Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 3

< June 2	June 4 >

June 3[edit]

Category:Pocket billiards and subcats[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 all.--Mike Selinker 19:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pocket billiards

Category:Pocket billiards organizations

Category:Pocket billiards leagues

Category:Pocket billiards non-player personalities
Category:Pocket billiards players

Category:Pocket billiards celebrity amateur players

Category:Pocket billiards tournaments

Delete: All of the "pocket billiards" categories are redundant with their "pool" equivalents. The "pocket billiards" ones used to contain both "pool" and "snooker" subcategories, since snooker is technically a form of pocket billiards, but both are now directly under Category:Cue sports, so this intermediate "classifying" category is just overcat cruft. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - these are all empty. Were they empty when you found them or did you empty them before the nomination? Also, please tag all of these categories. Otto4711 00:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - Tagging: ~~Going to do that right now~~ Done. Empty: Except for some miscategorized articles in Category:Pocket billiards itself, which have been properly categorized at Category:Pool now, they were all empty and intended to be empty other than for subcategories; as already noted, the subcats have been bumped up a level to descend from Category:Cue sports directly (snooker was actually already there and under Category:Pocket billiards). Even the Pocket billiards article is not really about pocket billiards games as a class, including snooker, but rather about pool. "Pocket billiards" as a classifier simply isn't particularly useful in the category space. The only reason the category and its "Pocket billiards foo" subcategories were around was for containing both pool and snooker topics, since both are by some definitions "pocket billiards", but this is clearly overcat (by me, natch; I created all of them but one, I believe. I know better now. I didn't "find" the categories, but have been shepherding them, as the principal organizer of WikiProject Cue sports.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC) PS: They were not all consistently labelled, but you can see that some of them have for a long time borne notes like "This category is just a container for sub-categories. No actual articles should appear here", and "No individuals' articles should appear in this category, only in a more specific subcategory", aside from more recent {{Notice}} templates saying pretty much the same thing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC) PPS: I am toying with the idea of renaming all the "pool" categories to "pocket billiards", since the latter is less ambiguous, so this could end up being a roundabout merge, in a sense. There's really nothing to merge though. There is no "pocket billiards" material on Wikipedia that is not pool material, other than a cross reference in the pocket billiards article to snooker. This is more analogous to a delete-to-enable-a-move action. If it even goes there. WP:CUE may collectively prefer to keep the categories in their "pool"-named versions and not rename them anyway. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Xbox 360 Racing/Driving games[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 nomination --Kbdank71 13:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Not a useful categorization. Racing games are not defined primarily on the platform they are on, and many franchises are multiplatform (meaning that this category would set a precedent for also having other console-genre categories, which would be nightmarish on an article like Need for Speed: ProStreet, with nine platforms). hbdragon88 22:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why should it be deleted? its a sub category in the xbox games category. According to that logic the Xbox 360 games category should also be deleted as many of the games on Xbox are multiplatform. Anyways the Xbox 360 games category is becoming quite big and can do with a subcategory for better organization. Adhishb 23:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Platforms are still a defining and easy paramater to categorize articles in. That I have no problem with. That has been the standard for ages. It's the idea of a console-genre category that makes me shiver because - in my opinion, readers usually do not link platform and genre together. It's game, or platform (if it's an exclusive). hbdragon88 23:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Xbox 360 driving games per proper capitalization. Presumably all racing games involve driving (none of these are for footraces I take it) and "Racing/Driving" is a kludgy construction. This is a reasonable subdivision of the parent cat for the cames, which is up over 200 articles currently. Otto4711 23:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & rename per Otto. The fact that when there are loads and load of games of a particular genre for a particular platform that this will cause more narrow subcategories to be created for them to keep the main platform category less cluttered, is a plus not a minus. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. There are already excisting categories for both Xbox 360-games and racing games. --MrStalker ^talk 10:30, 4 June 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.

