Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 21
March 23 >

March 22[edit]

Category:Young scientists[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Young scientists to Category:Youth science. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Young scientists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This category in fact contains no young scientists, but is a mishmash of various competitions, organizations, training programs, etc, all of which really having nothing to do with one another. Lesnail 23:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Category:Youth science, per Dr. Submillimeter on cursory examination the category appears to be intended for articles on young scientists. Renaming as above ought to remove this ambiguity.
Xdamrtalk 12:50, 23 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Quantum Electrodynamics' physicists[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Quantum Electrodynamics' physicists into Category:Physicists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quantum Electrodynamics' physicists to Category:Physicists
  • Merge - The category is improperly named, is overcategorization, and has highly unclear membership criteria. Lesnail 23:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge as before
  • Merge - If scientists are going to be divided by specialty, then the divisions should reflect what is actually used by professionals. A search on "quantum electrodynamics physicists" on Google shows that the term is used by almost no one outside of Wikipedia. Therefore, the category should be merged into Category:Physicists. Dr. Submillimeter 09:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. No one in physics uses this term to categorize the 5 physicists currently listed in the category. Those 5 would fit in a Category:Pioneers in quantum electrodynamics or some such name, since they are the ones most responsible for developing quantum electrodynamics, but there is no need for such overcategorization. --Seattle Skier (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Choalbaton 01:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I agree that this is overcategorization. Setting these five physicists aside in a difference category is not useful. --EMS | Talk 16:32, 26 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Credit Card Cover[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Credit Card Cover to Category:Credit card images. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Credit Card Cover to Category:Credit card images
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to fix the capitalization and the phrasing. Unint 23:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since these are Fair Use images, they cannot be moved to Commons. ~ BigrTex 14:16, 26 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People associated with one or more lawsuits[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with one or more lawsuits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This seems to be a less than useful category. It contains 18 articles, despite the fact that it has no subcategories and the likelihood that thousands of articles could in theory belong here. Either this is not a defining characteristic, or there is some other category out there (which I can't locate) which serves the same purpose. --After Midnight 0001 22:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - given the litigious nature of this our modern world, it would probably be easier to categorize people who haven't been involved in a lawsuit. Otto4711 23:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto4711 CalJW 02:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivia. Doczilla 03:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is so common to be "involved" in a lawsuit that it is not worth categorizing people by this characteristic. Dr. Submillimeter 09:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 'Involved' is a meaningless and vague term. The category is trivia and is non-defining.
Xdamrtalk 12:52, 23 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Free astronomy software[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep. --Xdamrtalk 13:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Free astronomy software to Category:Astronomy software
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:AfD debates[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep. --Xdamrtalk 13:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AfD debates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:AfD discussions. See: discussion vs debate-- Cat chi? 21:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose without further explanation as to why the pages you are pointing to necessitate the move. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have followed the links given. I see the definition of a discussion is that it is, er, a debate, and the definition of a debate is that it is, um, a discussion. But debate is easier to type. Tyrenius 03:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The distinction between the two is minute, so I don't see any advantage to renaming the category. The only effect I can see is the creation of a little more work in changing templates and such to reflect the new category name. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is a debate, not a discussion. Debates is the most proper title.--Sefringle 06:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The idea is to get eds. accustomed to the idea that it might be more useful to have discussions. I know it sounds like a minute step compared to what's necessary, but it's a start DGG 06:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please let me know if this category is renamed, because I'll have to change Bot523. --ais523 09:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose (I chose the original name of the category) The relevant meaning of discussion (taken from Wiktionary) is 'Conversation or debate concerning a particular topic', and of debate is 'an argument, or discussion, usually in an ordered or formal setting, often with more than two people, generally ending with a vote or other decision'. The distinction here seems to be that debates are more formal to some extent, use the input of multiple people, and end with a decision being made; this seems to be a pretty good definition of AfD (although debates clearly can involve a vote, they don't have to, and ending with an 'other decision' is a pretty AfD-like way to behave). The fact that AfDs are closed with a result would seem to imply that debate is marginally clearer than discussion in the case of AfD, although I admit it probably doesn't matter much either way. (I've thought of an AfD as 'a deletion-discussion debate' before, and possibly even typed that out, although I'm not sure.) --ais523 09:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose deleting the info outright. I need it when adding AfDs, and I'm sure others do too. Plus, the nom hasn't provided any rationale as to why he/she thinks it should be deleted. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 12:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This debate is about renaming, not about deletion (CfD is used for both); the proposal's to rename the category to 'AfD discussions' rather than to delete it. --ais523 13:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems that the category in question was incorrectly tagged {{subst:cfd}}; I've changed it to use the correct {{subst:cfr}}. --ais523 13:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename. Other XfDs have been changed to "X for discussion", like the CFD you are in now. AFD will hopefully be changed to "articles for discussion" as well. This is a step along that path. There's no reason not to do it now. Alternatively, we could just rename down to Category:AfDs. — coelacan — 03:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak to the point of comatose support. I think I can see the point here - all the relevant process pages on Wikipedia are either "X for deletion" or "X for discussion". As such, making all the relevant categories "X discussions" makes more sense than adding the third term "debate". Grutness...wha? 03:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: no value demonstrated in renaming. The title correctly reflects the purpose: debate, to delete or not. The name became traditional. Changing names of policy-related items without really solid reason is generally bad idea. Mukadderat 00:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm this is that very discussion you are seeking. -- Cat chi? 17:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is mostly a procedural oppose because I don't see any point in renaming this category without also renaming the 12 subcategories, which I assume is not what is proposed, since I don't see them either referenced here or tagged. If it is your intent to rename all this subcats, this needs to be relisted. --After Midnight 0001 04:50, 2 April 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mathematical lit[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Adopt 'Mathematics' naming and restructure as suggested by Dr. Submillimeter and others. --Xdamrtalk 14:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mathematical journals to Category:To be determined by consensus
Category:Mathematical publications to Category:To be determined by consensus
Category:Mathematics books to Category:To be determined by consensus
Category:Mathematics publications to Category:To be determined by consensus
Also Category:Mathematical papers
  • Merge - I'm not a math guy so maybe there are subtle (or for that matter, gross) distinctions between the subjects of these four categories that I don't get but on the face of it having all four of these categories seems nuts. I'm not sure what the best outcome would be but I think for at least some of these categories we ought to be able to figure out a way to consolidate them that makes sense. Otto4711 21:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Many publications appear within a journal. A publication may be notable for having influenced the course of research in its field even if the journal in which it appeared is not very notable except, perhaps, for containing that particular publication. So certainly there's a difference that's not subtle at all. Michael Hardy 03:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Mathematical publications, Category:Mathematics publications, and Category:Mathematical literature into Category:Mathematics literature; Rename Category:Mathematical journals as Category:Mathematics journals; Keep Category:Mathematics books - I am going to guess that everything should be renamed using the word "mathematics", as the word should be a noun (to describe the subject of the books) and not an adjective (which seems to describe the books themselves). I suggest keeping separate books and journals categories; both of these are distinct types of publications that are unrelated to each other. (In modern research, journals are published monthly or more frequently and contain recent research results, whereas books are generally summaries of older research.) One publications/literature category should be kept as a parent for the books and journals subcategories; I suggest using Category:Mathematics literature as the parent. (Note that I am basing this on the convention followed at Category:Physics literature.) Dr. Submillimeter 21:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) Keep Category:Mathematical journals well define and well named.
