Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 12 May 14 >

May 13[edit]

Category:Suzuka Files[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Suzuka Files to Category:Suzuka (manga). Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suzuka Files (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Suzuka, per this discussion. -- Prove It (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ohio Bobcats basketball coaches[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Ohio Bobcats basketball coaches to Category:Ohio Bobcats men's basketball coaches. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ohio Bobcats basketball coaches to Category:Ohio Bobcats men's basketball coaches
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Proper naming conventions; men's and women's coaches get their own category as they're not truly related. fuzzy510 21:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The women's category can be added if anyone notable enough pops up. — Dale Arnett 22:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Music by A. R. Rahman[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 06:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music by A. R. Rahman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - it does not appear that we categorize films based on the score composer and I believe doing so is overcategorization. We can't categorize every aspect of the filmmaking process. A list should appear in the composer's article and the individual articles for the films should note the composer. Otto4711 21:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Postlebury 10:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A. R. Rahman isn't big enough for his own Compositions by. I would support the category on Tchaikovsky for example. Horvat Den 17:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Prominent Sherbro Families[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 06:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prominent Sherbro Families (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Sherbro families. -- Prove It (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and add Category:Tucker Family to the nomination. It's pretty well established that we should not categorize families unless the family is such that the articles for its members are so complex that they can't easily be interlinked. The sub-cat has two articles in it and is clearly not needed for navigational purposes. The container cat is not needed in the absence of any substantial material to put in it. Otto4711 21:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete family categories are rarely useful; one can navigate the links. Carlossuarez46 19:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sivaji: The Boss songs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 07:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sivaji: The Boss songs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - categorizing individual songs on the basis of the films on which soundtracks they appear is overcategorization. A popular song could end up in dozens of film and television categories. Otto4711 20:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Postlebury 10:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 19:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think nominator has misunderstood that these are songs specifically from this film and not songs which just happen to appear in this film. Tim! 21:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:University Associations[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:University Associations to Category:University associations and consortia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University Associations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:University Associations and Consortiums, as duplicate. -- Prove It (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:World of Warcraft instances[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 03:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World of Warcraft instances (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - Useless category as only one article can go in it. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 20:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I think at one point there were separate articles for various instances in the game, but they were all redirected/merged into the main article. Since there is only one article currently possible on this topic, the category isn't necessary and can be deleted. Dugwiki 20:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to the list in the article. Mangoe 20:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Articles needing kanji[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Articles needing kanji to Category:Articles needing Japanese script. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles needing kanji to Category:Articles needing Japanese script
  • Merge, I don't understand exactly the details of how these two categories interact with templates or other WikiProject/Administrative processes, but surely they are redundant with one another and should be merged into one another. LordAmeth 19:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • support merge per Lord Ameth. Chris 20:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused - you don't need this and the next one, surely? Johnbod 03:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge to Category:Articles needing Japanese script per my comments below. Neier 04:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Articles needing Japanese script[edit]

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

The result of the debate was reverse merge Category:Articles needing kanji to Category:Articles needing Japanese script. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles needing Japanese script to Category:Articles needing kanji
  • Merge, I believe it might be best to merge this one into the other, as Template:Japanese auto-adds to the other category. LordAmeth 19:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Merge, Kanji into Japanese script. I agree with Lord Ameth that the present situation needs to be slimmed down, as there now seem to be three such categories. But I specifically created this one as it was a subsection of Articles needing Chinese script, which is not entirely correct and shows systematic though unintentional bias, by whoever classified it thus. The reason I argue this is that Japanese has multiple scripts, quite distinct from anything Chinese, to include katakana, hiragana and romanji, and while romanji is pretty easy for anyone with a western keyboard, depending on the origin of the topic, or the subject matter itself, a different script than kanji is called for. I do appreciate Lord Ameth's diligence in this, domo arigato. Chris 20:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as LordAmeth suggested. It's true that Japanese has several different scripts, but if the script being requested isn't kanji, it really isn't necessary for the article. Katakana and hiragana transliterations can be figured out, if necessary, perfectly well from the romaji in the text. Dekimasuよ! 05:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment, it's not a matter of the scripts being "figured out", the purpose of both tags is to alert users with the ability to do so that some form of Japanese script needs added. Users that can't add it themselves, like me, can at least point out that an article needs it. Chris 06:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm trying to say is that if katakana or hiragana is the Japanese script in question, it doesn't really need adding. Only kanji are really informative and useful to add to an article. Dekimasuよ! 08:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why, for those of us who don't know why one script would be informative and others wouldn't. Chris 08:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge - I'm not sure I agree completely with Dekimasu. If (perchance) Saitama, Saitama did not have the proper Japanese script already inserted, claiming it needed kanji would be incorrect. Sometimes, Japanese companies, buildings, etc, use katakana in their official (Japanese) name. So, I would go towards the merge to Japanese script Neier 04:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Sivaji: The Boss[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. The songs category is to be deleted, rendering Tim's opinion moot. