Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 2

< August 1	August 3 >

August 2[edit]

Category:Maritime Plymouth[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Maritime Plymouth to Category:Plymouth

Nominator's rationale: Merge, the maritime category is a pretty arbitrary split - Plymouth is a maritime city so just about anything associated with it can be called "Maritime". Crownhill has nothing to do with the sea for instance... When there are more articles, the top-level cat would be split into more appropriate subcategories.Nilf anion (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps, but keep Category:Forts of Plymouth and Category:Plymouth built ships in Category:Plymouth. Neddyseagoon - talk

Makes sense to me.--Nilf anion (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems perfectly sensible sub-cat to me. The Crownhill article is mostly about the former naval fort, so that's ok. Johnbod 21:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crownhill Fort has nothing to do with the sea - its several miles inland! Its only connection to the sea is it was protecting Plymouth (a naval base) from attack by land. Crownhill itself is a district of the city with no more connection to the sea than a random district of a city in Kansas.--Nilf anion (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually looking at a map it is within 2 1/2 miles of navigable water in 3 directions.[1] The fort was clearly not designed to defend against an attack from say London, but to prevent a naval landing from coming at the city from the land. But, remove it from the category if it is not appropriate. Are there any other such items in the category? I couldn't see any. That a category has the odd inappropriately included article is not a reason for deletion. Johnbod 02:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Nominator's rationale for merging makes sense as the category is redundant both in name and scope to Category:Plymouth. --Core desat 02:12, 4 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:Video game companies by nationality[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Video game companies by nationality to Category:Video game companies by country

Nominator's rationale: Rename, per convention of category:Companies by country AshbyJnr 23:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er... Otto4711 00:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll second that. Vegaswikian 04:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Based on the nomination below, I'm pretty sure that the target supposed to be Category:Video game companies by country. ×Meegs 06:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per (revised?) nom. Johnbod 21:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Meegs and/or revised nom to match grandparent Category:Companies by country. Xtifr _tälk 23:07, 6 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:Software companies by nationality[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Software companies by nationality to Category:Software companies by country

Nominator's rationale: Merge, per name of parent and convention for such categories. AshbyJnr 23:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Johnbod 21:58, 3 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:Video game developers from Sweden[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Video game developers from Sweden to ~~Category:Video game developers of Sweden~~ Category:Video game companies of Sweden

Nominator's rationale: Rename, per convention for categories of companies. AshbyJnr 21:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "developers" sounds like it means people, not companies. Should this (and its siblings) be renamed "development companies"? Otto4711 21:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per revised nom. Johnbod 21:29, 3 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:Wikipedia humor[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 snowball keep. This debate is generating more heat than light. Also, humor-pages have a strong precedent of being kept on MFD. >Radiant< 09:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC) This category and all of its pages should be deleted. This is an encyclopedia and not a online joke book. Some people will not find these pages funny but they will find them annoying. Such jokes should go to uncyclopedia. What is the point of having pages in all formal encyclopedia and not a joke book, when these pages are only being used for jokes. Brave warrior 21:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra strong keep. Again, didn't you see the header? "This category is used for administration of the Wikipedia project. It is not part of the encyclopedia. It contains pages which are not articles, or lists articles by status, rather than content." God forbid anyone on this encyclopedia should get a good laugh. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and lighten up, please. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nominating this category for deletion is not the way to embark on a quest to rid Wikipedia of all things not serious, that would be a far larger scale operation and would effectively involve destroying all our senses of humour. I wouldn't recommend it. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 22:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete What is the point of these article. They are not any policies, guidlines or even essays nor are they encyclopedic article. They are jokes and should be in uncyclopedia. They should possibly be in a new website called "jokepedia" or something like that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not some websites to post homour pages. Also some pages such as Wikipedia:Assume bad faith will give misleading to users. When I first saw the article, I thought it was serious and You should assume bad faith. I am not only nominating this category for deletion but also nominating that all articles in this category should also be deleted. Another example would be Wikipedia:Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them, I am sure many newcomers will not like this article and find it annoying. Brave warrior 23:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Speedy delete under which criterion?
2. They're not articles, they are essays and pages in userspace, and they help build the community. Since most of them are about Wikipedia, they actually don't belong on uncyclopedia. Sorry, but try as you might, you're very unlikely to succeed in ridding the entire Wikimedia Foundation (they have these pages on meta aswell) of everything remotely not serious. We're allowed this stuff in our userspace at the very least. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 23:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.

