Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 2

< May 1	May 3 >

May 2[edit]

Category:Debian-based distributions[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< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Debian-based distributions to Category:APT-based Linux distributions

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Re-categorization by package manager.

Category:Prince-Bishoprics of Estonia[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< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Duplicate of Category:Prince-Bishops of Estonia — OwenBlacker 22:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The two are separate categories. This one is for the domains, while the other is for individual holders of an office of Prince-Bishop. Would support deleting Category:Prince-Bishops of Estonia for now as it appears there are currently no articles about individual Prince-Bishops, as the existing articles are about the Bishoprics of Estonia governed by Prince-Bishops. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not a duplication, as Caerwine points out. If I read Livonian Confederation correctly, there were four independent bishoprics who were members, though they aren't called Prince-bishops there that I can see on a quick look. If this is all the Estonian Prince-bishoprics there are, the Confederacy category would seem to do the job. Confirmation from an expert would be appreciated. Johnbod 02:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept please properly parent like other category. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as they are 2 different categories. Beloved freak 15:13, 6 May 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:Jiu-Jitsu practitioners by nationality[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Vegaswikian ("speedy requested by creator"). Bencherlite 01:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Created (by me) with incorrect terminology used to classify Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Will create new category scheme for this categorization after discussion at Category talk:Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioners. Scott Alter 21:19, 2 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Snow Wikis[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. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This "category" appears to be someone's attempt to encourage collaboration with other wikis. It contains no internal links - there are no articles or pages in the category, it is empty. It would be better served as a list in userspace or project space. However, I have not checked to see if any of the wikis listed have articles. If so, it may end up being useful. What do others think? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk Contribs)}problem solving 20:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inappropriate content for a category. Would be properly placed in userspace or organized as a WikiProject. Vassyana 21:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If the result of this debate is "delete", the closer should allow the author an chance to move the content to userspace before deletion. Vassyana 21:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - all other creations by user were of similar intent and have already been deleted. Left message on user page. ∴ here…♠ 23:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be on a Skiing WikiProject or something like that. Captain panda 03:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a links repository and this "category" is nothing but. Blueboar 13:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blueboar above. AndyBQ 19:53, 7 May 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:Marvel Comics characters with Spider-powers[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. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary overcategorization. (This category also happens to be incorrectly capitalized.) Listify for proper annotation. Doczilla 18:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; overcategorization. Suggest not listifying, at least not under the heading of "spider-powers," based on the vague inclusion criteria laid out in the category description. The distinguishing power is "clinging to walls" and a list of fictional characters who can cling to walls is trivia. Otto4711 19:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This could be very subjective. Every version of Spider Woman seems to have had different superpowers, which demonstrates that the term "spider-powers" may be very broadly applied. Dr. Submillimeter 11:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uselessly vague and overcategorization. Vassyana 21:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are categories for characters with superhuman speed, characters who can fly, this is a valid category. Look at how many characters are listed, all with powers derivative of Spider-man. As for the naming, that is from the comics directly ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c2/Carrion.jpg/250px-Carrion.jpg ). Spookyadler 10:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What is the specific definition of "spider-powers"? Is it a concise list of super-powers? Unlike categories for superhuman speed or flying, this category appears to encompass multiple abilities, including superhuman strength and superhuman agility. Dr. Submillimeter 08:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look at the list in the category. Strength and speed aside they all have the ability to cling to walls and posess some variation of the ability to generate webbing. Spookyadler 10:20, 8 May 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:University of Chattanooga alumni[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. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:University of Chattanooga alumni to Category:University of Tennessee at Chattanooga alumni

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, reflects proper name of university. fuzzy510 17:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Nomination is correct. Some state colleges use acronyms and "informal" names similar to the current name, however UTC is not such a university. Vassyana 21:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - reflect proper name of university.
Rename but I would prefer to listify Sleep On It 20:23, 6 May 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.