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sivaji: The Boss (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete I believe that there is a consensus against categories for individial films, as they will inevitable serve as de facto "performer by performance" categories, leading to terrible category clutter on the performers' articles. Honbicot 19:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - while I don't believe there is consensus against categories named for individual films on the basis you cite, this particular category should be deleted because it lacks the sort of material that would warrant an eponymous category. Almost everything in it is an article for a song (which is IMHO inappropriate categorizaion) and what isn't for songs can be easily interlinked through the main article for the film. The category is not needed for navigational purposes. Otto4711 19:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - made as it is the biggest Indian film in history. After release, several other articles will be created coinciding with the article. I'm not sure if you understand cos you're noy Indian!Universal Hero 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has nothing to do with being Indian. It has everything to do with the category not being needed. Otto4711 00:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Parish[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename (see {{UK Parish}} for details). Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Parishes of the United Kingdom, convention of Category:Parishes. -- Prove It (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Primates (bishops)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight 0001 03:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Primates (bishops) to Category:Primates (religion)
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to match the main article Primate (religion); also necessary because some of the posts in these categories have the title of patriarch or metropolitan rather than "bishop". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:GameTap Games[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete, advertorial and non-defining. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:GameTap Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as categorization by trivial attribute, borderline spam. -- Prove It (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in same vein as Category:Virtual Console games. Would be a useful listing if the list would be populated. -- The T 13:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons said above. There's 800-something games available on GameTap, so it's not like it's going to be a small list. -- ShadowMan1od 03:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to be standard to have categories for all "systems" that games are released on, including purely digital systems like Virtual Console, XBLA, and Steam. Luigihann 01:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Entertainers by age upon death[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation. Vegaswikian 21:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Entertainers by age upon death (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete, Massive over-categorization! Nominate this and all the sub-cats to this cat too (help with this would be app!). Lugnuts 17:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Category and all sub-cats are now tagged for speedy deletion. Otto4711 18:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, Otto. Lugnuts 18:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And now they're all gone. Sometimes I love this place. Otto4711 18:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jeeva Cinematographed Films[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 03:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jeeva Cinematographed Films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, unless there is a consensus to create Films by cinematographer. -- Prove It (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jeeva Directed Films[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight 0001 03:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jeeva Directed Films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Films directed by Jeeva, convention of Category:Films by director. -- Prove It (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I question whether these cats should really exist, why can't all a director's films be linked from the director's article? If kept, rename is proper. Carlossuarez46 19:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per the convention. We can certainly discuss the convention but this nom doesn't seem the best vehicle to do so. Otto4711 04:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Tim! 21:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Junk Science[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 03:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Junk Science (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Delete underused category for two reasons:
  1. It has only two articles:
    • Junk science: main article
    • Antiscience: I removed its membership in this category when I did not find any mention of "junk science" in the article's body.
  2. Most of the potential articles would be better classified as Category:Pseudoscience.
--Kevinkor2 16:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete underpopulated. --ST47Talk 16:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, the name "junk science" invokes POV. Pseudoscience can be more objectively defined. Doczilla 16:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:House (TV series)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:House (TV series) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - eponymous TV category that isn't required as a navigational hub based on the material in it. Otto4711 16:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep multiple subcategories and articles are sufficient content. Tim! 21:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has a category for episodes and characters, and an article on the show and a list of awards. Two articles and two subcats has not generally been seen as sufficient content to warrant an eponymous category for people, families, TV shows, bands or films and there has been no reason presented here as to why they suddenly become sufficient in this particular instance. Simply counting the number of articles or subcats is an overly simplistic method of analysis. Pretty much any topic one can think of as a category name, one could probably find a couple of aticles to park under it. Adopting the analysis offered here would bring CFD to a grinding halt as long as anyone opposing a deletion could find an extra article or two to dump into the cat. Otto4711 13:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tim! - category serves a useful purpose. Matthew 14:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Tim's stated rationale for keeping this category seems somewhat at odds with his statement here regarding TV show categories in general. Neither of the two articles in this category would be undercategorized by the deletion of this container category and he seems to accept the notion that simply having episode and character categories doesn't warrant the eponymous container. Otto4711 13:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:High schools in Los Angeles County[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:High schools in Los Angeles County (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:High schools in California, convention of Category:High schools in the United States. -- Prove It (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Types of resort[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Types of resort to Category:Resorts by type. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Astronomy institutes[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Astronomy institutes and Category:Astronomical institutes and departments to Category:Astronomy institutes and departments. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Absolutely Fabulous[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 07:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Absolutely Fabulous (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - another eponymous TV series category without the sort of material that requires it as a navigational hub. Otto4711 14:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Absolutely (TV series)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 07:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Absolutely (TV series) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - absent two improperly categorized performer articles, the two articles do not require a category for navigation. Otto4711 14:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:A Country Practice[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 07:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:A Country Practice (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - the two articles are easily interlinked, rendering the category unnecessary for navigation. Otto4711 14:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:The A-Team[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 06:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The A-Team (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - the two articles are interlinked and the two categories are in the appropriate category trees. Category not needed for navigation. Otto4711 14:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep multiple subcategories and articles are sufficient content. Tim! 21:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has a category for episodes and characters, and an article on the show and a proposed film. Two articles and two subcats has not generally been seen as sufficient content to warrant an eponymous category for people, families, TV shows, bands or films and there has been no reason presented here as to why they suddenly become sufficient in this particular instance. Simply counting the number of articles or subcats is an overly simplistic method of analysis. Pretty much any topic one can think of as a category name, one could probably find a couple of aticles to park under it. Adopting the analysis offered here would bring CFD to a grinding halt as long as anyone opposing a deletion could find an extra article or two to dump into the cat. Otto4711 13:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - Tim's stated rationale for keeping this category seems somewhat at odds with his statement here regarding TV show categories in general. Neither of the two articles in this category would be undercategorized by the deletion of this container category and he seems to accept the notion that simply having episode and character categories doesn't warrant the eponymous container. Otto4711 13:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and precedent. >Radiant< 09:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Periodic abstinence[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. A lot of discussion, but no discernible conclusions have emerged. However category is empty so eligible for deletion per WP:CSD#C1. --Xdamrtalk 13:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*****NOTICE:***** The old discussion at Category talk:Periodic abstinence is now located at Category talk:Fertility tracking/Periodic abstinence. Joie de Vivre 11:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Periodic abstinence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete, the methods previously included in this category are not necessarily used with periodic abstinence. Fertility awareness and other behavioral methods are frequently used with barrier methods such as condoms, so the title "Periodic abstinence" is misleading. These methods have been moved to Category:Behavioral methods of birth control, a broader category which also includes Coitus interruptus, Lactational Amenorrhea Method and other methods which do not involve devices or medications. Please delete Category:Periodic abstinence because the category is now empty. Joie de Vivre 13:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Systems that involve periodic abstinence from unprotected vaginal intercourse share strong similarities with each other that they do not share with other methods in the broader category of "behavioral methods of birth control". For navigation purposes, they should be grouped in their own category. Lacking a comparably succinct descriptive term, I believe this category gives people a good idea of what they will read about when clicking on the articles listed here. Listing "Billings method" alongside "coitus interruptus" does not provide such a context. Lyrl Talk C 14:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Keeping the category would necessitate renaming it Category:Periodic abstinence from unprotected vaginal intercourse, with an explanation that sexual abstince, other forms of sex, or vaginal intercourse with barrier methods may be used. The category "periodic abstinence" sounds as though the methods therein necessarily involve periods of sexual abstinence, which is simply not accurate. Joie de Vivre 15:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I am concerned that Catholic theological concepts are being categorized as discrete methods of birth control. The choice to abstain from intercourse in accordance with Catholic theology is not in and of itself a separate method of birth control, in that such a belief does not affect the effectiveness of the methodology used. Joie de Vivre 15:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unpopulated category. Some of you are getting sidetracked. CfD is about whether the topic is useful, logical, or policy-consistent for categorizing numerous articles. It's not. Doczilla 16:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The category is only unpopulated because JdV removed all articles this morning, with no prior discussion. Because there is no established consensus for this move, I do not believe that is a valid reason for deleting it. My belief is that the topic is useful, logical, and policy-consistent because it groups different methods of and philosophies behind using periodic abstinence to avoid pregnancy. This grouping is more useful than, and thus preferable to, grouping these articles with withdrawal, which does not share these characteristics. I would appreciate if Doczilla or others who share the view that the category is not useful would explain why. Lyrl Talk C 19:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but... this was gone about procedurally incorrect. This should have simply been proposed as a category for renaming. From periodic abstinence to behavioral methods. The fact of the matter, not all of these methods require that a couple be abstinent. They could just have protected sex during the fertile periods. The abstinence requirement is normally associated with religious belief. However, not all who follow these methods are Catholic. I support renaming the cat, but again, it should have been proposed as a rename, instead of moving the category by hand without discussion and deleting the old cat after the fact.-Andrew c 02:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lyrl. Changes to established categorization systems need to be made through discussion and consensus. I think there's a valid distinction to be made between those behavioral family planning methods which are based around observation of a woman's menstrual cycle (rhythm method and Creighton method) and those which are not (coitus interuptus, breastfeeding, non-vaginal penetrative intercourse). Methods which rely on such observation function through "periodic abstinence" from certain kinds of intercourse during the fertile periods. "Fertility awareness," as an alternative category title, strikes me as rather ambiguous, because to someone not familiar with the subject, "fertility awareness" could be read as referring to a general knowledge of human reproduction, rather than a specific class of birth control methods. So I think Category:Periodic abstinence is a logical category with a logical title. -Severa (!!!) 12:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please excuse the repetition, but the phrase "periodic abstince" reads as "periods of sexual abstinence". "Fertility awareness" does not necessarily involve sexual abstinence. Fertility awareness can just as easily be used to indicate the period of time in which a couple will use barrier methods during intercourse, or when they might just stick to oral sex for the evening. Joie de Vivre 00:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know how many articles were in Category:Periodic abstinence originally, as it's been emptied, but, some potential candidates for inclusion, as behavioral methods based on observing a woman's fertility cycle, would seem to be Rhythm Method, Creighton Model, Billings ovulation method, Basal body temperature, and the summary article Fertility awareness itself. I don't think "abstinence" necessarily means complete sexual abstinence — I think, in this case, it means abstaining from coital intercourse, or at least unprotected coital sex, which is abstinence of a sort — but, if the the category's title is still problematic, it could always changed to something more specific, like "Category:Observational methods of birth control."