This is a maintenance category, used for maintenance of the Wikipedia project. It is not part of the encyclopedia and contains non-article pages, or groups articles by status rather than subject. Do not include this category in content categories.

These pages contain material which is kept because the contents are considered humorous. They are not intended, nor should they be used, for any research or serious use.

With those tags and the large number of user pages, it is clear that this should not be in the main name space. So if not deleted, the category needs to be moved out of the main name space. Vegaswikian 23:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, move a category out of category space? That's not possible... - Zeibura ^(Talk) 00:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra-strong keep. While I agree that humour pages have no place in an encyclopedia, these pages are not in the encyclopedia itself, but are in wikispace - in other words, they aren't in the encyclopedia, they are in the projects which surrounds it. You could equally argue that WikiProjects don't belong in an encyclopedia, as they are not articles, but part of Wikipedia's inner workings. They too are in Wikispace. Keeping a sense of humour while working on Wikipedia is vital, to ensure the smooth running of the project - ghu knows there are enough bitter editors as it is without trying to remove the one area of levity within this community. The pages within this category are therefore of the utmost importance to the smooth running of the Wikipedian community. Since there is no separate Wikicategoryspace for categories relating to non-articles, the only place these humour pages can be effectively categorised is in the main category space - as is the case with other "unencyclopedic" parts of the project, such as user pages, WikiProjects, cleanup pages and the like. As such, this is a legitimate and highly useful way of keeping these pages accessible to Wikipedians. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sure it's not encyclopedic, but it's not supposed to be. It's not part of article space. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, of course, but this discussion does raise the issue of the dire need in revamping MediaWiki's categories infrastructure. For example, "This article IS A", "The subject of this article IS A" and "The subject of this article IS RELATED TO" are totally different things. And community-related categories like this one should indeed belong in a different namespace, but that is impossible with the current version of MediaWiki. I am sure that i am not the first one that talks about this - are there any other proposals like this one? --Amir E. Aharoni 20:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I'm sure many people feel this should be kept because, well, they want all this funny stuff around, but is it appropriate? Perhaps it's necessary to have some steam-venting, but perhaps it's also valid to be concerned about some of the content. I don't think XfD is the best place to go to deal with this sort of thing, but I do at least see the concern. FrozenPurpleCube 22:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hyper-strong keep as essential. Expand, even. Bad Jokes+, Deleted Freakiness...these formed a basis for my Wikipedia editing education by being a primer on how the community works. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia does not survive by taking itself too seriously. Editors get burnout and go on indefinite wikibreaks when Wikipedia is all work and no fun. However, we should make sure that every page associated with this category is tagged with a Humor tag. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 20:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Infinitely strong keep For two reasons: One, it says that it is used for Wikipedia administration, and second (I'm very sorry for this): I like it MalwareSmarts 23:33, 5 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 - C[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, precedent --Kbdank71 16:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - each of these categories is limited to one or more of the following subcats: albums; members; songs; along with the article for the artist and in some instances a discography. Per precedent this is overcategorization. Otto4711 21:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ample precedent and the inarguable redundancy and lack of utility of these vanity categories. (Not that vanity may not be justified in a few of these cases, but just saying....) Xtifr _tälk 22:37, 2 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:Arabic script[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 reverse merge; Category:Arabic alphabet to Category:Arabic script --Kbdank71 15:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Arabic script to Category:Arabic alphabet

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Only one subcategory and the topic is served well enough by the target category. Amir E. Aharoni 18:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, but preferably the other way. Category:Arabic alphabet contains a much wider range of articles than just on the alphabet, and Category:Arabic script is the better name. Johnbod 00:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arabic script, --Soman 07:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arabic alphabet! - for consistency with Category:Hebrew alphabet, Category:Cyrillic alphabet, Category:Latin alphabet etc. --Amir E. Aharoni 19:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note This is nominator !voting again. Johnbod 21:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - none of those have sub-cats on calligraphy. It might be better to rename all of them. Certainly accuracy should override consistency in the case of Arabic, in my view. Johnbod 21:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was me again, but i thought that it's a discussion and not a majority vote. (Although it's the first time i am discussing categories.)