2) Keep Category:Mathematics books again well defind.
3) Merge Category:Mathematical publications, Category:Mathematics publications into Category:Mathematical literature, which is the top level cat for maths works, or appropriate sub categories.
The publications categories are left overs from the recient CfD [1] which should have been deleted. I have a week preference for Mathematical publications as top level category as litrature makes me think of fiction. --Salix alba (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What about the use of "mathematical" versus "mathematics"? Some existing categories use "mathematics", while others use "mathematical". Which would you prefer? Dr. Submillimeter 09:25, 23 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Works by author[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: don't rename. >Radiant< 14:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Works by author to Category:Literary works which are not books, plays or poems by author
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The category description says it is supposed to be for literary works that are not books, plays or poems. However the category title is apparently already leading to confusion as people are using it to create categories which only have books and plays (see the Shaw cfd below for example). I would recommend one of two changes. Either a) rename the category to something like "Literary works which are not books, plays or poems by author", or b) change the definition of the category to include all works of an author and then make the corresponding Books-by-author, Plays-by-author and Poems-by-author subcategories also subcategories here. So for example, under b), you'd have "Works by Shaw" which includes as subcategories "Books by Shaw", "Plays by Shaw" and "Poems by Shaw". Dugwiki 19:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I know the name I suggested sounds horribly long, so I'm not all that fond of it to be honest. If you can come up with a different, better sounding name, please feel free to post it. Dugwiki 19:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based mostly on the clunk factor of the suggested rename, but if something less clunky is suggested I might support it. I created the category to be placed under Category:Works by artist to be a companion to the Books, Plays and Poems of/by categories. Placing those as subcategories of this adds an unnecessary layer of categorization in most cases. The Shaw category existed before this category did, as did all of the other categories that are currently captured. As I was moving the various existing "works of" categories to this new one, I nominated some for for deletion or renaming based on their contents. Where "works of" categories are justified IMHO is either when the author has a substantial number of subcats (more than the two Shaw has) or when the author has a body of work that isn't properly categorized under one of the existing subcats (essays for example). I think this category works as is but, again, if there's a more clear non-clunky name offered I'm open to it. Otto4711 19:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just want to be clear, I understand why Otto made the category and I'm ok with the idea behind it. It's just that we need to brainstorm on a name that will reduce confusion. The name I recommended above is pretty horrible sounding, so I'm definitely open to other suggestions. Dugwiki 19:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current name allows the categories to be used for all works, including subcategoroies for books, plays or poems where appropriate, which is how it should be. Honbicot 19:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's the thing, I don't think the category should be used as a parent cat to books, poems, etc. by author categories. Those are already ably housed under Category:Works by artist. Interposing this category into that structure only adds another unnecessary layer of categorization. Otto4711 19:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason why not. The only problem is the misguided introductory text, so let's just delete it. Honbicot 19:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename though I would suggest Works by author not and otherwise categorized for the parent and Works by <foo> for the subs. I would think that should cover it. It also allows for cats for authors who, while notable, do not have books, poems, and/or plays to justify those particular cats. Further, if I read this right, this should be a "holding area" until the appropriate, and more limited, cats are put in place.
    Side note: As per Otto's comment, it may be appropriate to create an "Essays by author" cat. That's something that should be looked into if there are enough essay related articles to support it and the "by <foo>" subs. — J Greb 19:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have Category:Essays with a few "essays by" categories so Essays by author sounds like a good idea. Otto4711 21:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What doesn't sound like a good idea any longer to me is the entire "works by author" category structure. I initially thought that it would be useful for authors with multiple works subcats but in thinking about it a little longer I don't see the necessity for that layer of categorization at all. It does not appear that any other artistic discipline has that layer of categorization (I'm not seeing for example "Works by composer" with "symphonies by composer" or "cantatas by composer" subcats, or "Works by painter" or "Works by sculptor" category layers). So I think we should delete this category and all of its subcategories and create new parent cats for such things as essays and short stories by author and park them under the Works by artist supercat. Otto4711 21:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I don't get what you're saying but in fact if you look at Category:Compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven, you'll see precisely the structure you say does not exist. There is a Category:Symphonies by composer for instance. Pascal.Tesson 22:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Works (or Writings, if people prefer that) unites all written works by a single person, and that's important to hold works by authors who have multiple formats in which they write.--Mike Selinker 21:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is the type of overall category that other fields do have. If anything had to go it should be the more specialised categories, but that wouldn't be a good idea either as, for example, poems should be grouped by poet in Category:Poetry. CalJW 02:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is for some of the suggested changes are too far-reaching. There is a need both for categories by type of work and by form. We want to see all of Shakespeare's works collected in one group; we also want to see different sonnet sequences collected in one group. This is how literature is taught: one can take a course on novels or on plays, but one can also take a course on Balzac. The only place where one dimension only must be used is arranging physical books in a physical library, and here the two familiar schemes do it in opposite ways: Dewey arranges by form, and Library of Congress by author.
