Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 4

< September 3	September 5 >

September 4[edit]

Category:Articles with links needing disambiguation[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. Bduke 06:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete since this is unnecessary and backwards. There is already a bot-maintained category for disambiguation pages with links, which has been in use for a long time. This category doesn't tell you which links need disambiguation, so it's not very useful anyway. Sapphic 22:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC) ~~Weak~~ keep since this can serve (in association with a template tag attached to links) as a way of identifying "trouble cases" of hard-to-disambiguate links found on one of the more established lists, such as at the Disambiguation pages with links page. --Sapphic 23:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC) It also addresses the problem of links to disambiguation pages from a different, equal valid angle to that of sorting by number of links to a disambiguation page (the way it's done elsewhere) – although I personally find it easier to work on disambiguating all of the links coming into a disambiguation page, rather than jumping from topic to unrelated topic as you would using this category. Nonetheless, the type of disambiguation needed at the Zeenat Aman article (which "St. Xavier's School" did she attend?) is of a completely different variety than those listed at WP:DPL and so this category is not only useful but actually serves a unique set of needs not met by previously existing pages or categories. --Sapphic 00:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could potentially be helpful for an editor obsessed with implementing correct disambigs. Ubi Terrarum 05:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would it be useful? There is no indication as to which links on the page need disambiguation. WP:DPL is useful, but this category is not. --Sapphic 17:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is not true. The links that need disambiguation are marked by a {{dn}} -- which I believe is the only way that the category should be added to an article. Of course, the category itself should explain this. older ≠ wiser 19:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I did not realize that was how articles were added to the category. That does indeed make it at least somewhat useful, and I hereby withdraw my support for deletion. I'd thought somebody had been populating the category by hand (or by bot) in a misguided attempt to be helpful, but apparently I was the one who was misguided. Thanks for clarifying! --Sapphic 21:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. As indicated above, the specific links that require disambiguation are identified. As for how useful this category is, that's another question. The {{dn}} template is potentially helpful, in that it identifies a link that someone has attempted to disambiguate but was unable to, most likely due to insufficient context. older ≠ wiser 19:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it helps to track down where the {{dn}} tag has been added. --Paul Erik 20:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep now that the nominator has withdrawn, and opinion is unanimous. Xtifr _tälk 00:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep dabbing is essential to the health and utility of the Wikipedia, this cat and the associated template are potentially extremely valuable. I dabble in dabbing and often find links which I would have marked thus had I been aware of this cat! DuncanHill 10:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:dn serves the same purpose. — Randall Bart Talk 02:28, 7 September 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:Ships sunk by U-boats[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 03:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ships sunk by U-boats to Category:Ships sunk by German submarines

Nominator's rationale: Rename, consistent with other subcats of Category:Ships sunk by submarines. `'Míkka 22:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Ubi Terrarum 05:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Ships sunk by German U-boats. U-Boat is the accepted anglicized term for a specifically german submarine, in WP, the wider world & dictionaries. Suggest prefixing with 'German' would be consistent. Ephebi 16:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ephebi is correct about U-boat, but the logic is then to Keep, as no-one else had them. Johnbod 11:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too initially wondered about that, but german submarines/U-boats have been used by other navies, both as spoils of war and as legitimate exports. Ephebi 11:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't they stop being U-boats then? One might also pedantically use that as an argument against the rename per nom. Johnbod 13:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they do, LOL. But I dont think it affected what they called the ones in the Kriegsmarine. This link shows how busy they are exporting nowadays, e.g. the Shishumar (Type 209) Class would be a curious example, as some were made in Kiel and others in Mumbai, and all serve in the indian navy. As I can see the Rhine from where I'm sitting, I'd shout out and ask a passing sub for guidance if only they came up this far 8-) Ephebi 13:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as I don't see the U-boot issue as a factor necessitating changing other categories like Category:Submarines of Germany and entries (Type 201 submarine). Tewfik^Talk 22:59, 11 September 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:Menudo[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 and prune. the wub "?!" 13:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Menudo to Category:Menudo members

