Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 10 August 12 >

August 11[edit]

Category:Indian women film choreographers[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 Category:Indian women film choreographers to Category:Indian film choreographers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Indian women film choreographers to Category:Indian film choreographers
Nominator's rationale: Merge and listify per discussions Indian women film actors and Indian women artists and with consent of the creator. These categories do not need to be split between men and women per WP:CATGRS#Other considerations. After Midnight 0001 20:51, 11 August 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 women athletes[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 Category:Indian women athletes to Category:Indian athletes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Indian women athletes to Category:Indian athletes
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge and listify per discussions Indian women film actors and Indian women artists and with consent of the creator. These categories do not need to be split between men and women per WP:CATGRS#Other considerations. After Midnight 0001 20:50, 11 August 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 female dancers[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 Category:Indian female dancers to Category:Indian dancers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Indian female dancers to Category:Indian dancers
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge and listify per discussions Indian women film actors and Indian women artists and with consent of the creator. These categories do not need to be split between men and women per WP:CATGRS#Other considerations. After Midnight 0001 20:48, 11 August 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 female television personalities[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 Category:Indian female television personalities to Category:Indian television personalities. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Indian female television personalities to Category:Indian television personalities
Nominator's rationale: Merge, While I created this category as part of the solution in the AfD for the List of Indian Women, the CfD discussions of Category:Indian women artists and Category:Indian women film actors make it seem likely that consensus on Wikipedia policy would be that this category does not merit differentiation by gender because the employment of women as television personalities is not inherently notable in the same way that the employment of women in some other professions has been. Therefore, I propose that the category be merged and listified in the same way. Moonriddengirl 19:59, 11 August 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:Cannomys[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 upmerge, per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Categories, and while there doesn't seem to be a consensus of what to do with this, there appears to be a consensus to do something besides "keep". --Kbdank71 16:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cannomys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A category for a monotypic genus. Ucucha 19:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this looks like it might be a part of a broader scheme, which would override the "small with no potential for growth" concerns. Perhaps a specialist or a member of an appropriate Wikiproject can comment. Xtifr tälk 23:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Polbot has been creating hundreds of these ... While I don't care for its tendency to create single item categories, it is certainly true that all of these are part of an established hierarchy. I think the best thing would be to ask the Tree of Life people what they want to do, and update the program accordingly. It just doesn't make sense to deal with them one at a time. -- Prove It (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, in general the categories are parts of larger schemes based upon categorizing taxa on Wikipeida, according to established taxonomies. This means that categories have varying quantities of content. For example, the Asteraceae will be categorized according to tribes, the taxonomical level commonly used in the botanical sciences for large groups of Asteraceae. Subfamilies are also used, but the taxonomy at the subfamily level is in such flux right now that they can't be used. However, this means we will have some categories with thousands of genera and some with one--there are at least two monotypic tribes in the Asteraceae. For stubs, we upmerge, but for categorization, we don't, as all tribes of Asteraceae are subcategories of the family Asteraceae. In other Angiosperm families, the genera may be categorized according to genera, in others there is no subcategorization lower than family level. You probably have to take it up with your god if you disagree with it, or be willing to resort the entire taxonomy of living things. Currently there are thousands of scientists working on it, and I doubt Wikipedia will beat them to it.
  • Keep unless wikirodents says differently If you had looked more closely you would have seen this is a subcategory of the family Spalacidae, a larger category. And, if it is monotypic, it's not Wikipedia's fault, but mother natures for not putting things nicely only in categories of 10, or whatever discrete number would be appropriate. It is, however, imo, inappropriate to delete one single category of a taxonomic scheme, without researching and coming up with a better and more appropriate way to do it for all of, at least the class in the case of mammals. This means refiguring the 35 items in the category mammals, the 16 subcategories of rodents, and all of their contents, the hundreds of muroid rodents, and the five other subcategories of the Spalacidae. KP Botany 01:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no "wikirodents", as far as I can see, and WikiProject Mammals doesn't say anything about categorization. However, let me cite Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life:

Major groups should be given their own categories. When possible, these should use the common name in the plural. In general, only articles about major subgroups should be added, and more specific articles should be included in subcategories. However, when there are only a few articles about members of the group, they can all go directly into the main category. Use your judgement on when to split, aiming for an approximate category size of 10-50 articles.