Accuracy should always override consistency. I just don't see how accuracy is at stake here and how exactly is calligraphy related to the issue of alphabet vs. script. --Amir E. Aharoni 02:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Script is clearly the wider term, covering all aspects of a writing-system, as these categories do. The calligraphy sub-cat contains 5 articles with "script" in the title, and others, like Diwani that could/should have it in the title. There are several such articles in Category:Latin alphabet and others too. Johnbod 15:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Arabic script per Johnbod, that is the wider category and will take in Arabic numerals and calligraphy, etc. Carlossuarez46 04:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Arabic alphabet to Arabic script for the additional reason that the Arabic script is an abjad, which is arguably not an alphabet (see lead of that article). Calling it a script is accurate and sidesteps the issue of whether or not it is an alphabet. — The Storm Surfer 12:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was becoming very weird, i was getting sorry that i even opened a merge discussion about such a small category that was most certainly created by mistake, so i decided to get bold, ignored all rules and did what i should have done in the first place - moved the two items that were in that category to Category:Arabic alphabet.

I think that Category:Arabic script should be just deleted now.

If anyone still thinks that the Arabic alphabet is not an alphabet, he's welcome to try and move everything from Category:Arabic alphabet to some other place. --Amir E. Aharoni 13:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think Arabic script is a better category name. (Did you think two hours of silence would change my mind?) Should I really implement the change, or should we continue discussion here? — The Storm Surfer 14:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think so, you may propose it. To save the hassle, this discussion can go on here.

Although i think that following my example and just implementing it would not be a good idea, 'cuz it would be a very big change, compared to what i did. And then, for consistency, you'll have to do that for Category:Hebrew alphabet, too.

Rest assured, though - Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, Georgian and Armenian can stay where they are. Not being abjads they are mere alphabets and not scripts ;) --Amir E. Aharoni 14:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is what we are discussing here. I would probably favour renaming all to script, but that would be for another nomination. Johnbod 23:49, 8 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:High school debate films[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:High school debate films to Category:Films about high school debate

Nominator's rationale: About half the categories in Category:Films by topic are in the format "Films about ___", while the other half are called "___ films". Why Category:Gambling films but Category:Films about chess? My impression was that nouns typically come first, though I couldn't find anything conclusive in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). The "Films by topic" category looks too haphazard with all these different word orderings to my admittedly oversensitive eyes. --zenohockey 18:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Unsure about unified naming convention. Otto4711 16:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak rename as, in this case, the current name is a little bit ambiguous. (Are these films which are debated, or films about debates?) No opinion at present about a broader convention. Xtifr _tälk 21:27, 6 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:Environmental Protection Agency[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Environmental Protection Agency to Category:United States Environmental Protection Agency

Nominator's rationale: Rename; as indicated at Environmental Protection Agency there are several different organizations with this name, and the main article is at United States Environmental Protection Agency, which appears to be the full official name found at www.epa.gov.-choster 18:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Hawkestone 20:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename It does appear to be the US EPA category--is this on purpose, though? Should other EPAs rather be added to this category to make it more international, if there is a pupose? KP Botany 21:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - In addition, there's clearly a need for a parent cat, Category:Environmental protection agencies, given the multiplicity of similarly-named agencies. Cgingold 23:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just created the category I suggested and started populating it. Cgingold 03:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this just an eponymous category or would, say, England's Environment Agency / Wales' Asiantaeth yr Amgylchedd / Liechtenstein's 'Office for Environmental Protection' be included? Ephebi 16:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not eponymous. Note that the words aren't capitalized. Any govt. agency that has been given substantially the same mission as the US EPA or state EPA's, etc. should be added. I looked around for England's counterpart, but couldn't find it as I didn't have the exact name. From a quick look at the article, it would appear to qualify. Cgingold 12:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you'll need to make that clear in description that sits on the category's page, as the UK Env. Agency isn't a carbon copy that is just focussed on 'defending' the environment like the EP agencies already listed, but has an extended set of duties, such as flood, fishing and navigation licensing on waterways. Ephebi 12:45, 9 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:Al-Qaeda killings[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Al-Qaeda killings, we already have categories that cover the necessary topic - do not need to randomly tag every article related to something done by AQ with this category...that's why we have Category:Al-Qaeda. It's a terrorist group, all/most of its articles involve death or killing, there's never going to be a Category:Al-Qaeda Knitting Circle followers sub-cat. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would we ever need Category:Al-Qaeda hostages or Category:Al-Qaeda prisoners or Category:Al-Qaeda cyberwarfare?

