Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 6

< July 5	July 7 >

July 6[edit]

Category:Country songs by artist[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 14:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Country songs by artist to Category:Songs by artist

Nominator's rationale: Category:Songs by artist is designed to serve as a container category without division by genre. Eric444 22:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Otto4711 23:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Songs by artist is supposed to be a complete directory of all songs by artist categories. Creating subcats for it defeats the entire reason for it's existence. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:33, 7 July 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:DC Comics metahumans[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The result of the debate was withdrawn --Kbdank71 16:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:DC Comics metahumans to Category:Fictional mutates

Nominator's rationale: Merge, The term "metahuman" in DC Comics is not analogous with "mutate" in Marvel Comics as this category seems to treat it. It instead refers to any person beyond human, ranging from Superman to Wonder Woman to Dream Girl, Killer Croc and Flash (ie. encompassing wizards, mutants, mutates, aliens, cyborgs... everyone). Therefore, merge under same rationale as "DC Comics heroes, non-superpowered". ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the article metahuman supports the notion of having the category and restricting it to those who meet the definition set forth by DC. Superman and Wonder Woman are not metahumans and do not belong in this category. The article does not suggest that everyone with powers and abilities beyond those of ordinary men (to paraphrase the old Fleisher cartoons) is a "metahuman" and certainly doesn't suggest that the concepts extends to wizards, aliens and cyborgs. Besides which, we just renamed this like a week ago without objection. Otto4711 23:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't the OMACs list Superman, Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel as alpha-level metahuman threats? Regardless, it can't be a subcategory of just mutates or mutants because it would include Black Lightning (mutate) and Black Canary (mutant), Barry Allen/Bart Allen etc... It would have to be completely unrelated to the mutant and mutate categories and would just serve as an extra category. Regardless, I'll withdraw the nomination but I still think it's terribly iffy. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!}

Reply: In DC Comics, the mutates are metahumans. They cannot develop the mutation-based powers without a metahuman gene. That's why most people exposed to radiation get radiation sickness, but once in a while someone with a metahuman gene exposed to radiation might get cool powers. Doczilla 20:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, "It is roughly synonymous" according to the article on metahumans. >Radiant< 14:32, 11 July 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:Pulp magazines[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 --Kbdank71 13:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Pulp magazines to Category:Pulp fiction magazines

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories and the latter is more populated. AdamBMorgan 18:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge or merge: since a bot will do the merging, it shouldn't really matter which is more populated at present, and I think the term "pulp magazines" is a little more common. But I'm not really sure, so my preference for a reverse merge is very mild. Xtifr _tälk 08:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's a fair point. Looking at it again Category:Pulp magazines is slightly older too (if that means anything). It is not really important which one is left. AdamBMorgan 18:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, dang, if nobody has a strong preference, it's going to be hard for the closer to decide which way to merge. :) I do tend to think that if two names are equally valid, we should stick with the first one created, so maybe that will be the deciding factor. Xtifr _tälk 21:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge per Xtifr. Not all pulp magazines specialized in fiction. -Sean Curtin 01:52, 9 July 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:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology[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 to Category:University of Manchester --Kbdank71 13:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category was nominated for deletion previously (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June_19#University of Manchester), where it was deleted with no other comments. It was then put on deletion review, which resulted in the decision to relist it. This is that relisting.

Although I nominated this category for deletion in the first place, I'm now undecided about whether it should be kept or deleted. Were the contents to remain the same as before (i.e. basically the UMIST article and Category:People associated with the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology), I would maintain that the category should be deleted. However, I have been discussing the category with User:Dodo64 (see their talk page), who is planning on using the category for a series of (currently unwritten) articles on the UMIST campus. Now, those articles could be put into Category:University of Manchester, but it might be better to keep them as a set of articles in their own category, as they are pretty much all geographically connected and separate from the main University of Manchester campus.