    • How on earth could you consider a monotypic genus to be a "major group"? Ucucha 06:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way: thank you, I am actually able to see that this is a subcategory of a larger category. That is actually a good thing, since now we are able to put the single article into the mother category. And, this is one step to a more appropriate scheme for muroid rodents, which will consist only of categories for families and subfamilies, to avoid having extremely small genus categories like this one. Ucucha 06:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Well, it depends upon what you consider major. I might consider, for example, an organism that has an important evolutionary history and, say, basal relationships with other extant members at the same rank, a major group. The thing is, evolutionary history doesn't occur in neat little packages of 10-50, and it's absurd to decide to branch based on taxonomies that are phylogenetic, then accord priority to raw numbers of organisms. If mammals wants to group by numbers, regardless of phylogenetic relationships, they'll simply have to redo the whole thing in the near future, when the literature doesn't match any categories, and the categories don't make sense, and people start wondering how the blazes Wikipedia came up with such a silly, and unique categorization system. KP Botany 06:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not proposing any original-research categorization. In my opinion, Cannomys badius should be placed in a category for the subfamily Rhizomyinae, which consists of two Recent genera with four species and of two or three fossil genera. If all taxa will be covered, the category will contain about 20 articles, while still containing not the smallest amount of original research. Note that in the other areas of Category:Muroid rodents, there are quite some categories for subfamilies, and only one (Microtus) for a genus. Ucucha 06:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Mostly, I agree with this approach. My solution would be to create only an article called Cannomys in which it is mentioned that this genus contains only one species, C. badius. I would then have this article show up in the Rhizomyinae category, along with a categorized redirect called Cannomys badius pointing to the Cannomys article. I don't make categories for genera, since they usually don't contain more than a dozen entries (at least in my case). Incidentally, I also have categories with redirects for common names (many of them disambiguation pages), as well as categories with redirects for taxonomic synonyms. --Jwinius 12:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and upmerge into Category:Fossorial muroids or different category name based on discussion here. --Aranae 03:18, 14 August 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:Rats[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 upmerge/delete. You are free to discuss removing the cat at the article in question since consensus was disputed regarding the upmerge.Andrew c [talk] 21:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Old World rats and mice. There is currently only one article, and "rat" is a vaguely defined word that in my opinion should be avoided in categorization. Ucucha 19:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment upmerge to a category you've also nominated for deletion? I don't understand...

edit, oops, just seen the difference between them. D'oh! Lugnuts 07:53, 12 August 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:New World rats and mice[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/merge as nominated to Category:Sigmodontinae, Category:Neotominae, and Category:Tylomyinae --Kbdank71 15:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New World rats and mice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: "New World rats and mice" is not a taxon in any sense; it consists of three subfamilies which may or may not form a clade. Its contents should be distributed among new categories for these three subfamilies: Sigmodontinae, Neotominae and Tylomyinae. See also User talk:Aranae#Category:New World rats and mice. Ucucha 19:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Old World rats and mice do form a clade? KP Botany 01:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the subfamily Murinae. New World rats and mice form part of the family Cricetidae, which consists of Cricetinae (hamsters), Arvicolinae (voles), and the abovementioned Sigmodontinae, Neotominae, and Tylomyinae; the interrelationships among these subfamilies are largely unresolved. So, this is a category for an outdated taxon which may very well not be monophyletic and is not used in current taxonomy. Ucucha 05:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, without knowing which part, it's still not obvious that it's not a clade. But I only say this because of the information you gave me, not because I want to know. Your assertion is sufficient in this case. In botany, due to the rapidly changing nature of the taxonomy, we do have paraphyletic groups as categories--it makes me cringe. A lot of the research that points to the new changes is simply too new, and only supported by itself within the literature--and, we've too much work to do on what we have so far, and there still is disagreement. So, this is an issue that should be resolved within the mammals working group, not on a CfD, namely should you eliminate parphyletic groups as categories? Doesn't Wikipedia still use "reptiles" as a category? Even reptiles including, sorry to say, the dinosaurs? A little itty bitty poorly named rat group can't be all that bad, can it? Still, I think this needs to be taken up with the people working with the rodents, not an outside CfD. KP Botany 06:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That it is paraphyletic is one thing, that it is not used as a taxon (it consists of three subfamilies), is the other thing, and perhaps it is more important. As you say, there are also still categories for reptiles. However, Reptilia is currently still used as a taxon, while "New World rats and mice" is not much more than a near-random grouping of subfamilies based on geography and taxonomic history. As far as I can see, this is the only case of a category for an informal grouping except for Category:Insectivora, which doesn't seem to be very useful either. Ucucha 06:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I tend to agree with you, the paraphyletic groupings are as problematic and difficult to use on Wikipedia as in the sciences. KP Botany 07:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into three new categories based on subfamilies as defined based on discussion found here. Although I think the best data suggest that this may be a monophyletic group (Steppan et al., 2004), these data are very weak, there is no associated taxonomic level, and the group is big enough to require splitting anyway. --Aranae 03:23, 14 August 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.