Fashion[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 and rename, respectively. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Daniel Case 05:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Neither of these meet any of the speedy criteria.--Mike Selinker 16:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "templates", as descendant of Category:Navigational templates, and for consistency with its parent, siblings, aunts and cousins. Rename "fetishes" to "fetishism" as suggested, for consistency with the majority of related categories that I could find, including what appears to be the root of the tree at Category:Sexual fetishism. --Xtifr _tälk 01:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I asked for this renaming because most of the companion categories for the navboxes under Category:Arts and culture-related navigation templates use the "boxes" format. I assumed that was the convention there. Should they be renamed as well? Daniel Case 04:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, yes, the tree certainly does seem to be a mess of inconsistent naming overall. I think "navigational templates" is better, and if we're going to be consistent, I'd rather see that used. Honestly, though, I'm not as concerned with consistency for categories whose contents are wholly outside of the main namespace. Xtifr _tälk 20:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep first, Rename 2nd, per Xtifr. Johnbod 02:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep first. Follows estabished convention. Vassyana 21:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename second. Following existing conventions. Vassyana 21:53, 3 May 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:Southwestern Dinosaurs[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. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name of this category, "Southwestern Dinosaurs", does not represent a world view. The question "southwest of where?" came to my mind when I saw the title. According to the category page, it's the Southwest of the United States, but this is not apparent in the category name, and people living in other areas may feel it's a POV category.

Attempts to contact the user who created this category have not been responded to, and the user has continued to add pages to the category, but somewhat randomly: some obvious candidates for the page, such as Scelidosaurus, have not been added to the category, so it's a bit of a mess, with some "southwestern dinosaurs" in the category, while others are left out.

Furthermore, the relevant WikiProject, WikiProject Dinosaurs, has not categorized down to the sub-national level, as these boundaries did not exist at the time the animals were alive, and have broken the articles down by continent (such as Category:South American dinosaurs), age (such as Category:Triassic dinosaurs), and group (such as Category:Prosauropods), but not by sub-nationality.

Nearly all of the active Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs editors have weighed in against this category (see here); just the one user continues to add the category to articles. The naming convention, with only proper nouns capitalized, has also been ignored in the creation of this category: Category:Southwestern Dinosaurs instead of Category:Southwestern dinosaurs. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the category is too fine geographically (especially since we haven't even done country-level categories with the exception of the continent and country Australia), poorly defined (since the link to American Southwest shows that there are multiple definitions of what states are included), with an awkward title, and southwestern US dinosaurs are not all that special except for a couple of late Cretaceous faunas. I could see someday a Morrison Formation category, or a Dinosaur Park Formation category, as those are notable faunas and would make logical groupings of well-known dinosaurs, but this category does not have something like that to make it hang together. J. Spencer 16:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dinoguy2 16:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I thought this was about US politics. Johnbod 17:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArthurWeasley 17:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Doczilla 18:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. (sub)continent level is sufficientcheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the record. This was a good-faith attempt to create an easily-accessed collection of animals from the same location, but it is poorly defined and appears at odds with the existing dinosaur categories. Probably not highly useful at this time. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. --John.Conway 08:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above Sleep On It 20:26, 6 May 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:British Influenced Conflict[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. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Appears to be a non-NPOV category. As suggested on the category talk page, Category:Wars involving the United Kingdom is more appropriate Kurando

