Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 6

< May 5	May 7 >

May 6

Category:Ethnic Hungarian politicians outside of Hungary

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 to Category:People of Hungarian descent. Conscious 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is overcategorisation based on a slight connection. The new President of France is in almost as many Hungarian categories as French categories, which is just silly. He should be in one at most (none would be fine as well, as having a Hungarian immigrant father is of little relevance to his public career), and if this one is deleted, he will still be in two. The same sort of thing applies in other cases. Brandon97 22:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - While the category should not be deleted just because the new French president is in it, this is a triple intersection between ethnicity, career and location and is overcategorization. Merge to Category:People of Hungarian descent and then disperse the member articles to an appropriate subcat if one exists. Otto4711 22:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Otto as overcategorization. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcategorization. Nothing special about Hungarian politicians abroad than any other nationality Bulldog123 11:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As triple intersection. Mowsbury 11:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least merge. There is only a marginal connection between these people. Greg Grahame 13:08, 12 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 band members

Category:Fictional band members to Category:Fictional musicians

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. Conscious 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - not seeing the functional utility in categorizing "band members" separately from "musicians." Otto4711 21:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom Johnbod 22:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. A fictional band member belongs in either Category:Fictional musicians or Category:Fictional singers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:22, 7 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:Bob Weir songs

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:Songs by Bob Weir. Conscious 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bob Weir songs to Category:Grateful Dead songs

Merge, I think it would be a good idea to merge Category:Bob Weir songs into Category:Grateful Dead songs. There's only one article in the Bob Weir category -- Born Cross-Eyed. I don't see a big benefit from breaking down Grateful Dead songs by who wrote them, especially since some of them were group efforts anyway. Merging Bob Weir songs into Grateful Dead songs would tidy things up a bit. -- Mudwater 21:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, do not merge - rename to Category:Songs by Bob Weir per the convention of Category:Songs by composer. The "X songs" construction is for songs performed by, not songs written by. Otto4711 21:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Otto's convincing argument. So, now I'd better take care of "Songs by..." for the more famous pop and rock composers, sigh... --kingboyk 22:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Otto. Johnbod 22:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Songs by Bob Weir per Otto, since we have difft naming conventions for the two hierarchies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:24, 7 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:Redirects for names

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. BHG is right: the category shouldn't be deleted unless the template is. But it should be named to match the template.--Mike Selinker 05:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Redirects for names to Category:Redirects from sort names

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, To better describe the category's contents. Alternatively, I'd be perfectly happy with an outcome of Delete; this category (and template, and the redirects herein) seem pretty useless to me. Given that we have some 300,000 biographies and only 66 pages in this category it would seem that the general populace haven't found it useful either. kingboyk 21:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-redirects are automatic and seamless, and having a category to list these automatically seems useless. --MChew 17:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This category is populated by its use in the template Category:R from sort name. It doesn't seem to me to sensible to delete the category before considering the template. (It appears to have last been discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/August 2005#Template:R_from_alternate_name_and_others). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:05, 14 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:Redirects from New York City area bus labels

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:Redirects from New York City area bus routes. Conscious 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Redirects from New York City area bus labels to Category:Redirects from New York City area bus routes or Category:Redirects from New York City bus routes

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, "Labels" doesn't sound like the proper terminology. kingboyk 21:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Redirects from New York City area bus routes for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 8 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:Star formation

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. Conscious 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Category had a single page entry and a template. These have been relocated to the Stellar evolution template. Even the main article page for the category was not categorized under this name. The Category:Stellar evolution only has 29 members, so deleting this sub-category shouldn't cause any heartburn. RJH (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do not think that mixing articles on star formation and protostellar objects with articles on the end state of stars is appropriate. Several of the articles in Category:Stellar evolution, such as pre-main sequence star, T Tauri star, Hayashi track, and Herbig-Haro object, could be appropriately placed in Category:Star formation. Moreover, I am sure other articles that are not yet written (Schmidt law, star formation indicator) would be more appropriate for Category:Star formation than Category:Stellar evolution. Star formation is also a major field of research in astronomy (and one of my specialties). Dr. Submillimeter 22:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Dr S. Gotta go with the expert on this one. Otto4711 22:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I won't pretend to understand anything about stars, so I am happy to go along with Dr S's view unless another expert pops up. We're lucky that we have an astronomer in the house :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 10 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:Shared IP cats