So, for the time being I abstain. I welcome comments by editors of the University of Manchester (and VUM/UMIST) articles, as well as by disinterested (on this subject) editors, and hope that we can come to a conclusion satisfactory to all. Mike Peel 18:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or convert to an article/merge with something already in place. As far as another user who might or might not create articles that might or might not go into this category, see WP:CRYSTAL. Lugnuts 18:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the People associated with... subcats have already been taken out and preserved. It is useful categorisation to separate academics and alumni of the former UMIST from academics and alumni of the former VUM, and to keep both separate from associates of the new University of Manchester. The nominated category itself can go, though. Hypothetical UMIST histories can be categorised in Category:University of Manchester. — mholland (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the absence of articles that would benefit from this category, due to WP:CRYSTAL. I agree with mholland that the "People associated with.." subcat should be preserved, and that UMIST histories that may be written in the future can go in Category:University of Manchester. EdJohnston 01:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons outlined by Mike Peel above. My main point is that ex-UMIST buildings' current status puts them in Category:University of Manchester, but in Wikipedia terms current status isn't the only thing that matters - historically, geographically and architecturally they also belong together in a separate category of their own. This is a useful application of the category system rather than overcategorization. I take it that the reference to WP:CRYSTAL by EdJohnston and Lugnuts, simply means that as I haven't yet written the promised articles about the UMIST campus there isn't much to put in the category? Well, I've made a start now on the Renold Building and Mathematics & Social Sciences Building and hope to have several more underway before this category deletion discussion ends. (update 9 July: the disputed category now contains 7 articles plus the 'People..' subcatgory. More soon) Dodo64 01:38, 8 July 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:Classics writers[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, redundant. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Classics writers to Category:UNKNOWN

Nominator's rationale: Rename - These two people wrote about classical (Greek and Roman) literature and mythology, but the title suggests that they wrote the classics themselves. It needs a new name, but I have no good suggestions. It might also be appropriate to merge this category into Category:Mythographers. Dr. Submillimeter 15:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete Both articles are fully categorised, as "classical scholars" among other things, as noted below. category not needed. Johnbod 16:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I noted in June at Category talk:Classics writers that the category seemed an unnecessary duplication of Category:Classical scholars. That category already contains Norman O. Brown and Jane Ellen Harrison. EALacey 16:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per EALacey. Redundant cat exists, only 2 articles affected.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary, redundant cat. Wryspy 03:54, 8 July 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:Historical writers[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 13:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Historical writers to Category:Historians