Looking at the actual items in some of the categories, there's a good deal of reclassification to be done in any case. DGG 07:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I thinks some haven't spotted that this is a new category, and below "Works by artist". Although not set up that way I think this should become the new "super-category" for all "Books by author", "Plays by author", "Novels by author", "etc by author" categories. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For people voting "Keep as is for all works" Guys, just a heads up, but recommending "Keep as is to unite all works by a person" contradicts the actual category description. The category description specifically says it is not for all works, but only works "which are not books, plays or poems". So if you want to use this category under the current category name and use it for all works, you'll have to change the category description (option b) in my nomination). Dugwiki 19:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and change the description - the problem is "books" - see Shaw debate below. Are Collected Letters/diaries/journalism published posthumously "books by"? If they are, why not also a book of poetry specifically designed a book by the author? It's too confusing. You need a category for the Gettysburg Address, Churchill's Iron curtain speech etc. This should become the new super-category. Johnbod 01:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not because the system is that good right now but I don't think deleting the category or renaming it as proposed will be helpful. I think we should think it over, perhaps with the relevant WikiProjects (categorization, novels, etc) to figure out first a way to reorganize this in a better way. Then we can have this debate. Pascal.Tesson 22:04, 30 March 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:Southern Cal Trojans baseball players[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: rename. Two suggestions with abbrev, two without; we generally expand abbrev, and this matches the article University of Southern California. >Radiant< 14:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Southern Cal Trojans baseball players to Category:to be determined by consensus
Nominator's Rationale: Fairly straightforward: Despite its prevalent use in sports-related articles, the official position of USC discourages use of "Southern Cal" in any context, as clearly stated in all media guides: "Note to the media: In editorial references to athletic teams of the University of Southern California, the following are preferred: USC, Southern California, So. California, Troy and Trojans for men’s or women’s teams, and Women of Troy for women’s teams. PLEASE do not use Southern Cal (it’s like calling San Francisco “Frisco” or North Carolina “North Car.”). The usage of "Southern Cal" on licensed apparel and merchandise is limited in scope and necessary to protect federal trademark rights." It’s Not ‘Southern Cal’, 2005 USC Football Media Guide, USC Athletic Department, pg. 3. This category is an exception to the others, so I request a quick change to either Southern California Trojans baseball players or USC Trojans baseball players. Thanks. Bobak 18:04, 22 March 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:Armed Armenian Organizations[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Armed Armenian Organizations to Armenian paramilitary organizations. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armed Armenian Organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have just created this category and am not certain what the best title of it. Suggestions? -- Cat chi? 18:04, 22 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kappler's Indian Affairs citations[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kappler's Indian Affairs citations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another by-source category for deletion per recent precedents. Not a defining characteristic of the subject matter, most sources don't have categories, and if they did the clutter would be horrendous. CalJW 17:19, 22 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Television program cancellations by year[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Television program cancellations by year to Category:Television program series endings by year
Nominator's Rationale: Television program cancellations by year and all by-year subcategories
  • Rename and explanation I've received complaints from a few people that the category title "cancellations" is misleading and implies involuntary ending of the series. In fact the category description makes it clear that the scheme is for all programs regardless of the reason for the series ending, and it is part of the broader scheme of including years of establishment/disestablishment for entities and works. Therefore I'm recommending we rename this and all its related subcategories to Category:Television program series endings by year to remove any ambiguity in the title. Note that while this sounds like a minor change, there have been some stubborn editors insisting that the category not be added to television programs unless the category names are changed. So this is to avoid edit wars of category inclusion and removal based solely on the name of the category. Dugwiki 16:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
individual subcategories included[edit]
  • 20th century television program cancellations -> 20th century television program series endings
  • 21st century television program cancellations -> 21st century television program series endings
  • 1930s television program cancellations -> 1930s television program series endings
  • 1940s television program cancellations -> 1940s television program series endings
  • 1950s television program cancellations -> 1950s television program series endings
  • 1960s television program cancellations -> 1960s television program series endings
  • 1970s television program cancellations -> 1970s television program series endings
  • 1980s television program cancellations -> 1980s television program series endings
  • 1990s television program cancellations -> 1990s television program series endings
  • 2000s television program cancellations -> 2000s television program series endings
  • 1933 television program cancellations -> 1933 television program series endings
  • 1947 television program cancellations -> 1947 television program series endings
  • 1951 television program cancellations -> 1951 television program series endings
  • 1952 television program cancellations -> 1952 television program series endings
  • 1953 television program cancellations -> 1953 television program series endings
  • 1954 television program cancellations -> 1954 television program series endings
  • 1955 television program cancellations -> 1955 television program series endings
  • 1956 television program cancellations -> 1956 television program series endings
  • 1957 television program cancellations -> 1957 television program series endings
  • 1958 television program cancellations -> 1958 television program series endings
  • 1959 television program cancellations -> 1959 television program series endings
  • 1960 television program cancellations -> 1960 television program series endings
  • 1961 television program cancellations -> 1961 television program series endings
  • 1962 television program cancellations -> 1962 television program series endings
  • 1963 television program cancellations -> 1963 television program series endings
  • 1964 television program cancellations -> 1964 television program series endings
  • 1965 television program cancellations -> 1965 television program series endings
  • 1966 television program cancellations -> 1966 television program series endings
  • 1967 television program cancellations -> 1967 television program series endings
  • 1968 television program cancellations -> 1968 television program series endings
  • 1969 television program cancellations -> 1969 television program series endings
  • 1970 television program cancellations -> 1970 television program series endings
  • 1971 television program cancellations -> 1971 television program series endings
  • 1972 television program cancellations -> 1972 television program series endings
  • 1973 television program cancellations -> 1973 television program series endings
  • 1974 television program cancellations -> 1974 television program series endings
  • 1975 television program cancellations -> 1975 television program series endings
  • 1976 television program cancellations -> 1976 television program series endings
  • 1977 television program cancellations -> 1977 television program series endings
  • 1978 television program cancellations -> 1978 television program series endings
  • 1979 television program cancellations -> 1979 television program series endings
  • 1980 television program cancellations -> 1980 television program series endings
  • 1981 television program cancellations -> 1981 television program series endings
  • 1982 television program cancellations -> 1982 television program series endings
  • 1983 television program cancellations -> 1983 television program series endings
  • 1984 television program cancellations -> 1984 television program series endings
  • 1985 television program cancellations -> 1985 television program series endings
  • 1986 television program cancellations -> 1986 television program series endings
  • 1987 television program cancellations -> 1987 television program series endings
  • 1988 television program cancellations -> 1988 television program series endings
  • 1989 television program cancellations -> 1989 television program series endings
  • 1990 television program cancellations -> 1990 television program series endings
  • 1991 television program cancellations -> 1991 television program series endings
  • 1992 television program cancellations -> 1992 television program series endings
  • 1993 television program cancellations -> 1993 television program series endings
  • 1994 television program cancellations -> 1994 television program series endings
  • 1995 television program cancellations -> 1995 television program series endings
  • 1996 television program cancellations -> 1996 television program series endings
  • 1997 television program cancellations -> 1997 television program series endings
  • 1998 television program cancellations -> 1998 television program series endings
  • 1999 television program cancellations -> 1999 television program series endings
  • 2000 television program cancellations -> 2000 television program series endings
  • 2001 television program cancellations -> 2001 television program series endings
  • 2002 television program cancellations -> 2002 television program series endings
  • 2003 television program cancellations -> 2003 television program series endings
  • 2004 television program cancellations -> 2004 television program series endings