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) 03:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shared IP/Illinois Century Network (USA)
Category:Shared IP/Japan Network Information Center
Category:Shared IP/Ozemail
Category:Shared IP/Suncoast & Jupiter High School

Delete all. With the exception of Category:Shared IP addresses from educational institutions, these four are the only subcats of Category:Shared IP addresses. I don't see any reason why these are subcategorized. All remaining pages should be upmerged. --- RockMFR 17:22, 6 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:Pages with special characters

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) 03:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Now empty (except for the below cat). Formerly was populated by a template, but is no longer. Everything else that was in the category was recently deleted. No need for this self-reference. --- RockMFR 17:05, 6 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:Articles containing Indic text

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) 15:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Now empty. Formerly was populated by a template, but is no longer. No need for this self-reference. --- RockMFR 17:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 21:57, 6 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:Websites running the LiveJournal engine

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. Conscious 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Contains one article (LiveJournal). Doesn't seem to have any chance of being expanded. --- RockMFR 16:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete LiveJournal#Other_sites_running_the_LiveJournal_engine lists three others, but none have wikipedia articles, so I don't see much chance of the category being expanded. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 8 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:Jericho Images

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. Conscious 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jericho Images to Category:Jericho (TV series) images

Category:Jericho characters to Category:Jericho (TV series) characters
Category:Jericho episodes to Category:Jericho (TV series) episodes

Nominator's Rationale: Rename to match the lead article Jericho (TV series) and correct capitalization. Not sure if this qualifies as speedy. Otto4711 15:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Per nom, category names should match their main article. Dugwiki 20:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Per nom and per Dugwiki. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:06, 8 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:Kyle XY

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 nomination withdrawn --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Propose renaming Category:Kyle XY to Category:Kyle XY characters~~

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - everything in the category except the show's article is an article on a character. Otto4711 14:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - looks like this will end up in favor of having someone do extra work so rather than wait for that outcome to get ratified I'll just go ahead and do the extra work. Otto4711 21:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Create new category for characters - there are other articles about the show that i've found that weren't included in the category but now I've added them. eLLe.Le 00:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all for episodes, and are properly housed in Category:Kyle XY episodes. Otto4711 02:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - added back main articles into category (which he removed on the 6th with no discussion, and never mentioned he did so in the nom :\...) Matthew 07:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've now said twice, the articles are for episodes and are categorized under Category:Kyle XY episodes. Even if this category isn't renamed, the same article should not be categorized under two different Kyle XY categories. So the choices for getting the character articles into a proper characters category are to create a spanking new category and move all of the character articles into it (which would incidentally leave this category virtually empty and rife for deletion) or we could simply rename the one that already has all of the character articles in it to reflect that and stop adding the articles that are in Category:Kyle XY episodes back to it. Otto4711 12:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An episode category is only useful when you have episode pages. Matthew 12:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are List of Kyle XY episodes, Kyle XY (season 1) and Kyle XY (season 2) if not episode pages? Similarly, a category named after a TV show is only useful if there is a large volume of material about the show that isn't easily interlinked or categorized elsewhere. Articles about characters from a TV show should be in an appropriately named category in the Category:Television characters by series tree. Otto4711 13:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, please stop removing the episode pages from the episodes category. Otto4711 13:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CONSENSUS. You're edits are disputed without consensus. The pages functioned fine as a singular parent category, it seems you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (in the function of trying to get this nomination to be "successful"). Matthew 13:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are using weasel words and making false assumptions based on an incorrect reading of this nomination and are failing to assume good faith. Otto4711 15:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is sufficient content and, as this is a current series with a new season beginning in June, plenty of room for growth. Tim! 06:31, 11 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 10th Kingdom

