Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 20 January 22 >

January 21[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: delete. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Willy on Wheels[edit]

Just another WoW-vandalism page that was missed when most of the vandal pages and related pages were deleted some time ago. --Azer Red Si? 22:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click the link. The page has been deleted and protected from recreation.--Azer Red Si? 22:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oopsies. I thought it had been overturned at DRV, apparently it was not. -Amark moo! 23:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no need to keep a list of WoW socks. Just make sure they're all blocked then dump them in the trash. This category is not helpful in any way. BTW, shouldn't this be listed WP:CFD? -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent of deleting other information on him 146.186.44.199 19:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. Rgds, - Trident13 21:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:CopyrightByWikimedia[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: delete. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:CopyrightByWikimedia to Category:Images copyrighted By Wikimedia Foundation
  • Rename, mostly a procedural thing to be more clear about what this category contains, and to bring it in line with normal naming conventions. Is this the best name, though? Alternative suggestions are most certainly welcome. -/- Warren 22:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IUP all entries for which free alternatives are possible, and on all others replace {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} with {{Copyrighted}}. Merge into Category:Images used with permission —Random8322007-01-24T15:57:09UTC(01/24 10:57EST)
  • Delete and make changes per Random832. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Disaster movies[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was withdrawn. the wub "?!" 07:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Disaster movies to Category:Disaster films
  • Rename, Per naming conventions (all other genres are under "films") Wizardman 22:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be noted that the previous CfD was just closed TODAY as no consensus. Took only 10 hours to be renominated. Vegaswikian 00:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please point out the naming convention for categories that covers this. There is one for individual films. But that one does not apply here. Vegaswikian 00:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I looked around for confirmation of this previous CfD and I don't see it anywhere. Link?--Wizardman 02:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, it seems that it would make sense for the category to be 'disaster films', seeing as the article is 'distaster film', don't you think? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 22:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Just because the article is misnamed should not be a reason to misname the category. This genre of films has a correct name so why can't it be used? Vegaswikian 00:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - LA @ 22:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep The last nomination only just closed, and as was pointed out in that discussion, "disaster movie" is the standard term. Sumahoy 01:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the standard term. Everybody calls them "disaster movies." Nobody says "disaster films." Wryspy 04:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I finally found the previous discussion. Perhaps I was hasty in nominating this. Since this was done so quickly any admin is free to close this CfD. I believe it should be changed but I withdraw my nom. --Wizardman 04:25, 22 January 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mestizos[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: delete. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, up to 90% of the population of some Latin American countries is mestizo. This category is going to be ridiculously large, and it will never be complete. Mixcoatl 22:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This doesn't seem like a reason to necessarily delete the category. I mean, Category:Biology would cover a huge amount of material, so we just create subcategories that are of a manageable size. delldot | talk 22:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Changing to weak delete per nom. delldot | talk 01:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you also going to make categories for white or black people then? Mixcoatl 17:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I guess you're right, maybe it doesn't make sense to categorize people by race, that's not really meaningful. Changing my opinion. delldot | talk 01:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 17:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can support subcategories by handedness. 03:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Srice13 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong delete per nom. Overcatigorization! CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Churches in Alberta[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. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Churches in Alberta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"Category" consists of one subcategory, which contains only one church SUBWAYguy 21:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Reasonable to retain, I think. There must surely be scope for significant addition to this category. --Xdamrtalk 22:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Normal category, just unpopulated. See that cat after few months. Dozen of new articles will surely appear. - Darwinek 23:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - now has two sub-cats, with three articles in each, more growth expected. Kevlar67 05:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Villages in Silesia[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: delete. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Villages in Silesia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The whole collection of subcategories of Category:Silesia created by LUCPOL (talk · contribs), such as category:Universities and colleges in Silesia must be investigated for deletion. The point is that "Silesia" is a historical region, now split beween Poland and Czechia. I am strongly against having anynhing but history-related subcategories for such things. Whate else? Shall we create Category:Universities in Siberia? category:Towns in Tanganyika? Category:Mountains in Holy Roman Empire? `'mikka 21:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without exaggeration. Silesia is region such how Bavaria, Bohemia or Chechnya etc. This category is OK. PS. I created the part of subcategories, different also created: Category:Dukes of Silesia, Category:Natives of Silesia, Category:Lower Silesian Voivodeship etc. LUCPOL 21:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Generally only current boundaries should be used in categorization to avoid confusion, overlap and POV pushing. Sumahoy 01:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Sumahoy. Pinoakcourt 17:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Categories may be reasonable for recognizable (usually formerly independent, autonomous, or otherwise defined) areas subsumed within the boundries a modern state, even without current status or central-government-imposed borders. For example, we have categories for Category:Byzantine emperors rather than calling them Turkish Emperors, Category:Cantons of the Helvetic Republic rather than calling them Former Swiss cantons not now in Switzerland or some other circumlocution., etc.... Carlossuarez46 21:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your cited examples don't back up this claim, that it is a reasonable use "...for recognizable ... areas subsumed within the boundaries a modern state, even without current status or central-government-imposed borders." Your examples are being used for historical topics, topics for which it would be an anachronistic to use present day names etc. This is not what is happening with this, and the other, 'Silesia' categories. This is an attempt to force modern-day Polish entities through a Silesian-shaped hole.