  • 2005 television program cancellations -> 2005 television program series endings
  • 2006 television program cancellations -> 2006 television program series endings
  • 2007 television program cancellations -> 2007 television program series endings
  • Note Please note that these categories use various templates for navigation. The templates will likewise need to be adjusted to avoid creating redlinks in the category description indexes. The template effected are Template:TVcxlyr for the single year cats and Template:TVcxldecade for the decade cats. (They are similar to the templates used for Category:Works by year.) Dugwiki 16:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Phew!! Finally finished tagging all the individual cats. Please feel free if you spot a mistake in my tags or anything to correct it. Thanks! Dugwiki 17:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that "debuts" includes the debuts of television specials which are not recurring series. I was assuming that these categories shouldn't include specials. You could, though, include specials in these categories, which would simply mean that those articles would have a "program ending" category in the same year as its debut. Either way, whether or not you want to include non-recurring television specials would determine whether or not you need the word "series" in the title. Dugwiki 19:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to Television series endings by year. I don't see what the program in there is needed for. --rimshotstalk 12:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all Osomec 15:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about you rename all the cancellation categories to Television series cancellations or Television series endings. and all the debuts categories into television series debuts? Jim856796 01:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Program comes from Category:Television programs A couple of people above asked why the word "program" is necessary. Technically it probably isn't, but the word programs is used to make these categories consistent with their ultimate parent category Category:Television programs which uses the word "programs". So that way it's consistent with things like Category:Television programs by location and Category:Television programs by source. It's identifying itself as a subcategory of that parent. Dugwiki 19:42, 26 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Texts by J. R. R. Tolkien[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Texts by J. R. R. Tolkien to Category:Works of J. R. R. Tolkien. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Texts by J. R. R. Tolkien to Category:Works of J. R. R. Tolkien
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - to match all other "works of" categories for authors. Otto4711 16:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename, texts is non-standard. Tim! 17:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename, I think we agreed on "works" for that sort of thing. Recury 18:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, I was about to nominate this for change myself. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency. --Seattle Skier (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - any good reason for not spelling out his name? >Radiant< 07:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because he's commonly known as "J.R.R. Tolkien" and not "John Ronald Reuel Tolkien." The lead article is J. R. R. Tolkien. Otto4711 12:46, 28 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Works of Statius[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Works of Statius to Category:Poems by Statius. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Works of Statius to Category:Poems of Statius
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - both categorized works are poems so rename in line with other poems by author categories. Otto4711 15:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
as are all his surviving works, at least judging by the WP article on him. DGG 07:37, 23 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Story album characters, Category:Mathematical characters and Category:Cereal Character[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/merge as nominated.--Mike Selinker 23:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overly narrow. The first two have one entry each, the last one has two. These are very unlikely to grow ever, since such characters tend to be merged to the main article (the story album, mathematics book, or cereal brand). >Radiant< 15:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I put Ben Bitdiddle up for deletion and from the looks of it he's going down. Otto4711 18:33, 23 March 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:Works of Virgil[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Works of Virgil to Category:Poems by Virgil. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Works of Virgil to Category:Poems by Virgil
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - all categorized works are poems, so rename in line with other poems by author subcats. Otto4711 15:44, 22 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Works of George Bernard Shaw[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: keep. >Radiant< 14:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Works of George Bernard Shaw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the two subcats, for his books and plays, are already part of the appropriate books by author and plays by author category trees. This is an unnecessary layer of categorization. Otto4711 15:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is an appropriate category of Category:Works by author, where it may now be found. Wimstead 15:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Shaw has a great body of work, not all of which yet have articles. Tim! 17:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the keep votes above are stemming from a misleading title for Category:Works by author. Per that category's description it is specifically "for subcategories of written works that are not properly categorized under Category:Books by author, Category:Plays by author, Category:Poems by author." In other words, it should probably be titled something like "Works which are not books, plays or poems by author". So obviously under that category description Category:Books by George Bernard Shaw and Category:Plays by George Bernard Shaw shouldn't be included. When you remove them, though, you're left with an empty category. So delete until an article is written about a non-book/non-play/non-poem by George Bernard Shaw.Dugwiki 19:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, since it seems pretty clear to me that Category:Works by author has a very misleading name (it implies it includes everything), I have submitted that category for either renaming or to be redefined above. Otherwise we're bound to have more confusion on how this category is used. Dugwiki 19:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The title of "works by author" is not misleading and should not be changed. Honbicot 19:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - per my remarks in the CFR for "Works by author"...in thinking about this some more, I've come to believe that none of the various "works by" categories should be kept. They are in all instances an unnecessary layer of categorization between the "Works by artist" supercat and the various "Books by"/"Plays by"/"Poems by" subcats. So in addition to the reason given in the nomination originally I also think the category should be deleted as part of an overall deletion of all such cats. If an author has works like short stories or essays that don't yet have "Foo by author" categories then create those and get rid of the generic "works by" ones. Otto4711 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name is not misleading - but the desciption is! - it should include all "authorial" works so it would include "Books, Novels, Plays, Poetry" categories. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the idea of a standard, but it is the "books" category that confuses me -- a book of poetry, a play, a novel, will all also be books. Should it be that category that is changed to "non-fiction", "essays", "treatises" or the like? I like having all of Shaw's or Hemingway's work in one place, which the "works" category accomplishes. So I would have the "works" category include everything, and the other categories subdivide that everything, getting rid of books through renames or merges.A Musing (formerly Sam) 21:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"a book of poetry, a play, a novel, will all also be books" not necessarily in this day and age. Some could be written and not published, some could be published in magazines, journals or on the web (e-publication). So "No" they are not also books. You slightly give the game away by starting with "a book of poetry", they are two things "poetry" AND a "book".  :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we disagree here; I was suggesting that the "books" category was confusing and you've just found an additional way in which it could be confusing -- I'd keep "works" and subdivide by "novels", "poetry", "essays", "nonfiction", etc. A Musing (formerly Sam) 20:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I am a bit unsure of the need for the subcat Category:Books by George Bernard Shaw and its sub cats which in total have 2 or 3 works at all of the subcat levels. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per A Musing - I agree with his points in general, and especially re Shaw, who was a journalist and letter-writer on a huge scale. "Books by" is the one to go. Johnbod 00:58, 30 March 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:Works of Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi[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 (note that all his works are books). >Radiant< 14:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Works of Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete the subcat for books is already in the Books by author category. The images, all of book covers, are in Category:Book covers. No need for this layer of categorization. Otto4711 15:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treat Consistently with whatever is decided for Shaw, above. A Musing (formerly Sam) 21:57, 22 March 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:Works by Arthur Koestler[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 (note that all his works are books). >Radiant< 14:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Works by Arthur Koestler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the only entry, a subcat for books, is already appropriately categorized in the Books by author category tree. No need for this layer of categorization. Otto4711 15:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per similar comments in Shaw's category above, this is supposed to only be for non-books/non-play/non-poems. Dugwiki 19:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Treat Consistent with whatever is decided for Shaw. A Musing (formerly Sam) 21:57, 22 March 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:Correspondents of Cicero[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 14:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Correspondents of Cicero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - categorizing people on the basis of whom they corresponded with seems like overcategorization or, at the very least, bizarre. Otto4711 15:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of nomination placed at Talk:Cicero. A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know there are several people who have been actively developing the pages relating to Cicero; note that in the error before printing presses (and even in the first couple of centuries following the development of the press, when it was common to have private letters printed for broader distribution), correspondence was a vastly more important area of literature and rhetoric than it is today (for example, much of the early Christian church's doctrines and philosophy see their development in correspondence of Augustine, and much of the bible consists of correspondence of the apostles -- letters to the Corinthians and so forth). I'd sugget input from those contributing to the Cicero and related pages would make sense, and they can give use some idea of whether the correspondence of Cicero fits into this category. A Musing (formerly Sam) 15:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category is not for correspondence (letters) written by Cicero. This is for correspondents, the people who wrote him letters. Otto4711 15:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to me, that's what makes it potentially interesting - if it was just his letters, I'd say like most other bios of authors it belongs in the article proper (and there is a list there). However, the list in the bio only includes four entries, so I'd suggest the authors there be brought in on a sensible classification scheme. If there are only four, the category doesn't excite me, but notifying them would be civil. A Musing (formerly Sam) 16:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I have provided notice on the page Cicero, which strikes me as a logical place. My suspicion is that there is a better way to reorganize the Cicero pages in general. A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Xdamrtalk 16:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree that with the nominator that this category is rather bizarre. We should not categorize people on the basis of who they wrote letters to. Dr. Submillimeter 17:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have my doubts on this category, given that it has only four members, and that it appears there are not more candidates, but would suggest that the category itelf would make a lot of sense for many figures, so would not prejudge it simply because it is unusual to our eyes.A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that in general categorising people by who they wrote to would be overcategorisation, but this is a special case. The letters of Cicero and his correspondents are by far the most extensive collection of letters surviving from Greek and Roman antiquity. There are virtually no other Latin letters extant within a century of Cicero's life. If I'm reading the article on a figure from the late Republic, it's very useful for me to know that we have letters to or from this person in the Ciceronian corpus. And there are far more than four people who can go into this category. EALacey 17:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are there interested editors who can populate it? A Musing (formerly Sam) 18:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added all the authors of letters to Cicero surviving in Ad Familiares for whom I could find articles. The category now contains 22 entries. EALacey 20:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' I think this nomination has done its job and we've got a sensible and populated category here. A Musing (formerly Sam) 20:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely Keep This is really a special case, as EALacey has well expressed it.---Tellervo 13:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a relevant group, though it is an exception--but its the most important example of the genre, and a focus for historical as well as literary discussion.DGG 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this looks like it's going to end up either as a keep or no consensus, so if kept can the category be renamed to "Correspondents with Cicero"? "Correspondents of Cicero" is a weird construction. Otto4711 20:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - When some editors vote delete because we are categorizing people based on who they respond with, they forget that Cicero is not just 'any' somebody. These letters and the people who wrote them are extremely important to an understanding of the politics of the Late Roman Republic. Knowing that a certain figure corresponded with Cicero, and being able to track all those who DID correspond with Cicero, aids the utility of the Wiki. CaveatLectorTalk 16:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems an appropriate category to me. And why change 'with' to 'of'? - 'of' is perfectly acceptable grammar in this case and makes clear sense. There is nothing in the slightest 'weird' about it. 'With' on the other hand would only make sense if the object of the category were 'Correspondence' - which we seem to have established it is not. [Examples (if you need them): 'I am a correspondent of Cicero' - 'I exchange correspondence with Cicero.'] I am therefore against renaming. --Smerus 18:49, 25 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Harry Potter filming locations[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 14:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Harry Potter filming locations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete This does not seem like a good use of categories. Some of these places must have been used as film locations umpteen times. Casperonline 14:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not a defining characteristic of the places listed; but listify if someone wants to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This type of categorization is not feasible. Some cities are the locations for hundreds or thousands of films and TV programs. The articles on the locations would be overwhelmed by categories. Dr. Submillimeter 14:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-defining characteristic of the places concerned and, in addition, a supremely infeasible scheme of categorisation. --Xdamrtalk 15:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non defining and will lead to category clutter: how many categories would New York, London, Los Angeles, Hollywood, or San Francisco have if each TV/Movie had a filming locations cat? Carlossuarez46 17:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, however if someone wants to write a list article, that would be fine. -- Prove It (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We don't want to see a category like this for every movie. VegaDark 05:19, 23 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Television series starring recording artists[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 14:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television series starring recording artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - categorizing TV shows by the sort of person who appears in them just seems like a really bad idea. Otto4711 13:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unneeded overcategorization. --Maelwys 14:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcategorization; no objection to a list if someone wants to create one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is an awkward way to categorize TV shows. Dr. Submillimeter 14:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, probably too trivial to listify. --Xdamrtalk 16:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, seems a random intersection too. Carlossuarez46 17:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above, a bad idea for a category I think. I'm not necessarily opposed to a list, though, or to an article that discusses the history of how singers are cast in television series. Dugwiki 19:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 21:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is this a category for every series with a major character who has made at least one audio or video recording. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:00, 22 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Zoey 101[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 14:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zoey 101 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - as with other eponymous categories there should be substantial material that can't easily be interlinked to warrant it. Here there is an episodes subcat which is already categorized appropriately elsewhere and two articles which are interlinked extensively. The main article serves as a navigaitonal hub so the category is not needed. Otto4711 13:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Too few directly connected articles/sub-categories to merit an eponymous category. --Xdamrtalk 16:05, 22 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional settings[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete--Wizardman 01:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional settings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - this was discussed once before with a result to rename from "fictional universes" to "fictional settings." The category doesn't work under either the new name or the old name. The problem persists that the category is simply too broad to be useful. As noted in the last CFD, any piece of fiction by definition takes place within a fictional universe so any article about a piece of fiction could be categorized here. The rename was picked as the best of a number of IMHO not good suggestions last time and I just don't think the category is salvageable. Otto4711 13:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The category includes so many disparate articles and sub-categories, that the only common thread is that they are works of fiction. Every piece of fiction writing has a setting, which is nearly always either purely fictional or to some degree fictionalised; the question is how much they are fictionalised. As one example, Category:James Bond is included here, but most Bond settings are not entirely fictional; they are fictionalised. Another is the TV series West Wing: a fictional presidency in a real White House. Categories such as Category:Fantasy worlds are more maintainable because the definition is clearer, but the boundaries on this one will inevitably be hopelessly vague. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As stated above, virtually all works of fiction take place in "fictional universes". This category would basically envelop all fictional works ever created. It should be deleted. (The current name just hurts my brain. Things like Category:G.I. Joe are listed as fictional settings.) Dr. Submillimeter 14:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being far too broad a categorization. The number of entries that could be considered such are innumerable. Arkyan 19:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Reading over the previous debate, I can't determine how Radiant came to the conclusion that Fictional settings was the best choice. I only see one user advocating that direction, and a lot more arguing for either keep and purge, or delete. I'd like to hear his rationale for this approach.--Mike Selinker 21:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Maybe someone was going to clean up the category after the rename, or maybe User:Radiant thought that someone would clean up the category after the rename? If this is intended to now contain fictional settings and not "fictional universes", I could attempt a purge of the category using the AutoWikiBrowser (cue Handel music). Dr. Submillimeter 21:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if this is deleted but Category:Fantasy worlds is kept, the science fiction entries should be split out from Category:Fictional settings to create Category:Science fiction universes. "Fictional settings" leaves the category impossibly all-encompassing by nature; limiting it to worlds that don't exist (SF, fantasy/horror, alternate history) is the only way to keep the category (or categories) from potentially including all works of fiction ever created. -Sean Curtin 04:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename back to Category:Fictional universes. Should never have been renamed: not intended to become a dupe of Category:Fictional locations. Ruthlessly sub-cat out member cats also in Category:Media franchises. Split out Category:Science fiction universes. Anything else that really has inspired a whole series of connected works (and that has the universe category, or specific "universe" article to prove its notability) probably deserves to stay. Jheald 19:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and Cull or if this is judged to not be enforceable, just Delete with no prejudice against crating a new universes category. --After Midnight 0001 18:11, 2 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Classical guitarists by name[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge into Category:Classical guitarists per nomination. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Classical guitarists by name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unneeded subcategory of classical guitarists. If this is kept, all members of the Category:Classical guitarists by nationality which aren't already in ... by name should also be categorized there. If this is deleted, the guitarists which are in no national category should go directly into Category:Classical guitarists to bring attention to their needing a category. rimshotstalk 13:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom as effective duplicate. --Xdamrtalk 16:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, categories are by name by default, so this is redundant/duplicate and a bit silly. Xtifr tälk 19:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Doczilla 21:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : allows one to see all classical guitarists at once, instead of having to propagate through the various nationality-categories in order to find a specific classical guitarist (consider the possibility of someone who has forgotten a "guitarist's name" but will recognize the name on seeing it) 193.170.53.50 09:50, 24 March 2007 UTC)
Theoretically if the only desire is to make sure all classical guitarists appear in the same category, you would simply have all such articles appear in the parent category Category:Classical guitarists as well as the appropriate subcategories. Normally, however, articles should not appear in both a parent and its subdivisions simultaneously. Either way, a new category called "by name" isn't necessary. Dugwiki 19:50, 26 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Theatres in Eritrea[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Theatres in Eritrea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete The only article was about a cinema, so I moved it to category:Cinemas in Eritrea. Haddiscoe 13:10, 22 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:History of clothing (ancient Greece)[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:History of clothing (ancient Greece) to Category:Ancient Greek clothing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:History of clothing (ancient Greece) to Category:Ancient Greek clothing
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, as per Category:Clothing by nationality. Haddiscoe 12:56, 22 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional characters by medium[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: collapse the middle tier.--Mike Selinker 15:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At present, the category tree works like this:

This is not particularly useful. We should remove the middle one ("Italians by medium") and move the two subcats to its parent, like this:

Same applies to other countries than Italy; these superfluous cats are found in Category:Fictional characters by medium. >Radiant< 12:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it looks like these categories were just created today; perhaps it would make sense to find out what the creator's plans are for them and how populated they will become how quickly? A Musing (formerly Sam) 14:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer No, they're not new, they all used to be called "by Media", created in July 2006. Earlier today, an admin decided this was a misspelled category and invoked a speedy rename. >Radiant< 15:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is, then, the fact that a category exists only to organize other categories in the hierarchy a criterion for deletion now? –Unint 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not automatically, but reforms of the hierarchy (for instance to cut unnecessary middle layers) has frequently been discussed here for a long time. >Radiant< 08:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the removal of the medium tier categories. 11:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Potential support but since all the other categories are clearly going to be put up too, this should be relisted with all of them. Also, any deletion here should not be taken as a precedent regarding "empty" head categories which exist to unite different hierarchies. Johnbod 14:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the 12 Fictional (Nationality) by medium categories as proposed. --After Midnight 0001 18:19, 2 April 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:Circuit Parties[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: rename.--Mike Selinker 15:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Circuit Parties to Category:Circuit parties
Nominator's Rationale: Rename to conform with capitalization guidelines, or delete. No strong preference on which. Otto4711 12:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename in the absence of any information from the nominator on why deletion might be preferable. Haddiscoe 12:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only reason I suggest the possibility of deletion is because the category is IMHO a bit on the trivial side. As I said, no strong feelings from me and if someone wants to just move this to speedy I have no objection. Otto4711 13:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, otherwise Speedy rename per Haddiscoe. Like Otto4711, I do feel that the category is trivial, and it doesn't seem to have much room for expansion. I don't think that it offers much help for navigation beyond what is available through the head article Circuit parties. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial categorisation. --Xdamrtalk 16:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, what? You want to keep a useless category? Otto4711 22:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, upmerge content. Yes, parent cat is too broad, but this subcatting isn't useful. >Radiant< 07:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename but definitely keep, circuit parties are notable element of LGBT culture, and there are many events from around the world yet to be listed here. I am adding one right now from Brazil that I came across as part of the uncategorized wikiproject. Scarykitty 12:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename and keep -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - seems to have a reasonable place in the tree, but someone should probably remove the redundant parent cats which appear on many of these. If the parents aren't going to be removed from the articles, then should Delete this one. --After Midnight 0001 18:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and keep per Scarykitty. Fireplace 00:38, 5 April 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:Jewish Christians[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete--Wizardman 01:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish Christians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The entries in this category do not conform with the definitions in the WP article Jewish Christians. Some of them for example are, according to their own articles, people of (possible) Jewish origins whose actual or present beliefs are unknown or unsubstantiated (e.g. Tamsin Greig, Jorge Isaacs). Others like Maria Yudina may indeed have had Christian interests (although her WP article does not explain what these were), but do not conform to the typologies of Jewish Christians set out in the article. As the concept of Jewish Christian itself, as set out in the WP article, is somewhat fraught, this category just adds to the confusion. Therefore delete.Smerus 10:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have to agree with the nominator. Category is too vague, and it's not remotely clear what a better suggestion for category description would be. Delete. — coelacan — 12:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Christians of Jewish ethnicity. The current name is too vague: the only obvious interpretation of the name is as self-contradictory as "cool hot things". The head article should be renamed too.
