Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 24

< May 23	May 25 >

May 24[edit]

Category:Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer musicals stars[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a performer by performance category. I think that Category:MGM musicals stars was previously deleted. Sumahoy 23:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreation of the deleted MGM musical actors category. Tagging. Otto4711 00:33, 25 May 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:Lists of ministers[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 move as suggested — CharlotteWebb 20:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of ministers to Category:Lists of government ministers

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for disambiguation from religious ministers, in line with most of the related categories. Haddiscoe 23:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Tim! 16:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Osomec 12:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional conspiracy theorists[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional conspiracy theorists fall into two types: Those whose conspiracy theorist tendencies are not essential to their characters, instead being more of a running gag or personality quirk, and hence non-defining, and those who live in worlds where the conspiracies are real, in which case they really aren't conspiracy theorists. So it's generally either trivial or a miscategorization. --tjstrf talk 22:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reviewing the categorized articles, just based on the ones I recognize this is a pretty strongly defining characteristic. The notion that a conspiracy theorist from a world with actual conspiracies is miscateogrized here puzzles me. Otto4711 22:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Conspiracies that are proven are not conspiracy theories anymore, and their believers not conspiracy theorists. --tjstrf talk 00:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, people who theorize about conspiracies which turn out to be true are still engaged in theorizing about conspiracies. It is not a requirement of conspiracy theorizing that one may only theorize about untrue or unproven conspiracies. Otto4711 01:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newton theorized about gravity. He's still a gravity theorist even though most people feel it has been proven to exist. Doczilla 07:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wow. I was ready to vote to delete subjective category, but every categorized article I checked mentions conspiracy theorist status as a defining quality. Doczilla 07:03, 25 May 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:Characters in Homer[edit]

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

The result of the debate was upmerge to Category:Characters in epics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contains Category:Characters in the Iliad and Category:Characters in the Odyssey and nothing else. (A few other entries are possible, but they should be Category:Characters in the Homerica anyway.) Upmerge to Category:Homer and Category:Characters in epics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Characters in epics only - We have Category:Iliad and Category:Odyssey and the character cats are already in the corresponding parents, which are in turn both children of Category:Homer. No need for the character cats to be in the grandparent. Otto4711 01:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with amendment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:57, 25 May 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:19th century Egypt[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:19th century Egypt to Category:19th century in Egypt

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, convention of Category:19th century by country. Tim! 20:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 18:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Johnbod 03:15, 31 May 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:UIC Flames men's basketball players[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep as is. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UIC Flames men's basketball players to Category:University of Illinois at Chicago Flames men's basketball players

Nominator's Rationale: full proper school name. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UIC Flames basketball to Category:University of Illinois at Chicago Flames basketball

Nominator's Rationale: Full proper school name. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; cat names should be short; and recommend deletion as overcategorization anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment fail to understand overcat argument. Also, long name in keeping with other long named schools. E.g., Category:University of Southern California, its subcats and parent Category:Los_Angeles_area_universities_and_colleges. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except for Category:USC Trojans athletics. Indeed, every American collegiate sports category that I've seen uses an abbreviated version of the school name (excluding Boston College/Boston University). Look at Category:College men's basketball players. Zagalejo 03:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I see your point. There is little convention. BYU, CMU, EMU, SIU are spelled out without the University. Others use initials. It is fine to leave it then. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Except for BYU, which can kinda go both ways, Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan, and Southern Illinois are all more commonly known by those names, not their abbreviated ones. --fuzzy510 02:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both above. We've been using the more common name of the team in all college team categories.--Mike Selinker 14:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all proposals. It's not overcategorization to have a place for a school's basketball articles to go, and the prevailing standard is to use the name preferred by the athletic departments for athletic teams, for which UIC is appropriate here. --fuzzy510 02:53, 4 June 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:Miami Vice[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 Otto says, all the categories are interlinked and all the subcategories are part of hierarchies that do not need this category. It serves no navigational purpose, so just tends to clutter the parent categories with listings that are less useful than the eponymous article. I think the OCAT guideline about Eponymous categories for people has not yet been extended to TV shows and other things, but discussions on that page attacked eponymous people categories first, because they were the most obviously egrigious. Brown HairedGirl seems to make a good argument for deleting the category and extending the OCAT guidelines. I don't understand why she said "keep". So I don't see any convincing argument to keep and I do see reasons to delete. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small category for a cancelled series. Unlikely to expand. Remaining articles are interlinked through the main article and each other. Not needed. Otto4711 16:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there's enough content here. Tim! 16:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one appears to meet WP:OCAT#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Yes, I know that Miami Vice is not a person, but surely the same principles apply? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that categories named for TV shows should be treated like ones named after people under this guideline, but I'm unclear as to why the exception, Wikipedia's coverage of the [thing] in question is split into multiple directly linked subarticles, articles which cannot otherwise be reasonably categorized, would apply. All of the articles in the category can reasonably be (and are) categorized elsewhere and the articles link to each other. Otto4711 12:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's only four articles in the main category, the rest are just characters which can be put along with the other four entries into a navigation template of some kind. The episodes have their own list. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:21, 1 June 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 Man Show[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small category for a cancelled show. Everything in it but the show article is for people who appeared on it which is invalid performer by performance overcategorization. The people are linked through the article so no need for an additional list or for the category. Otto4711 15:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, looks like it's all cast. Dugwiki 16:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 07:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All cast category. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:35, 1 June 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:Arrested Development (TV series)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 18:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small category, cancelled series, little likelihood of expansion, all remaining articles are interlinked through each other as appropriate and the navtemplate. Not needed. Otto4711 15:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has more content than the discussed guideline in Wikipedia talk:categories for discussion#TV shows.--Mike Selinker 14:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it exactly that the interlinkages through the texts of the articles and the navigational template are insufficient? Is there a reason for this category other than simple counting of articles? Because we routinely delete categories with dozens of times this number of articles, so the notion that the number of articles in itself justifies the category doesn't really seem all that supported. Otto4711 03:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You keep putting up this straw man, Otto. I believe in using categories to categorize. These articles belong in this category.--Mike Selinker 02:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mike Selinker. Tim! 16:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unlikely to get any bigger. Wiki links and a navigational template should suffice. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional schoolgirls[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Fictional schoolgirls to Category:Fictional students. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional schoolgirls to Category:Fictional students