Delete per nom. This category was created in order to make a point, i.e., that another category Category:PIRA killings created by the same editor was not his attempt to push a POV. When I mentioned that no other such terrorist category or sub-cat existed, such as this one now in question, he turned around and created Category:Al-Qaeda killings. As though the existence of this unnecessary and redundant category justified the existence of the other. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 03:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purpose seems POV, and the articles covered are already in an established category scheme, so this cat only adds redundancy, while also pushing a POV.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given that none of the articles in this category, other than the 9/11 article, are actually about particular Al-Qaeda attacks, there is no real need for the category. It is simply redundant. (In contrast, the parallel cat, Category:PIRA killings, does actually have articles about particular IRA attacks.) Cgingold 23:17, 6 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.

Authors by franchise[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; thanks Mike --Kbdank71 15:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - a flavor of performer by performance overcategorization similar to other previously deleted "authors by franchise" categories and the deleted category structures for writers by TV series. Authors can write and design for any number of game systems or franchises over the course of a career and categorizing them all is clutterful.. Otto4711 18:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Otto. Johnbod 00:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as long as caution is made to insure they are otherwise properly categorized (i.e. upmerged to something like Category:American fantasy writers where appropriate) Someone like Douglas Niles would fall out of some of the categorization trees if the cats were simply deleted. Perhaps, if this closes as delete, we should move it to the manual working page with a note regarding replacement categories. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I already went through and made sure that everyone was either in Category:Role-playing game designers, Category:Game artists, or a subcategory of Category:Fantasy writers by nationality. So no manual-work tag needed.--Mike Selinker 19:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: a type of performer by performance. Carlossuarez46 05:00, 7 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:Prince films[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 prune and rename to Category:Films directed by Prince --Kbdank71 15:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Seems like performer by performance to me. I don't think we'd say this constitutes a series, like Abbott & Costello's output.--Mike Selinker 18:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per strong precedent against categorizing films by actors. We'll talk again one day about Abbott and Costello... Otto4711 18:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is actually only an actor in some (eg not Girl(6)), but composed the soundtrack for all (I think). Do we have categories for that? Johnbod 03:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prune and rename to Categories:Films directed by Prince per Category:Films by director. Just remove the ones that Prince did not direct. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that would only leave 4 articles, and the template:Prince already lists all of these articles together, so perhaps this category isn't needed at all.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Films directed by Prince seems a fine category.--Mike Selinker 15:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Set up Category:Films directed by Prince certainly. I'd be inclined to keep the current category above it for the soundtracks, if these do not just repeat albums etc. Film composers are undercategorised in my view. Johnbod 12:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prune and rename per Andrew & Johnbod. Consensus here is pretty uniform that films by director is OK, by actor/writer/singer is not. Carlossuarez46 05:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Categories:Films directed by Prince fitting the structure of films by directors. @pple 04:02, 8 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:Bob Dylan band members[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - This isn't a band, per se. In fact at least two other bands (The Band and Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers) are entirely represented here. This seems like it's just "people Bob Dylan played with."--Mike Selinker 17:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete category for what amounts to a non-existent band. Musicians in most cases shouldn't be categorized by what solo artists they performed with as it is a variety of performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 18:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I have to say that I'm amazed that nobody added all the members of the Grateful Dead who actually released a collaborative album with Dylan, unlike Tom Petty who merely toured in collaboration (unless you count the Traveling Wilburys, which would not include the members of the Heartbreakers). There is no "Bob Dylan band", although The Band comes close. There is probably information of encyclopedic value here, but a category does not seem like an appropriate way to present the information. Xtifr _tälk 22:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wryspy 04:02, 5 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:Library reference desk[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Not exactly sure what the category is supposed to be for, the creator seems to be using it as if it were the reference desk. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 15:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems intended for personal research. Johnbod 00:18, 3 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:Companies Based on Long Island[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. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Companies Based on Long Island to Category:Companies based on Long Island