    As for whether these articles belong under "Category:Theology of the Body" or "Category:Religious views of birth control," I think that these might make good supplementary categorizations to "Category:Periodic abstinence," but I don't believe they should be sorted there exclusively. As Andrew c said above, not all people who practice NFP methods are Catholic, and religious categories aren't an intuitive place to look for articles on birth control. Look at Category:Fasting. Fasting is a practice endorsed by a number of religious institutions, used often in concordance with some sort of religious observation, but that doesn't make it an inherently or exclusively religious practice. Having Category:Fasting listed as a subcategory of only Category:Religious behaviour and experience and Category:Asceticism would be to overlook the fact that fasting can and is practiced for non-religious reasons, including for medical reasons (before undergoing certain tests), for weight loss or dieting, or as a form of political demonstration. Cross-categorization increases the accessability of articles, and is acceptable per WP:CAT. -Severa (!!!) 08:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I still have not seen any arguments that this category is not useful, or that it is less useful than the category the articles were subsumed into, Category:Behavioral methods of birth control. I understand the objections to the name (that to some users it will imply abstinence from all sexual activity) - but no alternatives have been proposed by those advocating deletion. What has been proposed instead, is to put the articles involving awareness of a woman's fertile period into a category with coitus interruptus and sexual abstinence. The only argument has been that the resulting category title is less objectionable. To me, this is not a valid argument to change the category structure to something less useful. Lyrl Talk C 22:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that the category is not useful is that nothing actually belongs in there. Joie de Vivre 20:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do not believe we must separate the fertility awareness methods from the 'pull out method' and abstinence. We are talking about six articles here (or at least that is the current article count for the category, forgive me if I missed a few). I do not believe we need to over categorize here. That said, I wouldn't oppose creating a subcat within the behavioral methods category to hold the 5 articles on observational/counting methods. However, "periodic abstinence" is simply the wrong name to use. Maybe "fertility awareness", but then something like the rhythm method wouldn't fit in (which may be ok, because then the parent cat of behavioral methods wouldn't contain the single article "coitus interruptus".) Or maybe we could use "natural family planning" because we have sourced that use the term generically with no religious connotations. There is also "natural birth control" but "coitus interruptus" falls under that category among other things. Anyway, if you agree that "periodic abstinence" is a misnomer for these articles, Lyrl, do you have any rename proposals?-Andrew c 04:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I share Severa's concerns about the name "fertility awareness", one benefit of that name is that the category could then be sub-catted to Category:Pregnancy or some more specific category related to pregnancy acheivement. All these methods may also be used for pregnancy achievement as well as avoidance. According to the epilogue of Weschler's book, the "large majority" of readers are seeking to conceive. Anecdotally, many more women in the Ovusoft community use FA for pregnancy achievement than do for avoidance - there are many more TTC-related boards, which are significantly more active than the "Avoiding" board. I believe it's an oversight that these methods have so far been categorized only as birth control.
"Natural family planning" is a more widely used term (it's what WHO calls this group of methods, for example), so in the sense of being more useful for navigation that would be a preferable name. But a Google search for natural family planning gives 60-70% of the hits as religious sites; I'm not sure using it as a generic category name would meet Wikipedia's normal criteria of "most common usage". NFP is the most common term, but within usage of NFP, religious usage is more common than secular usage. Kind of a catch-22.
As far as the Rhythm Method, the Standard Days Method is basically the same thing (day counting), and is referred to as "fertility awareness" in all the literature I've seen ([1] "The Standard Days Method (SDM) is a new simple fertility awareness-based method.") Neither Rhythm nor SDM observe any of the "primary fertility signs", but they are fairly accurate estimators of fertility (Rhythm Method has the same effectiveness in avoiding pregnancy as the contraceptive sponge and cervical cap, and SDM has improved effectiveness). I believe it should be grouped with other methods for determining fertile periods of the menstrual cycle.