Merge - segregating fictional students by sex is overcategorization based on sex/gender. Otto4711 15:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of deleted content.[1] --tjstrf talk 22:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Male and female school fiction are fairly distinct. Haddiscoe 22:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. -Sean Curtin 05:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nomination. Q0 08:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --GentlemanGhost 14:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't empty. Nathanian 02:42, 4 June 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:Bewitched[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small category, cancelled series, unlikely to expand, all material easily interlinked. Not needed. Otto4711 14:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the category probably isn't necessary, but I should make a minor correction. The category includes everything in the Bewitched franchise, which is more than just the original television series. That includes the Tabitha spinoff and the Bewitched film. Like I said, I'm not sure we need a whole category just for those items, since it all is interlinked in the main articles, but it's not just the cancelled TV series. Dugwiki 16:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commment considering they thought enough about it to make a recent movie out of such an old show, the likelyhood of growth is greater than average. 132.205.44.134 21:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has more content than the discussed guideline in Wikipedia talk:categories for discussion#TV shows.--Mike Selinker 14:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply counting articles while disregarding whether the category serves any navigational purpose seems simplistic. Otto4711 19:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mike Selinker. Tim! 16:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the category does serve navigational purpose. --musicpvm 23:40, 26 May 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:Sketch comedy shows in Canada[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Sketch comedy shows in Canada to Category:Canadian sketch comedy shows. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sketch comedy shows in Canada to Category:Canadian sketch comedy shows

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - in line with other similar categories including the parent Category:Canadian comedy television series. Otto4711 14:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Doczilla 07:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, or possibly Category:Canadian television sketch shows to parallel Category:British television sketch shows in the same parent cat. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to this suggested change. Otto4711 13:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Nathanian 02:43, 4 June 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:Sitcoms in Canada[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sitcoms in Canada to Category:Canadian sitcoms

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - in line with the name format for similar categories including the parent Category:Canadian comedy television series. Otto4711 14:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Doczilla 07:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:51, 29 May 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:Food Network Canada personalities[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent and strong consensus against categorizing performers by the networks for which they've worked. Otto4711 14:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per many, many other "personality" cat deletions. Doczilla 07:07, 25 May 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:The Practice[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small category for a cancelled series, unlikely to expand, not needed for navigation. Otto4711 14:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Dugwiki 16:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - three articles is not enough, unlikely to expand. --Jtalledo (talk)

