Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 7

< September 6	September 8 >

September 7[edit]

The Melancholy of POV Overcategorization[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) 02:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all: "Cult" status, as defined by this category, is "anime with large fanbases". Not only is this against the very definition of a "cult film", it is a nebulous and subjective thing to quantify, and is therefore a POV statement about the anime, and unsuitable for a category. "Otaku" suffers from a similar POV problem: who defines, in the category's view, an "eccentric" person or an "otaku"? What is an otaku? The third category in this nomination, "Late Night Anime", also relies on a subjective view based on one country's time zone. What about shows such as Eureka Seven, which aired in the morning in Japan but on the late-night Adult Swim block in the United States?

The creator of these categories, Tokyo Manga909‎ (talk · contribs), created these categories, among others, solely to overcategorize The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya and Lucky Star; while it may be possible to extend them to other shows, that would almost certainly be a subjective POV, unsuitable for Wikipedia. —TangentCube, Dialogues 23:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Narrow scope, and ambiguously defined categories are unneeded.--十八 01:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all overcategorization and non-NPOV criteria Ninja neko 11:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:55, 10 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:Mayors of the City of Miami[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 "?!" 13:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mayors of the City of Miami to Category:Mayors of Miami, Florida

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with other mayor categories. LeSnail 22:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, for consistency. However, note that the subcats of Category:Miami, Florida, are inconsistent (some just use "Miami") and that it would be helpful to have a group nom to standardise them --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'm aware of that. I'll bring it up as soon as these less contentious renames are done with, so as not to create too much confusion. LeSnail 13:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for now, although there is a proposal to rename many large US cities from City, state to just city...Carlossuarez46 16:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom--JForget 00:26, 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:Mayors of municipalities in Puerto Rico[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 "?!" 13:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mayors of municipalities in Puerto Rico to Category:Mayors of places in Puerto Rico

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with parent Category:Mayors of places in the United States and all of its siblings there. LeSnail 22:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:32, 13 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:Leaders of cities in Hawaii[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 speedy delete per CSD C1 (empty for >4 days). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Leaders of cities in Alabama

Category:Leaders of cities in Arizona

Category:Leaders of cities in Colorado

Category:Leaders of cities in Delaware

Category:Leaders of cities in Georgia

Nominator's rationale: Delete -- Empty categories. LeSnail 22:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:57, 10 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:Middle Ages in popular culture[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. the wub "?!" 13:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - miniscule category that offers nothing by way of navigational utility. Otto4711 22:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of scope for growth - doesn't even contain Robin Hood, the former FA Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc and many more. Johnbod 13:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It just needs to be filled in more. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:46, 8 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:Fictional computer experts[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 "?!" 13:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - non-defining characteristic for many of those included, also vague inclusion criteria. What constitutes an "expert"? Otto4711 19:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:58, 10 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:United States Law Firms cited for Misconduct[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 "?!" 13:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category created for one law firm, it seems. Who is qualified to cite, anyway? Potential for abuse far outweighs any slight benefit this category may produce. -- Y not? 19:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, who is qualified to cite is easy: a judge. And possibly the Bar. David Boies's firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner (which really should have an article) was recently charged with misconduct after a case in Florida, although I'm not sure what the outcome there was. But in any case, it's not that unusual for a firm to be charged, and possibly convicted. And I don't see the category as having any more potential for abuse than many other categories, e.g. Category:murderers. My only qualm about the category is that since the subject is lawyers, it might be slightly safer to use a list, where references can be provided directly, and which is easier to police. But I'm not convinced that's sufficient reason to delete. Xtifr _tälk 10:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: I'm not actually sure that "cited" is the correct word here. Perhaps the category should be renamed. I've left a comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Law asking for some more informed opinions on the whole matter. Xtifr _tälk 12:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good idea - like how rare this actually is for large firms. Johnbod 13:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, vague as to what "cited" and "misconduct" mean. This will inevitably be misused. To the extent it captures valid information, this should be explained and contextualized in article text. I would interpret being "cited for misconduct" to mean formal censure by a state bar, but the one firm presently included was only "cited" by a judge for a conflict of interest and censured only through disqualification from a particular case, which the judge explained would have resulted regardless of whether the firm deliberately or inadvertantly failed to disclose the conflict. The category seems agenda-based to me, like its only purpose is to stigmatize. Re: the comparison to Category:Murderers, whether or not a person has murdered another is a rather defining quality of that person. Whether at least one attorney within a law firm did not comply with all rules of professional responsibility on at least one occasion is not a defining quality of that firm, and is definitely not uncommon. Postdlf 14:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I agree "cited" and "misconduct" are loose terms. Are we talking about firms that have lost major malpractice suits, firms reprimanded by bar association disciplinary committees, or any firm which has ever had to pay any kind of court sanction for stuff as minor as going over the page limit on a brief? Wl219 18:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as I tried to suggest above, I believe that "misconduct" is a formal charge, and thus should have no elements of ambiguity at all. Yes, it can be used informally, but so can "murder". On the other hand, it sounds like it's unclear whether the sole (so far) member of the category belongs there if one goes by a formal definition, so I dunno. My overall opinion of the category is unchanged, but could be swayed by domain experts. Xtifr _tälk 22:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: Even if we were to assume that this category is conclusively and unambiguously: 1) well-defined; 2) correctly-applied 100% of the time pursuant to the known definition; and 3) appropriate for Wikipedia in the first place [none of which have been established so far, by the way], general audience readers (and even some lawyers, depending on the jurisdiction) simply will not know what this means absent thorough explanation in a stand-alone article or disclaimer. Therefore, it should be deleted on the basis of potential confusion alone.