Because of the way this nomination was done - for "deletion" - I wasn't sure if this was the appropriate place for a renaming discussion, or if I should wait until this nomination was closed and maybe suggest discussion at Category talk:Periodic abstinence (if it still existed)? Lyrl Talk C 13:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to the creation of the "methods" and "behavioral" categories (at the time of this deletion nomination), the oddball methods like coitus interruptus were just left in the main "birth control" category. I believe putting them directly into Category:Methods of birth control and making whatever the "periodic abstinence" category gets renamed to a direct subcat of "methods" would be a good solution to the problem of the behavioral category being practically emptied out (i.e. empty it out completely as not useful to navigation, if there is consensus to do that, and (again if there is consensus) tag it for speedy deletion after it's been empty for four days). Lyrl Talk C 13:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lyrl, I am fairly certain you are aware of the fact that Rhythm Method is not a method of fertility awareness. For anyone just joining us, the Rhythm Method is a calendar method that relies on statistical approximation of when a woman is likely to be fertile. It is very different in nature from fertility awareness methods, which typically rely on observation of cervical mucus, viewing and feeling of cervical position, and/or charting of basal body temperature. Please, let's not enter the headache of whether Rhythm is a form of fertility awareness -- it isn't. I understand that you wish to group rhythm and the FA methods away from coitus interruptus and LAM. You have made that clear. But redefining the term "fertility awareness" to include Rhythm is not factual and it is not a sound basis for categorizing them together. Joie de Vivre 14:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel that it would be fine to go with Andrew's suggestion of creating a "Fertility awareness" category and keeping LAM, withdrawal, and Rhythm outside of that category, in Behavioral methods. If excluding Rhythm is problematic, another option would be to create something like "Category:Methods which detect or estimate fertility so that Rhythm could be included. Thoughts? Joie de Vivre 14:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was consensus among the commentators here to move at least most of the articles that were (immediately prior to this nomination) in the "Periodic abstinence" category into a new category "Fertility awareness" (effectively a move, but the nominated category would still be deleted). However, that seems to have broken down at Talk:Rhythm Method#Categorization - what articles should this one be grouped with? and all commentators (including myself) seem to be back to their original !votes. Lyrl Talk C 22:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE: The old discussion at Category talk:Periodic abstinence is now located at Category talk:Fertility tracking/Periodic abstinence. Joie de Vivre 11:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

State treasurers of the United States[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename except for Florida. Vegaswikian 06:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The actual position in Maryland is "Treasurer". Mangoe 18:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose change for Oregon: Current name matches official title. Need for consistency across media within state is more coimpelling than need for consistency of naming across Wikipedia with other states. See here. -Pete 18:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for Oregon: The Oregon Consitution (Article VI, Section 4 - see here) refers only to the “Treasurer of State,” usually right next to the Secretary of State, or “State Treasurer” in other sections that refer to the office. In ORS 178.060 (found here), the term “State Treasurer” is used. While the constitutional title is certainly outdated, it does not appear that “Oregon State Treasurer” is the official title. "State treasurers of Oregon" seems more appropriate, in line with other states' categories. akendall(talk) 20:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Oregon The official title of the position is "State Treasurer" (no "Oregon") per the statutes, so I'm going to agree with the suggested rename, with the lowercase "treasurers" because we are then referring to Oregon state treasurers generally and collectively and not to the State Treasurer. Katr67 05:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Oregon, I am persuaded by Akendall and Katr67. Changing my "vote" from above. -Pete 18:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to matching sentence case. -- Prove It (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all except Florida - the constitutional name of the office is Chief Financial Officer and the correct name for the office should be maintained. Otto4711 14:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've modified the nomination ... however CFO isn't a proper noun unless its referring to the title itself, or a specific person. -- Prove It (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment I've already registered my opposition to the change for Maryland, but I'd also point out that the overall category is more or less garbage. A look at State Treasurer discloses that it is a catch-all for a number of positions which have the same names and different duties, together with some positions with different names that are alleged to have the same function as "treasurers". Well, in Maryland we have both a Treasurer and a State Comptroller. In a lot of these states, the treasurer is a simple functionary with no policy-setting powers (as is the case in Maryland). In others the treasurer appears to have some control over spending and contract-letting (in Maryland this would be the comptroller). The latter cases are often notable as such; the former are rarely notable simply by being office holders, and could simply be listed in articles on the office, if indeed such an article is even noteworthy. Mangoe 18:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Mangoe, to the degree that I understand the issue. If the overall category is kept, it should have a more generic name than "state treasurers," though I'm not familiar enough with the relevant terminology to know what that should be. Furthermore, it should be "…in the United States," not "…of the United States." These officers are of their respective states, they are not Federal officials. -Pete 19:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggestion: Rename parent category to Treasurers and financial officers of US states. -Pete 22:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and Rename Category:State treasurers of Louisiana to match official titles. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Alleged girlfriends of Prince William[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 03:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alleged girlfriends of Prince William (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as People by people. -- Prove It (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (a) non-defining; (b) WP:BLP; (c) speculative ("alleged"); and (d) not useful. If there is anything someone wants to know about his girlfriends, find it first in his bio where someone can see to BLP and RS issues and follow links to anyone else's bio. Carlossuarez46 18:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. Abberley2 19:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete asap Johnbod 03:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. David Kernow (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categories that include the word "alleged" in the title are immediately suspect for bias/unverifiability. Dugwiki 20:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. VegaDark (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlossuarez46's excellent analysis. WjBscribe 10:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yikes. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I created the category, intending to add other names/articles that have been placed into Wikipedia (and possibly some of these have also been removed) simply because these women have been allegedly associated with Prince William. When I used the word "alleged" and "allegedly", I used it because several British and non-British newspapers reported at least one woman's possible relationship with the prince (and did so at least back in 1998-1999 in three to four cases). Since the category does not include any other names at present, go ahead and delete it.wikibiohistory 07:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:British India[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight 0001 03:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British India to Category:British rule in India