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:Trollz[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small category for a TV show, all material in the category is easily interlinked and adequately categorized elsewhere. No need for the category. Otto4711 14:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - small main category, character subcategory has more articles, not needed for navigational purposes. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional characters who are left-handed[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Trivia, not a defining characteristic, wouldn't use this cat for real people either, IIRC a recreation. >Radiant< 12:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-defining. Otto4711 13:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, totally trivial. --tjstrf talk 21:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcategorization. I know this is a recreation, although I'm not sure the previous versions were deleted recently enough to qualify for speedy. Doczilla 07:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial. Carlossuarez46 18:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this can be a defining characteristic, it depends on the author. It may not be trivial in the fictional universe the character resides it. I've personally read where lefties are used as a persecuted population, burned at the stake for being the spawn of the devil, in one particular author's works. 70.55.86.83 14:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional computers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC) I was surprised to find this as a subcat of "fictional characters". That would be because just about anything in here is actually an artificial intelligence; the few that aren't should belong in fictional technology. Suggest merge into Category:Fictional artificial intelligences. >Radiant< 12:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nomination sounded sensible, but after looking at a few in the category, I've changed my mind. Talking computers, or discs, in kids TV etc are not really best categorised as "artificial intelligences". Johnbod 13:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, they are, considering they're both artificial and intelligent. See Artificial intelligence for details, in particular the Turing Test. Talking computers in kids TV are AI regardless of whether kids are familiar with that term. >Radiant< 13:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are more fictional intelligences. See fiction for details. Johnbod 01:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not all fictional computers necessarily have artificial intelligence (using the rigorous interpretation of the term "intelligence"). Thus, merging the two categories seems inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 14:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems a reasonable subdivision of the AI category and a number of the entries in the AI category should probably be relocated to it. Otto4711 14:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the relevant articles into Category:Fictional artificial intelligences, remove articles that aren't about computers, then delete if the category is empty This is a complicated one. I suggest handling this in three steps. First, move all the articles that are about artificially intelligences out of this and into Category:Fictional artificial intelligences. Second, remove all the articles in this category that aren't actually about computers (some of the articles are about devices or technology used in computing, but not actually about computers). Finally, after doing both of those things, if this category is now empty go ahead and delete it. If it isn't empty, keep it. Dugwiki 16:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dugwiki, seems the best solution. Hiding Talk 16:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Not all fictional computers are artificial intelligences, and vice versa. Therefore, one is not a subset of the other. Most of the ones in this category can be in the other category and vice versa, but not all. Val42 05:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr. Submillimeter Postlebury 11:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Val42. The CFD notice on the category page currently suggests a merge into Category:UNKNOWN, which suggests this wasn't thoroughly thought out to begin with? --Quuxplusone 07:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional gamblers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 23:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "fictional professional gamblers", to weed out the (many) characters who have simply played poker at some point in their career. Categorizing people by hobby is not a defining characteristic, so this should be restricted to the profession. >Radiant< 12:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reorganise There is a sub-cat for "fictional Lottery winners" - valid but hardly professionals, & gambling addicts should certainly be included. Also I think James Bond, & other non-professionals whose gambling is a major feature of their appearances should be covered. But I agree casual card-players don't belong. Johnbod 13:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Gambling is not in fact a major feature of the appearances of James Bond, because other than in Casino Royale the vast majority of his films and stories do not involve gambling. >Radiant< 13:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You need to watch more of the movies. The entire world knows baccarat from James Bond more than anything else in history. 2005 02:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - Given the current name, any casual gambler could be listed in this category. Tightening the definition to focus specifically on professional gamblers would be useful. Keeping the current category and using vague, subjective criteria to add or remove people based on people's personal opinions is not helpful. (We already have a debate on whether James Bond should be categorized as a gambler. What about Marge Simpson? Who else could be vaguely included in or excluded from this category?) Dr. Submillimeter 14:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename There are many, many television series which involve various types of gambling in a handful of episodes. Characters who occasionally gamble should not be classified under a "gambler" category tag. Rename to make clear the category should be for characters who are professional gamblers. Dugwiki 16:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and remove the lottery winners subcat. Similar to the categories for fictional bowlers and other hobbyists, this should be renamed to restrict it to professionals. The subcat is already a subcat of the lottery winners category so it won't be orphaned. Otto4711 17:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not necessary for a fictional gambler to be professional for gambling to be a defining characateristic. Haddiscoe 22:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No rationale for changing it. A description saying "plaing poker once doesn't count" or whatever is all that is needed. In fact, there really is no issue here at all. We just need to hold fictional characters to the same criteria we hold real people. In other words, we don't list every person who ever played poker in the poker players category. However, we certainly would list the lead characters of Lucky You or Tilt in the players category if they were real people. The category makes perfect sense. The application of the category is all we need to do... fictional people have to meet the criteria real people do. 2005 02:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prune and keep per Haddiscoe. "Professional" is not a black-and-white characteristic anyway, especially in fiction; how much fictional money would a character have to earn per fictional year in order to qualify as a professional fictional gambler? Use common sense: Marge Simpson is clearly (to me) not a "fictional gambler" in this sense, and James Bond would be debatable if he weren't better categorized as a "fictional spy". OTOH, Double Down and Oogie Boogie are definitely fictional gamblers, and not fictional professional gamblers. --Quuxplusone 07:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This last comment reveals a problem with the use of this category. Someone will almost certainly attempt to place Marge Simpson in this category because she is a compulsive gambler (although this is only highlighted in one Simpsons episode). "Using common sense" to determine category membership does not work, as it leaves too much open to interpretation. These categories need clear-cut inclusion criteria, or else they will become useless messes of characters who gambled once in a while as well as more hard-core gamblers. Dr. Submillimeter 09:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & because there is no subjective criteria for who is in and who is out. Maybe Captain Kirk is in with his gamble about quatloos.... :-) Carlossuarez46 18:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is often a defining characteristic, and having clicked on a few articles I see no evidence that it is being used excessively in marginal cases. Osomec 12:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious literary trope, certainly not limited to professionals.A Musing 14:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above. LordAmeth 15:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd rename it as per the nomination, but I think the resulting category would be too small. The current category lists Fred Flintstone and the video game character Banjo, two characters aren't defined primarily by gambling. As a result, it looks like the category is meant to list any fictional category who has ever gamebled. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional henchmen[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 23:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This boils down to "fictional antagonists except the leader". That's very ill-defined. Many fictional settings have a large variety of bad guys that sometimes cooperate, but that doesn't make them henchmen. Other settings have a "main" Dark Lord who is the schemer behind everything, but does that make every other bad guy a henchman? Besides, used in such a way those people have absolutely nothing in common. Delete just like Category:Fictional antagonists. >Radiant< 12:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see Radiant's point, but on the other hand it seems clear that there is something significant that characters like Renfield, Igor (fictional character) and Ventriloquist (comics)#Rhino have in common. Certain characters can be defined as being "professional minions" that don't appear to have much or any individual identity outside of their service to their master. So it would be nice to be able to somehow classify such characters under the same category. This category might not be the right solution, but perhaps there's another way to do it? Dugwiki 16:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective, arbitrarily defined category. "Henchman" is hard to define. One guy's henchman may be somebody else's middleman. Doczilla 02:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while I found the concept of henchmen and sidekicks ridiculous and ill-defined in practice, articles like List of Doctor Who henchmen (ugh) have found the consensus to keep them.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ill-defined and subjective. Carlossuarez46 18:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Dugwiki has it right: henchmen are henchmen, and there's no possibility of confusing "henchman" with "generic antagonist". A henchman is an antagonist who is also a sidekick, and I don't see anyone nominating Category:Fictional sidekicks for deletion. Is Radiant seriously suggesting that this entire category get merged into Fictional sidekicks? That will double the latter's size, with no clear benefit to anybody. "Fictional antagonists except the leader" is "very ill-defined", but that's not the definition under discussion here; it's just a strawman. The definition under discussion here is henchmen (or, if you prefer, minions or assistants or sidekicks of a bad guy). --Quuxplusone 08:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, hopefully without too much rancor: Radiant's recent noms seem to offer the same blanket rationale for deletion: "somebody someday might misunderstand or misuse this category, and then it would get cluttered". But there's no actual evidence that this has ever happened in the past, or is happening now. Let well enough alone. If you ever find Dr. No in the Fictional henchmen category, then you might have a point, but it just seems silly and time-wasting to nominate categories when they're currently being used correctly and usefully. --Quuxplusone 08:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per various above Johnbod 03:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ill-defined, could be subjective. Why would any lowly underling of a villain have a Wikipedia article anyway? --Jtalledo (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quuxplusone's response. --T smitts 18:21, 5 June 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:Superheroes by race and subcats[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.--Mike Selinker 04:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a relevant cross-section. We generally do such by country of origin rather than by race. >Radiant< 12:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - are you suggesting the deletion of the four sub-cats as well or retaining them while removing this layer of categorization between them and Category:Superheroes? Otto4711 13:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The former. Note that e.g. most "Asian superheroes" are already in such cats as Category:Japanese superheroes. >Radiant< 14:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then Keep. Category:Black superheroes survived a recent CFD and I see no reason for reversing that decision now. Non-white superhero categories are useful for researching representation of ethnic minorities in comics. Otto4711 14:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify I am unsure how workable categorising characters by race is, especially as some countries are such a melting pot as to make this kind of thing a nonsense (say someone is half African-American, a quarter native American, one eight German and one eight Japanese? Not to even go into how you define "black" without going down the quadroon/One-drop rule, see e.g.: Black people: "Some assert that only people of relatively recent African descent are black, while others argue that black may refer to individuals with dark skin color regardless of ethnic origin"). We have an underused category: Category:Superheroes by nationality and I'd rather we made this workable as it is already illogical, why for example isn't Category:British superheroes under Category:British comics characters (and they are all like that). So I'd like to see things like "Hispanic superheroes" reworked so we have "Category:Mexican superheroes" under Category:Mexican comics characters (ditto Asian superheroes - not sure what you'd do with Native Americans - move them under American superheroes?). So the whole area is a mess and there needs to be some extra tidying alongside "Superheroes by race" but reworking some of these categories under that would really help. I can draw up a bit of an action plan to target the areas of concern if need be. (Emperor 03:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

