Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 3

< July 2	July 4 >

July 3[edit]

Category:Examples of Lilypond source code[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< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Examples of Lilypond source code to Category:GNU LilyPond images

Nominator's rationale: Rename - This category contains images produced by the GNU LilyPond software, not source code for the GNU LilyPond software (although the image pages may contain the source code). The category should probably be renamed using "images". At the very least, the phrase "examples of" is not needed in the category title. Dr. Submillimeter 23:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough -- although it would be useful to distinguish from images produced from Lilypond that don't contain source code. Grover cleveland 04:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This could always be renamed Category:GNU LilyPond images (with source code), as that more clearly indicates the contents of the category. Dr. Submillimeter 09:08, 4 July 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:Soap opera characters crossovers[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< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Soap opera characters crossovers to Category:Soap opera crossover characters

Nominator's rationale: Rename, More accurate (the articles are foremost about the characters; their crossovers are secondary) and grammatically correct. Doesn't quite technically meet speedy criteria. Sohelpme 21:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-defining overcategorization. Listify if desired, but not as a requirement of deletion. Otto4711 00:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto. Doczilla 18:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto. Carlossuarez46 23:57, 5 July 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:Trumpet 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: rename all. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Trumpet players to Category:Trumpeters

Nominator's rationale: see below

The other categories that I propose for renaming (or in one case, merging) are:

Rename all. When it comes to sub-categories of Category:Musicians by instrument, Wikipedia tends not to the form "Foo players" when another term is available - e.g. Category:Violinists, Category:Flautists and Category:Tubists rather than "Violin players", etc. However, when it comes to the trumpet, we unfortunately have both forms in use: the sub-categories of Category:Trumpet players include Category:Jazz trumpeters and thereafter there is a mix of "Trumpeters" and "Trumpet players". In the interests of standardization, I propose that the form "trumpeters" be applied to the lead category and its subcategories. This would also fit with List of trumpeters and List of jazz trumpeters. However, if people think that "Trumpet players" is the way forward, I won't mind much - just as long as we get consensus on one form of words to replace the current use of two forms of words. (I should mention that I mentioned this at three WikiProject/sub-projects here, here and here and left a message on the talk page of Trumpet; 2 comments in favour of trumpeters, 1 for trumpet players. No sign of a over-heated discussion in the offing just yet...) Bencherlite^Talk 21:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. Consistency is good, especially in categories, so we should definitely standardize on one name for all persons-who-play-trumpet categories, and I think the consistency of "trumpeters" with other by-instrument categories (flautists, violinists, guitarists, etc.) is a good reason for selecting that one from our valid options. note that the "1 for trumpet players" that Bencherlite mentions actually seems more like a neutral opinion leaning towards "trumpet players", rather than an unconditional endorsement of that name. Xtifr _tälk 21:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and rename all these whilst we're at it

