Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 17

< August 16	August 18 >

August 17[edit]

Category:Allopathic medicine[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 10:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Allopathic is a term not generally used by its practitioners and has a perjorative usage in most contexts (Though it must be said, it's been pointed out to me that it has a respectable usage in seperating M.Ds from osteopaths). Still, though, the handful of articles in this category seems to be almost randomly chosen, and if cut to the sane additions, there wouldn't be enough to justify a category. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It makes perfectly good sense to have this category for navigational purposes. I disagree that the term Allopathic is generally considered to be perjorative -- that is true only within certain circles. As was acknowledged by the nom himself, it does in fact have a valid and important use, in terms of distinguishing between allopaths and osteopaths. As long as the category is restricted to articles pertaining to that usage of the term -- which can be spelled out on the page -- I see no problem with keeping it. (I have already removed the three articles that were inappropriately categorized.) Cgingold 14:38, 22 August 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:Early converts to Islam[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Seems to have been recently interposed in an existing category scheme, almost as an alternative for the pre-existing Category:Sahaba. As such, doesn't seem necessary. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete one article in the category, what is "early"? It's not objective because we cannot say what is "early". Carlossuarez46 22:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subjective "early". Wryspy 07:03, 18 August 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:Christmas stories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 10:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Christmas fiction, as duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Wryspy 07:03, 18 August 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:Massachusetts Attorneys General[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 10:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Massachusetts Attorneys General to Category:Attorneys General of Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: Rename, To keep in same format as other Mass. gov. positions contained in Category:Government of Massachusetts. —Markles 15:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per conventions of Category:State Attorneys General in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither parent category appears to have a perfectly consistent naming convention. Some of the similar categories are of the form "(postion) of (state)" while others are "(state) (position)". Personally I like Category:Massachusetts Attorneys General better because it's more concise (it doesn't require the extra word "of"). So just my opinion, but I'd stick with that. Dugwiki 17:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I like to see consistency between states at the state level and consistency between countries at the country level, so, to me, the important convention (or near-convention) is that of Category:State Attorneys General in the United States, and any apparent convention in Category:Government of Massachusetts should be treated as what it probably is: a coincidence. Xtifr _tälk 11:39, 19 August 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 - F[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. the wub "?!" 11:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - each category is limited to one or more of the following subcategories: albums; members; songs; along with the article for the artist and in some instances a discography article. Per precedent this is overcategorization. Otto4711 15:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Wryspy 07:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, at least the ones with two or more subcategories. These categories nicely connect all articles related to the bands in question. 96T 19:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all with two or more subcategories. It is illogical to expect people to navigate entirely via articles. The category system rests on the supposition that there are alternative, and often better, ways to navigate. Dominictimms 20:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not illogical to expect people to navigate via articles. Most people probably navigate via articles. Most people who are looking for information on a musician are going to start at the musician's article. They are not going to start at the category level. Otto4711 22:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per ample and extensive precedent, which has been upheld at deletion review. Pretty much every band should have all three subcategories, so if we say that every band with more than two subcategories should have an eponymous category, then we're basically saying that every band should have an eponymous category, and that notion has already been rejected after long and acrimonious debate that resulted in the current compromise; acrimonious debate which I, for one, would not like to see repeated. Xtifr _tälk 11:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Xtifr. --PEJL 03:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The previous consensus remains unless someone points out a reason that supports a different consensus. Vegaswikian 04:56, 22 August 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:Secretaries of State of Massachusetts[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated. the wub "?!" 12:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Secretaries of State of Massachusetts to Category:Secretaries of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: Rename, The job is actually called Secretary of the Commonwealth. —Markles 15:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Massachusetts Secretaries of the Commonwealth to match the associated main article The associated main article for this category is Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth. In most cases a category title should match the title of its main article, so I'd suggest going with Category:Massachusetts Secretaries of the Commonwealth. Dugwiki 17:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, as it's closer to the convention of Category:State secretaries of state of the United States. I agree with nom that the proper title should be used, despite parent category convention, but I still think that the broader parent category's convention should be followed as closely as is possible without being incorrect. Dugwiki's argument is also appealing, but I tend to find that consistency (relatively speaking) within a category more compelling, especially since the article can easily be renamed or have a redirect added. Xtifr _tälk 20:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to Xtifr, I wouldn't object to renaming the article to Secretary of State of Massachusetts so that it matches the category. My main concern is that the main article and category match. Dugwiki 21:53, 20 August 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:WikiProject MTV and subcategories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