Magazine people by magazine[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 17:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Magazine people by magazine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Harvard Lampoon people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:National Lampoon people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - flavor of performer by performance overcategorization. People can and do write for a variety of media outlets over the course of a career. Otto4711 17:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The category will develop in a kind of Category:Newspaper people by newspaper. Most journalists, editors, publishers listed by WIKIPEDIA are associated to one/two publications. Stefanomione 18:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete variation on performer by performance. Wryspy 05:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep these publications are so important that people do become known for having written for them, even as students. Most magazine writers write primarily for a few particular publications; those who have written one or two article,s though in may be mentioned in their bios, should simply not be included here. DGG (talk) 06:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete variation on performer by performance; I also question whether categories of people by employer are defining generally. Most people go through several different employers, and several large employers have employed many people notable enough to have bio's here: take McDonald's, AT&T, or some major retailers for example. Furthermore, here it's not clear whether these people were employed at the publication at issue or were just published there (contributors), so we have additional OR & V issues, and eventually when cats for the less esteemed publications we'll have inevitable BLP issues. Carlossuarez46 18:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
we are discussing these cats--if there are others that would inevitably produce BLP issues we can discuss them when they appear. Actually, I do not see the point about BLP. any issues should be resolved at the article level--whether someone did or did not contribute to a particular periodical is a rather objective matter. DGG (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreeing with Carlos. >Radiant< 10:55, 16 August 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:Batibot[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Batibot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary categorization for a TV show. Everything in it except the show's article is for a person associated with the show, which is improper performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 17:42, 11 August 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 towns and cities[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. Rlevse 00:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional towns and cities to Category:Fictional settlements
Nominator's rationale: Rename, It contains not just towns and cities but villages as well so more neutral.

Also propose that most of the subcategories by renamed to either "Category:... fictional settlements" or "Category:Fictional settlements in ...". However, this does not mean all of them

So:

Also after looking at this, i am unsure whether to also include renaming Discworld, DC Comics, Middle-earth, Star Wars and Dungeons & Dragons.

ALSO INCLUDED IN THIS DISCUSSION ARE ALL SUB-SUB-CATEGORIES OF THE ABOVE. THERE ARE TOO MANT CATEGORIES HERE TO PUT DOWN SO I AM LEAVING THE SUB-SUBS OUT AS WELL. ANYONE PLEASE INCLUDE THEM, OR MOVE THIS ENTRY TO A SEPARATE PAGE AS IT WILL BE TOO BIG TO FIT THEM ALL HERE IN THIS LOG.

SHOULD THE FICTIONAL ONES MENTIONED ALSO BE INCLUDED?