(missed them first time round!) Bencherlite^Talk 22:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all I was actually naming them all trumpeters originally, until for some reason I began thinking I was in error for doing so. So I have no opposition to this. Sounds like a good idea. (Mind meal 22:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Rename all "Trumpeter" is a commonly used term. Piccadilly 22:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns. 1) ~~This~~"Trumpeters" vs "Trumpet player" seems to involve American English vs British English differences, which in general don't get "corrected" from one form to the other, and 2) "Trumpet player" is much less ambiguous than "trumpeter"[1]. For the record, the number of cats with 'foo player' is more than a third-25 of 66. Sohelpme 23:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom but I think I will stick at "viola players" and some others. Which is supposed to be which of the British/US English versions? Johnbod 23:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Same question was going through my mind. And will anybody be confused as to what this category means? See Trumpeter (disambiguation): no other (type of) person is called "trumpeter", although various fish, birds and ships include "trumpeter" in their name. Bencherlite^Talk 23:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see it is already "violists" in fact, with a rather suspicious absence of a category for viol players... Put it this way, I won't stick Chapman stickists. Johnbod 23:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom.--Smerus 14:44, 4 July 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:English centre-forwards[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, but suggest RFC and/or wikiproject dialogue about organizing this particular category tree. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation for already heavily categorised footballers; category by intersection. ArtVandelay13 21:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can't see much wrong with this. Let's face it, with American football we have categories for individual position by team. This is no more category by intersection that, say, Category:English guitarists - a subtype of Category:English musicians - or similar. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename per Slumgum below (amended). Of course some might say it is "small with no potential for growth" ...Johnbod 01:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grutness. Category:English footballers is very large and only sub-categorized by international status or being female. Categorization by position would make the category more manageable. (Johnbod, I refer you to Peter Crouch!) Bencherlite ^Talk 02:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grutness. Sumahoy 13:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Category:English football strikers to sync with Category:Football (soccer) players by position and Category:English football biography stubs. "centre-forward" does not imply football. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 14:19, 4 July 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:Comic foils[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, this essentially groups unrelated people. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: It really doesn't make sense to group together all comedians who play comic foils (the straight man). Anyone who doesn't laugh at their own jokes could qualify. What would be the yardstick? Clerks. 18:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; subjective: can't tell who should be in and who should not be in the category. Carlossuarez46 20:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep division seems clear enough in pracrice. Johnbod 01:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- non-defining and subject to POV interpretation. Otto4711 03:18, 6 July 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 politicans with criminal records[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< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as trivial intersection. However I could see some justification for it if their conviction had to be related to their office. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think a more limited cat: Category:American politicians convicted of crimes committed while in office or Category:American politicians convicted of felonies or even Category:American politicians elected after suffering a felony conviction would be properly keepable, but because criminal records could involve quite small things - depending on jurisdiction - minor traffic violations, not paying your parking tickets on time, etc., and could have happened long before the politician was in politics (say in high school), it bears little relevance to the subject. Also, if kept the spelling of "politicans" should be changed to "politicians" (note the "i" after the "c") corresponding to American usage on the "Americans" category, like its parent Category:American politicians, per WP norm. Carlossuarez46 20:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Criminals are generally not sorted according to their careers before becoming criminals. Moreover, Wikipedia does not need to have categories detailing every biographical detail about people's lives. Dr. Submillimeter 21:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category looks black, but many of the crimes will be petty, and people will have done their time (if there was any). This category may attract undue enthusiasm from people editors who will necessary have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. Olborne 23:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete excessively broad category. Doczilla 18:25, 4 July 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:Transportation and material moving occupations[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< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Transportation and material moving occupations to Category:Transportation occupations

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Everything in this underpopulated duplicate also belongs in the main category. AshbyJnr 17:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Choalbaton 18:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, very small cat with no unique articles when compared to the parent cat.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:05, 3 July 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:Television narrators[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: no merge. There may be some point to Otto's suggested deletion, but please make a new nomination for that if desired. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Television narrators to Category:Television presenters

Nominator's rationale: The terms narrator and presenter are two names for the same job. T@nn 16:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is that so? I would think that a presenter would be the talking head on the BBC news or the host of a music, video, talent, variety, or "reality" show (like maybe Dick Clark or John Walsh), while a narrator is the unseen voice in documentaries or docudramas (like David Attenborough in the Planet Earth (TV series)). Is this sufficient distinction? One is part of the on-screen experience, the other a disembodied voice that seems omnipresent and omniscient. Carlossuarez46 20:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the term presenter is the same thing as host (i.e. Alex Trebek), while a narrator is something different. I believe there is enough of a distinctions. However, I have some concern with "Television narrators". Often celebrities narrate nature shows and documentries, and I do not believe such celebrities should have this category added based on one performance. Narrators should be limited to those who are professional narrators, or those who are notable because of their work as a narrator. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that the uses here are different. We also need to be careful about any US/UK language uses here since the UK use of presenter is not used in the US. Vegaswikian 22:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Television narrators - for one, it draws no distinction between fictional characters who narrate shows (e.g. Veronica Mars (character), actual people who provide narration (a.k.a. voiceovers, e.g. Ben Patrick Johnson) and announcers. For another, there is already an extensive categorization scheme for people who do announcing work on TV, voiceover work, voice acting and so on. There is no need for this hair-splitting yet ambiguous category. Otto4711 00:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why are some hair-splitting categories acceptable and others aren't? Double-standard, methinks. Not all voiceover actors are narrators. Not all announcers have done narration work. Voiceover includes voices in an animated television series (or film). I suppose you'd like to have a Category:Fictional television narrators too? Now that's a hair-splitting category! ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, actually I want this category deleted as unnecessary, poorly constructed and redundant to existing superior categorization structures. I can't for the life of me imagine how you would translate that into a desire for additional unnecessary poorly constructed redundant categories. Otto4711 16:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for my above comment and other "keep" vote reasons) ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Andrew C. Lugnuts 18:06, 4 July 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 singers by style[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< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American singers by style to Category:American singers by genre