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Nine (TV series)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 06:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Nine (TV series) to Category:The Nine (TV series) characters
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - Everything except the show article is an article on a character. Unlikely that any more articles will appear on this canceled series. Otto4711 06:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The 72 names on the Eiffel Tower[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 07:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The 72 names on the Eiffel Tower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, already a list at The 72 names on the Eiffel Tower. Not every list ought to become a category. -- Prove It (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Goodies episodes[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Goodies episodes to Category:The Goodies (TV series) episodes
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - to match the parent article and category. Otto4711 03:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, matching the parent is aesthetic and serves no practical use.~ZytheTalk to me! 20:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unnecessary change. Tim! 21:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:SCTV[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 07:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - category is being used as a de facto performer by performance category. Absent the articles on performers all that's left is the show article and an article on a film whose inclusion is somewhat dubious. The category is not needed for navigation. Otto4711 03:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lou Gehrig Memorial Award[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 07:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lou Gehrig Memorial Award (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete as overcategorization by award. A list exists in the Lou Gehrig Memorial Award article. If not deleted then it should be renamed to Category:Lou Gehrig Memorial Award winners to reflect that it's for people. Otto4711 02:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:The Jeffersons[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 07:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Jeffersons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - all material in the category is linked through the main article as a navigational hub. The category is unnecessary. Otto4711 02:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Space: 1999 vehicles[edit]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. No appetite to keep, but no clear view has emerged as to exactly where this should be merged. --Xdamrtalk 13:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Space: 1999 vehicles to Category:Fictional vehicles
  • Merge - small category, unlikely to expand. The parent category is not so large as to require subdivision for this particular show. Otto4711 01:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsure, as I say below I started this. The person who started the Moon buggy entry put them under the 'Fictional Spacecraft' category which clashed somewhat. After some debating, the user who took issue with it suggested I start a new category as it was using the Fictional Spacecraft infobox and so on. What about putting it under an overall Space:1999 category as I've been doing quite a bit of work on Space:1999 Douglasnicol 15:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Fictional spacecraft and Category:Space: 1999. -Sean Curtin 02:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Fictional spacecraft. We don't need a Category:Space: 1999. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still won't think this will work, please see my concerns in the entry about Fictional Science Fiction Ground Vehicles. Now, I will repeat that I'm not intentionally trying to be awkward here, but you might see what I mean. Incidentally, would you object to vehicles, spacecraft, weapons etc, all coming under the heading of Space:1999 Technology rather than individual ones? If you do, may I point out that for example, Warhammer 40k already has stuff like this, and I fully intend to expand the Space:1999 material, not just leave stubs. Douglasnicol 22:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is (this category could indeed be expanded with the S:1999 spaceships as well, as a spacecraft is a "vehicle"), a moving land vehicle is not a spacecraft. Matthew 17:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I'm open to keeping vehicles, spacecraft, personal weapons, and other related materials under a 'Space 1999 Technology heading as well. Land vehicles shouldn't go along with spacecraft as they are different. Douglasnicol 18:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Instant Star[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 07:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Instant Star (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - TV show category, not needed to navigate the material. Main article serves as an appropriate hub. Otto4711 01:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep multiple subcategories and articles are sufficient content. Tim! 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Tim's stated rationale for keeping this category seems somewhat at odds with his statement here regarding TV show categories in general. None of the articles in this category would be undercategorized by the deletion of this container category and he seems to accept the notion that simply having episode and character categories doesn't warrant the eponymous container. Otto4711 13:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional Science Fiction Ground Vehicles[edit]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 13:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Science Fiction Ground Vehicles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Fictional vehicles, or Rename to Category:Fictional science fiction ground vehicles. -- Prove It (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The parent category is not so massive as to require subdivision along this somewhat arbitrary line. Otto4711 01:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How about just science fiction ground vehicles? We already know they're fictional. Bulldog123 03:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was thinking the same thing ... both fiction and ground are semi-implied, since vehicles almost always mean ground. Either Science fiction vehicles or Science fiction ground vehicles is also fine. -- Prove It (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - "science fiction vehicles" would just put an additional layer of categorization between the parent category and subcats like "Star Wars vehicles." As far as "science fiction ground vehicles" goes, are such vehicles really so different that an existing vehicle category couldn't handle them? Laser Tank for example, fits nicely in the "fictional tanks" category. Otto4711 05:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Fictional ground vehicles. 70.55.90.110 04:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Both of these are in their appropriate "Fictional (vehicle type)" category.