Simply south 17:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. "Settlement" just doesn't mean the same thing. Nominator really hasn't given rationale for the rename either, which might be grounds for speedy close as it's an incomplete nomination. Wryspy 05:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We have categories like Category: Cities in Japan that these categories feed into.--Mike Selinker 15:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose settlement was a kind of hybrid employed because there are legal/definitional differences among jurisdictions about what is a town or a city. I will not presuppose that these differences matter much in a fictional realm: whether Smallville or Springfield is incorporated, a charter city, a town, township, or a village really isn't worth distinguishing. Carlossuarez46 18:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if the current naming scheme is kept, they should all be changed to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Foo, to match the system used for real places, and also since cities should naturally have precedence over towns. As to changing it to settlements, I'm opposed, as the word "settlement" has a specific meaning in several countries. Changing it to Category:Fictional cities, towns, and villages in Foo, however, would make sense for the reasons given by the nominator. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I certainly am fine with all of that.--Mike Selinker 15:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As am I. Carlossuarez46 05:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not really, on grounds of it being overly long. Is there really a significant difference between a "town" and a "village" in most countries? >Radiant< 10:56, 16 August 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:Physical infrastructure[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 no consensus --Kbdank71 15:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Physical infrastructure to Category:Infrastructure
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Category is redundant with Category:Infrastructure, and redundant in its title as Infrastructure is physical, thus the cat should be Merged into the overcat Category:Infrastructure. ZueJay (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Seems like good logic to me. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 18:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm inclined to oppose this. Infrastructure, even as defined in the article ('The term has diverse meanings in different fields') is different for the various fields. So a category like Category:Infrastructure without subcategories for the specific fields is nothing more then a random collection of articles linked by a like name. So maybe the better approach is to have sub categories for the various fields. Vegaswikian 21:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both to Category:Water engineering. From my perspective both cats are mislabelled. 'Infrastructure' is a term with lots of meaning depending on where you come from. This looks like a totally US perspective on a global topic, and I note that 'Critical Infrastructure Protection' within one of the cats suggests that this was a term invented by a US president, and not by any civil engineer, so maybe that's why it make no sense to me. (However, I note that under Civil engineer the Water Engineering link misdirects to Hydrology, which is just one part of the topic.) Ephebi 22:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken another look and see what you mean - its Physical Infrastructure that's mainly water engineering, with the exception of the Category:Buildings and structures cat, which is a random gathering of well, buildings, whether planned, collapsed or standing!! Its a far leap of the imagination to categorise all of these items within with any sort of infrastructure. Whereas Category:Infrastructure is anything under the sun, and doesn't apply to any sort of logic, apparently. Is it civil or military? Or is it the inner structure of a society, organization, or system, as per another dictionary definition? Confused! Ephebi 09:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does spliting this out make it clearer? Say
This is not intended to be complete, but starting to fill in a structure that would improve the current haphazard arrangement. Don't know if you need to split civil and military. Vegaswikian 21:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting attempt - but I suspect it'd likely soon get tied up in knots. Even though my original background is civ. eng, and I like to see its output getting recognition, its only part of the story. For example, the trading & settlement systems of capital markets are treated as key piece of the Infrastructure of some cities & industries when it comes to anti-terrorist planning!! From a strategic perspective capacity-building features highly (e.g. education, democratic systems etc). If this was to be anything other than a jumble of bon mots it would need to be properly pulled in from referenceable sources, which would be better done through a list, or series of lists, depending on the purpose of the 'infrastructure' in question. Ephebi 00:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before we close this out, please can someone try to get a focussed look on what this cat is all about & what purpose it is supposed to fulfil, and create a description for the page. The disambig page for Public infrastructure or the Critical infrastructure page might be a start, as it seems we are here trying to mimic the controversial [1] DHS' list of critical infrastructure (which in 2007 notes 2,100 types of facility, incl. dams, power plants) or the 2006 one (that included hot dog stands amongst its notable 200,000 assets.) Ephebi 13:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename — "Physical infrastructure" is pretty much redundant, and is less intuitive for people trying to add novel articles to relevant categories. --Cyde Weys 01:50, 13 August 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:Waterloo Road[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Waterloo Road (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - per precedent, category is not needed for just the character and episode subcats and the show's article. Otto4711 17:16, 11 August 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.