Nominator's rationale: Merge - The two categories are redundant and should be merged together under "historians". ("Historical writer" could be interpreted to mean things other than "historian". For example, "historical writer" could be used for a writer who lived a long time ago.) Dr. Submillimeter 15:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge carefully to a number of categories - Stephen Dando-Collins writes historical novels, Celestine Sibley was a journalist & published various sorts of books, Richard Slotkin writes novels and cultural criticism, Bassam Al-Shammaa is an Eygptologist, and so on. Relatively few of these seem best categorised as historians as such. Johnbod 15:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge carefully per Johnbod; the name "Historical writers" is ambiguous as per nom; so we need to sort out into which correctly named category each article belongs, some of which already exist: Category:Historians, Category:Historical novelists (which I fear suffers some of the same abiguity of name), etc. Carlossuarez46 17:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was really hoping that the non-historians in this category were few in number when I nominated this for merging. I would be willing to help redistribute the articles when and if this discussion closes in favor of merging the category, but I would appreciate help. Dr. Submillimeter 19:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added what I think are the correct cats to articles from A-L, except for Chris Bell (military historian) who seems an Afd case to me. Then a bot can do the job of removing the redlink. It's not so bad as many have the correct other cats already. Johnbod 01:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will do M-Z tomorrow (8 July). Dr. Submillimeter 19:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator - Please contact me if this discussion closes as "merge", and I will diffuse the articles to other categories as is appropriate. (I started doing this for authors named M-P, but I ended up removing this category in favor of more specific categories.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:32, 8 July 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:Classical characters[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 08:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - The one article in this category (Eunoë) is already listed in Category:Greek mythology, which is probably more appropriate. The category otherwise is not needed. If kept, the category should be incorporated into the category system better. Dr. Submillimeter 15:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Over-vague duplicate. Johnbod 15:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vaguely named category already covered by other cats. Wryspy 03:53, 8 July 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:Novels by Michael Slade[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 08:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: After waiting several weeks for objection, I merged/redirected all the individual novel articles to Michael Slade, so this category is empty. (Apparently even the category creator thought the novel articles should be deleted.) Propaniac 13:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as empty. However, it should be recreated if any novel articles are ever written, by convention of Category:Novels by author. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if novel articles aren't recreated; otherwise keep if separate articles for the novels are kept The category itself would be ok if there were any articles to put in it. However, if there aren't actually any novel articles to include, the category should be deleted as empty. Dugwiki 14:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as empty. However, as above recreate as before if the articles are sensibly recreated with some real content. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wryspy 03:53, 8 July 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:Deceased Fictional Characters[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 14:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Over-broad category, impossible to define. Is Prospero dead, because he was created about 400 years ago, and anybody who lived 400 years ago is dead? Nyttend 11:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That isn't the objection; what is is the fact that a vast number of fictional characters die during the course of the work they are in, often right at the end. In fact these all seem to be dead soap opera characters. Johnbod 12:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See my rationale under the "Category:Comic book murder victims" discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 12:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see the following:
Delete per nom & ProveIt. Carlossuarez46 17:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--NeilEvans 20:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIf you delete this, then what is the point of having any fictional character categories? eg Fictional Character Divorces BKBTE
Delete per nom. And replying to the original creator of cat (BKBTE), um, there is no point? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 19:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are clearly supposed to avoid categorizing as alive/dead. Doczilla 20:38, 7 July 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:Classics[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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category already exists at Category:Classical studies. I suggest a speedy. CaveatLector^Talk 11:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with sub-cats. All articles are already in the other tree, except the article Bytheria which appears to be a hoax, as does the related one on the cactodactus plant or whateverCalactydacus plant. Kill, deletionists kill. Johnbod 12:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ravenhurst 12:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that the category page itself was deleted but that the closing administrator did not deleted the category links in the individual articles and subcategories, so the category was not exactly deleted. I removed the one article in the category, and the other subcategories that were in this category either have been incorporated into the category system elsewhere or have been nominated for deletion. Also, Bytheria and Calactydacus plant are now nominated for deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 16:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vaguely named category. Doczilla 20:38, 7 July 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:Films with numbers in their titles[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 14:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Example of overcategorization, not really useful. Garion96 (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Really silly category. What is it's use apart from trivia? Merbabu 10:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is categorization of unrelated articles by name, a form of overcategorization. Except for the name, the films, which range from 101 Dalmations to Seven Samurai, have little else in common. Dr. Submillimeter 11:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a valuable catalog of films with numbers in their titles. CarlosRodriguez 15:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as the category's creator, could you please explain why it is valuable? regards --Merbabu 00:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I fail to see how this is valuable. The mixture of numbers-as-numbers and numbers-as-words is also highly confusing, difficult to navigate. Just64helpin 16:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That could be solved with better piping. However, I don't see why this is of value either. Can CarlosRodriguez, the creator of the category, elaborate? Rigadoun (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Trivia. PC78 16:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious overcategorization of unrelated subjects with shared (types of) names. I find it hard to imagine any real use for this outside of pub drinking games. Xtifr _tälk 08:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as categorization by name. No objection to a list article. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per several WP:OC criteria: arbitrary, unrelated subjects with shared names, non-defining, trivial. Doczilla 20:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An arbitrary collection of films with nothing essential in common. Postlebury 02:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only way this category would possibly be useful would be to gather together sequels. And we already have Category:Sequels for that.Raymondluxuryacht 22:07, 8 July 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:Operas by Jacques Halévy[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 16:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Operas by Jacques Halévy to Category:Operas by Fromental Halévy