To preempt the next question you use lists instead of categories. That way the editors an come up with a consensus opinion of what does or doesn't count and they can debate problematic additions to the list. On the Comics Project the issue of categories and lists has come up and the general agreement is that lists are prefered. It needn't be an either/or situation when the call isn't tricky (DC Comics titles, Films based on comics) but as the deciding factor the category is based on isn't clear I think it needs to be done via lists. You could then keep the Superhereos by race category to store the lists in as long as everyone agrees that is as far as it goes. (Emperor 04:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep as a strong portrayal-in-fiction category. Black characters often suffer blaxploitationesque stereotypes and in early comics were used as shockers "A black Iron Man? :O A black Green Lantern? :O". Chinese characters for instance were often made sinister and devious. An article would suffer from lack of cited dicussion, whereas a category makes no presumptions and simply offers useful navigation and allows readers to come to any educated conclusions they'd like to.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Entries on the negative portrayal of races (or nationalities) in fiction is possible and easily referenced. See for example: Yellow Peril and Magical negro, for a broader take see: Ethnic stereotypes in popular culture. Litsifying Category:Black superheroes would actually let you get more fine-grained and I think you could legitimately also mention those "shock tactics" - it would be another advantage of a list over a category as you can add extra information and context, as well as including characters who don't currently have an entry but may be worthy of mention in regard to the light it casts on the issues. References must be plentiful (Emperor 13:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I agree that listifying would be the best approach. Zythe makes an excellent point that this stuff is important and should be detailed somewhere, but I disagree that it can't be done in article space. There are plenty of sources out there, a limited google scholar search shows 671 hits, [2]. That's by no means authorative, but I think demonstrates that there are sources which can be used to create articles and lists summarising the sources. I think Zythe is wrong in that categories make no presumptions, part of the categorisation process is that there must be no doubt that an article should be placed in a given category. Ethnicity is hard enough to determine in real life, let alone in fictional universes which are subject to rewrites and interpretation. Hiding Talk 13:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment yes I'd overlooked the issue of retconning and the like. While there may be a wider debate about the issues of assinging race to fictional characters (obviously in the real world you can trace someone's family tree or get a DNA test) but the problem is worse in comics as it is a visual medium and so quite a lot of information is transmitted visually (even more so than in films where they can use accents and the like as clues) so assigning race may also be partly guesswork, Making it much more in need of a list which can discuss additions and can add extra information, details and context. (Emperor 13:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Listify I feel that this is a relevant cross-section. While I don't completely agree that there is that much controversy regarding the determination of most comics characters' ethnicity, listifying is a good solution to resolve such controversty when it does occur. It's more conducive towards the citing of sources. --GentlemanGhost 14:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These guidelines I found from a discussion above are relevant here: Overcategorization by ethnicity: "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You should be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category." So not only would a list help provide a means to source claims, discuss inclusion criteria and add in relevant items that don't have full entries but most of the sub-categories fail that guideline. The best that can be managed is African characters in comics which is actually comic characters by region/nationality not spefically by ethnicity. There is List of Native American superheroes, List of black superheroes and List of Hispanic superheroes which are, as the names suggest, lists. (Emperor 15:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Strong Keep I see no reason to listify any of these categories. --69.249.103.186 21:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Black superheros have been discussed before, no need to revisit the conclusion. The subcats have not been tagged, and should not be deleted until properly tagged and discussed.A Musing 14:26, 28 May 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:Vegetarians and subcats[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consenus, although a narrow majority (but not a supermajority) of editors preferred keeping the categories. One view holds that vegetarianaism is purely a dietary choice and hence is not a defining characteristic, but that argument is countered by the view that vegetarianism is often an ethical or philosophical choice as well as dietary one. The counter-argument is that since vegetarianism is the norm within some religions, it is not a defining characteristic of, e.g. a Hindu (see Vegetarianism#Motivations_and_benefits); that argument sounds persuasive, but it doesn't address the question of vegetarians who are not motivated by the strict dictates of a particular religion. A further discussion may want to consider religious vegetarianism separately from secular vegetarianism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A person's choice and tastes in food is not a defining characteristic - no, we don't do Category:People who are on a diet either. This category treats vegetarianism effectively like some kind of religion or something that has a major impact on lifestyle, whereas in reality it is nothing of the sort. It isn't even well-defined: some vegetarians do or don't eat fish, some do or don't eat eggs, etc. >Radiant< 12:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - for all the same reasons I wanted it kept the last time. Otto4711 13:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to comment specifically on the definitional issue: vegetarians by definition do not eat fish or any other animal. A person who eats fish is not a vegetarian and should not be included. Vegetarianism does not exclude eating eggs. If non-consumption of animals extends to not eating eggs, drinking milk or otherwise consuming any animal product then that person is a vegan and should be categorized there.