Xdamrtalk 15:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Sumahoy. Anachronistic territorial categorisations should be strenuously avoided unless there is compelling justification. No such reasons have been presented here.
Xdamrtalk 15:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American conservatives[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: delete first, merge the second. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:American conservatives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Upmerge Category:American constitutionalists to Category:American people by political orientation

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 19#Category:American liberals, as something of a counterpart, I nominate Category:American conservatives.

'Conservative' (like 'Liberal') is a vague term, encompassing a wide range of opinions over a wide range of topics—topics such as social issues, economics, personal morality, abortion, etc, etc. Both 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are simply too imprecise to cover such a multiplicity of areas. If we want to categorise by view/outlook (which it seems that we are happy to do—see CFD (11/16) then it is far better to follow the practice within the parent category, Category:American people by political orientation, where we have specific categories for American socialists, American pacifists, American libertarians, etc.

Xdamrtalk 21:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Merge per nom --Xdamrtalk 21:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge per nom; "conservative," like "liberal," is (to quote myself regarding the other CFD) "incapable of precise, objective definition and meaningless without cultural/historical context and explanation. The meaning of the term has shifted too much over its centuries of usage and has too much breadth for this to accomplish anything informative." Anything that requires explanation to make sense, and to prevent equivocating unlike things, is not proper material for a category. Postdlf 21:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge per nom. In addition to the varieties of contempirary conservatism, these terms havce changed meaning over time. As one example of the confusion, many of those who call themseves "conservatives" advocate economic policies which, 100 years ago, would have been called "liberal" (minimal trade barriers etc, minimal state regulation). Since these categories don't have historical time limts, the categories become unworkable; someone accurately described as "conservative" in 1907 would probably disagree vehemently with somone so described in 2007. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the liberal category is also deleted/Keep if opposite. Veracious Rey t • c • r 03:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per various precedents like the liberal category. This invokes POV, OR, and speculation. Wryspy 04:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete American conservatives for same reasons that American liberals should be deleted; altho AmCons is slightly less vague than AmLibs, it's only slightly, and still presents problems of having to be defined before it's understood. --lquilter 00:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, whether or not Category:American liberals is deleted. Two wrongs doesn't make one right.--Per Abrahamsen 01:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all both this and its liberal counterpart. Remember that many people's political beliefs change over time. It's unfair and inaccurate to categorize them so broadly. Lovelac7 03:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, vague. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this 'delete both conservative and liberals' or 'delete both conservatives and constitutionalists'?
Xdamrtalk 20:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All. Lovelac7 02:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was very unclear of me... I'm surprised I wrote that. I meant "delete conservatives and liberals". I would vote to delete either even if the other vote failed, per Per Abrahamsen. I'm not convinced that American Constitutionalists is a good idea for a category, but I'll forgo a vote either way due to uncertainty. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete category. Not very accurate. Not very useful. Nerdland 06:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Rip-offs of Gimmick![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: delete. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rip-offs of Gimmick! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not only does there not need to be categories of "rip-offs", but this one has no basis whatsoever that the articles included in the category reflect the category itself. The S 20:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as impermissively POV. Otto4711 22:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Categories need to be more objective and uncontroversial than this, since there's no way to justify an article's inclusion in them the way you can with a list. delldot | talk 22:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ridiculously POV. (and ridiculously empty in any case). Pascal.Tesson 01:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously someone has a vendetta 'gainst Kirby... Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 00:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

CNBC categories[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: merge. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete and merge - WP:OC --Vs22 20:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Locales in Andorra[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. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Locales in Andorra to Category:Settlements in Andorra
  • Rename, so as to use the same terminology as the associated categories. LukeHoC 19:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Xdamrtalk 20:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sporty museums[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was deleted. the wub "?!" 19:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sporty museums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Created to house International_Museum_of_the_fly_fishing_Stanislao_Kuckiewicz which I've recategorised into Category:Sports museums. This category now has no articles and also no parent category or subcategories. Random Passer-by 18:37, 21 January 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sagas of Iceland[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: delete. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sagas of Iceland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. I can't even undestand what it means. Does it refer to sagas written in Iceland? Most of them were, and in that case, Icelandic sagas would be a better name. Does it mean sagas dealing with Icelandic matter? Obviously not, since, for instance Hrólfs saga kraka (which deals with a Danish king), Yngliga saga (about lengendary kings of Sweden) and many others are listed here. We already have all the categories we need (especially Category:Sagas, where most of the articles of the category could me moved. Sigo 16:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 19:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Sagas. A delete will not work since some articles are only included in this saga category. Vegaswikian 00:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All the articles are now included in better categories. Sigo 11:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - this is something I've been meaning to clean up for ages and I'm glad Sigo has taken the lead. Haukur 12:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Members of the Welsh Assembly[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. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Members of the Welsh Assembly to Category:Members of the National Assembly for Wales