Eponymous musician categories - D[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete; the nominator's rationale was not addressed by those who wished these categories kept. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dad's Porno Mag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Damn Yankees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Darren Hayes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:David Bisbal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Dean Martin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Death (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Death By Stereo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Depeche Mode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Dire Straits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Director (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Disco Biscuits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:The Ditty Bops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Dixie Dregs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Dogs D'Amour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Dokken (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:The Donnas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Donnie Iris and the Cruisers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:The Doobie Brothers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Dope (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Doves (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Dru Hill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete all - each category listed is limited to one or more of the following subcategories: albums; members; songs along with the article for the artist and sometimes a discography article (a couple contain the articles for the band members because they haven't been sorted into a members category yet or they're in both). Per precedent these are overcategorization. Otto4711 16:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except the ones that contain non-duplicate band member entries, per ample precedent and the inarguable redundancy and lack of utility of these vanity categories. (Not that vanity may not be justified in a few of these cases, but just saying....) The ones that contain band members need to be cleaned up before they're deleted. Xtifr tälk 23:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all These categories have been created in good faith by a wide variety of users. They are valuable for navigation. Dominictimms 00:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • With no more than two articles apiece (and a tiny handful of subcategories which will not be deleted), the claim that these are "valuable for navigation" is pretty obviously hyperbole, and has been rejected at dozens and dozens of previous debates and at deletion review. No one is questioning the good faith of the users who created these (we don't even question the good faith of the user who created Category:Questions/Items/poeple that may have to do with the creation of the Universe). What's being questioned is their good sense. :) With extensive debate that settled on the current compromise, and with close to a hundred deletions and no keeps for precedent, I think you need a stronger argument than WP:ILIKEIT. Xtifr tälk 01:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & ample precedent. Nav templates and links are much preferred. Carlossuarez46 18:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, these categories just aren't used very widely, have no chance of expansion, and are done better with links in templates on the relevant articles. --Cyde Weys 01:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, they do have a chance of expansion if left be. If deleted they will never be added to. In time they will become a more valuable source of articles. And if a band is notable enough to have a number of articles written concerning albums, singles, members, etc why then shouldn't it have its own category? --Candlewicke Consortiums Limited 21:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's absolutely not true that "if deleted, they will never be added to". We have ample precedent for keeping categories like this with as few as three articles (despite many strong objections). If a new article is created, it is a trivial matter to (re)create the eponymous category. But experience shows us that this almost never happens (and if that changes, consensus on these categories will likely change in short order), so it's silly to keep all of these on the remote chance that another article might be created. As for your last point—I don't understand that at all. Is a category supposed to be some sort of prize that you win for being especially notable? I don't see how that makes any sort of sense. This has nothing to do with notability! It is purely about the number of articles created. If new articles are created for even a barely notable band, then it's perfectly reasonable to (re)create an eponymous category. This is purely about the number of articles that have been created; notability is completely not an issue here. The fact that you would even mention it makes me want to weep. Xtifr tälk 06:43, 15 August 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:Egyptian rock bands[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 Category:Egyptian rock bands to Category:Egyptian rock music groups. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Egyptian rock bands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Egyptian rock music groups convention of Category:Rock music groups by nationality. -- Prove It (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency. --musicpvm 20:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: consistency is almost always a good thing when it comes to categories, and I see no reason to be inconsistent here. Xtifr tälk 23:03, 11 August 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:Raëlism and women[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) 11:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Raëlism and women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Another Raëlian categorization (see below) - this would presumably unite all women in the group. Sfacets 14:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per precedent.PelleSmith 22:44, 13 August 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:Raëlian national guides[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) 11:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Raëlian national guides (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: See also category:Raëlians by occupation category cannot be filled - only exists to promote the 60 000 strong organization Sfacets 12:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable intersection by religion. -- Prove It (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless populated, in which case, weak keep