Keep No change since recent very extensive discussion. You either think these categories should be there or you don't. I don't like the "If at first you don't succeed ...." approach here. Nom should have listed the very many sub-cats. Johnbod 13:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there was a discussion with no consensus three months ago. Issues with no consensus are routinely revisited to see if consensus can be formed. >Radiant< 14:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - People are generally not noteworthy for their dietary choices but instead for their other accomplishments, so the category does not indicate why these people are noteworthy. In the last debate, people said that vegetarianism was a stronger defining characteristic than religion for some people, but I honestly do not accept this argument. For example, Albert Einstein is commonly known as a Jew, but he is not commonly known as a vegetarian (except at WP:CFD and WP:OC). Moreover, being a vegetarian may not be a defining characteristic for people in some religions (such as Buddhism and Jainism), and these categories contribute to category clutter problems (see Albert Einstein again). Dr. Submillimeter 14:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm kind of neutral so far on whether or not to keep this category. The only thing I do strongly feel about it is that an article must verifiably mention the person being a vegetarian in their article to be included. Requiring that the article mention the vegetarianism helps force the category to be focussed on people who are notably vegetarian, as opposed to people who might be vegetarian but for whom that fact either isn't verified or is so trivial that it's not mentioned in reliable publications. Dugwiki 16:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sometimes referenced information that cites a person as being a vegetarian gets deleted on the basis that it is trivia which makes it impossible to follow the proposal that articles should be required to mention vegetarianism in the article to be categorized in Category:Vegetarians. Q0 23:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree that vegetarianism is simply a taste for certain foods. It is more than a trivial characteristic. I also think that being a vegan is more defining that being a vegetarian and would strongly keep that category. Of course we need to have a cited source to verify that the subject belong in the category. It seems like there are two reasons why people want to delete this: 1)because there may be someone out there who abstains from eating meat for trivial reasons and 2) there may be someone who is really really notable for many things, and adding that the person is also a vegetarian crowds that category. These are not reasons enough to delete the whole category of people who are notable for being vegetarians, for people who do not take their vegetarianism to be a trivial matter. Instead of trying to delete the whole categorization system because there may be a handful of examples that some don't think fit in the category, why not take it up on those corresponding talk pages and propose removing the category from those articles.-Andrew c 00:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If what you say is true, would you agree that no one who has consumed any meat should be included in any of these categories; if it's so defining, then someone wouldn't slip out of his/her definition; otherwise it would just be a "taste" or "dietary choice". Carlossuarez46 18:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify: There was once a list of vegetarians that was deleted, but I think the list would work better than a category. It is easy to stick references next to a list entry, but it isn't possible to stick references next to a category. There were problems with a number of the entries on the list being unreferenced, but I think it would have been better to be strick about removing uncited entries than to delete the whole list. Q0 08:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for many reasons: WP:BLP for the living people (doesn't include the Einstein example); also it's subjective: how is vegitarianism defined? Are eggs, fish, crustacians, insects ok? And how long must one have been a vegitarian? An hour, a day, a month, a year, a few years, a lifetime? And if someone "cheats" once (or twice, or more) does that blow their vegetarianism? Although something can be said for trying to create a category Category:German vegetarians that has both Hitler and Einstein, the pure subjectivity of the categorization is its undoing. Carlossuarez46 18:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I do not find your reasoning compelling. We have category "American Roman Catholics". What makes someone a Catholic? Do they have to go to mass every Sunday? Is going once a month ok? Going just on holidays? Can you be Catholic if you sin? If you don't go to confession? It's so subjective, why even bother categorizing it? (of course I disagree with that line of reasoning). If someone self-identifies as vegetarian and it's sourced, that's good enough. We have the Pope saying Pro-Choice politicians should not receive communion, and in essence excommunicate themselves, yet we still categorize Rudy Giuliani as a "Roman Catholic politician". As I said, if there are specific individuals that are problematic to be categorized as a vegetarian, please feel free to discuss removing them on their talk pages, but don't delete the category because of hypotheticals.-Andrew c 04:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Your WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument doesn't negate my point. However, your point is another good reason to get rid of all ethnic/religious/race classifications at WP, a point I have been making for a while now, see the debate about deleting Category:American actors by ethnicity and its subs. Vegetarianism is not an all or nothing position for many people, yet making it into a category makes it appear that way. Maybe we should use the same litmus test as the ethnic categories (i.e. 1/4), so if someone eats vegetarian for 1/4 of his/her meals, they are a vegetarian? See how meaningless the category is. Carlossuarez46 16:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It isn't out job to determine if someone is or isn't a vegetarian. If it were, it would be original research. Simple as that. If there is debate over whether someone is a vegetarian, most likely they don't belong in this category. I think it is a simple matter of self-identity and sourcing. If we have a reliable source of the subject self-identifying as a vegetarian, then we are set. We do not need to go around trying to record what someone eats to see if they meet some hypothetical litmus test in order to fall into a certain category. If this category is problematic or controversial for certain individuals, bring it up on those talk pages, don't delete the whole category because there are some gray areas.-Andrew c 16:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think we have an existing policy, that if followed, would elevate most of the concerns of those voting delete: Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear in the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced. For example, Category:Criminals should only be added when the notable crime has been described in the article and sources given, and the person has either been convicted or has pleaded guilty. Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met: The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life..." If someone doesn't self-identify as vegetarian, or if someone isn't notably vegetarian, then don't put them in the category.-Andrew c 16:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A highly defining trait of some people's personal beliefs. No objection to listification either, as it could contain details and direct citations. --tjstrf talk 18:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Dr. Submillimeter and it's not a defining characteristic. Lugnuts 19:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per Otto4711! FYI: vegetarianism is usually much much more then just a simple choice in food. It is a lifestyle, and often a strong conviction. Many famous vegetarians (Paul McCartney, Pamela Anderson) publicly promote their life style and support vegetarian organisations. There are categories for atheists, socialists, etc, so there must be one for vegetarians. Alex ex 11:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And we have Category:Animal rights movement in which Pamela Anderson is categorized; what she eats is not worthy of categorization. She also didn't "become" vegetarian -- according to her article here until her teenage years, so she would also be correctly categorized as Category:Meat eaters because of these shifting sands of definition and behavior (public and private), this category can not be defining. Carlossuarez46 06:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Radiant's argument of vegetarianism as a dietary choice is understandable, but it seems like the choice is rooted in some philosophical beliefs that probably make the category worth keeping. As for the argument that it isn't "well defined", those concerns should really be addressed in the article on vegetarianism, which defines what it means to a vegetarian, at least in Wikipedia. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:15, 1 June 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:Lists of films with features in common[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively redundant with Category:Lists of films by topic, so suggest merging. >Radiant< 12:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while I nominated most of the articles in this category for deletion a while back and also nominated the category, as long as some of these lists exist they are better categorized here than in a films by topic category. List of recent films in black-and-white for example is not for films that are about the topic of being in black and white, List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" is not for films which are about the topic of saying "fuck" a lot, List of films condemned by the Legion of Decency is not for films that are about the topic of being condemned, and so on. Otto4711 13:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto. Carlossuarez46 18:39, 25 May 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:Films about filmmaking[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 09:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to either Category:Documentaries about the film industry and/or Category:Films about films, so suggest merge. >Radiant< 12:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Films about films. Likely this is what the category was going for. Bulldog123 13:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward keep - the films in the nominated category appear to be fiction films (so merging to the documentary category is no good) concerned with the process of filmmaking, whereas the "films about films" looks to be dealing with movies that are about completed films. This seems like enough of a distinction to move me toward supporting separate categories. Otto4711 14:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bulldog. Carlossuarez46 18:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto4711: fiction films are not documentary films + the process of filmmaking deals not with completed films. Stefanomione 23:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto4711. Postlebury 11:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto4711. Perhaps Category:Films about films should be renamed to Category:Films about other films, or something. PC78 17:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at it again, there are only two articles in Category:Films about films — 8½ looks like it's really more about the filmmaking process (and it's in both categories anyway), which just leaves La Cité de la peur, and to be honest I don't think it's worth making the distinction. Merge and perhaps rename to Category:Films about filmmaking and the film industry (or something), with Category:Documentaries about the film industry as a subcategory (since that's obviously something different). PC78 16:17, 31 May 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:American films shot in Japan and Category:American films shot in Canada[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Foreign films shot in Japan and Category:Foreign films shot in Canada respectively. the wub "?!" 09:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see some merit in categorizing films by where they are filmed, but combining that with the country the director is from seems like a needless cross-section. Suggest renaming both to simply "Films shot in <country>". >Radiant< 12:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point, and I would tend in general against over-categorisation, but that said... There are a great many Japanese films filmed in Japan, and if we simply rename it to "Films shot in Japan", those few American films which stand out among American films for being shot in Japan, and not in a Hollywood backlot or elsewhere, would get quite lost in the shuffle. A film like "Lost in Translation," for example, is not particularly distinctive for being a film shot in Japan, but rather for being a non-East-Asian film shot in Japan. LordAmeth 21:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps the solution is to rename it to Category:Foreign films shot in Japan, so that it could group not only American but French, German, Chinese, etc. films which were shot in Japan. (It would probably need to be specified in the category that by foreign we meant foreign to the country of filming though.) --tjstrf talk 22:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. >Radiant< 08:45, 29 May 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:Films by topic[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Kbdank71 01:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename / standardization requested. I would like some feedback on whether the subcategories should generally be called "<foo> films", "films about <bar>", or "<quux> in film", or something else. If there is general agreement on that I will nominate the non-standard subcats for renaming. >Radiant< 12:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'<foo> films' or '<fooian? films' have an edge as being shorter. Vegaswikian 19:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure that such a standardization is desirable. "Films about..." might work best in most cases, but others such as LGBT-related films are fine just as they are.
To be honest, I think the whole category is in a bit of a mess. Some of the subcategories lean more towards genre, while others are clearly for specific themes. Inclusion criteria can be vague and subjective (are 24 Hour Party People and The Children's Hour really films about suicide, just because one of the characters commits suicide?), and some categories are perhaps served better by lists that can provide more information. PC78 13:52, 2 June 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:H1B dependent companies[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is a POV category. This is likely to generate a lot of debate on which companies to include and exclude. The topic of the category is also very subjective. Kalyan 12:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment H1B dependency is a legal status not a POV and subjects a company to the provisions of 20 CFR 655.738 and 655.739. Those who don't want to wallow in federal regulations, can find many decent summaries by googling "H1B dependent", but basically its a tool that the US government uses to protect domestic workers from companies who have certain specified threshholds of H1B-visa holders as employees. I don't know whether it's defining (I'm leaning toward not) but it certainly isn't subjective. Carlossuarez46 18:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H1 dependency is a legal status - agreed. but what is h1 dependent companies? for eg: TCS has 80,000 employees and has about 10,000 employees in US. While the company applied for 4,000 H1Bs, we don't have info on how many of the 10K are H1Bs and how many are not. The POV is not about "H1 dependency" but about what classifies a "H1B dependent company". Kalyan 21:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The H1B dependence is a legal status, it's not a commentary or judgment on whether in fact some company depends on H1B visas to hire people to run its business or not, which is why I am leaning toward it not being a defining characteristic of a company. For what it's worth, governments like to have benchmarks to determine things without having to make subjective judgments, like in the US we have a "poverty line" see Poverty threshold, which is wholly income dependent, so someone who has millions of dollars stuffed in his mattress but doesn't have some magical level of "income" could be below the poverty line. Carlossuarez46 21:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this will just lead to endless debates on whether particular companies are "dependent" on their H1B employees. Unless there is some standard (i.e. >10% of American employees on H1B), I don't see what this will add. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 14:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uselessly vague unless it has an arbitrary inclusion criterion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