Subcategories of Category:Cemeteries in London[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 categories were not tagged with any template. Please re-list them after tagging. --Kbdank71 13:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 4 subcategories of type "People buried in XYZ Cemetery". I suggest to delete them all as nondefining category clutter. (No such categories exist anywhere else, for what I saw.) Pavel Vozenilek 21:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, where someone is buried is not defining. It's often chosen by someone other than the individual or by circumstance, and unlike birthplace (which also is chosen by others or by circumstances), it doesn't (a) follow someone for their lives, or (b) serve as a shorthand for an assumed upbringing and world outlook. Carlossuarez46 21:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-defining. I've pondered some of these burials categories as well. The biography article can mention the final resting place and I suppose a list article for notable stiffs wouldn't be too horrible. Otto4711 22:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining and per precedent of other burial site category deletions. Doczilla 22:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, after adding content to articles All the cemetery articles have lists or text for notables, but these don't seem to contain as many people as the categories in any of these cases. Johnbod 22:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The are 27 such categories in Category:Burials. LukeHoC 00:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For certain graveyards, this can be useful knowing Bunhill fields has Defoe, Blake and a Cromwell can be interesting - finding Karl Marx shares a cemtary with george Eliott also.--Red Deathy 07:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/listify - People are not notable for where they are buried (e.g. Karl Marx is not famous for being buried in London), and the category does contribute to category clutter problems, so it would be best just to delete these categories (and all categories within Category:Burials). However, this is information that may be of interest to people reading about the cemeteries, so lists would be appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 13:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The subcategories have not been tagged with Template:Cfd. Dr. Submillimeter 13:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/listify Lists of notable burials are not a problem for London cemeteries, most are closed and in respect of many it would actually be difficult to find a grave due to reuse as nature reserves/whatever. The notable exception would be Category:People buried in Westminster Abbey (or St Pauls), as, like the Pantheon, this is a mark of considerable national respect. Kbthompson 13:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify per Kbthompson, except for Category:People buried in Westminster Abbey. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator - Please ensure that these articles are listified. Several corresponding list articles already exist for these categories, but they are not as complete as these categories. Lists of the categories, possibly in the articles' talk pages, will be needed to make sure that the list articles are complete. Dr. Submillimeter 19:28, 9 June 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 Villain Portrayers[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 03:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Improperly capitalized, ponderously titled, and ultimately unnecessary. GentlemanGhost 20:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt as a variation of recreated material. The exact name hasn't been deleted before but we've done away with this category concept at least once and probably multiple times already. Otto4711 22:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this pointless and horribly named category. Speedy delete if Otto is right. I think he is. Once the checkuser is confirmed, it also qualifies for speedy as a creation by banned user while banned. It's yet another creation by the latest sockpuppet of repeatedly and indefinitely banned User:Creepy Crawler, a.k.a. User:EJBanks, a.k.a. many other things, currently User:TheJediCouncil. Doczilla 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining fancruft, or speedy if Otto is right. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and speedy it Otto's on the mark). Per nom. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 15:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto if possible Bulldog123 23:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 04:23, 8 June 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:NRHP theme - religious[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 --Kbdank71 13:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This "theme" is not an official designation of National Register of Historic Places. Sounds more like trivia category. And its name is bad too, by the way. Darwinek 19:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, "theme" is terribly subjective. Doczilla 22:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subjective/divisive, trivial and meaningless gibberish to almost all readers as presently titled. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. Instead the category should be renamed - suggestion at the foregoing link. -Ipoellet 06:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename: per discussion linked by Ipoellet, renaming in order. This isn't subjective if it follows the NRHP significance/function designations, (which I am pretty sure is what is going on here) which as Ipoellet said is a critical part of the National Register of Historic Places nomination and listing process. These categories could assist browsing in ways geographical categories cannot. This in no way represents trivial gibberish it just needs to be renamed, Category:Registered Historic Places of religious function or something like that. I highly suggest the delete votes read over Ipoellet's comments and reconsider. IvoShandor 11:16, 6 June 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:Biologists by gender[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, superfluous.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only scientific category of its kind, containing only one subcategory.--Mike Selinker 18:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as improper intersection. Carlossuarez46 21:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlossuarez46. Pavel Vozenilek 22:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 22:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that Category:Women biologists lists the actual female biologists; Category:Biologists by gender is only the parent category of Category:Women biologists. Dr. Submillimeter 13:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Bulldog123 04:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unnecessary. Peterkingiron 22:18, 6 June 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 Maryland, College Park students[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 "?!" 16:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, empty category with little potential for expansion. Category:Maryland Terrapins men's basketball players, Category:Maryland Terrapins women's basketball players, and Category:Maryland Terrapins football players cover all the current students who currently have articles, or who are likely to get articles. Also, the category will likely become out of date very rapidly, unlike Category:University of Maryland, College Park alumni. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 17:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Besides, my alma mater defines all matriculants as "alumni," and I don't think it is alone in this regard.-choster 03:44, 6 June 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:Agricultural products of Pakistan[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 03:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This category contains one crop, which is by no means unique to Pakistan. Categorising products in general - wheat, rice, potatoes - to each country where they are grown would cause huge category clutter. Greg Grahame 16:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nondefining, clutter. Pavel Vozenilek 21:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nathanian 02:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-defining and cluttersome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:52, 7 June 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:Attiko Metro stations[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 "?!" 16:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be renamed to Category:Athens Metro stations, in line with Athens Metro. Mackensen (talk) 16:08, 3 June 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 Harry Potter families[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 "?!" 16:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - in line with other recent CFDs for fictional families, expressing a preference for articles over categories to explain family relationships. If retained, then all should be renamed to "Foo family (Harry Potter)" to make clear which family of that name the category addresses. Otto4711 15:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Also, even though some of these names were made up for the books, these aren't the only Crouches or Weasleys in the world. Doczilla 22:25, 3 June 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:The Black Family[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 "?!" 16:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete in favor of the family article, in line with a number of other CFDs for fictional family categories (mostly from soap operas), or at a minimum rename to Category:Black family (Harry Potter) to distinguish which fictional Black family this addresses. Otto4711 15:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per many precedents. These certainly aren't the only Blacks on Earth. Renaming would tolerable but really would not be consistent with how we've treated similar categories. Doczilla 22:26, 3 June 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:Captain Simian & the Space Monkeys[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 "?!" 16:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small category for a ten year old show, unlikely to expand, not needed for navigation. Otto4711 13:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 22:28, 3 June 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:Cory in the House[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 "?!" 16:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the material categorized here does not require a category for navigational purposes. Otto4711 13:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 22:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The show has just hit the air, and it'll be forever before any episodes make any lasting impact (WP:EPISODE). --Sl g r a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 16:55, 4 June 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:Supernatural (TV series)[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 13:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Supernatural (TV series) to Category:Supernatural (TV series) episodes

