needs to be better explained. A brief look suggests that the articles are about authors who were against antisemitism; but in the main category Category:Antisemitism the articles include some about people who were anti-semitic. Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - authors write about any number of subjects and themes, often within the same work. Attempting to categorize them on this basis will result in dozens if not hundreds of categories on some author's articles. Such a scheme would likely devolve into exercises of original research as editors decide that a particular work by a particular author is "about" some theme or another. Otto4711 (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't the same so merger should only be manual. Otto4711 (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Consider Rename to Category:Antisemitism writers The observation that authors can write about different subjects is why we allow more than one category to appear on an article. Authors can write about more than one subject and those subjects where there are reliable and verifiable sources supporting the claim that there is a defining connection for that author / genre combination should have each category listed on their article. Reliable sources are the ultimate answer to claims of WP:OR. Writing one book about anti-Semitism does not mean that an individual should be included here, any more than a Chinese person named McTavish makes McTavish a Chinese surname. Don't make me whip out my Venn Diagram image again, but I'll do it if I have to. Alansohn (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Setting the arbitrary threshold of "more than one book" for inclusion in the category is an outstanding example of original research. And while we certainly allow more than one category per article (not that anyone to my knowledge has ever suggested otherwise) we tend not to like hundreds of categories per article. Imagine the clutterful and unhelpful morass of categories that would end up on Isaac Asimov or Arthur C. Clarke if this ill-advised scheme were even partially implemented. Otto4711 (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one setting a numeric standard here and elsewhere, and the one person in China named McTavish making it a Chinese surname is your argument for how you believe categories work, it certainly isn't mine. My standard is descriptions based in reliable and verifiable sources, a bedrock Wikipedia policy. If someone is described as an author of books about anti-Semitism in such sources, the number of books they've written is immaterial. While I do enjoy your worst case examples, I can hardly imagine either being in more than a handful of such categories by genre of non-fiction, and if they're fine then the whole structure will work rather well once fully implemented as an aid to finding similar articles. If someone reads an article about an author who has written about anti-Semitism, it seems rather ludicrous to insist that they should not be allowed to use categories to find other such authors whose writings on the subject is a defining characteristic. Imagine the harm to navigation by the ill-advised insistence that we are unable to allow grouping of authors by genre because of the fear that there might be too many such categories for two of the most prolific authors on the planet, when 99% of authors have written less than 1% as many books as the 500 written by Asimov. Alansohn (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um...you're the one who stated a numeric standard. I have no idea why you would even attempt to claim otherwise given your flat-out statement above: Writing one book about anti-Semitism does not mean that an individual should be included here. No one is suggesting not grouping authors by genre. Last I heard. "writing about antisemitism" is not a recognized literary genre. The point still stands that writers write about any number of subjects and themes and categorizing authors on the basis of their subject matter is untenable. Otto4711 (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The misreading is no surprise. I did not say that there is a minimum number that makes you an author about the subject, as you have projected based on your "one person in China named McTavish makes it a Chinese surname" example. The misrepresentation that one is not enough but two or more makes you an author about the subject is solely your original research, and whether I had stated "Writing a book about anti-Semitism" or "Writing any number of books about anti-Semitism" as alternatives my standard is sources, not minimum numbers. While I do understand that sources can usually be ignored, Questia seems to be one of many sources that treats "writing about anti-Semitism" as a literary genre (see here). I do hope your non-response regarding author articles being overwhelmed by such categories has been successfully rebutted. Alansohn (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You posit a numerical standard and then deny positing it. Your doublethink would do the Party proud. That Questia or some other site indexes works about antisemitism doesn't make "antisemitism writing" a genre. Otto4711 (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you are fixated on one definition of the word "one" does not mean I have posited a numerical standard. I will repeat my point that the standard is reliable and verifiable sources, and one would be hard pressed to read what I have written here and insist that I meant one book is not enough, but two are. Writing a book about a subject doesn't making you a writer about the subject; being described in reliable and verifiable sources does. I have not now, nor ever, insisted