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:Primates of the Catholicosate of the East and Malankara Metropolitanate of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge into Category:Catholicoses of the East. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Primates of the Catholicosate of the East and Malankara Metropolitanate of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church to Category:Catholicoi of the East and Malankara Metropolitans

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - The "Primate of the Catholicosate" name is used very infrequently to refer to these people. The title "Catholicos" is used more often (and some of the Wikipedia articles even incorporated this title into the article names). The category should be renamed to a title that is used more often for these people. Dr. Submillimeter 11:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Upon further review, this appears to be redundant with Category:Catholicoses of the East. The "Primates of the Catholicosate" category should be deleted in favor of the category with the shorter title, which is more commonly used when referring to these people anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 11:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Catholicoses of the East. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge into Catholicoses of the East per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rename whatever is kept to Catholicoi, Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Catholicoses of the East and rename this to Catholicoi per nom and Septentrionalis above. -- roundhouse 14:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Catholicoi of the East per all above. (changing my !vote per comment by roundhouse et al)--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Catholicoses" and "Catholicoi" are both acceptable plural forms of "Catholicos". I think most other Wikipedia articles and categories use "Catholicoses", so I suggest using that spelling.

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:Primates of the Patriarchial Catholicosate of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and All Ethiopia[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge into Category:Patriarchs of Ethiopia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This partially duplicates Category:Patriarchs of Ethiopia, which has a much simpler name. The "Primates of the ..." title is almost never used for these people. For these two reasons, the "Primates of the ..." category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 11:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Patriarchs of Ethiopia. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Patriarchs of Ethiopia per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Patriarchs of Ethiopia per nom (is a 'ridiculous name' competition going on?). -- roundhouse 14:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly, but there is only one competitor :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:07, 29 May 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:Sort algorithms[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename, as nominated.--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sort algorithms to Category:Sorting algorithms

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, consistency with article Sorting algorithm and common usage. "Sort algorithm" is shorter, but ungrammatical (at least in American English). Cf. Category:Routing algorithms, Category:Root-finding algorithms; perhaps contrast Category:Search algorithms. Quuxplusone 05:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - I have seen these algorithms referred to as "sorting algorithms", not "sort algorithms". Dr. Submillimeter 10:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. —Ruud 17:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. "Sort algorithms" sounds like a command. ;) --Jtalledo (talk) 00:23, 1 June 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:Casserole dishes[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 20:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Casserole dishes to Category:Casseroles

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to make content more obvious and remove redundancy, the category doesn't contain crockery. Dishes is an unnecessary descriptor where the subject is one Peta 04:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --Quuxplusone 05:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at last for now. The main article Casserole is about the container in the lead so this category name is confusing. Whatever name this is changed to needs to differentiates between the container used for cooking and the recipes and resulting food cooked in these containers. Vegaswikian 19:31, 29 May 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:Egg[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 20:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Egg to Category:Egg dishes

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, this category only contains egg based food. It should placed within the parent Category:Eggs which would include other egg information. Peta 04:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, although note that Oviparity is not an egg dish. I am not nearly as convinced that there is any need for a parent category Eggs, though. The existing categories Oology and Biological reproduction (and subcats) should be enough for now. If this leaves Egg white stranded in Category:Food ingredients, then so be it. Oppose new cat Eggs. --Quuxplusone 05:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ovipary isn't an egg either; rather it is a subject related to eggs. That's why I suggested making the parent category eggs and getting rid of egg; then everything related to eggs, including the relevant sub categories (egg dishes, oology, roe and custard deserts) would be in a more descriptive category and follow naming conventions. --Peta 10:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wait, now I'm confused. (1) When you wrote "Ovipary", did you mean "Oviparity"? (2) I agree that oviparity is not an egg, but to me that means that it should not be a member of the category Eggs, since Category:Eggs should contain only eggs. (3) I'm not convinced that we need a supercategory linking oology and custard. But whatever. --Quuxplusone 07:32, 25 May 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:List of secular states[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, see May 22nd discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Modeled after two previously deleted cats, irrelevant by itself considering even the article on Secularity (non-religiosity) is being considered for a merger. -凶 04:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 11:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 11:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as oversimplification. Is the United States secular? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 24 May 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:Hot Food[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hot Food to Category:Hot food

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, standard capitalization. The category doesn't seem all that useful, for example it's not obvious from the name that it is a category for hot+spicy food rather than food above room temperature; it also duplicates category:Chili peppers so a merge and redirect there may be the best option. Peta 04:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unmaintainable. -- Visviva 04:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vaguely named and unmaintainable category. Any inclusion criteria would be arbitrary. Doczilla 06:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and repurpose for food that should be served and eaten at an elevated temperature, where the temperature is above the temperature that causes burns. 70.55.86.83 14:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we don't seem to have a Category:Cooked foods 70.55.86.83 14:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unmaintainable. Category:Hot food+Category:Cold food is a bicategorization of an overly broad universe that doesn't help anyone; cf. Category:Color films+Category:Black and white films. (Although, off-topic, I'm disappointed that Category:Color and black and white films (think The Wizard of Oz) got deleted in that mess too.) --Quuxplusone 07:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Food normally doesn't stay hot for long and it's not worth any attempts to rename it into something that makes sense. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:25, 1 June 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:Processed tomato products[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Processed tomato products to Category:Tomato products

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, I can't think of many unprocessed tomato products. Rename per category:Dairy products Peta 04:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. I can think of one unprocessed tomato product: tomatoes! :) --Quuxplusone 05:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as category creator, but I should say I see nominator's point and offer no objection. Haikupoet 06:17, 24 May 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:Protected species in Hong Kong[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First the contents of the category are already represented on wikipedia in an excellent list. Categorizing all species based on local conservation listings would make a huge mess, particularly where national and subnational entities have differing lists (Australia, US ect.). Delete as unnecessary over categorization.Peta 03:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Johnbod 04:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a trivial characteristic, per WP:OC. -- Visviva 04:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For applying local criteria to non-local matters. Haddiscoe 11:40, 24 May 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:Species native to Hong Kong[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 20:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Species native to Hong Kong to Category:Endemic x of Hong Kong