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) 15:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing left in the cat after creating and populating the characters subcat but that subcat and the article on the show. No need for this category for navigation. Otto4711 14:50, 6 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:8th & Ocean

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) 18:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - category contains the article on the show and the modeling agency from the show. These two articles are easily interlinked and the category is not needed for navigational purposes. Otto4711 14:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I note that it is a real modelling agency, which is properly categorised in the category for real modelling agencies. Mowsbury 11:15, 7 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:7th Heaven

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.
A simple headcount would suggest "no consensus" (3 !votes each way), but CfD is not a vote. The arguments to delete cite precedent and (implicitly) WP:OCAT#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth and WP:OCAT#Eponymous_categories_for_people, whereas reasons for the "keep" !votes are one WP:USEFUL and Kingboyk's dislike of WP:OCAT#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth. A guideline is not set in stone, but is supposed to be followed with the "occasional exception"; disliking the guideline may be grounds for seeking a change in the guideline, but it is not a reason to disregard the guideline in any individual case. So the deletes have it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after the recategorization of various articles to the appropriate subcats, the remaining material is insufficient to warrant the category. All of the material is easily interlinked through the main article on the show. Otto4711 14:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contains 3 correctly categorised articles and 2 subcategories. That's plenty, and these container categories help with navigation imho. --kingboyk 21:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A similar number of articles and subcats were deemed insufficient to require categories for Three's Company, Bo' Selecta!, American Dad!, Jackass, The Black Donneleys, Medium and others. And to save a certain someone the trouble, yes the recent nomination for American Dragon: Jake Long resulted in "keep" but the trend in recent nominations has been away from eponymous categories in the absence of a substantial amount of material that can't be easily interlinked and otherwise categorized. Since all of these articles can be easily interlinked and in fact are interlinked through a navtemplate, and since there's nothing that isn't already well-categorized elsewhere, there's no need for the category. Otto4711 21:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but I disagree with that trend. I find eponymous categories helpful and logical, and 3 articles and 2 subcategories to be quite enough. Cheers. --kingboyk 21:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per kingboyk. Tim! 07:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Otto. It looks like everything in this category can easily be navigated by using the main article instead, making the eponymous category unnecessary. Dugwiki 20:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Useful category, deleting can only serve to be a detriment. Matthew 07:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The template provides any necessary navigation between the articles. Keep the subcategories. Vegaswikian 02:45, 11 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:3rd Rock from the Sun

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) 09:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other than the show's article, everything in the category is an improperly categorized cast/crew article. The category is not needed for navigation and is unlikely to grow. Otto4711 14:20, 6 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 Critic

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. Conscious 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in the absence of the improperly categorized articles on cast and crew, all that would remain is the article on the show and on a Simpsons ep where the main character appeared. Small category with no likelihood of growth, category not needed for navigational purposes. Otto4711 14:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as (in effect) a cast members category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:10, 7 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:Romantic interests of Elliott Smith

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. Conscious 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, overcategorisation by a trivial characteristic, this can be covered in the Elliott Smith article. cab 12:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we don't do People by people. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - unnecessary overcategorisation. Beloved freak 15:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the two members of this category has been deleted due to an AfD debate; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Chiba. cab 06:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mowsbury 11:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom, as trivial characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a sledgehammer. Doczilla 07:25, 8 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:Australian test cricketers killed in action

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. Conscious 11:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Australian test cricketers killed in action to Category:Cricketers killed in action