that there is any numeric standard to correspond to your "one person in China named McTavish makes it a Chinese surname" insistence. Any sources yet to establish McTavish as a Chinese surname? Alansohn (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Writing a book about a subject doesn't making you a writer about the subject - this position is so completely bizarre as to be incomprehensible. Otto4711 (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barack Obama plays basketball, but is not defined as a basketball player.As shown in the accompanying image, Barack Obama plays basketball. However, Obama is not listed in Category:African American basketball players, because his being a basketball player is not a defining characteristic. You might possibly mean that writing a single book about anti-Semitism makes you a writer about anti-Semitism by definition, which is a position I disagree with. My standard is and always has been based on including an author in the category if they are described in reliable and verifiable sources as a writer about anti-Semitism, regardless of the number of such books they have written, without any numerical standard. Besides, my standard is far more comprehensible than the outright bizarreness of "one person in China named McTavish makes McTavish a Chinese surname". Alansohn (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being able to simultaneously believe that an author has written a book about anti-Semitism and that the author of a book about anti-Semitism is not a writer of anti-Semitism qualifies you for a job with a very prestigious government agency. There are apparently several million sources that relate to Obama's being a basketball player, so your claim about relying on such sources for inclusion rings hollow. And we've all seen the picture so adding it again does nothing but clog the page. Otto4711 (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your supposed counterexample amply demonstrates my point: Barack Obama plays basketball. Sources state that Obama plays basketball. None of these sources define Obama as a basketball player, most likely because Obama is defined for other characteristics, primarily in the political arena. Obama is not grouped in Category:African American basketball players. In the same vein, an author writes a book about anti-Semitism. Sources state that the author has written a book (or books) about anti-Semitism. Sources don't define the individual as an author of books about anti-Semitism, most probably because they are defined for writing in other genres or other defining achievements. The author will not be listed in Category:Authors about antisemitism. While you may disagree with (or sadly attempt to lampoon) my efforts at drawing a line, it is clear to me that a set of principles are sorely needed at CfD to move past the arbitrary dislikes (and the rather rare like) of a small handful of editors who deny the use of reliable and verifiable sources in any fashion, in clear conflict with bedrock Wikipedia policy, and who seem to view the Two Minutes Hate as a model for decision making at CfD. While I always enjoy a good argument (and I'll tolerate the pattern here of just being contrary), you are hardly advancing your position in the face of clear consensus to retain the category. As it is clear that I have explained, justified and fully stand by my vote, you may have better luck in systematically harassing other editors who might possibly be swayed by your argumentativeness. Alansohn (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How fine a blade is needed to split the hair between "sources say he wrote a book about anti-Semitism" and "sources say he is a writer about anti-Semitism"? You're arguing that if a reporter writes "Bobo Smith wrote a book about anti-Semitism" he's out but if that same reporter in the same publication writes "Bobo Smith wrote about anti-Semitism" he's in. As for Obama, this source argues that playing basketball cemented his reputation as a consensus builder, convinced his brother-in-law that he would be a good husband to Michelle and even flipped two red states after "he made a basketball lover's case to basketball-loving people". The real reason he's not included in the players category is that the categories are not used to capture pick-up players, palaver about definingness notwithstanding. And that's just one source out of millions. As for your phony claim that you're being harassed, you're the one who stalks my edits. Otto4711 (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP/ perhaps rename This is a perfectly coherent category. Renaming to Category:Writers on Antisemitism might make clear that this is a category to collect writers for whom the topic of antisemitism is a focus of their popular, not academic, writing in articles and books.Historicist (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2009 (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.
The result of the discussion was:Keep. --Xdamrtalk 13:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Birds move and choose the habitat for biologically meaningful principles as climate zone. Administrative-territorial division is not a significant sign of division the birds in subcategories. I believe that this way of division had been chosen without consideration the peculiarities of this area - situation is similar to the WP:OC#ARBITRARY.
In the "Intersection by location" section written "location may be used as a way to split a large category into subcategories". But now such a separation is not separation of the category, but an increase in amount of sub-categories for articles about animals that are already included in the other subcategories of the parent category.