... and that's ignoring the substantial "downsides" (as already indicated by Postdlf and Wl219). Misconduct can indeed encompass anything from criminal negligence to using the "F-word" during a trial or hearing. The probative value of this category is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. It should go. dr.ef.tymac 00:59, 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:Magnanime class ships of the line[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 Speedy delete as uncontroversial housekeeping. Pascal.Tesson 23:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category created from an error in a source, there were no Magnanime class ships of the line. All articles in the category have been recategorised appropriately, and the category itself is now empty and can be deleted. Benea 17:54, 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:Currents within green politics[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. the wub "?!" 13:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Currents within green politics to Category:Green politics

Nominator's rationale: Basically a fancy way of saying "these articles are concepts that have to do with 'green politics'." So how about putting them in there? Recury 14:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They are a sub-cat of it, & with a better name might be kept. Johnbod 17:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is common practice to put articles on concepts that have to do with the main topic in the parent cat instead of creating a subcat called something like "Concepts related to green politics." Recury 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:58, 10 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:Famous Leeds United fans[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) 02:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as People by opinion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These people are notable for other things, and not being the fans of some football team. Shame on Paxman too! Lugnuts 08:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:59, 10 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:Feature 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. the wub "?!" 13:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The feature film artilce says they are usually from 90 to 210 minutes long. And when I read more I see that most movies could be classified as feature movies, so delete this already. (Yes, I'm still on a vacation, but I had feeling this has to go.) TheBlazikenMaster 13:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I forgot my vote:

Delete. TheBlazikenMaster 13:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nearly a duplicate of Category:Films, and it's subcategories. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, scope is probably too broad to be of much use; the Films cat already has several categorizations which are more than ample (country, language, year, etc.). Girolamo Savonarola 17:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category with arbitrary inclusion criteria. Wryspy 07:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all except Wryspy Johnbod 01:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most films we're going to have articles on are feature films, so the better practice is to sub-categorize those that aren't, such as Category:Television films and Category:Direct-to-video films. Postdlf 01:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defining. Carlossuarez46 16:59, 10 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:Yorke Peninsula, South Australia[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 "?!" 13:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Yorke Peninsula, South Australia to Category:Yorke Peninsula