or merge with Category:Raëlian clergy. This appears to be a category for religious leaders, despite the somewhat confusing name. As such, it certainly has the potential to be a valid category. Intersection by religion is appropriate for religous-based occupations. On the other hand, it may qualify as a WP:OCAT#Narrow intersection, as the number of members is so small that a single category may suffice to hold all their clergy. (Assuming the religion is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia at all, an issue I haven't investigated.) Xtifr tälk 02:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This category is in line with how Category:People by religion and occupation is structured since "national guides" are religious figures. If we can categorize occupations that that are related to other religions then we can classify Raelian occupations as well. Let's not discriminate here.PelleSmith 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge into Category:Raëlians. Like all but one of the other subcats of Category:Raëlians by occupation (which I have now nominated for deletion on another page of CFD), this is both too narrow and simply unnecessary, since the total number of Raelians with articles in Category:Raëlians is 5 -- 3 of whom are considered "Raëlian bishops" (the sole subcategory which I support retaining). Cgingold 12:09, 15 August 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:Raëlian actors[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) 11:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Raëlian actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: See also Category:Raëlian singers and category:Raëlian guitarists - spam/abuse of the categorization system. Sfacets 12:47, 11 August 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:Raëlian bishops[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Raëlian bishops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Another gem to hang next to Category:Raëlian singers and category:Raëlian actors. Category is too narrow and seems only to exist to promote the organization. Sfacets 12:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The organization is too small, how many (notable) people could ever be included in this category? Sfacets 14:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too small? Show me the rule.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 17:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rule? Try common sense - an organization of 60000 people could possibly only contain a certain amount of otherwise notable bishops. Sfacets 17:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: this looks like a borderline case, but it's small with almost no potential for growth, which is not quite the same as small with no potential for growth. On the other hand, I think it might qualify as a WP:OCAT#Narrow intersection. I think a broader category, like "Raëlian clergy" might be more appropriate until that category gets large enough to justify subcategorization by church rank. On the gripping hand, nom raises issues of inappropriate promotion, which I haven't had time to investigate, so I don't have a final opinion on this category yet. Xtifr tälk 23:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general we allow small categories when they are part of an established hierarchy. Unlike the other recent Raëlian categories, I see this one is as a defining characteristic. -- Prove It (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If Wikipedia recognizes Raelism as a religion then it is simply discriminatory not to allow a category for its "bishops" when those of larger and more recognizable religions are so allowed. Notability applies to the entries themselves and not to this category since, I will repeat, it is well established in type amongst religions in general.PelleSmith 22:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per PelleSmith. I note that there are 3 entries in this category - a bare minimum in my view, but enough to retain, unlike the other subcats of Category:Raëlians by occupation. Cgingold 12:18, 15 August 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:Raëlian guitarists[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) 10:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Raëlian guitarists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Another gem to hang next to Category:Raëlian singers and category:Raëlian actors. Category is too narrow and seems only to exist to promote the organization. Sfacets 12:43, 11 August 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:Raëlian singers[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) 10:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Raëlian singers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The Raëlian movement assembles a mere 60000 members. To create a category on which of those are singers is preposterous, not only because of the few adherants to the group, but also the idea of categorizing someone as a "Raëlian singer". Sfacets 12:40, 11 August 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:Physicians from Cincinnati[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 17:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Physicians from Cincinnati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: overcategorization-no similar cats for other cities or even states. DGG (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cluttertastic. Any word on how many articles this could conceivably be the primary category for? Presumably most entries would be primarily notable for something other than being a physician, or something more specific within the field of medicine. Deiz talk 12:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as intersection by location. -- Prove It (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Organization is better than chaos. Give the category a chance to populate. We can have People from Cincinnati, but for some reason some professions you can break the category down by and others are considered overcategorization. How silly is that? It is a constant guessing game that makes organization rather impossible. Diez makes a valid point, though everyone there is a physician and that is in fact their claim to fame. I was only going to become more specific if there were enough articles to justify it. The idea behind this was to begin breaking Category:People from Cincinnati down for organizational purposes at WP:CINCINNATI. Now these people will just go right back to "People from Cincinnati", despite the fact they are all physicians from Cincinnati. But for some reason, "people from Cincinnati" is viewed as being more helpful to readers? That is funny and really doesn't make an ounce of sense. I'll do you a favor: Category:People from Cincinnati has numerous similar entiries which will also be deleted with this same rationale. Please nominate them also so I know whether to bother continuing