Do not delete, unless all subcategories are nominated. There's no sense just deleting the parent container category but retaining all 165 subcategories. If all the subcategories were nominated, I suspect we would get more participation. I made a similar suggestion for all the biota categories in February 2009 (including ones for birds), and was essentially laughed out of town, so I doubt there is widespread support for deleting these. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:17, 25 August 2009 (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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. --Xdamrtalk 12:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unneeded eponymous category, per WP:OCAT. Karppinen (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small eponymous category not needed for the included material, which is appropriately linked without the category. Otto4711 (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - important parent category. "Not needed" is not a valid reason for deletion. Shaliya waya (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an effective means of organizing the existing subcategories and other material about the artist as an aid to navigation per WP:CAT. Nothing is needed in Wikipedia, and "not needed" is an arbitrary argument not based on policy. Alansohn (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OC#EPONYMOUS and WP:OC#SMALL are both firmly grounded in Wikipedia guidelines. Both developed out of countless CFD discussions in which many editors participated. So it's a good thing that the nomination and those who support it are basing their arguments on them and not what you're pretending they are. Otto4711 (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That very same WP:OC#EPONYMOUS doesn't say don't create eponymous categories, just cautions us. It describes a case just like these past nominations, where an eponymous category may well be created. On this basis I objected before, and object to your waving with long words in capitals now. However, see below, that this specific case is an exeption, in my point of view. Debresser (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I agree with Alansohn about the principles, this specific category is very small. Debresser (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2009 (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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. --Xdamrtalk 12:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unneeded eponymous category, per WP:OCAT. Karppinen (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a parent category, and is not OCAT, but is very well needed. "Not needed" is not a valid reason for deletion. Shaliya waya (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"well needed" is not a valid reason for keeping in the absence of any indication that the material being categorized falls under the relevant OCAT guideline. Otto4711 (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small eponymous category not needed for the included material, which is appropriately linked without the category. Otto4711 (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an effective means of organizing the existing subcategories and other material about the artist as an aid to navigation per WP:CAT. Nothing is needed in Wikipedia, and "not needed" is an arbitrary argument not based on policy. Alansohn (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OC#EPONYMOUS and WP:OC#SMALL are both firmly grounded in Wikipedia guidelines. Both developed out of countless CFD discussions in which many editors participated. So it's a good thing that the nomination and those who support it are basing their arguments on them and not what you're pretending they are. Otto4711 (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That very same WP:OC#EPONYMOUS doesn't say don't create eponymous categories, just cautions us. It describes a case just like these past nominations, where an eponymous category may well be created. On this basis I objected before, and object to your waving with long words in capitals now. Debresser (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what "waving with long words in capitals" means. WP uses such capitalized short-cuts throughout so why you feel the need to criticize me for using WP standard abbreviations is mystifying. EPONYMOUS advises against creating eponymous categories as a general rule. IOW, the default standard is in fact "don't crate eponymous categories", unless there's a good reason for it. The guideline goes on to offer examples of categories whose material is of such complexity that an eponymous category should be created as an exception to the general guidance against them. The material related to Ja Rule does not come anywhere near the complexity of the material in the proffered example exceptions. In the absence of this category, no one will have any difficulty finding all of the material relating to Ja Rule, either using the lead article for navigation, the template for navigation, or the existing categories (which as standard practice should be cross-linked) for the albums and songs. This category and the several others nominated above and below simply do not meet the guideline for eponymous categories. Otto4711 (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. There are some 30 articles and a template here. That is enough justification for calling this category "needed" IMHO. Debresser (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are three articles in the category, not 30. Otto4711 (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2009 (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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. --Xdamrtalk 12:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unneeded eponymous category, per WP:OCAT. Karppinen (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small eponymous category not needed for the included material, which is appropriately linked without the category. Otto4711 (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - important parent category. "Not needed" is not a valid reason for deletion. Shaliya waya (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an effective means of organizing the existing subcategories and other material about the artist as an aid to navigation per WP:CAT. Nothing is needed in Wikipedia, and "not needed" is an arbitrary argument not based on policy. Alansohn (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OC#EPONYMOUS and WP:OC#SMALL are both firmly grounded in Wikipedia guidelines. Both developed out of countless CFD discussions in which many editors participated. So it's a good thing that the nomination and those who support it are basing their arguments on them and not what you're pretending they are. Otto4711 (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That very same WP:OC#EPONYMOUS doesn't say don't create eponymous categories, just cautions us. It describes a case just like these past nominations, where an eponymous category may well be created. On this basis I objected before, and object to your waving with long words in capitals now. However, see below, that this specific case is an exeption, in my point of view. Debresser (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I agree with Alansohn about