Nominator's rationale: Rename, To standardise the category name in line with other categories for South Australian peninsulas such as Category:Fleurieu Peninsula and Category:Eyre Peninsula. The main article, Yorke Peninsula does not appear to need the South Australia disambiguation and neither does the category. Mattinbgn\^talk 13:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment & Support what about Category:Adelaide Hills, South Australia? Also its only the template Template:Yorke Peninsula that is adding this cat so it will be easy to change. --TheJosh 14:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support the Yorke Peninsula rename, but not Adelaide Hills - there's also an Adelaide Hills in Nova Scotia. Grutness...wha? 23:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. :: maelgwn - talk 10:20, 10 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:Coastal towns of Massachusetts[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:Coastal settlements in Massachusetts. the wub "?!" 13:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Coastal towns of Massachusetts to Category:Coastal municipalities in Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: Rename, "Town" has a specific legal meaning which excludes cities. "Municipalities" includes towns and cities. —Markles 12:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you want to get that technical, "municipalities" itself has legal significance; the categories would exclude articles about unincorporated areas, for instance. Since "settlements" seems to be the most generic offering, how about "Coastal settlements in Massachusetts"? -choster 21:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Coastal settlements in Massachusetts per choster and Category:Settlements in Massachusetts. LeSnail 21:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per LeSnail. Carlossuarez46 17:00, 10 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:Playstation 2 game covers[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 redirect. the wub "?!" 13:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose redirecting or deleting Category:Playstation 2 game covers to Category:PlayStation 2 game covers
Nominator's rationale: This category should redirected or deleted as there is already a category for PlayStation Games, Category:PlayStation 2 game covers. The 's' in station is clearly a missed object. Salavat 12:19, 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:×××HOLiC characters[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 "?!" 13:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:×××HOLiC characters to Category:XxxHolic characters

Nominator's rationale: This category should be renamed to match the related articles (XxxHolic, List of xxxHolic episodes, List of characters in xxxHolic), which were renamed from ×××HOLiC to xxxHolic in March after a heavily-debated discussion. —TangentCube, Dialogues 06:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - Onnaghar ^{talk ! ctrb} 15:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. 132.205.44.5 21:49, 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:Lifetime Television's Ban of certain episodes Fact Or Fiction[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) 02:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Appears to be created just for POV pushing of Lifetime TV's choice regarding programming, by User:Professor Dorkwadd. Contains significant POV prose, opinion, and commentary. ^Ariel♥Gold 05:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - no possible justification for the category. If Lifetime actually did censor episodes of the show then it belongs in an article with appropriate reliable sources. Otto4711 05:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Onnaghar ^{talk ! ctrb} 15:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Benea 23:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:01, 10 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 hoteliers[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 no consensus. After reviewing the situation and the votes, I believe Xtifr made a proposal that addressed some of the keep's concerns, and the following 2 users supported that proposal. I've decided to be bold and to adjust this closure from no consensus to merge per Xtifr. Also, this is a clear example of overcategorization, where the occupation is too specific (and only 4 individuals are in the category, and there isn't an exablished "..by nationality" parent cat). -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Canadian hoteliers to Category:Hoteliers

Nominator's rationale: Merge - the parent Category:Hoteliers is not so large as to warrant subdivision by nation. Otto4711 05:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per overcategorisation. Onnaghar ^{talk ! ctrb} 15:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Category:Canadian people is so large as to warrant subdivision by occupation. Kappa 20:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa. Even if it is unnecessary for Category:Hoteliers, it is very valuable for Category:Canadian people by occupation. LeSnail 21:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Canadian people by occupation has a template:catdiffuse on it. 132.205.44.5 21:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion one option that might solve everyone's complaints here is to merge to Category:Hoteliers and to Category:Canadian businesspeople. Xtifr _tälk 10:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Xtifr. Parent may be too large, but this was clearly poorly-thought. Circeus 02:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Xtifr. Bearcat 21:49, 15 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:Aya Hirano anime[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 "?!" 13:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete: Per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_3#Category:Films_by_actor, Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_13#Category:Films_by_actor, and the discussions linked at the beginning of the latter, categorization of the type (actor) (media) is generally frowned upon, as it is not a useful trait and is better served by a filmography in the actor's article. —TangentCube, Dialogues 02:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 05:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overcategorization and no added value whatsoever. Ninja neko 09:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This was just one overly narrow category the user who made this category started, some of which have already been deleted.--十八 03:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Much as I am a fan of Aya, I don't believe she deserves a category of own (unless we do the same for every other actor/performer etc.. and I don't think that is a path we want to go down, right?) Shiroi Hane 13:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 15:58, 14 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:Female Race car drivers[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 speedily deleted by User:Navou citing CSD G7 (author requests deletion). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Female Race car drivers to Category:Female racecar drivers