Category:WikiProject MTV

Category:WikiProject MTV Templates

Category:WikiProject MTV articles

Category:WikiProject MTV members

Nominator's rationales: Remnants of a deleted WikiProject. - kollision 15:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 00:39, 19 August 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:No_image_available[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same purpose as category Category:Wikipedia_requested_photographs, creator of category agrees to merge, I have changed all Category:No_image_available to Category:Wikipedia_requested_photographs, suggest speedy delete of Category:No_image_available. --Stefan ^talk 15:24, 17 August 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:County Roads in Volusia County, Florida[edit]

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

The result of the debate was (speedy) rename as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:County Roads in Volusia County, Florida to Category:County roads in Volusia County, Florida

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to make consistent with other Florida county road categories. Ebyabe 15:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename Alex Middleton 21:14, 17 August 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:Louisiana State University at Shreveport alumni[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated. It seems someone's already emptied the cat. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect into Category:Louisiana State University in Shreveport alumni, to match Louisiana State University in Shreveport. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, obviously redundant. The redirect seems a little excessive, but not unreasonable, so count me as neutral there. Xtifr _tälk 03:56, 18 August 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.

People from Japanese cities[edit]

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

The result of the debate was upmerge all. the wub "?!" 11:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following categories are all over-categorization, with just a few members. A small discussion on the Japan project page can be found here which suggests to limit the subdivided categories (found in Category:People by city in Japan) to the ones big enough to support 20-30 articles. The most articles in any of these below is currently ten.

Category:People from Konan, Aichi

Category:People from Obu, Aichi

Upmerge to Category:People from Aichi Prefecture

Category:People from Dazaifu, Fukuoka

Category:People from Tagawa, Fukuoka

Category:People from Yanagawa, Fukuoka

Category:People from Ōmuta, Fukuoka

Upmerge to Category:People from Fukuoka Prefecture

Category:People from Kōriyama, Fukushima

Upmerge to Category:People from Fukushima Prefecture

Category:People from Fukuyama, Hiroshima

Category:People from Hatsukaichi, Hiroshima

Category:People from Higashihiroshima, Hiroshima

Category:People from Kure, Hiroshima

Category:People from Onomichi, Hiroshima

Category:People from Takehara, Hiroshima

Upmerge to Category:People from Hiroshima Prefecture

Category:People from Nishinomiya, Hyōgo

Upmerge to Category:People from Hyōgo Prefecture

Category:People from Hioki, Kagoshima

Category:People from Izumi, Kagoshima

Category:People from Kagoshima, Kagoshima

Category:People from Okuchi, Kagoshima

Category:People from Soo, Kagoshima

Upmerge to Category:People from Kagoshima Prefecture

Category:People from Atsugi, Kanagawa

Category:People from Chigasaki, Kanagawa

Category:People from Hadano, Kanagawa

Category:People from Isehara, Kanagawa

Category:People from Kawasaki, Kanagawa

Category:People from Minamiashigara, Kanagawa

Category:People from Sagamihara, Kanagawa

Category:People from Yokosuka, Kanagawa

Category:People from Zama, Kanagawa

Category:People from Zushi, Kanagawa

Upmerge to Category:People from Kanagawa Prefecture

Category:People from Sendai

Upmerge to Category:People from Miyagi Prefecture

Category:People from Isahaya, Nagasaki

Category:People from Nagasaki

Upmerge to Category:People from Nagasaki Prefecture

Category:People from Beppu, Ōita

Category:People from Ōita, Ōita

Category:People from Taketa, Ōita

Category:People from Usuki, Ōita

Upmerge to Category:People from Ōita Prefecture

Category:People from Kurashiki, Okayama

Upmerge to Category:People from Okayama Prefecture

Category:People from Neyagawa, Osaka

Category:People from Suita, Osaka

Category:People from Takatsuki, Osaka

Category:People from Toyonaka, Osaka

Upmerge to Category:People from Osaka Prefecture

Upmerge all as nominator. Neier 08:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all per nom. --musicpvm 22:39, 18 August 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.