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Following the recent discussion/decision to merge Category:Singers by style into Category:Singers by genre, I am nominating the categories with similar names for renaming to match. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per the previous nomination.--Mike Selinker 17:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Choalbaton 18:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and the previous debate (I was hoping that these would be included in that debate, but didn't have time to track them all down), and per the many many other categories that follow the by-genre convention. Xtifr _tälk 21:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The subcategories are for genres (of music) not styles of singing. Sumahoy 13:10, 4 July 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 Republicanists[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< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The complementary cat to Category:American Federalists below; with the additional problem of being misnamed. (I would oppose a rename; it was hard enough to name the article, with room to explain the naming question.) The Democratic Republicans had many names, but Republicanist is not one of them. Fundamentally ill-defined; the shifting tides of the early United States would leave many men in both cats, or neither, depending on where the boundaries of "party membership" (an anachronism) are drawn. Patrick Henry, for example, is now in the cat; but his article explains that he was an Anti-Federalist in 1788 (not the same thing); and a "staunch Federalist" in 1799. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Piccadilly 22:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 18:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Skyemoor 19:21, 6 July 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 Federalists[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< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: A ill-conceived category, presently with a single member. The question of who was a Federalist, in the sense "opposed to the Democratic Republicans", (which is distinct from supporting the ratification of the American Constitution) was unclear at the time, and remains so. Also, the Federalist Party lasted a relatively short time; many of those who were unquestioned members, like Roger Taney or Daniel Webster, became leaders of other parties; even Alexander Hamilton, the sole member of the cat, was on his own after his conduct in 1800. This is the sort of thing a list, or even Federalist Party, is better for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Piccadilly 22:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Skyemoor 19:23, 6 July 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.

AFI[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 as-is. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AFI albums to Category:A Fire Inside albums
Category:AFI members to Category:A Fire Inside members
Category:AFI songs to Category:A Fire Inside songs