Nominator's rationale: same category name, slightly different spelling. Royalbroil 01:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (do not merge) It appears to me that all the entries are already in Category:Female racecar drivers or one of its subcats. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Just in case anything ends up in the category before the close of the CFD. Otto4711 02:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Originator has agreed that this was an error, and has marked it for speedy deletion. Royalbroil 02:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close since the category no longer exists. LeSnail 21:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/merge per nom.--JForget 00:27, 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.

Eponymous musician categories - M[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 all. the wub "?!" 13:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - each of these categories contains one or more (and in several cases none) of the subcats: albums; members; songs; along with the article for the band and in some cases a discography. Per precedent this is overcategorization. Note that there are album or song articles in a couple of categories; they are double-catted in the parent and the subcat. Otto4711 00:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What alternate MO would you suggest for musician/album/song related articles? Is there a guideline that applies to these scenarios? - Cyrus XIII 03:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albums, musicians and songs go in Category:Albums by artist, Category:Musicians by band and Category:Songs by artist respectively. Otto4711 05:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there should be a sensible way to go from songs cats to albums cats etc. Kappa 20:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a sensible way to get from songs to albums. Songs will be linked to the albums they're on and albums will have links to their songs. Otto4711 22:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So from the songs cats, you go to a song, then an album (assuming there is one), then the albums cat? Kappa 14:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can also, if you desire, link the related categories directly. Anyway, in most cases, chronological organization (as provided by discographies) will be more interesting to most people than purely alphabetical listings of either songs or albums. And the use of templates for linking musician or musical group articles is also strongly encouraged. Xtifr _tälk 01:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is all part of a firmly established precedent and guidelines hammered out as a compromise between the deletionist and inclusionist camps after long and contentious debate. The consensus and precedent has held up to deletion review, and hundreds of categories have been processed under these guidelines. No new arguments to counter the existing consensus have been offered. This is considered the basic minimum set of categories and articles that every musical artist should have, and therefore insufficient justification for an eponymous category, since eponymous categories are discouraged except in extraordinary cases. As I mentioned above, the use of templates (see Category:Band templates) is strongly preferred for linking this sort of information, as it presents the information is a format that is generally much more useful to the average reader. Xtifr _tälk 01:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:01, 10 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:Animal video games[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 relist for more discussion, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_17#Category:Animal_video_games.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too broad of a category, and a form of overcategorization. RobJ1981 00:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um this category appears to be a lot less broad than Category:Video games, do you perhaps mean that the criteria for inclusion are too subjective? Kappa 20:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Animal-related video games for clarity. LeSnail 21:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. To clarify: many video games feature animals, so it's too broad. People are a form of animal as well, so just about any game could be put in this category. RobJ1981 22:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's have some common sense when arguing. I doubt anybody would be as stupid as to actually use that argument to categorise The Sims there (as opposed to The Sims 2: Pets and The Sims Pet Stories). Circeus 02:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Animal-themed simulation games. Poor choice of name. Circeus 02:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defining, those suggesting Animal-themed or Animal-related, how much themed or related must it be to be included and what RSes will tell us it's at least that much? It cannot be maintained as suggested, so it should just be deleted. Carlossuarez46 17:03, 10 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.