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:Hairspray actors[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: delete. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hairspray actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - per overly broad category drawing from multiple sources, c.f. Batman actors and Wicked actors. Otto4711 15:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim! This is not a TV series. It is a collection of actors who appeared in the film and theatrical productions. Both genre have a long standing consensus against categories like this. -- Samuel Wantman 23:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Night Stalker Actors[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: delete. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Night Stalker cast members. -- Prove It (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - short-lived show, cast list in main show article is sufficient along with appropriate notation in cast members' articles. Otto4711 15:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto4711. Xiner (talk, email) 19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto4711. --Xdamrtalk 20:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - short-lived show(s) already covered by cast list. Doczilla 01:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no need for a cat when there is already a list. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN 04:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cast list is sufficient. -- Samuel Wantman 20:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When the reader can view the entire cast list of a film or tv series within the main article, there is little benefit to having it as a category. Dugwiki 21:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Prolog 05:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Nigh Stalker cast per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_15#Actors_to_Cast_Members. No compelling reasons to delete have been given. Tim! 07:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto4711. The most overriding reason, IMHO, is that to categorize an actor for each (part of an) hour of work s/he does is neither meaningful or encyclopedic, and will obscure meaningful category attributes of the actor (perhaps, Academy Awards categories lost among how many movies/tv shows/radio shows/advertisements s/he has guested or starred -- no distinction apparently -- on, <rant> not to mention his/her religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, political views, handedness, car-ownership, ipod ownership, </rant> but I digress.....) Carlossuarez46 23:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Drafted Frölunda HC players[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: merge. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uperge into Category:Frölunda HC players, the list of drafted Frölunda HC players is good enough. We don't need a category for every single list article. -- Prove It (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it is my opinion that these "Frölunda HC" cats and articles are misnamed - we should be using the official name - Frölunda Indians. Please contribute to the requested move discussion at: Talk:Frölunda HC. If we do move the main article, then all subsidiary articles and cats must move to the new name too. Nobody calls the club "Frölunda HC"!! --Mais oui! 16:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I created the category and I just looked at what the NHL teams had. As far as I'm concerned it can be deleted. --Krm500 17:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Xiner (talk, email) 19:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jeff Dunham[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: delete. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, contains only Jeff Dunham, and unlikely to grow. -- Prove It (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Only one page mentioned--SUIT42 19:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:John Hobbs Medal recipients[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: delete, list already present so no information lost. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The list in the John Hobbs Medal article will do. -- Prove It (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Award recipient categories should be used only for awards that define the recipient (e.g., "Nobel laureates), lest they lead to category cruft clutter for multi-award-winners. --lquilter 17:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Out of interest, does this view extend toward decorations/orders as issued by the state (not awards though)? Would you regard Category:Recipients of the Victoria Cross as being an example of 'cruft'? cf. debate on WP:ODM talk page.
Xdamrtalk 20:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Victoria Cross is the top award in its field and in most cases it is the main reason why holders have an article. A better comparison would be with lower military decorations, and I would say that they should not have categories. Honbicot 17:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 19:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. As long as an award is by a reputable estanbishment, it is deserving, surely more than Category:Australian Big Brother Award Winners. Also please here. A multi-award winner deserves a better attitude than to label his article as "category-cruft". `'mikka 21:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The problem with award categories is that people can win numerous awards, leading to category clutter if they all have their own category. Moreover, a reader can just as easily find information in this case using a list article linked from the main article. So generally speaking there needs to be a fairly compelling reason for an award to have its own winner category as opposed to just having a list. Dugwiki 21:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This is a serious award, one which deserves far more respect than Category:Australian Big Brother Award Winners and the like. On this ground I prefer that it be kept. On the other hand, I'm not sure whether categorisation is the best thing for an award which has only been bestowed on 9+ recipients. On the whole though, I incline towards keeping it, albeit weakly.