this practice or not. Such a headache. (Mind meal 15:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment I think Prove It makes a pretty unassailable point tho, if the intersection by location examples "Roman Catholic Bishops from Ohio, Quarterbacks from Louisiana, Male models from Dallas" are against WP guidelines, this subcat seems to fall pretty squarely in the same spot. Don't get me wrong, I can see how this subcat would be useful for someone interested in reading about p's from C, but you would have to get consensus for a change to the guideline, rather than lament the difficulties of categorizing people from Cincinatti, to make your argument stick. Deiz talk 17:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To me, "Roman Catholic bishop", "quarterback", and "male model" are not professions in a general sense, whereas "clergy", "professional athlete", and "model" are. So I figure it's more of a scope issue: there's nothing inherently wrong with a category that intersects a location and a profession, as long as the profession is general enough and (see my Keep comment below) there's some reason that the location has so many notable people in that line of work. Also, clergy are typically defined by the (arch)diocese, not state, that they reside in. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 19:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cincinnati has been fairly prominent in the medical field, with the University of Cincinnati (University Hospital) and Children's Hospital, and Shriners Burns Hospital. For the most part, the subjects in this category are notable not because they just happen to be physicians living in Cincinnati, but because they made notable contributions to medicine while practicing or researching in Cincinnati as physicians. The page on Overcategorization is a guideline, and while it's useful, I think this particular category is also useful. (I don't think that's the case with just any city that has a university or children's hospital.) Coincidentally, there's a Category:Physicians in the United States Congress that I find to be a much better example of Overcategorization, because two physician-Congressmen probably don't have much in common. In a way, this is something of an "Alumni of..." category, because most of these physicians were involved with the same programs in Cincinnati. (A "Physicians with the University of Cincinnati" category would be far too specific, but "Physicians from Cincinnati" has just enough generality to include a decent number of articles.) Another category that may seem superfluous at first glance is Jurists from Cincinnati; however, Cincinnati has many notable jurists and lawyers mainly because it's home to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the UC College of Law (one of the first U.S. law schools). On the other hand, I'm less certain that categories like Socialites from Cincinnati, Astronauts from Cincinnati, and Criminals from Cincinnati should be kept. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 19:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Excessively detailed. If these people are notable, they are notable for their overall contribution to medicine, not for having been born in, or having worked in Cincinnati. Dominictimms 00:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will consider nominating Jurists from Cincinnati after we dispose of this one. But that might be more supportable because it has several dozen entries; this had three when I nominated it and eight now.--and I understand categories of lawyers by state, which is jurisdictionally relevant) Many cities have more than 3 major hospitals-- and I think we should be very slow to encourage the multiplication of such categories without a more general discussion. DGG (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cincinnati has more than three major hospitals: including the Health Alliance and TriHealth, there are roughly a dozen. I just mentioned the ones that (as far as I can tell) are known for their medical breakthroughs or unique programs. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 17:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete way WP:OCAT. Carlossuarez46 18:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; may be well-intended but excessive overcategorization, and a violation of Wikipedia policy. - Gilliam 03:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I mentioned in a similar cfd, my guess is that this is part of a broader attempt to divide People from Cincinnati by occupation. And while I don't have a problem with the general idea of subdividing locations-by-occupation, I'm not sure this particular scheme was set up very well. I'd much rather have this be discussed as part of a broader initiative to look at whether or not to subdivide really large city biography categories by occupation. Such a broader scheme might be useful, but it should be done in a consistent manner and not just ad hoc for Cincinnati. Dugwiki 16:00, 13 August 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:Kyle XY[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 } Deleted, and please notify me on my talk page if it happens to be re-created again. --Cyde Weys 01:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kyle XY (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This show has a navigation template, so the category is unnecessary. Re-creation of category following deletion, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_17#Category:Kyle_XY. Fayenatic london (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation. Xtifr tälk 12:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt recreation. Wryspy 05:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block recreation per earlier discussion and re-creation here. Carlossuarez46 18:47, 12 August 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:USACE lakes[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:USACE lakes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Ambiguous name. The category actually appears to be created to contain reservoirs. Given that, the category is badly named at best. Since the common element here is that the reservoirs are somehow associated with the USACE, it is probably over classification. If kept, needs a rename, probably to some thing like Category:United States Army Corps of Engineers reservoirs. Vegaswikian 06:54, 11 August 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:Proofreaders al-en[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 closed and moved to UCFD. Andrew c [talk] 17:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Proofreaders al-en (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category uses the incorrect ISO 639 code for the Albanian language. I've already boldly created the proper category (Category:Proofreaders sq-en) with the appropriate template to prevent subpage issues. Just making sure there are no unforeseen