More Kitakyushu macrons[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 11:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Kitakyushu to Category:Kitakyūshū

Propose renaming Category:Places in Kitakyushu to Category:Places in Kitakyūshū

Propose renaming Category:Wards of Kitakyushu to Category:Wards of Kitakyūshū

Nominator's rationale: Rename, with macrons on Kitakyūshū via WP:MOS-JA. Neier 08:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom.--Esprit15d 17:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination was to rename, why the suggestion to delete? Vegaswikian 19:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, but please keep the original as a redirect, it can't be typed on US keyboards. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. As for redirecting the category, that's not really necessary, as the only time you'd generally be typing a category name is when adding it to an article. All article edit pages have a reference box below them which allows you access to all macronned characters. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. No need for redirect per 日本穣. Bendono 02:30, 20 August 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:People in Kitakyushu[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 12:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People in Kitakyushu to Category:People from Kitakyūshū

Nominator's rationale: Rename, according to in/from styles; and also macrons on Kitakyūshū via WP:MOS-JA. Neier 08:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Bendono 02:31, 20 August 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 Freemasons[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category is overcategorization; often the mention is an aside and has little to do with the character himself or the story. MSJapan 05:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. Where a fictional character's "membership" in Freemasonry is important to the persona of the character, or is important to the plot of the work of fiction, this can be mentioned in the article. To categorize it is essentially categorizing trivia. Blueboar 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little history: This cat was kept along with all of the real life Freemason cats last August, and kept by itself in November. All of the real life cats were then deleted in a contentious discussion this last March. In that discussion, much of the reasoning against the cats centered around the verifiability problems stemming secret nature of the organization. I'm not taking any position on this cat, but I would point out that fictional characters do not suffer from that problem. ×Meegs 06:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we've decided that being freemasons are not defining for people (and it's only a minor stretch to say for fictitious people too). Carlossuarez46 18:08, 20 August 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:Russian Freemasons[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: All "Freemasons by nationality" cats were previously deleted. MSJapan 05:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussion of March 4th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Such categories already determined to be globally deleted (see comment by User:ProveIt, above]]. Blueboar 15:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ProveIt. Carlossuarez46 18:08, 20 August 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:Hungarian Freemasons[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: All "Freemasons by nationality" cats were previously deleted, and only one article in cat hardly makes it notable. MSJapan 05:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussion of March 4th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Such categories already determined to be globally deleted (see comment by User:ProveIt, above]]. Blueboar 15:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ProveIt. Carlossuarez46 18:09, 20 August 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:Iranian freemasons[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: All "Freemasons by nationality" cats were already previously deleted as overcategorization. MSJapan 05:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussion of March 4th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Such categories already determined to be globally deleted (see comment by User:ProveIt, above]]. Blueboar 15:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ProveIt. Carlossuarez46 18:09, 20 August 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:New World Order wrestlers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 12:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete- This is overcategorization. The New World Order was a large group in the pro wrestling promotion WCW (and briefly WWE). The members of this group are explained well in the New World Order (professional wrestling) article already. There is many other large groups in pro wrestling, that don't have a special category for it's members. I don't see this as being an exception. RobJ1981 04:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Other stuff doesn't exist" isn't a reason for deletion. The nWo unlike any other stable I know off has had a HUGE member list and at times was booked to act like "a seperate promotion" within WCW - there was a "nWo/WCW presents" label on PPVs that occured during their heyday. It's big enough and important enough in historical terms to keep MPJ-DK 07:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Being like a promotion: doesn't make it a promotion. This is clear wrestling overcategorization. WCW owned NWO and all the wrestlers. Just like how WWE owns ECW, and there is ECW named events: that doesn't mean we need to make an ECW wrestlers category. Furthermore: a large group doesn't always make it notable to just categorize. Categories are supposed to be for useful things: not any random thing just for the sake of categorizing. RobJ1981 23:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Having a category and a list on the page is redundant. One of them needs to go, and since this isn't a promotion I'm not sure that it should have a category. I'm going to say delete, but I’m conflicted. The Hyb rid 08:24, 19 August 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:Nebulous[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization. Otto4711 04:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wryspy 06:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:09, 20 August 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:Hancock's Half Hour actors[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 04:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wryspy 06:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Hancock's Half Hour, as neither that parent category or this one are very large. --Bduke 06:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is overcategorization to tag actors with a show characters cat, then it is also overcategorization to tag the actors with the cat for the show. Otto4711 15:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Bduke, highly notable show, but not sufficient to support seperate actor cat. DuncanHill 11:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion of January 25th -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete performer by performance. Carlossuarez46 18:10, 20 August 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:Freemason officers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Poor title, and only five articles in the cat, with no real way to populate - the main article Masonic Lodge Officers contains 98% of the officers. Of the others, one was incorrectly placed in the cat as it wasn't only Masonic and was a dicdef. A cat for four articles isn't really worth keeping, so I emptied it out. MSJapan 04:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Category was created before there a main article was written... works better as a main article and linked subarticles - no need for a Category. Blueboar 15:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per earlier discussion on freemasons. Carlossuarez46 18:11, 20 August 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: Cult suicides[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 12:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: {{{3|For the same reason there aren't any articles categorized as cults - the word 'cult' is a pejortive and is non-neutral - it also is on the Words to Avoid list. Placing groups in a category named 'cult suicides' is as neutral as categorizing them as cults. Sfacets 04:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete category with name we're supposed to avoid. Wryspy 06:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ? Sfacets 06:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something like Category:Religious organizations suicides. Notable concept but "cult" should be avoided. Carlossuarez46 18:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Category is properly named, serves a valid navigational function, and is not being abused. It's certainly true that we don't want the term "cult" to be casually strewn about. So use of the word in the title of a category demands careful scrutiny. However, proper and careful use of the term is not prohibitted. The purpose of Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Cult.2C_sect is to reign in casual and/or POV-pushing use of the term. In point of fact, each of the articles that have been placed in this category pertains to one of four specific cases of cult suicides, all of which are uncontroversial in terms of being so designated. If ever there was clear-cut validation of the term "cult", it was by the very suicides that made these particular groups so notorious.