Xdamrtalk 23:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I said "cruft", which is unduly and inappropriately contemptuous. "Clutter" would be better & I've changed it above.
Xdamr, I'm not familiar enough with the ODMs by state awards to know how they're applied or how many winners there are, or what sorts of people get them, and so on.
My concern for award-winner cats in general (and maybe it applies to ODMs-by-states) is that well-known people can receive many awards of various sorts. Scientists, actors, philanthropists, artists, and so on can get dozens, scores, of awards. I am incredibly inclusionist on articles for awards, but creating categories for the winners of individual awards seems of little value and actually, actively, confusing to people.
  1. Browsing the winners could as easily be accomplished through lists on the award page, or separate lists if big enough. More easily, actually, because oftentimes not all winners of a particular award will have their own articles, thus rendering the category incomplete.
  2. Unlike the list, you can't tell that a category incomplete; and the name of the category "X award winners" suggests completeness more than some kinds of category names (e.g., "Churches of England"). With lists it's much more obvious if they're incomplete. So categories of award-winners are, I feel, confusing if not deceptive. --lquilter 00:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry too much about 'cruft', I' didn't mind it too much :)
Really I was just wondering if you made a distinction between private (or state) awards/prizes and state decorations. An award is an award—it may be a worthwhile one such as the Nobel prize, or it may be that you have won 'Big Brother' or something equally trivial. State decorations on the other hand, especially those for bravery/military service, don't tend to be given out for no reason. With these sort of decorations, receiving them becomes more of a biographical detail rather than something intrinsically bound up with the decoration itself; that being the case I regard categorisation as being reasonable. Further, with recipients typically running into the hundreds/thousands, it would be tricky to maintain as an article.
Xdamrtalk 01:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, since it came up, I think it is also worth considering nominating Category:Australian Big Brother Award Winners for deletion for the same reasons this category is up for deletion. If anyone seconds that notion, feel free to cfd it and I'll probably support the nomination. Dugwiki 17:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Providing the award is well known and reputable I don't think it matters who awards it. The question is whether or not it is the leading award in its field and therefore a career defining achievement. Honbicot 17:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage you, Dugwiki, to go for that CFD nomination, and I will vote for its deletion. --lquilter 17:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Honbicot 17:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepAs long as it is an established award, its useful. The two most recent people here do not ahave articles, while the others do & its a useful reminder.DGG 03:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Days of our Lives actors[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, insufficient consensus for deletion. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Days of our Lives actors to Category:Days of our Lives cast members
  • Rename - per all previous "actors" to "cast members" renames. Otto4711 13:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Tim! 14:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Categories are an unsuitable vehicle for conveying this sort of information. Far better to have a cast list in the main article, and to place the appropriate acting credit on the individual actor's WP page. --Xdamrtalk 20:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a soap opera a cast list in the article would be untenable. It would amount to thousands of names and completely overwhelm the article. A separate "list of" is better but still problematic. Otto4711 20:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right, in which case perhaps some sort of notability test needs to be derived for soap operas, or, as you suggest, a 'List of ...'. Either way though, I remain unconvinced that categories are the answer.