--Mike Selinker 14:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I started the category, and its not that long ago so its hardly had time to have a large number of entries. I think it would be a mistake to split the entries for example tank to fictional tanks and the moon buggy to somewhere else. Either a fictional sci fi vehicles or fictional vehicles would be fine by me. Part of the reason was that the person who started the Moonbuggy entry used the "Fictional Spacecraft" template and infobox. I was urged to create a new one. If at all possible, if you have to merge, could you at least keep a Space:1999 category in as it seems to be slowly growing. I've been devoting a bit more time to new entries and being particularly interested in Space:1999 have been expanding the category. Here it is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Space:_1999 Douglasnicol 15:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with a Space 1999 category, though others might.--Mike Selinker 16:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any particular reason why others might? I'm not talking about solely having a Space:1999 category, but putting it in addition to whatever other category it goes into? Douglasnicol 17:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you may see from some of the other nominations there are questions as to the value of categories named after TV shows. Otto4711 18:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought if theres a 'root' category that it makes navigation easier. For instance the category that exists shows the episode list, the list of characters, the show entry and stuff like Moonbase Alpha and the technical noteboot. It makes referencing them easier. To be honest though, I don't know why Space:1889 RPG is there as it has nothing to do with the Space:1999 tv show. Douglasnicol 19:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a minority opinion here. It happens to be my opinion, but it's still a minority.--Mike Selinker 23:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can't really agree for one reason. The Laser Tank, Moon Buggy etc WAS in the fictional spacecraft category. User Matthew started editing the page, he took issue with it being in the spacecraft category, stating it was not a SPACEcraft, then he started deleting infoboxes etc. We eventually got our disagreement sorted out amicably. However, if this is then recategorised to fictional spacecraft, the article might end up being altered again due to disagreements. I'm not trying to be difficult, but try to see my point of view, in fact if you look at the edit history of the Laser Tank page you'll see what was controversial. Douglasnicol 16:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:I Love Lucy[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 07:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:I Love Lucy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - another TV show category without the volume of material that warrants it. Otto4711 01:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Iron Chef[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Listfy cast and crew and then Delete. Consensus was clearly there for deletion when discussions ended. The very late keep vote does not raise any reason to not follow the precedent on recent similar closing saying delete or listify are the consensus action. The issue of adding the links to multiple article can be resolved with the template included in the discussion. Vegaswikian 06:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Iron Chef (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - with the exception of the show articles and a Futurama episode, all easily interlinked, everything in the category appears to be articles for chefs who have appeared on the show. This is improper performer by performance categorization and the chefs are listed in the appropriate show articles. Otto4711 00:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • He's a Japanese chef on television and also the president of a cooking school. He can be categorized as any of those things in addition to his current categorization as a Japanese television presenter instead of the inappropriate categorization under the project. Otto4711 15:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, he could, but none of them would suit him as well as categorizing him for what he is most notable; plus, you still have 3 shows, plus other people. --After Midnight 0001 22:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not trying to be difficult, but if the category is kept then I'm taking the people out of it becuas there is a very strong consensus against categorizing people by project. We have deleted countless categories for actors by series, writers by series, directors by series, miscellaneous "crew" by series and so on, so either way the guy doesn't belong in the category. Keeping the category on the basis of wanting to put articles in it that don't belong in it is not a good reason for keeping. Otto4711 04:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trying to close. In looking at this, consensus seems to be to delete and many of the similar categories have been deleted so that would appear to be the right choice. In looking at this most of the articles are people. Some of which are in the regular cast. So, I'm leaning to close as a listify and delete. Vegaswikian 23:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with someone doing a category cleanup. But I still think that this category should remain as it is a "franchise" of multiple TV series, which I believe distinguishes it from most other TV show categories. Feel free to listify the cast, but I still think that the cat should remain for the 3 shows, the current list, a new cast list if one is created, and the futurama article. --After Midnight 0001 01:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All three shows and the Futurama episode can be linked together through the text of the articles. There is no need for the category for navigational purposes. Otto4711 04:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. If someone were to try to put the episode on each of those articles and the lists it would be quickly reverted. A category is simply the best way to navigate these. --After Midnight 0001 04:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This should work:
Vegaswikian 06:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:In Living Color[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 07:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:In Living Color (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - category is not needed for navigating through the handful of articles which are all easily interlinked through the main article. Otto4711 00:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep.Neutral. Not this one, Otto. The six articles there are all reasonably categorized under this umbrella category. They're not improperly placed there (like actors would be).--Mike Selinker 05:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the nomination is not predicated on the notion that the articles would not be correctly categorized here if the category were retained. The nomination is predicated on the fact that the articles (six for now although it looks like Super Bimbo will be going away) are all appropriately interlinked through the main article and each other. Otto4711 05:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as I've said before, I believe that reason is not one that justifies the deletion of a category. After all, the planets of the solar system are all easily interlinked. But if these articles start going away or getting different categories, it's okay to delete.