    However, this does not appear to me to be a defining characteristic in many cases, so I can only weakly oppose deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this one is a bit of a religious hot potato that will elicit strong feelings from a number of participants; I'd suggest that it would be civil to notify the users of the category, and wikiprojects relating to both Judaism and Christianity, before getting into this one. It deserves a full discussion. A Musing (formerly Sam) 14:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion (see the whole debate about "Who is a Jew?" just to get bearings on one side, much less trying to verify the "Christianity" of the person). Carlossuarez46 17:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many of these are well-lknown and appropriate by any possible definition. But names on this general topic are always a problem. I do not consider that a reason for deletion. if someone can propose a better name, we can look at it. DGG 19:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • but what exactly does 'appropriate by any possible definition' mean in this case? It sounds to me a bit POV - 'if I can think that 'Jewish Christian' is an appropriate definition for such-and-such a guy, it must be appropriate'. By the same token, someone could wade in and argue that none of these people qualify by 'any possible definition'. But the real problem is, I think, that by most people's standards, some of them might qualify, and some might not - but it is impossible to agree what those standards are; no two people are ever likely to agree who should be in and who out.--Smerus 21:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- relevant and valid info. Also see Category:Former Jews. --WassermannNYC 02:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, either an oxymoron or overly vague. >Radiant< 07:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too ill-defined. For example, it could be practising Christians who were born Jews, or had four Jewish grandparents. It could be people regarded as Christian but who assert that they are in fact Jewish.--Runcorn 22:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At best, this is for people who regard themselves as Jewish followers of Jesus, so it duplicates Jews for Jesus.--Brownlee 22:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Oxymoronic, non-defining characteristic. Nearly all the entries are also in either Category:Converts to Christianity or Category:Former Jews or both. Plus, probably unverifiable, which could be a BLP issue. --After Midnight 0001 18:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and After Midnight. Jewish Christians can only refer to the very earliest days of Christianity and the distinction between the Jewish and Gentile founders of Christianity.--Poetlister 22:06, 5 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Stuart Little[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. Has been listed for the requisite five days and consensus is clear. DRV was headed for "overturn and delete", too. >Radiant< 11:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Stuart Little (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Relisted from 2007 March 13 Tim! 07:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stuart Little (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - category is being used improperly as a performer by performance category. The articles on the book, films, TV series and actors are all extensively interlinked so the main article serves as a navigational hub without any need for the category. Otto4711 04:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I cleaned up the category so that it now only contains articles on the stories/films/TV series. I have no strong opinions on keeping the category at this time, but it should not be used to categorize actors. Dr. Submillimeter 10:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Since this category represents a franchise of closely related products, I can see keeping it for the purpose of putting all those links in the same category. On the other hand, there are so few articles I could see interlinking in the articles probably working to, so I wouldn't be opposed to deletion either. So I'd lean toward keep by default but I'll defer to deletion if desired. Dugwiki 16:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is really too little here to form a proper basis for categorisation. As Dugwiki points out, most of the articles here relate to iterations in a franchise — this is best accomplished through a series box cf Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 2#Category:Poltergeist films. Rather like eponymous bio categories, I think we need a substantial number of directly connected articles to justify categories like this.