expand abbreviations. Otto4711 22:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Object to the 3 above. The main article is at AFI (band), and I've only ever heard of them being called AFI before. the wub "?!" 17:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from speedy, and keep. This band is far better known by its abbreviation than its spelled out name. When I created the members category, I followed the style of the songs and albums category, rather than the main category (which I expect will either be renamed or deleted, pending the outcome of the discussions on band categories.)--Mike Selinker 13:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as they are far more well known as AFI. Lugnuts 14:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "AFI (band) songs" and "AFI (band) albums) The category names should match the names of the associated main article. So I'd recommend renaming them to "AFI (band) albums" and "AFI (band) songs". Dugwiki 16:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't think that's necessary here. It's unlikely to cause confusion with, say, the American Film Institute.--Mike Selinker 17:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't really care which way it gets renamed but the categories should match either the parent category (if it survivies CFD) or the article. I speedy nommed based on the parent cat. Otto4711 20:48, 3 July 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:Fictional obese characters[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. Yes, in real life it has a strict medical definition, but in fiction it is essentially a synonym for "fat", especially as the height/weight of fictional characters is often not given and/or variable over the story. Note that we don't use Category:Obese people either. Hence, subjective inclusion criterion, and overcategorization. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unless the weights of "fictional obese characters" are known and referenced, it doesn't make much sense to have this category. It seems like WP:NOT#IINFO should be applied to this category, too.h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most of these are characters who are expressly described as fat in the fiction; for some characters, like Billy Bunter, obesity is defining. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PMA; Bunter & Falstaff are now added, but where are the fat ladies? Johnbod 16:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike real people fictional characters are often defined by simple characteristics such as this one. Choalbaton 18:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defined and not defining; how overweight is "obese" and even if the author describes the character with the word "obese" how is that more or less defining than the author's use of "rotund", "overweight", or "fat"? Even if we could agree on what magical words or statistics would merit inclusion on that score, lots of characters are only incidentally obese which has little to do with the story-line or their character development. Carlossuarez46 20:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Determining whether a character is obese generally requires making subjective judgments about the characters. The technical definition of obese would require knowledge of these characters' heights and weights, which usually is not published ~~(and which is flawed)~~. Therefore, individual editors would need to use their own judgments about whether characters are fat enough to be placed into this category, thus leading to possible original research problems. Furthermore, as body weight is variable for real-life people, it may also be variable for fictional characters as well. This type of category would not be acceptable for real people, and it certainly should not be used for fictional people. Dr. Submillimeter 21:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are obese if their authors keep telling you they are obese. I'm not sure you've quite got the hang of this fiction thing frankly. It is important to realize it is all made up. I get a bit worried when I see comments like "require knowledge of these characters' heights and weights, which usually is not published (and which is flawed)." Are you suggesting that Frank Richards is exaggerating the weight of the real Billy Bunter? Johnbod 23:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Various authors probably do not use the term "obese" in the same way. Some probably use it as a synonym for fat or overweight, while others probably use it in the medical sense of the word. So, even using the authors' assessments of their characters, this category's contents would not necessarily be well-defined. However, many editors will probably just guess at whether characters are obese and will then choose to add the characters to this category, even if the characters really are not obese but just overweight. (Also, please ignore the parenthetical phrase from my last comment; it was an incomplete thought.) Dr. Submillimeter 23:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obese is not subjective. It is not a slang term for fat or overweight, it is a medical term. The objections that would apply for real people - libel and hurting feelings - don't apply. Fluctuations are not relevant. Categories are timeless, eg Abraham Lincoln is classified as a President of the United States even though he held that office for less than 10% of his life. Piccadilly 22:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for subjective criteria. These fictional characters have generally not stood on a scale, gotten weighed and compared to the American Medical Association's obesity definition. Doczilla 18:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a key characteristic, and there is rarely any doubt. If there is, just leave the character out. Problem solved. OrchWyn 19:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While obese may be well defined, that definition can not be applied to non-humans. If we are talking about a character for a race where the everyone is 300 lbs or more as an adult, are they obese? What if everyone is 7' tall? Or 3' tall? As a fictional character we don't know what obese really means. This category is not restricted to human characters but even if it was, how do we get from fat to obese? That would require knowing for every entry in this category their weight and height? Is that information always made available? How about characters who change over time? Is that an issue? Obese may be used in some cases as a slur or slang for overweight, but that use may not match the definition of obese and therefor should not be a criteria for including in this category. Bottom line, there are too many issues and no clear need for this level of categorization. If you look at the characters included some are clearly not obese. In fact one is even described as not really fat. Clearly this category has issues that can best be dealt with by deletion Vegaswikian 20:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obese may be well-defined by medicine, but it's not always used in its technically correct sense in casual speech, let along fiction. This must be in many cases a judgment call. And what to do about characters such as Jack Aubrey who is sometimes called "obese" and sometimes not? TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 8 July 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:I Dream of Jeannie[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< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization of material that does not warrant a category. Otto4711 13:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 20:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 18:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful organisational device. OrchWyn 19:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's precedent and so on. Also, OrchWyn, try not to copy and paste. ThuranX 20:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed the references and created links back to the main article from the related pages (DVD and episode lists.) Andyross 20:56, 4 July 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:Arthur (TV series)[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization, not needed for the material. Otto4711 13:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 20:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but upmerge Category:Arthur (TV series) episodes. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge it to what? It's already in Category:Television episodes by series, where else should it be? Otto4711 00:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. There's nothing merge-worthy here. Doczilla 18:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful organisational device. OrchWyn 19:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. ThuranX 20:30, 4 July 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:The Angry Beavers[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< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous category not needed for show article and character/episode subcats, per dozens of precedents. Otto4711 13:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 20:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 18:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful organisational device. OrchWyn 19:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Per nom and precedent. ThuranX 20:26, 4 July 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:Cast Of The Class[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< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as performers by performance, see January 25th discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wimstead 13:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 20:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 18:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above citation. ThuranX 20:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. AgentPeppermint 07:59, 5 July 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:All in the Family[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< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category for old cancelled series, unlikely to expand. Articles are interlinked and the category isn't needed for navigation. Otto4711 13:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 20:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 18:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful organisational device. OrchWyn 19:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and other similar on this page today. ThuranX 20:29, 4 July 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:7th Heaven[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< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - another eponymous TV show category. The small amount of material is easily navigable from the main article and the navtemplate. Otto4711 13:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 20:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 18:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful organisational device. OrchWyn 19:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and other similar noms today. ThuranX 20:29, 4 July 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:Weakest Link[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, as with many other cats on TV shows. Why exactly are internal links considered unacceptable? >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - as with many other eponymous TV show categories, this one isn't needed. The three articles for national versions of the show can all easily be interlinked. Otto4711 13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: no way. A cat is necessary to have easy links to each articles and there are not many article there because many other game shows are all cluttered into one single article. RaNdOm26 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RaNdOm26 Wimstead 13:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main article for The Weakest Link can easily serve as the navigational hub for all three articles. An eponymous subcat doesn't look necessary here. Dugwiki 16:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 20:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or convert to navigational template Ranma9617 01:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Okay, I'll just repeat. The main article already has many sections of international shows, and they should be split into their own articles. Then the category would be more abundant of them. Also, categories like these should include the game hosts/hostesses; there are many articles that can fit into that category too. RaNdOm26 08:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the sentence or two in the main article on the various international versions, if split into separate articles, would be small uninformative stubs which would likely be merged back into the main article. And under no circumstances should the hosts of the shows be categorized here, per the very strong consensus against categorizing people based on the projects in which they appear. Otto4711 17:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the consensus that says so? I feel that this idea of no categories for people is unjustified because I have seen several categories that do include the people in the show. RaNdOm26 21:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus against categorizing people by the TV shows on which they appear is found in this January 25 discussion. Discussion of the general guideline against such categorization is found here. That some people have project categories on their articles against consensus and guideline doesn't mean that others should as well. Otto4711 13:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Doczilla 18:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful organisational device. OrchWyn 19:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: sockpuppet account, as described here. Otto4711 13:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Update: I have added another game show version which now makes it 5 articles in the cat. Is that not enough articles for it? Even so, I still don't contemplate at all why a cat isn't needed when it is the best tool for navigating between game show versions. Internal links are simply not acceptable. RaNdOm26 21:34, 6 July 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:Hoe[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< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: category contains one cooking-related article. If not a hoax/joke/prank, unclear what this term means, if not a gardening implement. Exploding Boy 06:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this "what the huh?" underpopulated, possibly (but not certainly) hoax category. Doczilla 10:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, is Korean sushi. I have added hoe (dish) to the category, & probably Hoedeopbap belongs there too. I think it should be left for now, although potential size is clearly an issue. Johnbod 14:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is sashimi the same as sushi? I think they are different and this one is sashimi, if I'm reading the article correctly. I don't think that Hoedeopbap belongs there since it is not sashimi. Vegaswikian 22:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first three letters suggested otherwise. I suspect the Korean distinctions are less fine than the Japanese, and anything involving raw fish is included. Johnbod 23:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Korean cuisine. I don't think the number of potential articles justifies breaking down the parent category. Some of the other subcats could probably be upmerged as well. Otto4711 14:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UpMerge to Category:Korean cuisine as over categorization. Vegaswikian 22:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Korean cuisine - This category contains too few articles to warrant having this subdivision. Dr. Submillimeter 23:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. Comment - if kept, it will need to be renamed to match the article before someone starts adding gardening implements to it. Grutness...wha? 00:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or rename to Category:Hoe (Korean cuisine) 132.205.44.5 21:39, 4 July 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:Romantischen Opern[edit]