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, this category needs to be broken into endemic flora and endemic fauna of Hong Kong categories to bring it into line with other biota by country categories. Peta 03:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Rationale: {{{3|Rename,this category can be broken into native flora and native fauna of Hong Kong categories instead. Shrimp wong 11:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not all native species are endemic (although it appears that many of the species in this category are). -- Visviva 12:47, 24 May 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:Chinese fruit[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, per other discussion. >Radiant< 11:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One I missed in an earlier nomination. Peta 03:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per main discussion. Haddiscoe 11:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Chinese cuisine per point made in that discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - WP users interested in Chinese cuisine need to be able to search easily for fruits typical of China. Deleting the category hampers this ability and does not improve WP one iota. Badagnani 05:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Same idea as Chinese tea, although there is no "real" Chinese fruit, the term is used often to describe endemic fruits commonly consumed in regions of greater East Asia. Until the term Chinese fruit goes the way of the dinosaur, this category should remain. Sjschen 22:29, 2 June 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:Hawaii native flora[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Hawaii native flora to Category:Endemic flora of Hawaii. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hawaii native flora to Category:Endemic flora of Hawaii

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, native is not the same as endemic; this category covers species endemic to Hawaii. Makes this category consistent with Category:Endemic flora of the Galápagos Islands and other endemic flora cats. Peta 03:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - "Endemic" is a more exact phrase than "native". Moreover, most of the articles in this category are about flora that may be considered endemic. Dr. Submillimeter 08:25, 24 May 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:Canadians who spent pre-adult years in the United States[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we need something like this? Sl g r a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 01:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless we want a category for every possible combination of "(Nationalty) who spent pre-adult years in (country)". VegaDark (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. There are many thousands of possible categories of the form "(Nationality) who spent pre-adult years in (country)", and creating them would cause massive category clutter. This category is also hopelessly vague, because it doesn't specify how many years in the US are needed to qualify; any particular figure would be an arbitrary inclusion criterion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary, trivial intersection. Doczilla 08:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VegaDark. Haddiscoe 11:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for numerous reasons, including BHG's, also do we want 200 (each Fooians) x 200 (pre-adult years in XYZland) = 40,000 of these categories? Carlossuarez46 18:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absurd. -- roundhouse 14:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 30#Category:Americans_who_spent_pre-adult_years_in_Canada. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too loosely clustered bunch of articles; unnecessary. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:26, 1 June 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:CG Tasks[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete (replaced by template). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category for a single user's subpages. Similar categories have been deleted in the past. Stuff like this is what this tool is used for. If kept, would allow for a similar category for each of Wikipedia's 4,471,503 users. VegaDark (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or atleast rename to Category:Wikipedian User CanadaGirl. 70.55.86.83 14:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note User:CanadaGirl's userpage indicates she has terminal cancer and has death projected as summer 2007. Her other contact is User:CG janitor, which might be a better place to put a notice. 70.55.86.83 14:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While a new template I made in my userspace replaces this category, and thus I won't object about the deletion, I still want to point out (again - see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_18#Category:CG_Watchlists) that there should be a policy on notifying the creator of a page like this. This time there was even a suggestion from another user that I be notified (either account would have been fine), but no such action was taken. CG janitor 06:59, 31 May 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:Gralo[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 speedied, WP:CSD#G7. Duja► 13:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category for a single user's subpages. Similar categories have been deleted in the past. Stuff like this is what this tool is used for. If kept, would allow for a similar category for each of Wikipedia's 4,471,503 users. VegaDark (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 06:13, 24 May 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:Coats of arms of Poland[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merger Category:Coats of arms of Poland with Category:Polish coats of arms

Nominator's Rationale: Merge, per naming convention of Category:Coats of arms by country. See Tonga below. Andrew c 00:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Postlebury 11:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to renamer: Take a closer look at the subcats and supercats, including Category:Coats of arms of families of Poland and Category:Polish nobility coats of arms. I think, but am not sure, that all these categories are trying to say the same thing: they contain coats of arms of Polish noble families. (But then there's Coats of arms of cities in Poland et al., on the other hand.) If so, they should all be merged somewhere together, and in any case, the category structure should be cleaned up and tree-ified somehow. Just FYI. --Quuxplusone 08:11, 30 May 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:Snakes of the Korean Peninsula[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Snakes of the Korean Peninsula to Category:Reptiles of Asia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Snakes of the Korean Peninsula to Category:Reptiles of Korea

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for consistency with other members of Category:Reptiles by geography.Peta 00:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. -- Visviva 00:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Reptiles of Asia - These reptiles are generally found in broad regions throughout Asia. Categorization by every single country in which these reptiles are found leads to lengthy category lists that are difficult to use for navigation. (See Bronze Mannikin of an example of categorization by every place where the animal is found). The broader Category:Reptiles of Asia would be more appropriate. If kept, then rename Category:Endemic reptiles of Korea, although none of the reptiles appear to be endemic. Dr. Submillimeter 08:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I also support a merge. --Peta 10:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I very much support to use the work "endemic" if the category is kept. Pavel Vozenilek 11:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But none of the species are endemic to Korea; the are found across Asia.--Peta 02:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Dr S. -- Visviva 10:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Dr S to avoid category clutter like the horrible mess on Bronze Mannikin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 27 May 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:Stade Français footballers[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 not CfD business, no action needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose creation Category:Stade Français rugby players

This category currently applies for Stade Français Paris's players i.e. rugby union players.But there is also a football/soccer section of the Stade Français (Which is an omnisport club) which is Stade Français Football (I've just created the article). Actually, rugby and football players are being mixed.So, I think the better way is to keep the current category Category:Stade Français footballers but for football/soccer players of Stade Français Football and create a new category Category:Stade Français rugby players, for rugby players of Stade Français Paris. Hope this is clear!Latouffedisco 14:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close discussion - you don't need our permission to create a category. If you feel uncomfortable creating it at this point, you might want to bring it up on the talk page of the existing article or category. Otto4711 18:27, 24 May 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.