the principles, this specific category is very small. Debresser (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2009 (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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. --Xdamrtalk 12:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unneeded eponymous category, per WP:OCAT. Karppinen (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small eponymous category not needed for the included material, which is appropriately linked without the category. Otto4711 (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - important parent category. "Not needed" is not a valid reason for deletion. Shaliya waya (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an effective means of organizing the existing subcategories and other material about the artist as an aid to navigation per WP:CAT. Nothing is needed in Wikipedia, and "not needed" is an arbitrary argument not based on policy. Alansohn (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OC#EPONYMOUS and WP:OC#SMALL are both firmly grounded in Wikipedia guidelines. Both developed out of countless CFD discussions in which many editors participated. So it's a good thing that the nomination and those who support it are basing their arguments on them and not what you're pretending they are. Otto4711 (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That very same WP:OC#EPONYMOUS doesn't say don't create eponymous categories, just cautions us. It describes a case just like these past nominations, where an eponymous category may well be created. On this basis I objected before, and object to your waving with long words in capitals now. Debresser (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. There are some 15 articles and 9 images here. That is enough justification for calling this category "needed" IMHO. Debresser (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two atticles and two sub-categories, not 15 articles. IIRC images aren't supposed to be in categories like this at all. Otto4711 (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I count the articles in the subcategories also. Debresser (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2009 (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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. --Xdamrtalk 12:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unneeded eponymous category, per WP:OCAT. Karppinen (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small eponymous category not needed for the included material, which is appropriately linked without the category. Otto4711 (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - important parent category. "Not needed" is not a valid reason for deletion. Shaliya waya (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an effective means of organizing the existing subcategories and other material about the artist as an aid to navigation per WP:CAT. Nothing is needed in Wikipedia, and "not needed" is an arbitrary argument not based on policy. Alansohn (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OC#EPONYMOUS and WP:OC#SMALL are both firmly grounded in Wikipedia guidelines. Both developed out of countless CFD discussions in which many editors participated. So it's a good thing that the nomination and those who support it are basing their arguments on them and not what you're pretending they are. Otto4711 (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. There are over 30 articles here. That is enough justification for calling this category "needed" IMHO.
There are two articles and two sub-categories, not 30 articles. Otto4711 (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I count the articles in the subcategories also. Debresser (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2009 (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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. --Xdamrtalk 12:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unneeded eponymous category, per WP:OCAT. Karppinen (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small eponymous category not needed for the included material, which is appropriately linked without the category. Otto4711 (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - important parent category. "Not needed" is not a valid reason for deletion. Shaliya waya (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an effective means of organizing the existing subcategories and other material about the artist as an aid to navigation per WP:CAT. Nothing is needed in Wikipedia, and "not needed" is an arbitrary argument not based on policy. Alansohn (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OC#EPONYMOUS and WP:OC#SMALL are both firmly grounded in Wikipedia guidelines. Both developed out of countless CFD discussions in which many editors participated. So it's a good thing that the nomination and those who support it are basing their arguments on them and not what you're pretending they are. Otto4711 (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. There are some 15 articles and a template here. That is enough justification for calling this category "needed" IMHO. Debresser (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two articles, a template and a sub-category, not 15 articles. Otto4711 (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I count the articles in the subcategories also. Debresser (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2009 (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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. --Xdamrtalk 12:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unneeded eponymous category, per WP:OCAT. Karppinen (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very well needed as a parent category in order to organize all articles pertaining to MC Lyte that have been created and will be in the future. "Not needed" is not a valid reason for deletion. Shaliya waya (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small eponymous category not needed for the included material, which is appropriately linked without the category. Should there be some sudden explosion of MC Lyte-related articles that can't be so linked the category can be recreated. Otto4711 (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an effective means of organizing the existing subcategories and other material about the artist as an aid to navigation per WP:CAT. Nothing is needed in Wikipedia, and "not needed" is an arbitrary argument not based on policy. Alansohn (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OC#EPONYMOUS and WP:OC#SMALL are both firmly grounded in Wikipedia guidelines. Both developed out of countless CFD discussions in which many editors participated. So it's a good thing that the nomination and those who support it are basing their arguments on them and not what you're pretending they are. Otto4711 (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. There are some 15 articles here. That is enough justification for calling this category "needed" IMHO. Debresser (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is one article and two sub-cats, not 15 articles. Otto4711 (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I count the articles in the subcategories also. Debresser (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2009 (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:Former castles, palaces, and fortresses[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:Split per nom. --Xdamrtalk 13:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since castles, palaces and fortresses are not the same things, there is no reason to lump them into the same category, they should each have their own. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment– Whouldn't fortresses and castles overlap-- or at least form a parent-child relationship-- in the tree? Carlaude:Talk 14:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split, but ... -- In other contexts (e.g. political office) the distinction between current and former is stronly discouraged. Today, most castles are in some degree ruined; I would thus suggest that the targets should be Category:Castles, Category:Palaces and Category:Fortresses. This may in turn need splitting by country. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have Category:Former buildings and structures. It is intended to cover buildings and structures that no longer exist, rather than those which are still there but ruined. I agree that the distinction doesn't work in other fields, particularly people, but I think its relevant here. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. I agree with the general idea of splitting per nominator. Just that this will have to be done very carefully, because some buildings are e.g. both a palace and a fortresse. 2. But I agree with Peterkingiron and Jonathan Oldenbuck that we should not have "former" categories for existing objects. So in myopinion the splitting should be into Category:Castles, Category:Palaces and Category:Fortresses. Debresser (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you don't agree with me because I said above that we do and should have "former buildings" categories. What do you mean by ""former" categories for existing objects"? The whole point here is that these buildings no longer exist. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form. The distinction between castles & fortresses is a difficult one to define - all serious castles are fortresses I suppose, but not vv. Many were also palaces & given their ruined state it must often be hard to decide whether any particular was one or not. I would not object to a careful sub-division into sub-cats, followed by deletion of the empty head-cat, but unless anyone is volunteering for that, it is better left as is. Johnbod (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2009 (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:Regions of the Republic of the Congo[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.
Is there an orthographic reason to capitalise "Department"? RichFarmbrough, 16:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
REname, retaining capitals. correct orthography each is a department, but they are respectively "XX Department". Peterkingiron (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match new names of parent articles. Alansohn (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2009 (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.
The result of the discussion was:rename per nomErik9 (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename, per the move of the main article to Kavango Region. Originally proposed by 77.11.98.129 (talk) on the category talk page. Jafeluv (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match new title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per both above. Debresser (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2009 (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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. --Xdamrtalk 12:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Category is for video games that contain any Toyota cars. Completely non-defining criteria for video games. This suggests we would need similar categories for every car manufacturer, or even extending to other usable objects such as guns. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but only allow categories for video games based on cars that are actually produced in English-speaking countries (i.e., Toyota, Ford, or Chevrolet). GVnayR (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - that a particular make or model of car merely appears in a video game is not defining of the video game. If there were games that are specifically about the make or model, that's different. These do not appear to be about Toyotas. Otto4711 (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A trivial feature of a video game; these are not video games about Toyotas. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:18, 24 August 2009 (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.
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per both above. We do have to be carefull for confusion with SWAT, after all. Debresser (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, because of the naming of the main article. Better than the current name. My first choice would be moving the main article to SWAT (video game series) to avoid ambiguation, though. Jafeluv (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2009 (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:British ambassadors to the European Union[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:rename per nomErik9 (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. As a member of the EU, the UK sends Permanent Representatives to the body, not ambassadors. Also, what is important is not that they are "British" but that they are representing the "United Kingdom". Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, it's explicitly not "Ambassadors", it's "ambassadors", lower-case 'a', because though they are currently Permanent Representatives, they are of ambassadorial rank; "British ambassadors to the European Union" is thus entirely correct, if (clearly!) a tad confusing, and in line with the other naming categories as I could find them... James F.(talk) 20:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... which is not in any way meant to imply that I am against the renaming, merely seeking to explain the logic. :-) James F.(talk) 20:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator and recent discussions. Debresser (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2009 (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.
The result of the discussion was:deleteErik9 (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining. The article NBC page provides what appears to be a more complete list. Maralia (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2009 (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:Members of the Legislative Council of Queensland[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:rename per nomErik9 (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2009 (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.
The result of the discussion was:Speedily delete G7; creator and sole editor request.Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Housekeeping: I created this category in error before realising that a category with a similar name already exists. Please delete. Kudpung (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2009 (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.