Nominator's rationale: Rename and prune - the vast majority of articles are for members. We need a members category but absent the member articles we don't really need an eponymous category for the remaining material. Otto4711 21:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not exactly rename. It is create new subcategory for "members". Because there already are subcategs Category:Menudo albums & Category:Menudo songs. `'Míkka 22:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to explain what Otto's saying: Otto's skipping a step, because he knows what will occur once this passes. Once the members are in a separate category, category:Menudo would contain album, song, and member categories and just three more interlinked articles. Because of the precedents he and user:kbdank71 have established, they will eliminate the Menudo category. So this saves us an unnecessary step. Rename and prune.--Mike Selinker 23:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and prune per Otto, thanks Mike for the walkthrough. Tewfik^Talk 23:01, 11 September 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:Melanie C[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 22:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Category not warranted for the material. Otto4711 21:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep A quick peek and you see that there is more than dozen melanieC-related articles. IMO enough for category. `'Míkka 22:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see two articles in the category. Even with additional articles, unless they are multiple sub-articles about her life that are not easily interlinked or otherwise categorizable, then a category for her doesn't meet the exception laid out at WP:OC. Otto4711 22:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete where did the "more than a dozen articles" come from? Was this category de-populated? If not, there are only 2 articles in it now. Agree with nom, eponymous overcat.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OCAT with only 2 members, Tewfik^Talk 23:02, 11 September 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:Mayhem albums[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. the wub "?!" 22:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mayhem albums to Category:Mayhem (band) albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match the lead article Mayhem (band) and reduce possible ambiguity. Otto4711 21:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename seems like this should be a speedy criteria.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I have proposed this as a speedy criteria, but it just dawned on me, would there ever be something that wasn't a (band) that had albums? maybe a comedian that put out "albums"? -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. They are found in Category:Comedy albums. Otto4711 17:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, though the speedy proposal should probably be something along the lines of generally synchronizing encyclopaedia- and category-space. Tewfik^Talk 23:05, 11 September 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:Mayhem musicians[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. the wub "?!" 22:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mayhem musicians to [[:Category:Mayhem (band) ~~musicians~~ members]]

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match the lead article Mayhem (band) and reduce possible ambiguity. Otto4711 21:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on whether the disambiguation is necessary, but I suggest changing musicians to members to match all of the cat's peers in Category:Musicians by band. ×Meegs 13:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Can't believe I overlooked it. Otto4711 16:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Mayhem (band) members.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above, Tewfik^Talk 23:05, 11 September 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 Marley[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 22:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Does not meet the exception laid out at the guideline, as coverage of Marley's life is not divided into multiple sub-articles that can't otherwise be easily categorized. Most of the contents are family members and are appropriately interlinked. A Marley family article might be in order. Otto4711 21:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when I saw this, I first thought "Bob Marley is one of those musicians who is highly notable, and probably should have his own category". But when I looked at the articles and sub-cats found in this category, most of them don't belong (like family members). Clean out the cat, and this is a textbook example of eponymous overcat, which get deleted daily.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this overcategorisation per broad precedent, Tewfik^Talk 23:06, 11 September 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:Canadian expatriate musicians in the United States[edit]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 15#Category:Canadian expatriate musicians in the United States for more discussion. the wub "?!" 13:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MC Lars[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 22:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Material is all extensively interlinked and appropriately categorized and the category is not warranted. Otto4711 21:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the feeling that we've seen this situation once or twice before... Bencherlite ^Talk 21:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... the reason we keep seeing eponymous categories is that they are a good idea. Kappa 03:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are sometimes a good idea, when the volume and complexity of the material about a person is such that a category is needed to organize it effectively. That is clearly not the case here, as the material abour MC Lars does is not particularly vouminous or complex. Otto4711 16:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overcategorisation per broad precedent, Tewfik^Talk 23:09, 11 September 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:British Formula One series[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 {{db-author}} used instead (again). Non-admin closure. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:British Formula One Series. DH85868993 14:50, 4 September 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:Sports clubs established in 1844[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. Bduke 06:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category is empty. The existence of Category:Sports clubs established before 1850 suggests this category should not have been created in the first place. DH85868993 14:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unneeded exception to the position exemplified by the existence of Category:Sports clubs established before 1850 in the parent category of Category:Sports clubs by year of establishment. Bencherlite ^Talk 19:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that the category is empty, and that the 1850 category currently suits the need makes this cat unneccesary for the time being. Hiberniantears 19:38, 4 September 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:Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School of Music & Art and Performing Arts notable Alumni[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. the wub "?!" 22:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School of Music & Art and Performing Arts alumni, convention of Category:People by high school in the United States, or simply Delete. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Enough to maintain a cat and there are others which could be added. Ubi Terrarum 05:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a way to slim down that godawfully long name? Wl219 08:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, as while it barely makes the cut, it is a category with the potential for growth. Tewfik^Talk 23:10, 11 September 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:British television programmes by location and subcategories[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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:Television shows set in the United Kingdom and Category:Television shows set in foo. the wub "?!" 22:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency with the rest of the category tree, these should be renamed to [[:Television shows set in <foo>]]. >Radiant< 11:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree but is it ... set in England, ... set in United Kingdom or ... set in Britain ? Ephebi 16:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, would this be [[:British television shows set in <Foo>]]?. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Television shows set in the United Kingdom to follow the convention of Category:Television programs by location. For the subcats rename to Category:Television shows set in foo. Vegaswikian 19:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the only pages referenced are actually set in England, so the ...set in the United Kingdom cat would only have 1 entry! Ephebi 09:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it would be quite useful as a parent category. Rename per Vegaswikian. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Vegas, Tewfik^Talk 23:10, 11 September 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:Provinces of Perugia[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 {{db-author}} used instead. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Accidentally created when I meant Category:Province of Perugia. Ian Spackman 11:00, 4 September 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:Christian legend and folklore[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 as nominated. the wub "?!" 13:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Christian legend and folklore to Category:Christian folklore