In addition, there are quite a few articles which legitimately use the word "cult" in their title, along with half a dozen other subcategories which also use the word in their title. This category has existed for nearly a year, and hasn't attracted any inappropriately tagged articles. I see no reason to delete it. Cgingold 13:45, 22 August 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:Ultimate Poker Challenge[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - the category contained the show article and seasonal results. I merged the results articles and in their absence there is no need for the category. Otto4711 01:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is likely never to be ore than one article in this category. -Icewedge 04:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete category lacking room for growth. Wryspy 07:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unneeded ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 04:04, 23 August 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:World Series of Poker Tournament of Champions winners[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete small category with no potential for growth. The Tournament of Champions has been "indefinitely suspended" by Harrah's. The article contains complete information on the three tournaments that have taken place and the category is unnecessary. Otto4711 01:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wryspy 06:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete well it does have potential for growth, it matter of thinking long term, 20 years from the category would be reasonable as but with only three people soon to be four, it's not really needed▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 04:01, 23 August 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:Fighting Talk[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete, overcategorisation. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 00:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wryspy 06:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:13, 20 August 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:World Poker Tour champions[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:World Poker Tour champions to Category:World Poker Tour winners

Nominator's rationale: Merge - a maximum of one new article can be added to this category per year. A list of champions in the WPT article is sufficient to cover the territory. Otto4711 00:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wryspy 06:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete not needed at this time ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 04:03, 23 August 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.