Nominator's rationale: Capitalisation fixing. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 15:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. I've been meaning to change it myself. Thanks. ButtonwoodTree 15:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename Otto4711 17:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename, I've tossed it on the speedy list, if it's processed there we can close this. Xtifr _tälk 20:41, 3 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:Ethnic nationalism[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I suggest merge with Category:Nationalism. Although Ethnic nationalism is a separate concept, and does deserve a separate article, its extremly hard to correctly differentiate between nationalism to be classified as 'ethnic' and other forms of nationalism. Nationalisms are generally constructed around a combination of several interlinked identities (language, history, culture, ethnicity, race, religious, political thinking, etc.), are the combinations of identities are subject to change over time (i.e. a nationalism that was not ethnic in its beginnings might aqcuire ethnic markers over time, and vice versa). Soman 15:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom: nationalism can certainly exist without having a nation (yet). Carlossuarez46 05:03, 7 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.

FBI Top Ten Most Wanted[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, 1990s to Category:FBI Top Ten Most Wanted Fugitives

Category:FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, 1980s to Category:FBI Top Ten Most Wanted Fugitives

Category:Former FBI Top Ten Most Wanted Fugitives to Category:FBI Top Ten Most Wanted Fugitives

Nominator's rationale: Merge, it looks like Category:Current FBI Top Ten Most Wanted Fugitive is going to be deleted, so it makes sense to also delete the "former" category. The 1980s cat only has a single article in it, and as for the 1990s, I believe a single category can cover all the articles related to the FBI top ten list. Andrew c ^[talk] 14:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per nom. Onnaghar (Speak.work?) 14:45, 2 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:Recent deaths[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. This was going to be a delete, based upon pretty much every delete argument given. But if we are going to keep the template (which I don't agree with personally, but that's just my opinion), the category is useful for keeping track of what articles it's on. I checked all of the articles in the category, and none of the people have died earlier than July. So it is being kept up to date. --Kbdank71 15:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this kind of categorization requires continual maintenance and is unsuitable for printed editions, CD distribution, or mirrored content; see also many precedents. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just wanted to point out that this appears to be a category created automatically by template Template:Recent death, and that there was a lengthy discussion that resulted in a consensus to keep the template at [2]. Since the category seems to be intertwined with the template, the template discussion and result is also relevant to whether or not the associated category is kept. While I'm not entirely dismissing the idea that the category can be deleted while the template is kept, I would think they would need to be handled the same way since the whole point of the template is to group the articles in this category.

I will also say that ProveIt is correct that we don't normally categorize based on current-vs-former status. On the other hand there are a few exceptions, such as tagging things as "upcoming" events and "current" events. So it might be that this is a reasonable exception (I haven't really decided.) Dugwiki 15:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as per Dugwiki. This is really the byproduct of a tag to inform people of a recent death, and by adding the tag, the category is populated too. Lugnuts 16:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't like the template, but if we are to have the template, the category does at least make it more likely that template will be removed timeously. Hawkestone 20:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The examples cited above are not germane to this category. Pages get categorized into Recent deaths when the {{Recentdeath}} banner is placed. Having the category allows readers and editors alike to look to one source for a summary of recent notable deaths. Instead of being a category that needs inordinate amounts of maintenance, it is actually a help to article maintenance. I created it, and I use it to apply needed parameters to the {{recentdeath}} template, as well as to keep an eye on any bloat in the number of articles in which the template appears, so myself & others can take steps to remove outdated templates. Further, it flags articles that may need heightened vigilance against unconstructive edits. All of these are good for the project.