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, I doubt this could be expanded in the future (I hope not, anyway!), and it only contains one article at the moment. Rename and add in Jasper Vinall for one. Lugnuts 10:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Australian test cricketers. (the sole article, Tibby Cotter, is already in Category:Australian military personnel killed in World War One). The intersection between cricketers and war dead might make an interesting list, but is not notable enough to justify a category Category:Cricketers killed in action. What next? Category:Killed in action by conflict sub-categorised by every occupation and hobby? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment apologies, I didn't read Cotter's full article and took the word action to mean actually playing a game of cricket! But my original point still stands of renaming the cat to include any one unfortunent enough to actually die/by killed in a game of cricket, as per J. Vinall. Lugnuts 11:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I think that the phrase "killed in action" usually refers to military action, but the category creator didn't make the intent clear, so the confusion is understandable. However, a category of crickets killed while playing cricket seems a bit excessive when it only has one identified potential member. Have you any information to suggest that there are more otherwise notable cricketers killed during a game? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Hmmm, looks like I'll be clutching at straws to find any others! I'll go with a upmerge or delete for this cat in the meantime. Lugnuts 13:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per BHG. I would guess there's a category out there already for sportspeople killed while playing their sport and I can't imagine it's so large as to require subdivision by sport. Otto4711 14:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find any generic category, but Category:Deaths in sport contains a few categories for he more dangerous sports, such as Category:Motorcycle racers killed while racing. There are also a few lists, so maybe a list of cricketers killed while playing might be appropriate.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for looking into that. Lugnuts 20:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Australian cricketers - This obtuse category is for Australian cricket players who were killed while serving in the military (not while playing cricket, as I first thought). This is an example of a "narrow intersection" as defined at Wikipedia:Overcategorization. The intersection is not only narrow but also trivial, and the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 22:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you do, do not merge into Category:Australian cricketers as he is in it already, as well as being in the test cricket subcategory. However he was not in the category for his state side (Category:New South Wales cricketers), so I have added him to that. Mowsbury 11:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment when I checked that point, I noticed that nearly all articles in Category:Australian Test cricketers were also in Category:Australian cricketers, so I have removed them from Category:Australian cricketers per WP:CAT#Some_general_guidelines #3. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:09, 8 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:Municipalities in Arauca

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) 17:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Municipalities in Arauca to Category:Municipalities of Arauca

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This category's 30 siblings all use "of": this is the only "in". Potentially speediable. Alai 04:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 11:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. Beloved freak 15:21, 6 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:Quality Guru

Propose renaming Category:Quality Guru to Category:Quality experts

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. Conscious 11:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Rationale: Rename: capitalization and style. Sumahoy 01:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's an industry standard term, it would seem very odd to change to the generic and unused term "experts". My example would be "Philip Crosby's Reflections on Quality: 295 Inspirations from the World's Foremost Quality Guru"; if Crosby calls himself a Quality Guru this seems to prove the point. Ashley VH 07:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom ~~or to Category:Quality gurus, whichever has most support~~. The current name breaches the style guidelines. Haddiscoe 11:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Quality experts, which gets 111,000 ghits versus 20,600 for "quality guru". It may be the current slang in some parts of some industries, but I don't see anything in the wikipedia articles on quality to support the assertion that "guru" is standard term. "Guru" is often used in this sense in other occupations, but I'm sure it would still be recognised as slang. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Quality experts per BrownHairedGirl. "Guru" is colloqual and boosterish. Mowsbury 11:19, 7 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:Enderverse novels and short stories

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Ender's Game series novels. A rename is clearly favored by everyone, and Enderverse does seem to be a fan construction, so I went with what I believe to be the least controversial option.--Mike Selinker 05:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Enderverse novels and short stories to Category:Enderverse novels

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. This used to cover both novels and short stories, but now that I've merged them into List of Enderverse short stories and First Meetings, this just covers novels. The category should be changed to appropriately reflect this. hbdragon88 01:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - per nom :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Ender's Game series to match the main article, Ender's Game series, or to Category:Ender's Game series novels, and rename Category:Enderverse to Category:Ender's Game series, if two separate cats are strictly necessary. (Necessity of the novels themselves I'd best remain silent on.) Alai 00:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment rename the article to Enderverse 132.205.44.134 16:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Enders Game series novels and short stories, or delete or do something to get rid of the horrible and obscure neologism "Enderverse", which has absolutely no currency outside of a very small subset of hard-core fans. Xtifr _tälk 01:29, 16 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:Gay Nazis