Nominator's rationale: Rename - everything in the category except the show article is an episode article. A category named for the show is not needed with the thorough navtemplate that exists for it. Otto4711 13:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is; the fact that it does already have a non-episode article in it means that the proposed name would already be wrong; it would get worse over time if/when the main article starts forking into things like List of characters from Supernatural (TV series), etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the category were renamed then the show article would be removed, as has happened with other similar renames. If the character list should be forked off into its own article at some point in the future then it would go into the existing Category:Supernatural (TV series) characters. Should so much material be generated that's not about either episodes or characters and that can't be easily interlinked through the existing main article and/or the navtemplate, then the idea of re-establishing an eponymous show category can be revisited. This category should have been named "episodes" from the jump. If it's not renamed then what'll happen is it'll get de-populated and the episodes put into a newly-created category, and then it'll get deleted as having insufficient material to warrant it. This is the more streamlined way to handle the problem. Otto4711 01:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and restrict to episodes as per nom Also don't forget to place the renamed category under Category:Television episodes by series. As per Otto's reply above, characters would go in a different category and it doesn't look like there's a good reason for an eponymous category for the television series itself. Dugwiki 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename and recategorize with new category of the same name, to umbrella all Supernatural categories, for navigational purposes. 132.205.44.134 22:48, 5 June 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.

Categories for Renaissance Humanists[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 13:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These national categories are mainly Renaissance humanists, & should be renamed as sub-cats of Category:Renaissance humanists:

Propose renaming:

Category:Dutch humanists to Category:Dutch Renaissance humanists (1/9 is modern)
Category:French humanists to Category:French Renaissance humanists (4/9 are modern, counting Voltaire as such, but not Rabelais)
Category:German humanists to Category:German Renaissance humanists (1/20 modern)
Category:Italian humanists to Category:Italian Renaissance humanists (34 - all (?) Renaissance Humanists

Nominator's rationale: This is a continuation of the current discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_31#Category:Humanists, which deals with Humanists in the modern sense of the term. It emerged that the above categories originally nominated there contain mainly figures from Renaissance Humanism, the intellectual movement which involved figures with all religious viewpoints, or no religious viewpoint. These had become mixed up with categories containing all or mostly "modern" Humanists, in the philosophical or quasi-religious sense of the term. The proposal is to rename as above and move these categories from being sub-cats of Category:Humanists by nationality to sub-cats of Category:Renaissance humanists. Other tidying (I can do this) would involve making Category:Renaissance humanists no longer a sub-cat of Category:Humanists, and removing Renaissance H articles from the English and Scottish categories into the Renaissance Humanist category. At the same time the modern articles in the above categories to be removed, and depending on the result of the other discussion, re-categorised. Johnbod 13:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Greg Grahame 16:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - we've been mixing two very different sets of people, and Johnbod's proposal now fixes that. Biruitorul 17:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. This is well known and agreed terminology, unlike the modern interpretation of the word. Pavel Vozenilek 22:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom and Pavel. LukeHoC 00:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename - Renaissance humanists are something quite different from modern philosophy that one might call an anti-religion (at risk of a neologism. Peterkingiron 22:22, 6 June 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:Connections (TV series)[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 "?!" 15:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even with the improperly categorized article for the producer, the material in the category does not require categorization for navigation. Otto4711 13:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 22:28, 3 June 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:Trees of Eastern United States[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 into Category:Trees of the Eastern United States. the wub "?!" 15:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Trees of the Eastern United States, or the reverse. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Trees of the Eastern United States (no reason to drop "the"). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Trees of the Eastern United States. Nathanian 02:49, 4 June 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:Mid-Continent Conference[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 "?!" 15:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mid-Continent Conference to Category:The Summit League