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn --Kbdank71 17:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Romantischen Opern to Category:German Romantic opera

Nominator's rationale: Rename: This is English WP. There is no reason or justification for using a German-language title when there is a perfectly acceptable and appropriate English title. Moreover the proposed English name for the category is already used in an English WP article German_opera#German_Romantic_opera. To use German discriminates against non-German speaking users of English WP (and frankly smacks of intellectual snobbery).Smerus 06:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was there not a recent discussion on this? Please supply link. Johnbod 13:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussions: May 1st and April 20th Johnbod 13:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting up these previous discussions. One was to delete - and is therefore not relevant to this proposal. The other discussion, of which I was not aware, seems to have centred on whether or not it was a bad faith nomination. It did not address the issue I have raised. I am not seeking to delete the category, only to make it intelligible to English WP users. I adduce, once more, the existence of the article/article section German_opera#German_Romantic_opera, and the absence of any article or article section Romantische opera. (Unlike , for example, Category:Opéras-ballets, where there is indeed an article Opéra-ballet, a less simply translatable term).

I am not aware of any other categories which use as their title a translation into a foreign language of a term which, in English, is the title of an existing WP article or section (and if there are any they would be subject to the same criticism as this one). I believe we need to have a discussion specifically on this issue. WP should be consistent within itself wherever possible. Hence my move to rename. --Smerus 06:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming: The 20 April discussion, and the preceding discussion on the Opera Project Talk Page (archived here) is actually much more relevant than the 1 May discussion. The category Romantic Operas was (correctly) used by some editors because that was how some German librettists and/or composers during the Romantic period described some of their operas (they used the German term Romantische Opern, of course), and that term can be found in articles on specific operas such as Der Vampyr in reference works such as Grove, the Viking Guide, the Oxford Dictionary of Opera, etc. But once you have a category called "Romantic operas", anyone can put all sorts of operas that are romantic (which many operas, such as Roméo et Juliette are) into that category, and it loses its rather specific meaning.

So let's suppose there is a category called "German Romantic opera". How many people will be able to work out that this only refers to German operas composed during a particular period in the early-to-mid C19? Sooner or later, someone will add Strauss's Arabella to the category on the basis that it is German and Romantic (and, yes, there are other possible examples).

Moving on to categories that don't have English names, the section on categories on the Opera Project page says that operas are to be categorised (inter alia) "by genre (which should be plural and in the original language to avoid confusion)" [my emphasis]. Most of the genres with foreign-language names, like "Opéra-ballets" mentioned above (but not all of them), do indeed have their own, usually short, articles, and there is no reason why there shouldn't be a Romantischen Opern article, plural and in the original language. Indeed, I volunteer to create one. --GuillaumeTell 00:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming: per GuillaumeTell. Once we start translating foreign terms we introduce ambiguities, once we have ambiguities we have miscategorization. -- Kleinzach 05:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the above contributions (especially that of GuillaumeTell). In the light of this I withdraw my nomination. I will just point out that, contrary to the spirit of GuillaumeTell's response, the present header to Category:Romantischen Opern, defining what should be listed there, gives a direct link to German_opera#German_Romantic_opera - so perhaps someone should edit that, in case the catastrophic eventuality of the inclusion of Arabella actually takes place......... --Smerus 09:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think that using German cat names on an English wiki is not very useful, and would support a rename unless there's significant more input from the wikiproject on this. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 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:Port cities[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: no consensus. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Port cities to Category:Ports and harbours