objections. --- RockMFR 05:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I'm not mistaken this belongs at WP:UCFD. Carlossuarez46 18:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I decided to include it here since it these cats aren't part of the Category:Wikipedians tree. If you'd like, I can move it over there. --- RockMFR 22:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If they are meant to have user pages in them, I think UCFD is the place. If it's meant to have mainspace articles (people notable for translating Albanian into English, or below vice versa seems unlikely, but I have been wrong before), we can continue it here. I'll let you (and any other passers by) decide that: For the record: whether here or there, I agree with the proposal, and that below. Carlossuarez46 05:35, 14 August 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:Translators al-en[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 closed and moved to UCFD. see Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Translators_al-enAndrew c [talk] 17:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Translators al-en (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category uses the incorrect ISO 639 code for the Albanian language. I've already boldly created the proper category (Category:Translators sq-en) with the appropriate template to prevent subpage issues. Just making sure there are no unforeseen objections. --- RockMFR 05:45, 11 August 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:United Arab Emirati businessmen[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 Category:United Arab Emirati businessmen to Category:United Arab Emirati businesspeople. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United Arab Emirati businessmen to Category:United Arab Emirati businesspeople
Nominator's rationale: Per subcategories of Category:Businesspeople by nationality. --- RockMFR 05:22, 11 August 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:Topics relating to criminology covered by the CCM[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 listify/delete. See List of criminology topics covered by the Crime Classification Manual Andrew c [talk] 17:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Topics relating to criminology covered by the CCM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A category to list topics in a book. If we start creating categories by topics covered in each thick book on Earth, this will be disaster of overcategorization. `'Míkka 05:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. An equivalent category would be Category:Topics related to diseases covered by the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), which would contain most mental disorders, or Category:Topics related to diseases covered by the IDC. There are better ways to categorize this infomation. 24.6.65.83 06:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and use for similar cases , such as the ones mentioned. Where there are reference standard classifications we should use them as a list of topics. there won't be all the many, and it will improve our own less sophisticated classification efforts. DGG (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify, I don't think this a defining characteristic, but a list would seem to satisfy DGG's points about the probable utility of this information. Ultimately, this is information about the book more than it is information about the subject topic. Note that we aren't classifying anything the way the book does with this category; we're merely categorizing everything in the book as being in the book, which somewhat, though not entirely, weakens DGG's argument. A list, however, could be grouped in all sorts of ways, and could easily end up influencing how we categorize the topics. Xtifr tälk 12:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (preferred) or Listify into the article on the book. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete as above. >Radiant< 10:55, 16 August 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:Bill Engvall songs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted, empty. --Cyde Weys 01:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bill Engvall songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Empty category. Also a bit of overcategorization -- any "song" that Engvall has charted with was his spoken word comedy spliced with another artist's singing. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 04:11, 11 August 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:G4 hosts and staff[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:G4 hosts and staff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - performer by network overcategorization. Otto4711 03:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, overcategorization and extensive precedent for deleting such categories. Xtifr tälk 23:20, 17 August 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:Merchant Services[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 rename. Andrew c [talk] 00:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Merchant Services to Category:Merchant services
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to comply with capitalization style for categories. —tregoweth (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that this would qualify for speedy renaming, as a simple matter of capitalization. I have nominated it for a speedy rename. Xtifr tälk 23:23, 11 August 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:Moroccan Eurovision songs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Keep - a category that is part of a wider scheme (non-admin closure). BencherliteTalk 12:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Moroccan Eurovision songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A category with an unique article for the next century. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.112.66.8 (talk • contribs) 2007 August 11.
  • So, apparently Morocco only participated in the contest once, in 1980. Even with little growth potential, I think it's probably worth keeping this cat, because as of right now, Category:Eurovision songs by country, is comprehensive and grandparent Category:Eurovision_songs holds no articles directly. Keeping this would be akin to our system of creating members of Category:albums by artist regardless of how many albums the artists have released. ×Meegs 02:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, normally being small, with no potential for growth is a valid reason for deletion, but we deliberately make exceptions for categories which are part of a broader scheme, as this seems to be. Kudos to 128.112.66.8 for managing to be both humorous and clear in his nomination, though. :) Xtifr tälk 12:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Xtifr. RegRCN 14:23, 11 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_11&oldid=1140228883"