Nominator's rationale: Rename, reflect the new name for the conference. fuzzy510 06:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename of the speedy variety. X96lee15 20:44, 4 June 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:Treaties regarding Iran[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: renamed per creator request to Category:Treaties of Iran.--Mike Selinker 04:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Treaties regarding Iran to Category:Treaties of Iran (Persia)

to match other treaty category names.Azerbaijani 02:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. The "Iran (Persia)" stopped me from passing this through.--Mike Selinker 02:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Treaties of Iran per precedent of Category:Treaties by country. There is already a separate category Category:Treaties of Persia. Tim! 07:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment IF there are to be two categories, one for Treaties of Persia and another for Treaties of Iran, what is the cutoff date dividing Persia from Iran? This is not obvious from the current categories, nor from names of the treaties, nor from the Iran history articles I have just looked at. Hmains 16:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article Persian Empire gives 1935 as cutoff. I would add subcategory "Treaties of ancient Persia" (pre-Alexander) as these do not mix well with Anglo-Persian Treaty, for example. Pavel Vozenilek 21:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It had been a while, so I created a new Category:Treaties of Iran since there was already a Persia cat created. I've moved all articles from the misnamed Category:Treaties regarding Iran into the new category and deleted the old category. If there's any need for further movement, now we at least have two clear categories. If this would be better served by a merged Iran (Persia) article, that can have further discussion. --Bobak 16:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 UK retailing[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 "?!" 15:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People in UK retailing to Category:British businesspeople in retailing

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to match parent and siblings. There is a slight change of scope involved, but it of no practical import as everyone in the category at the moment is British. In any case, there is also slight inaccuracy in the current name, as some of these people ran companies with international operations. Brandon97 00:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 10:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remane to Category:British retailing executives, clean up anyone below the executive level; otherwise, Delete as nearly everyone has something to do with retailing in some indirect way and the category name and proposed name doesn't separate a store clerk from the CEO from the guy who makes the gizmo or provides the service that ends up getting "retailed". Carlossuarez46 21:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46's concerns are irrelevant as people who don't work at a senior level are not businesspeople and only notable businesspeople should have articles. And people who don't work in retail are not retailers. There is no reason to be concerned that Wikipedians are so muddle-headed that they will classify people who work in manufacturing in this category. The businesspeople by sector categories were renamed at a global level to be inclusive of both executives and non-executives (people at the very top of business often don't hold an executive position). LukeHoC 00:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Luke, you misunderstand. If someone is notable as an actor but used to work as a clerk at Marks & Spencer, the title of the category fits; and as for only senior level people are businesspeople, on what do base that assertion? It's clearly contrary to most normal usage and dictionary definitions. Even our beloved Wiktionary defines "businessman" (it doesn't have "businesspeople") as "a man in business, one who works at a commercial institution". "One who works" certainly includes the clerk. Carlossuarez46 21:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and convention. Osomec 13:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. There are no shop assistants (clerks for our American friends) in this category. Carlossuarez46's concerns are irrelevant, except in so far as the rename would reduce further a risk of miscategorisation which is already nugatory. Perebourne 17:35, 9 June 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:Plot summaries[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 "?!" 16:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - given that Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries, having a category named after a policy violation strikes me as a Really Bad Idea. Otto4711 00:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well the policy does say "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. See Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)." There are certainly a lot of them there. Johnbod 01:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the creator, I should say that I originally hoped that this would help future deletion efforts. Would it work re-purposed as a cleanup category? –Unint 03:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, then, as I know better now. Categories promote creation far more than deletion, and there is no sign that deletion will be effected by this. –Unint 15:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. Re-working it as a cleanup category is a possibility. However, considering how few articles it includes, that doesn't seem like it it would get used enough to bother doing more than just nominating each article for AfD as you find it. Doczilla 06:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category will encourage breaches of a sound policy. Haddiscoe 10:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete in order not to promote this type of articles. Existing articles should NOT be deleted en-masse (= indiscriminately put under AfD axe), they may serve to keep the main text smaller (e.g. Plot of Les Misérables). The systemic problem is that many people got an impression that every article just needs some category and the more the better. Pavel Vozenilek 11:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would you keep any of them around if you don't want to promote their creation? –Unint 15:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well developed long articles may benefit from offloading the plot. I wish to avoid an indirect incentive for people to create such articles automatically. The plot leaf should be an exception and not something formalized. Pavel Vozenilek 21:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --GentlemanGhost 20:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wow, never noticed that Bulldog123 23:31, 5 June 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.