Suggest merging Category:Coastal cities to Category:Ports and harbours

Nominator's rationale: There is growing confusion regarding the usage of Category:Port cities of xxxx. There needs to be clarity as to when each of these 3 cats should and should not be used. There is no need for 3 such cats. We can certainly get away a maximum of 2, but one would be preferable. See expanded argument below Frelke 05:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Before we get a flame war going can I make the point that the main reason for this nom was to find a single place to discuss the overlap on the categories. I am quite prepared for the actual nom to fail, so long as we come to a consensus regarding the way forward.
At present there are 3 major parent categories, two of which have regional (Europe, North America, etc) subcats, with country and sub-country cats below them. The definition for Port cities was changed recently to include towns which led to a number of farcical categorisations. Coastal cities needs work on its sub-cats. Its becoming unmanageable.
There has been some suggestion that Ports and harbours should be on articles which are solely about the port/harbour itself whilst the cities cat is for those cities which have a port. I disagree. Having a port is an attribute of a city. We have Category:Cities in ... which defines whether a place is a city and we have Category:Ports and harbo(u)rs in ... which defines if it has a seaborne cargo transportation facility. We don't need to combine the 2 into a "new" category. If this nom succeeds then we will, at worst, be no worse off. At best we will have clarified that there is no need for 3 categories defining essentially the same attribute of a place, the fact that it has a seaborne-cargo-transfer-facility, IOW a port. Frelke 06:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
question Do I need to tag all the subcats of all 3?
- No, because a rename or merge shouldn't affect them in any way. If you were nominating the cat for deletion, and the subcats would go too, then yes (seen that happen. It's a big peeve of mine). -Freekee 01:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frelke 06:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I happen to think that perhaps the wrong decision was made in January. Frelke 06:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; I agree with this proposal; the overlap/confusion between what is a city/town and what is a port facility/'place with a port' leads to numerous permutations and could trigger numerous rows. Simple "category:ports", defined as both ports and places (of any size) with a harbour or port should do. Maybe try to deal with clearly defined sub-categories (like port infrastructure) with sub-categories. Though that could as easily be a sub-cat of "transportation" or several other things. I feel the proposal here before us is probably the best option. (Sarah777 07:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose The two systems are both necessary. Harbours are primarily natural features, so they should be placed in a set of categories appropriate to that. While one can get on a boat from any coastal city, many of them aren't actually port cities, ie no specific facilities are provided for embarkation and disembarkation. Wimstead 13:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to disagree. Harbours are generally manmade structures. So much so, that in our language we have evolved phraseology to describe the contrary - the natural harbo(u)r. We don't have a general usage equivalent for manmade harbours, because they are generally described as harbours. Natural harbours are noteworthy and are few and far between. And even if they were primarily natural features, how would you define "categories appropriate to that".
- I'd also like an example of a coastal city that isn't a port city, because I know a few port companies who would be delighted to build a port there. If its a city, and its on a coast, I can pretty much guarantee there is a port of some description there. Thats what humans did for the last umpteenth million years. We migrated to coastal areas, built ships, ports and cities, and explored/conquered the world. I'll swallow my words if anyone can produce an example of a coastal city without a port. Frelke 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Several thousand coastal resorts, eg Brighton to give a relevant example Piccadilly 22:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looking at the categories, I see the "dual" system works well in many countries (USA, Russia, Belgium, Poland etc), less well in some (Greece), but only for the UK is it turned on its head. Keep the system, in which case the other nom should clearly be supported, and clean up the UK. Johnbod 14:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The dual system works well. London and Port of London should not be categorised in the same way. Piccadilly 22:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For that matter London is not even a coastal city. There are hundreds of ports and port cities that are on rivers, and nowhere near a coast. Piccadilly 22:36, 3 July 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:Hair metal musicians[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< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Hair metal musicians to Category:Glam metal musicians