Bottom line: The death of a notable person is, in itself, a notable, encyclopedic event. Additionally, the category is very useful for maintaining the underlying template. While I sympathize with ProveIt about the other examples cited, this one is qualitatively different because of the events it documents and because of the relative automaticity of its maintenance.

With respect, and with humor aforethought, if you believe it needs deleted, prove it. --Ssbohio 22:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Question: how does this offer any benefits over using "What Links Here" on the template itself? Xtifr _tälk 22:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The category is more accessible and requires less "inside baseball" knowledge than consulting the Whatlinkshere for the template; additionally, this category alphabetizes the names of those who've died, making the list more readable. The closest functional equivalent to this Category would be the Deaths in 2007 page, and that has the disadvantages of requiring manual updates and splitting deaths in a month into a subpage. I favor the approach that carries maximum utility for its purpose, and I think this category is it. --Ssbohio 11:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A comment: If this category is ruled out of bounds as part of the encyclopedia, can it be kept because of its usefulness for maintenance of the {{recentdeath}} template and for its potential to attract more eyeballs to articles at potentially greater risk for vandalism? --Ssbohio 23:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful for browsing. 03:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Delete. "Current" is not maintainable. Wryspy 04:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This category is automatically maintained by the application and removal of the {{Recentdeath}} template. No manual maintenance of the category or its members is required. --Ssbohio 21:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cat unnecessary; this is listified and sourced elsewhere. And how long does the recent death notice get kept? Is it bot deleted (so that that time is consistent)? And if someone has died a bit ago and the death is only recently known is it a recent death? Too much ambiguity as well. Carlossuarez46 05:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Is it necessary?" isn't the standard, in my experience. Many of the pages on Wikipedia are unnecessary in someone's eyes. Rather, it's a question of usefulness. The category allows for quick browsing of recent deaths, sorted in proper name order, whether or not the article has been swept and appended to the list article. Further, the list is divided by month, so at the beginning of every month, a check of two separate locations is required. It is not up-to-date in the way that the category is. Having the category also allows for easy maintenance of he {{Recentdeath}} template by aiding the application of the proper name sorting key and date parameters. The question you raise about the application of {{Recentdeath}} is perhaps better asked at its talk page. However, in my experience, the template has been applied heuristically, without a sharp division as to how long it should be on an article. --Ssbohio 23:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that it is added and removed with the maintenance template, and serves to improve the encyclopedia in that fashion. — The Storm Surfer 12:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, recentism, and the term "recent" death is not objectively defined. Add those to categories for deceased people as appropriate, but we're not Wikinews. >Radiant< 12:15, 9 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 Warriors[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with little or no room for growth. Otto4711 13:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - majority of subcategories are lists. Onnaghar (Speak.work?) 14:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Within what is currently acceptable to include in the cat, it looks like there isn't anything more that could be added. The lists can, or should, be reachable directly from the article. - J Greb 16:30, 2 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:Star Trek rank insignia[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Star Trek rank insignia to Category:Star Trek ranks

Propose renaming Category:Star Trek ranks to Category:Star Trek ranks and insignia

Nominator's rationale: Merge - two small categories, unlikely to expand to any great degree. No real need to keep it separate from the parent category, which should be renamed to match the lead article Star Trek ranks and insignia. Otto4711 12:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Rename - per above & nom. Onnaghar (Speak.work?) 14:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge at the very least, and the rename can make some sense. Couple of observations though:
1. The insignia images look like they have a free/non-free tag issues -- I would think that Paramount holds the (C) and TM on the insignia, so an uploader cannot release (C) without there being verbiage that Paramount has done so as well. This is also a concern for the insignia not yet in the cat.
2. Along with that, the gallery use seems tenuous, at bet.