Nominator's rationale: These two categories were the subject of a recent debate on August 14, and the result was no consensus. However, nobody in the debate supported the status quo, so I think a quick renomination is fully justified. Opinions were split between deleting the newer folklore category (as nominated) and merging the "legend and folklore" category into the "folklore" category (my counterproposal). The bottom line, though, is that everyone agrees that these categories are redundant, so something should be done. My argument is that legends are a subcategory of folklore (and Category:Legends is a subcategory of Category:Folklore), so there should be no problem with having legends in the folklore category--that's where they belong. It's possible that we should have a separate Category:Christian legends as a subcategory of both Category:Christian folklore and Category:Legends, but that would require sorting out which articles are specifically legends, and which are other types of folklore, and I don't think the amount of material here would justify the effort. So I think that a merger to the more simply-named category is the best solution at this time. Xtifr _tälk 10:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Christian legend and folklore into Category:Christian folklore as per the Category:Legends and Category:Folklore setup.Hiberniantears 19:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete The distinction between Category:Christian mythology and Category:Christian folklore is not entirely clear to me, and some items could also be interpreted as Category:Christian fiction and allegory as well. But the most important thing is delete this category to encourage clarity in the more granular category options.-choster 20:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Category:Mythology is an (indirect) subcategory of Category:Folklore as well, so it would probably be appropriate to make the Christian Mythology a subcat of the Christian Folklore cat after (if) the merge is complete. There may be other questions about the mythology cat and its contents, but I don't believe they're relevant to this debate--fortunately. The fiction and allegory cat should probably remain separate. Xtifr _tälk 10:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not clear on the difference between Category:Legends and Category:Folklore, and why we would choose one over the other. Tewfik^Talk 23:13, 11 September 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:Sector General species[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 both parents. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Sector General. There are only a few Sector General articles, probably too soon for subcats. -- Prove It ^(talk) 05:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and also to Category:Fictional extraterrestrial species, the other parent. Otto4711 12:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MergeI created it, and I agree. While I'm planning to make more of them, I acted far too soon. Go right ahead.--Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 21:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to both parents per Otto, Tewfik^Talk 23:14, 11 September 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:Paris Hilton films[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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! 08:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, please see August 26th discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ample precedent, as demonstrated by the previous discussion. Bencherlite ^Talk 19:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per established precedent. Hiberniantears 19:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Films directed by Paris Hilton, prune all films she didn't direct, then delete as empty. The first step is, of course, optional. :) Xtifr _tälk 10:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Xtifr :).-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete maybe if she had a lonnnnng career and was a notable acctress, but she's currently just a "vulgar" jailbird druggie =( but seriously what besides house of wax would be in this category? hahahCholga^talK! 02:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not even if she had a long career. We don't categorize movies by their actors, because too many movies have too many actors, and the result would be category clutter. But in answer to your other question: 1 Night in Paris is the movie that made her famous! :) Xtifr _tälk 11:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well established precedent. Wryspy 07:17, 9 September 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:Hollywood films about Persians[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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! 08:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Persians are heavily stereotyped specially with the current tensions in the Middle East. I think it is very important to have a category about the Hollywood productions on Persians and Iran for the future references. --Kaaveh 09:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - inclusion criteria are vague as with so many "films about" categories. How much of a film needs to be "about" Persians to qualify it for the category? Current political tensions regarding the Middle East are not relevant to the category. Otto4711 14:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plot has to be about Persians and this is very obvious.--Kaaveh 18:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's not very obvious, or else there wouldn't be any controversy now would there? The question then becomes how much of the plot needs to be about Persians? Otto4711 19:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In principle I have no object to categories of this sort but at present it contains only two films clearly primarily about Iranians, plus one with a subplot involving an Iranian, and Stone's Alexander. DGG (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like similar categories "films about XYZ". It is very vague (what about Intolerance (film) - does it have enough of them?) and would be bad precedent. Pavel Vozenilek 01:17, 9 September 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:Members[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 renamed. The creator seems not to have understood how to make categories, so I followed through on what I believe was his or her intention.--Mike Selinker 20:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as incurably vague, or at least Rename to Category:Bone Thugs-n-Harmony members. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:46, 4 September 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:Richmond City Council[edit]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 15#Category:Richmond City Council for further discussion. the wub "?!" 13:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hairspray (film)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category. The various entries are all extensively interlinked through text and the small amount of material doesn't warrant a category. Otto4711 02:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Delete. SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 22:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Johnbod 20:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Tewfik^Talk 23:27, 11 September 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.