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. Conscious 11:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly created in bad faith (see the usernames of the two users that created it). This category is not particularly encyclopedic, though not nearly as bad as the next one. --BigDT 01:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 06:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable; as the article on Ernst Röhm illustrates, there seems to be a lack of robust evidence about homeosexuality amongst the Nazis. Plenty of thorough analysis of a homoerotic current in Nazi imagery, but less on the individuals, which would leave the category imbalanced. I'm sure that there is plenty of scope for an article on the subject, but given the difficulties in sourcing, I can't see how a category can work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BrownHairedGirl Sleep On It 21:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete invalid intersection, no article Gay Nazis exists nor likely could it (in part due to the problems flagged by BrownHairedGirl). Carlossuarez46 00:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing special about a Nazi who's gay any more than a Nazi with a Slav or Jewish ancestor. No categories for such. Bulldog123 11:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I strongly disagree with Bulldog123. Nazi persecution of gay people is a well-documented and notorious subject, so this is a very significant intersection between the persecuted and the persecutor, comparable in some ways to "Jewish Nazis". Only the sourcing problem above prevent me from recommending a "strong keep". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why have lots of gay categories but not this one, unless one wants to pretend that gays don't do bad things? Mowsbury 11:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not-notable intersections.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain why all positive connotations for LGBT/gay people seem to be considered notable, yet all negative connotations are considered non-notable? It seems to me that the categorisation in this field is utterly and deliberately biased. Mowsbury 13:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is only one person in this category. Seems like undue weight to have a category for one person.--Sefringle 03:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorization. I strongly disagree that this is a trivial intersection, but it is a small category with little or no likelihood of growth. Otto4711 18:43, 12 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:Gay Neo-Nazis

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 11:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly created in bad faith (see the usernames of the two users that created it). This category is horribly unencyclopedic and has already been used for vandalism. --BigDT 01:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 06:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why are categories like Category:Jewish American actors allowed, then? Unknown Unknowns 09:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be a relevant intersection as Neo-Nazism is generally anti-gay and therefore it effected these men's activities.--T. Anthony 17:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doczilla Sleep On It 21:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete invalid intersection, no article Gay Neo-Nazis exists and likely couldn't. Carlossuarez46 00:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In theory I could make Homosexuality and Neo-Nazism, just like we have Homosexuality and Zoroastrianism or Homosexuality and Voodoo. I'm not going to do it mind you, but I think it could be done just as plausibly as those were done.--T. Anthony 10:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and most - if not all - of the contents of that article would be about Neo-Nazi attacks on homosexuals, so again the intersection is not valid because it would not be about gay neo-Nazis. Carlossuarez46 19:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar could be said about Category:LGBT Muslims, not that Islam is the same as Neo-Nazism. However no form of Islam, that I'm aware of, accepts homosexuality. The way of things at present seems to indicate LGBT people in groups that hate them is also relevant. That outlook might be deeply flawed, but it's how things go at present.--T. Anthony 20:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article Al-Fatiha Foundation and the references/links there, and one's awareness may grow. :-) Carlossuarez46 20:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why have lots of gay categories but not this one, unless one wants to pretend that gays don't do bad things? Mowsbury 11:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's ludicrous. --BigDT 11:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete undue weight to have a category for only three people--Sefringle 03:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Havign this category would be like having "african-american white supermisist". Also, ww shouldn't categorize by sexual prefence.
Keep Gay people who deny racism within their own community are nearly as bad as Germans who deny the Holocaust. This category can also be used to publicise the hypocracy of many homophobes. Unknown Unknowns 09:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm ... what? This is an encyclopedia, not a platform for social justice. --BigDT 11:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a notable intersection given the attitude of neo-Nazi people and organizations toward homosexuality and homosexuals. Otto4711 18:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto as a notable intersection, with greater possibilities of verifiability than Category:Gay Nazis above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:53, 14 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:Sleeper Cell (TV series)

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) 09:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small category, little or no potential for growth. The material is all easily interlinked through the main article. Category is not needed for navigational purposes. Otto4711 00:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed. Bulldog123 11:08, 7 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.