Xdamrtalk 13:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same as Charlotte's Web above. -- Samuel Wantman 23:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why is this relisted? To me, this looked like a clear consensus to delete (even if I did not vote and still have no opinion). Dr. Submillimeter 09:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly—why? --Xdamrtalk 10:47, 22 March 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:Charlotte's Web[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. Has been listed for the requisite five days and consensus is clear. DRV was headed for "overturn and delete", too. >Radiant< 11:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Charlotte's Web (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Charlotte's Web (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Relisted from 2007 March 13 Tim! 07:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The main Charlotte's Web article serves as a navigational hub for the various articles. The other articles and categories are extensively interlinked and just to be sure I added links to the sub-categories to the main article. No need for this category. Otto4711 04:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Categories are more than navigational hubs (Gnevin 16:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Actually, they really aren't more than navigational hubs. The point of the category system is to serve as a index, not to serve as just a "tag" or the like. The reasoning for deletion is similar to Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous categories for people - the main article serves as a sufficient navigational hub for the reader. Dugwiki 16:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is rendered redundant by the use of links on the Charlotte's Web article. Ravenhurst 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The overcategorization guidelines should apply to all eponymous categories, not just people. Eponymous categories should only be created when there is an identifiable need. There should be numerous categories that are related to the topic that would be hard to find from the eponymous article, or there should be subarticles that would be uncategorized if the eponymous category did not exist. -- Samuel Wantman 08:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why is this relisted? To me, this looked like a clear consensus to delete (even if I did not vote and still have no opinion). Dr. Submillimeter 09:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This and the one above were closed with a "no consensus" and a request was made by one of the participants in the discussion to relist them for further discussion as he thought there was a delete consensus. I'd like to suggest that the articles on these books be tagged and those people interested notified these discussions are here: it strikes me this information would best be included in the articles instead, but it would be civil to seek their input. A Musing (formerly Sam) 22:12, 22 March 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:Trolls[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted, shouldn't have wasted any time with CFD and just tagged this as speedy. --Cyde Weys 03:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trolls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Obvious - stupid category created by a self-proclaimed troll. Plasticbottle 06:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is populated by a userbox that he made. Does that mean this has to be moved to User Categories for Deletion so we can delete that too? Oh, and delete, encouraging trolling is not cool and any decent troll would never admit to being one anyway. Recury 18:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would have a legitimate article-space use if converted into a category for the fictional beings of the same name, along the lines of Category:Elves. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Category:Fictional trolls. Otto4711 01:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I identify myself as a troll, it's no different from Category:LGBT Wikipedians. --Evergreens78 01:38, 23 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Prostate cancer survivors[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 13:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prostate cancer survivors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Surviving cancer is a major life event, but the list of categories at the bottom of an article is not supposed to be a potted biography, and there is no connection between the notable public achievements of people who happen to have survived the same disease. CalJW 04:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per comments above—as far as categorisation goes, surviving disease is not a defining characteristic. --Xdamrtalk 16:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or restrict As I've said in similar disease related categories, the main thing to me is that the category must be restricted to articles significantly mention the person having the disease. It's possible, for example, that an individual is primarily known for having a disease and not having a category for that disease could mean the person's article is inadequately indexed in the category system. On a second note, if I were to keep a category like this I think I'd prefer just having Category:Prostate cancer victims to include anyone whose article significantly talks about them having prostate cancer, regardless of whether they survived, died or survived and then later died, etc. That would I think be more in line with other subcategories of "people by medical condition". Dugwiki 19:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. Doczilla 21:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Restricting categories to only some of the articles that match the title doesn't work. Osomec 15:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make clear, the restriction I'm talking about above is a standard practice for categorization. Namely that articles should only be categorized by information contained in the article. It's also standard practice to use the category instructions for categorization, not just the category name. Obviously you want the name to be as clear as possible as to the intent of the category, but that doesn't mean you simply ignore the category's instructions. Dugwiki 19:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whether or not people should ignore a category's instructions, they often do. As a reader one has no idea when visiting a category whether any instructions it may have have been ignored often, occasionally, or never. Choalbaton 01:17, 24 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Chronicles of Oklahoma citations[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 13:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chronicles of Oklahoma citations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete This is of these cluttersome by-source categories that link articles with little in common, and it should be deleted in line with the recent precedents. CalJW 02:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Categorisation by source is overcategorisation except for maintenance purposes, such as the 1911 Britannica category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 21:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, although I'd consider that the 1911 Britannica may also go as a cat, or get moved to talk pages. Carlossuarez46 22:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 01:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cluttersome for whom? Certainly not for those who use it. Certainly not for those who don't. DeepFork 16:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as category clutter. Dominictimms 17:32, 26 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Qing Dynasty chancellors[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: no consensus. >Radiant< 14:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Qing Dynasty chancellors to Category:Qing Prime Ministers
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The category Qing Prime Ministers was recently moved to "Qing Dynasty chanellors" in accordance with a group renaming (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_9#Category:Han_Prime_Ministers). This renaming is an obvious mistake, because the Qing Dynasty never had a position called the "Chancellor", nor even the equivalent of a Chancellor. Policy functions were instead exercised through a succession of ministerial councils, such as the Grand Council. It was only in 1908 that a new "imperial Constitution" created an office of "Prime Minister", which was clearly and unambiguously called a "Prime Minister", not a Chancellor. As the move was inappropriate, I propose that the renaming be undone and the category moved back to its original name. Sumple (Talk) 01:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say Zongli translates to "premier"? All of my dictionaries translate "prime minister" first as "zongli"; by contrast, the first translation for "premier" is 首席官员, chief officer. --Sumple (Talk) 12:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Premier of the People's Republic of China, for example, as opposed to Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. This is not clear cut in modern translation, but this is how it is done in English language history texts. For example, we say Li Si was "Prime Minister of Qin". I think they didnt list zaixiang/chengxiang in your dictionary because the title doesnt exist now, and has not existed in a long time.--Jiang 02:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think the category should remain as it is. Qing inherited Ming's system, in which the Daxueshi (大學士, which you have above as grand secretaries) were de facto chancellors. Eventually, when articles are written about them, I don't believe it to be inappropriate to refer to them as chancellors, and I don't think branching into multiple categories right now is a good thing. --Nlu (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but whereas the Ming dynasty system had a clear "first secretary" (Zhang Juzheng, Shen Xingshi (申行时), etc), who were leaders of the political branch by reason of their position, that is not true for the Qing Dynasty. The Qing Dynasty did not always have one person who could be identified as the first secretary or first minister, and even when one person controlled political affairs (Oboi, Li Hongzhang), it was not by virtue of their position as a "grand secretary". --Sumple (Talk) 00:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The category implies that such a title existed when it did not and that only one person held this position at any one time. History books dont call them prime ministers, so we should not as well.--Jiang 02:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? They were called Prime Ministers post-1908, and before 1908, there were not prime ministers or chancellors. --Sumple (Talk) 05:33, 27 March 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:Separate Brigades of the United States Army[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Separate Brigades of the United States Army into Category:Brigades of the United States Army . Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Separate Brigades of the United States Army to Category:Brigades of the United States Army
  • Merge, To start, I actually created the seperate brigade category, but a year later, I think it was a mistake. The criteria for what constitutes a seperate brigade is unclear to most editors, and this category has been repeatedly used incorrectly. The difference between a seperate brigade and a regular brigade has to do with the command structure (a seperate brigade does not fall under a division), but other than that they are for the most part the same thing, especially when you take into account what constitutes a brigade combat team. Nobunaga24 01:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. CalJW 02:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Kirill Lokshin 02:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. However, note the categories might have been correctly used if an article had been created about Separate Brigades and referenced in the intro to the category. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with a merge, but the category's purpose might have been clearer with a name like "Independent Brigades" or "Non-Divisional Brigades." --Groggy Dice T | C 20:22, 24 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Guildford Grammar School[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, This is a private boarding school in Western Australia. I'm sure it's nice, but I don't see the need for a category. -- Prove It (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ==See also== should suffice. —Moondyne 01:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; no need for an eponymous categ. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too few directly relevant articles/sub-categories to merit an eponymous category. --Xdamrtalk 16:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 21:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not needed. --Seattle Skier (talk) 18:27, 23 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_22&oldid=1138388543"