Xdamrtalk 20:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This would be much better as a list, split off from the main article. A list can add information that a category cannot, such as the years the actor was part of the cast, the character played, a picture, etc... --Samuel Wantman 21:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, to exclude guest stars; no strong objections to deleting in favor of lists. Postdlf 21:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN 04:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xdamr. Doczilla 06:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename per Otto4711 . Mr. Stabs 14:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename (assuming its kept) Without commenting on keep vs delete, assuming it's kept rename to cast per previous similar discussions. Dugwiki 21:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all cast list categories. --Samuel Wantman 21:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xdamr. Actors don't need to be categorized by their performances. "List of" article should work better. Prolog 05:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cruft. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gilmore Girls actors[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: ditto. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Gilmore Girls actors to Category:Gilmore Girls cast members
  • Rename - per many previous "actors" to "cast members" CfR discussions. Otto4711 13:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Tim! 14:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Categories are an unsuitable vehicle for conveying this sort of information. Far better to have a cast list in the main article, and to place the appropriate acting credit on the individual actor's WP page. --Xdamrtalk 20:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, to exclude guest stars; no strong objections to deleting in favor of lists. Postdlf 21:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN 04:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xdamr. Doczilla 06:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename per Otto4711. Mr. Stabs 14:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xdamr. Whether we keep or delete these categories should not be based on a popularity poll on the series. They should ALL go. -- Samuel Wantman 20:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename (if kept) or delete Assuming the category is kept, rename to cast. I'd also support deletion, since the cast list is already included in the main article and the category offers little extra utility, but there isn't yet a strong consensus one way or another on which actor-by-tv series categories to delete or which to keep. Dugwiki 22:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even if it were renamed to "cast", the regular cast is about a dozen folks; easily manageable with a list. --lquilter 01:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Actors don't need to be categorized by their performances. Therefore, list article is more suitable. Prolog 05:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Prolog. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These actor categories are not feasible. Dr. Submillimeter 22:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Will & Grace actors[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: ditto. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Will & Grace actors to Category:Will & Grace cast members
  • Rename - per the many, many other CfRs deciding to rename "actor" categories to "cast members." Otto4711 13:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Tim! 14:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Categories are an unsuitable vehicle for conveying this sort of information. Far better to have a cast list in the main article, and to place the appropriate acting credit on the individual actor's WP page. --Xdamrtalk 20:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, to exclude guest stars; no strong objections to deleting in favor of lists. Postdlf 21:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN 04:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xdamr. Doczilla 06:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename per Otto4711. Mr. Stabs 14:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xdamr. -Samuel Wantman 20:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename (if kept) or delet Assuming it's kept, rename using "cast" (do we need "cast members"? Or is just "cast" sufficient?) I also would support deletion, since the cast list is easily accessible from the main article. Dugwiki 22:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even if it were renamed to "cast", that would only include, what, half a dozen actors? And it was a pretty stable cast, too, so it will be easy to list them. --lquilter 01:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Actors don't need to be categorized by their performances. Therefore, list article is more suitable. Prolog 05:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcategorisation (since cast list is readily accessible), otherwise rename for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Prolog. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These actor categories are not feasible. Dr. Submillimeter 22:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tamil filmmakers[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. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tamil filmmakers to Category:Tamil film directors
  • Rename, to match the other five linguistic subcategories of Category:Indian film directors. Honbicot 11:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, but query whether all this series of sub-cats of Category:Indian film directors should not be renamed to include the word "language", to clarify that the adjectives "Tamil", "Malayalam" etc refer to the language in which the films are made rather than a categoristaion by ethnicity (which we usually deprecate). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Champions of Pop Music[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: delete. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, due to subjective inclusion criteria, who is a champion? -- Prove It (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Carmen Rasmusen singles[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. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Carmen Rasmusen songs, convention of Category:Songs by artist and discussion of June 9th. -- Prove It (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Babylon Bombs[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: delete. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, contents already in Category:Babylon Bombs albums, Category:Babylon Bombs songs. -- Prove It (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Atmabodhodaya Sangham[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED, misplaced article. Postdlf 21:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-category in category space. -- Prove It (talk) 05:46, 21 January 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Atmabodham[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was already SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 21:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not actually a category. -- Prove It (talk) 05:43, 21 January 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pixar directors[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: delete. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Directors by company is no better than Models by company was. -- Prove It (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the articles about these directors contain information about Pixar which should be categorised accordingly, at least moreso than model articles which contain little information about the agency for whom they have modelled. Tim! 10:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Honbicot 11:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; directors are not defined by their relationship with a particular company, and prolific directors with long careers could potentially have dozens of these. Postdlf 21:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Postdlf --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN 04:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is similar to actor-by-production company categories which are typically deleted. Offhand I don't see a reason to handle this differently than Category:Pixar voice actors which was deleted. Dugwiki 22:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pilkington Recs[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: delete. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, three months old, and still only one article. -- Prove It (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Seether singles[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. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Seether songs, convention of Songs by artist. -- Prove It (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Philanthropic Organizations[edit]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 21:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philanthropic Organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Already have Philanthropic organizations, and the cat is empty. Steve (Slf67) talk 03:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD C1. --12:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. --lquilter 19:23, 21 January 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Members of Nickel Creek[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. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Nickel Creek members, convention of Category:Musicians by band. -- Prove It (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Companies based in India[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: merge. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect into Category:Companies of India, convention of Category:Companies by country. -- Prove It (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

London Transport[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. >Radiant< 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, apparently Wikipedia:WikiProject Underground changed its name to Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport. -- Prove It (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sony Playstation 2 games[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 19:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:PlayStation 2 games, convention of Category:Games on Sony platforms. -- Prove It (talk) 01:31, 21 January 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 category's talk page (if any). 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_January_21&oldid=1140168987"