- J Greb 16:27, 2 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:Star Trek events[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Star Trek events to Category:Star Trek

Nominator's rationale: Merge - nebulous category name. Only had one article, which was deleted at AFD. Serving as a container category for the "wars and battles" subcat, which can live as well in the parent cat as in this one. Otto4711 12:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per nom. Onnaghar (Speak.work?) 14:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - yeah, not entirely sure why I made it. --EEMeltonIV 17:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, possibly speedy since the creator agrees. Xtifr _tälk 22:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 05:06, 7 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:Murdering doctors[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Doctors convicted of murdering their patients --Kbdank71 16:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure that "doctors who were also murderers" is a very meaningful intersection - but at any rate, this should be renamed to a more neutral term. >Radiant< 11:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for all the same reasons advanced for deletion in the last discussion. "Murderer by profession" is not a useful categorization scheme, and the notion that doctors who kill are more worthy of categorization because of the trust issues involved doesn't hold up since a number of the doctors included in the category did not murder their patients. Otto4711 12:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Soman 13:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rather direct title. Onnaghar (Speak.work?) 14:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but might be ok with a new more restricted category My comment hasn't changed since the last discussion. "Murderers by occupation" seems to be a somewhat random intersection, and in this case there are going to be doctors who killed people who weren't actualy their patients (eg a doctor who kills his wife during a fight). What I might be willing to support would be Category:Doctors who murdered their patients, since there's a much more direct tie between the doctor's occupation and his crime. So delete this one, and if desired maybe create either Category:Doctors convicted of murdering their patients or a list article List of doctors convicted of murdering their patients. Dugwiki 15:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Even if the category is kept, the current name is terrible. It almost sounds like it includes articles about stories where someone was murdering people who were doctors (ie "Jack was convicted today of murdering seven doctors.") Also, only doctors actually convicted of murder should be included, not doctors only alleged to have murdered someone. So if the category is kept, I'd suggest renaming it to Category:Doctors convicted of murder. Dugwiki 15:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, restricting and renaming to Category:Doctors convicted of murdering their patients, per last discussion and Dugwiki above. Johnbod 00:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on grounds that this category is in breach of WP:NPOV, as its title has been deliberately made broad enough to generate controversy by the associating of doctors that have not necessarily carried out murder, e.g.abortion or euthanasia, or vetinary surgeons who have put a pet to sleep. It is also not clear whether the title refers to a Medical Doctor or those who hold a Doctorate like "Doktor Doktor" Otto Rasch. --Gavin Collins 15:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto. Murderers by profession is a trivial intersection. Examining the list, there is a hodgepodge of individuals. A number of Nazi doctors, a few people who were convicted of murder, but unrelated to their profession, someone who was acquitted of murder, etc. I do not believe that we need a category (at least not yet) that covers doctors convicted of medical malpractice that involved a patient's death. Seems like overcat, so I oppose the rename on those ground.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep it stringent enough only to be those convicted of killing patients. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as suggested above. There is an obvious general interest in this group.DGG (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We've been through versions of these before. The wording could mean murdering as either verb or adjective. What kind of doctors? More importantly, this is overcategorization. Wryspy 04:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Doctors convicted of murdering their patients would be very good to have. This, however, is too ill-defined. — The Storm Surfer 11:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Doctors who murdered patients". Some of the suggeestions above ar too long. The category should be provided with a brief headnote, defining its scope to medical doctors and those convicted of murder, but we certainly need a category to cover Harold Shipman and his less heinous compeers. Peterkingiron 18:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto. A category of "Doctors who murder their patients" would also not be suitable, since murder is an emotive term, and the category would be applied to doctors who perform legal euthanasia. The cat would have to be "Doctors convicted of murdering their patients" which would be unlikely to be useful to anyone.-gadfium 19:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doctors murdering their patients is not an unusual case. Thus it's eligible to categorize them and the cat is useful for readers to do research on this topic. Doctors perform legal euthanasia is off the track, since it covers another topic. @pple 04:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Doctors convicted of murdering their patients per Dugwiki. That name gives the category the requisite clarity of definition. I don't see any reason why it would not "be useful to anyone" as suggested above. Cgingold 23:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, restrict, and rename per Dugwiki, Johnbod, and my comments at the last go-round on this. Carlossuarez46 05:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, restrict, rename, per last discussion Dugwiki and Johnbod above. Note that List of serial killers by number of victims reveals a surprisingly large number of medics. Ephebi 15:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, restrict, and rename per above. @pple 04:05, 8 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.