--Mike Selinker 14:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The show's article in in eight additional categories, cast in one, episodes in two, Homie the Clown in four, sketches in one and Super Bimbo in three. Otto4711 15:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mike's argument doesn't convince me, because anything notable should be mentioned (and therefore linked) in the main article. Categories are best used as navigation aids rather than as just something that gets appended to minimally notable one-off characters to make them seem like they belong somewhere here. Carlossuarez46 18:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Restless Years[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 07:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Restless Years (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - another TV show category whose easily-interlinked material does not require a category for navigation. Otto4711 00:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Whaling stations of South Georgia[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Whaling stations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands per discussion and for consistency with parent category. --Xdamrtalk 13:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Whaling stations of South Georgia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Given that every other category relating to this territory gives its full name (South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands) it would make sense for this to do likewise. Rename to Category:Whaling stations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Grutness...wha? 00:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment all entries in the category are on South Georgia itself... so the name is appropriate. 70.55.90.110 04:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel that rename is somewhat excessive. Any other suggestions? Bulldog123 07:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for consistency.Oliver Han 11:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Proposed new category name is cumbersome in the extreme, and there were no such whaling stations in the South Sandwich Islands. Short cat. names are far better, except perhaps as supercat. "South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands" is the full name of the territory - but this is similar to using "Towns of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" etc for all UK entries. --MacRusgail 18:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The parent category is Category:South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and that is also the name of the main article. So why not use it here? Yes, it makes the cat name long but accurate. Now if there is a reason beyond this one category to subcat the parent, then I might consider rethinking my position. Vegaswikian 21:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above and perhaps even if none of the stations categorized is in the South Sandwich Islands, as South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands appears to be treated as a single overseas territory. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment - the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is also a single "territory", but no one uses the full title.--MacRusgail 11:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename Having unnecessarily long category names lead to category clutter just as much as having lots of silly categories. If none of the stations are in the South Sandwich Islands, then the original name is perfectly correct. And there is no reason why Category:Whaling stations of South Georgia cannot be a valid child of Category:South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Lesnail 20:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all the whaling stations are on South Georgia. Renaming will just make it more unclear as to where the stations are located, if you use the category for navigation. 132.205.44.134 22:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Lesnail and 132.205.44.134. There's no need for the long category name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Lesnail and anon. Carlossuarez46 19:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Red Green Show[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 06:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Red Green Show (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - another category named for a TV show that is not required. The material in it is easily interlinked through the main article. Otto4711 00:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 19:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep multiple subcategories and articles are sufficient content. Tim! 21:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Tim's stated rationale for keeping this category seems somewhat at odds with his statement here regarding TV show categories in general. None of the articles in this category would be undercategorized by the deletion of this container category and he seems to accept the notion that simply having episode and character categories doesn't warrant the eponymous container. Otto4711 13:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and precedent. >Radiant< 09:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional gingers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was deleted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional gingers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_18#Category:Fictional_bald_characters.
See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_20#Category:Bald_People.
See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_12#Category:Fictional_blondes.
See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_11#Category:Fictional_characters_with_black_hair.

Speedy delete as recreation of one of the many deleted hair colour categories. Non-permanent feature, non defining characteristic. ~ZytheTalk to me! 00:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Dark Lords[edit]

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

The result of the debate was nuked as it had been before; protected from recreation—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dark Lords (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Speedy delete as recreation or previously deleted material, and also subjective, undefinable and problematic. ~ZytheTalk to me! 00:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per discussion of November 21st. -- Prove It (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation of deleted subjective, undefinable stuff. Carlossuarez46 18:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - This is a vague, informal term. Since this is a recreation, maybe it should be blocked. Dr. Submillimeter 09:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I really fail to see how it's hard to define whether or not a character is a Dark Lord.YourLord
  • Is Lex Luthor a Dark Lord? What about Doctor Doom? The First Evil? Regardless, a consensus of voters has twice said otherwise.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has some pillock deleted "The Dark Lord" article that I spent so long creating? Because whenever I type it in it re-directs to fantasy tropes and conventions. YourLord
  • I believe that the Category and Article for Dark Lord should be kept. The image of a Dark Lord is a cultural icon and is a commonly used and popular plot device/character in novels and films. Many of the main villains in fantasy works are specifically referred to as "Dark Lord", such as the "Dark Lords of the Sith" of Star Wars, and Voldermort and Morgoth (as well as some of his followers) are referred to as "Dark Lords". The term is also used in video games, in the game Shadow the Hedgehog, Shadow specifically refers to Black Doom as a Dark Lord and in the final battle in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Ganon is referred to as a Dark Lord in the boss subtitles. Unknown Dragon 18:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record of this topic, I also redirected Dark Lord (Character trope) to Fantasy tropes#Dark lord, which succinctly covers the topic and references it. While it's likely impossible to create this as a topic of individual merit on Wikipedia due to policy on reliable sources and notability etc., it may be a good idea to check out a Wikia page on a trope-specific Wiki where the rules are less specific or strict.~ZytheTalk to me! 19:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while I like the idea of a Dark Lords category, it's far too subjective to work. The category is already being populated with random villains holding no similarities at all the fantasy trope (case in point being Venom (at this time)). TheJoust 02:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per nom. ~I'm anonymous
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_13&oldid=1144513387"