Nominator's rationale: the term "hair metal" is considered derogatory (sp?) and glam metal is more correct. FMAFan1990 05:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Olborne 23:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is actually a merge. FMAFan1990 23:12, 3 July 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:Cult film[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< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Arbitrary, unclear criteria for inclusion. --EEMeltonIV 05:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete re-creation of previously deleted category (or variant of) here Lugnuts 07:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - This is the recreation of deleted comments. The inclusion criteria are too vague, as many things could be cult films. Dr. Submillimeter 07:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wimstead 13:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subjective and arbitrary or speedy delete as recreation (although the previous version was correctly pluralized, unlike this one). Xtifr _tälk 22:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete once again Johnbod 01:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep, renamed with plural title. There are enough listed film in Wikipedia for this catagory.--Amadscientist 08:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Cult" is now an almost meaningless marketing term. OrchWyn 19:21, 4 July 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:V for Vendetta characters[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< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete for consistency with other comic book title categories. There are too many comic book series for this to practical. Doczilla 04:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This one's a complete box, though. No characters from other series get in, and none of these get out. It's not a problem child. Also, V for Vendetta is published by multiple companies, so it's not as simple as just dropping these into Category:DC Comics characters.--Mike Selinker 13:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category isn't needed for navigating the character articles. The V for Vendetta article itself already sufficiently serves that purpose. Dugwiki 16:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Upmerge. Self contained on the same level as Category:Characters in The Lord of the Rings. I do not believe we should unilaterally make decisions solely based on the medium of print. Yes, superhero comics do not make sense to be grouped in this manner because of so many cross over and guest appearances and superteams. However, for self-contained comics that are on the level of other forms of literature, categorizing by character can make sense. That said, I feel we may have too few articles on characters for this graphic novel and it isn't foreseeably expandable, so an upmerge may make more sense. However, keeping these characters in a category related to the work is an important categorization characteristic for these 'V' articles.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's also a novel and a movie, and it's self-contained, unlike most other comics. 132.205.44.5 22:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the self-containment and cross-media issues mentioned above, esp. the LOTR comparison. ThuranX 20:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I'm not really sure that V really needs a separate article for each character. I tend to think that a detailed List of V for Vendetta characters would work better. But as long as there are separate articles for each character, this category seems like a reasonable way to organize them. And it's a small category, yes, but not small enough to qualify under WP:OCAT#Small with no potential for growth, which mentions "two or three members". (Plus, it could be argued to be a part of a fairly standard schema; characters by work.) Xtifr _tälk 05:27, 5 July 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:Notable table tennis 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: make into an article. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convert, to article or just Delete. This certainly isn't a category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convert -Flubeca^Talk 04:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to article and rename to List of table tennis players. The word notable is not needed. Lugnuts 07:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to article and rename to List of table tennis players. This is an article in category space. Wimstead 13:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to article per nom. (Incidentally, is this the first time that Dr S's CFC template has been used, or did I miss an earlier use?) Bencherlite ^Talk 01:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Table tennis or ping pong? (ie, like Ping Pong Diplomacy) 132.205.44.5 21:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well isn't this lovely. Any ideas on what to do? Kwsn^(Ni!) 13:18, 5 July 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:Orthodox vestments[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< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Orthodox vestments to Category:Eastern Christian vestments

Nominator's rationale: This was previously nominated as part of a group on September 14 as not distinct from other Orthodox religions. This one, however, needs to be renamed. The name was chosen poorly initially, and all or nearly all of the items in the category are also used by Eastern Catholics. The "solution" at the time was to create Category:Eastern Catholic vestments as a category redirect, however over time the uses of this other category were deleted as a "repeated category," until eventually it was empty and itself deleted. A name which encompasses both traditions would be ideal. Gimmetrow 01:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. While I don't agree that the name was "poorly chosen" -- there are vastly more Orthodox Christians than Eastern Catholics and it is therefore more representative -- it's better to be inclusive. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom noting description on category also. Johnbod 13:25, 3 July 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.