Nominator's rationale: Rename; The main article about the composer Halévy was renamed (correctly) as 'Fromental Halévy' a couple of years ago, but apparently the category was somehow overlooked at the time. This nomination rectifies that situation and makes WP consistent. (NB although the category only has one entry at present this will be rectified in the near future.) Smerus 07:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --Folantin 07:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Kleinzach 08:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Johnbod 11:01, 6 July 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:American Juniors[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 13:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - other than improperly categorized performer by performance articles, the category consists of the show article and the album and song subcats. Per dozens if not hundreds of precedents, this is overcategorization and not needed. Otto4711 06:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:38, 6 July 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:Swing Out Sister[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 per precedent --Kbdank71 13:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category not needed for single article. Otto4711 02:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Further investigation by nominator would reveal that Swing Out Sister is not the only article on topics related to the band. There are articles on the band members, such as Andy Connell, and individuals affiliated with the band, such as Paul Staveley O'Duffy as well as albums such as "it's better to travel". I created the category and intended it to be used to unify individuals, songs and acts associated with the band.--Folksong 02:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on band members should go in Category:Swing Out Sister members, albums should go in Category:Swing Out Sister albums and songs should go in Category:Swing Out Sister songs, none of which necessitate the eponymous category. Otto4711 03:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To hold the two subcategories. Postlebury 02:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Inadequate need for category. Wryspy 03:52, 8 July 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:Comic book murder victims[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 16:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete because all comic book characters are murder victims one way or another. Because it is impractical to have multiple articles for every single version (alternate timeline, parallel universe, etc.), we almost always include alternate versions in each character's main article. Characters do get categorized based on those alternate versions too. Every single character has been murdered. In Marvel Comics, the entire world has gotten murdered and resurrected before, more than once. Doczilla 02:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we have deleted fictional murder victims three times so far. For all the same reasons the general fictional murder victims category was deleted, this subset category should also be deleted. Otto4711 02:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doczilla's "comic Book Death" rationale, and Otto's note about the related category, which i only learned of now, but which certainly supports the deletion. ThuranX 03:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category suffers from multiple problems. First, this category contains spoiler information. While placing spoiler information (with warnings) in the text of articles is OK, it seems unfair to readers who do not want to read spoilers to have this navigation aid give away the plot. Another problem is that this is an indicator of status for fictional characters, as it indicates that the characters are dead. Such "status" categories are generally avoided, as the characters' status does not remain constant over the storylines. Furthermore, this category also suffers from the "altertnate universe" problems described above, and the characters could always be brought back to life in later storylines. Overall, the category is too problematic and should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 07:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:39, 6 July 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:Spooks[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 15:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization per dozens of precedents. Otto4711 01:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which precise kind of overcategorization, from the list on WP:OC? Neddyseagoon - talk 08:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How else are these related articles supposed to be grouped? Ravenhurst 12:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. use nav templates...Carlossuarez46 17:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wryspy 03:52, 8 July 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:Soul Train dancers[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 15:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper performer by performance overcategorization, per dozens or hundreds of precedents. Otto4711 01:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wryspy 03:52, 8 July 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:Schoolhouse Rock![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 16:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Material does not warrant a category, per dozens of precedents. Otto4711 01:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it contains some articles which don't fit anywhere else. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent, the other articles are or ought to be linked at the main article. Carlossuarez46 17:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The other articles are or ought to be linked at the main article and placed in a suitable category, ie this one. Postlebury 02:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wryspy 03:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not needed. >Radiant< 14:33, 11 July 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:Sapphire & Steel[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 15:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Eponymous overcategorization. Category not needed for this material, per dozens of precedents. Otto4711 01:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete limited category with almost no room for growth. Wryspy 03:51, 8 July 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:Sanford & Son[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 15:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Eponymous overcategorization by name of series. The material does not require a category, per ample precedent. Otto4711 01:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wryspy 03:51, 8 July 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.