Speedy delete Blatantly POV. Brandon97 17:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , wars would hardly cover India versus Pakistan cricket rivalry and, thankfully many others like Gibraltar. Category:British diplomatic issues or something would cover many, but it is still too vague. Johnbod 17:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vaguely named, subjective, and incorrectly capitalized category. Doczilla 18:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vague catch-all. Mangoe 19:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cleverly made and with the use of conflict as opposed to war manages to show the wiki reader the extent and influence of one nations politics. Reaper7 23:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're actually calling your own creation "cleverly made"? Doczilla 05:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I think the reasons for deletion are desperate and expected in this political climate. Reaper7 09:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for deletion are that the words "influenced" and "conflict" are vague, especially "influenced" which is so vague that any definition would violate Wikipedia guidelines against categories with arbitrary inclusion criteria while lack of definition means that any application violates the NPOV policy. On a side note, the way the category name violates Wikipedia capitalization guidelines further indicates a general lack of familiarity with how Wikipedia does things. There is nothing "desperate" or reflective of "political climate" in the fact that this category isn't up to Wikipedia standards. Doczilla 06:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - its almost verging on original research. Never knew the 1999 Yugoslav bombing was British influenced - I thought we just follow the Americans! Complete POV rubbish! There are better names which would create clearer history. Rgds, --Trident13 23:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If a stone cuts your foot, the British put it there." - Iranian proverb. Johnbod 02:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodin: "The English see with their ears." Reaper7 09:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete POV. Honbicot 10:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, overly "clever" attempt at some blatant POV-pushing. Showing the wiki reader the extent of this nation's influence should be done in articles with citations. The word "influenced" is far too vague and subjective to use in a category name. Period. And creator's not-so-subtle accusations of bad faith in the nominator hint more at his own personal political agenda. (Which I don't give a rat's ass about one way or the other; this is simply a bad category.) Xtifr _tälk 12:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a relevant precedent: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 24#Category:Star Wars-related people. The topic is not political, but the issues are the same: POV and vague, subjective inclusion criteria. Xtifr _tälk 13:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, blatantly POV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bad failth creation. Pavel Vozenilek 23:24, 3 May 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:Waterfalls of Karnataka[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< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Waterfalls of India, convention of Category:Waterfalls by country. Since the parent category is so small, I don't see splitting them up into states as helpful. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fully subcategorize parent by state. The parent category is not that small, and since India is a large country with several mountain ranges and high rainfall in many parts it has a great deal of room for growth. Brandon97 17:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles should also be accessible through the geography categories for the states, which require subcategorisation as much as the geography categories of say Australia and Spain, as the population of the average Indian state is somewhere between that of Australia and that of Spain. Honbicot 10:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Honbicot and Brandon97. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 3 May 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:Films written by Charlie Kaufman, Category:Launder and Gilliat films and Category:Suzan-Lori Parks screenplays[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: hippocratic rename to "Screenplays by (X)," without prejudice to deletion later. Since lots of potential closers have commented on this nomination, I'll close it with Radiant's last suggested solution, since there is a clear desire to do something. If after these are renamed, the pro-deletion people want to reopen it, this shouldn't be used as precedent to deny that course of action.--Mike Selinker 17:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a debate about deletion last week, in which a rename was also suggested. For consistency with similar cats, I would suggest renaming to "Films by <foo>". >Radiant< 13:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given the fact that screenplays are frequently written by multiple people, either as writing teams or as a result of being re-written at the behest of the producers, I don't believe categorizing films by screenwriter is useful. As noted in the previous CFD, a film like Casablanca could end up with as many as four new categories as a result, leading to category clutter while offering little utility in the way of navigation. I stand by my Delete opinion, but if the categories are kept I oppose the suggested rename as ambiguous. Category:Films with screenplay by X or Category:Screenplays by X are better choices. But I still say delete the lot of them. Otto4711 15:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would a listify into the main article be better in this case? That way the co-writers could also be listed. The table could include if the individual was the lead writer or only involved in rewrites etc. Vegaswikian 18:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mention in the film article and a filmography in each screenwriter's article would be best IMHO. Otto4711 18:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to <name> screenplays. Tim! 16:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In reply to Otto's comments above, I notice that these are all part of the parent category Category:Films by writer which is itself a subcategory of Category:Works by author. So if you're looking at the broader question of whether or not to categorize "films by author(s)" then you should look at discussing whether Category:Films by writer is needed. The main reason Category:Books by author and Category:Plays by author work ok is that you normally only have one author per book/play. But as mentioned above, films are a different story and many films are collaborative works with multiple authors. The multiplicity is what might make this sort of categorization more problematic. Dugwiki 21:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The films by writer category was nominated as part of the original CFD. I take its absence here to mean that the closing admin decided that consensus was to keep the categorization scheme while doing something with the subcats. If the result of this nom is to delete all then that category should be deleted as well. Otto4711 22:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was closed as no consensus. There were too many issues being discussed to support any action. I did the close and had nothing to do with this nomination. I will say that from the discussion I fully expected a rename request. Vegaswikian 00:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given the diverse opinions would a listify be the best choice here? If the list makes everyone happy then there would be no need for the categories. If the lists don't work, then maybe they would at least help resolve the future creation, structure and names for categories. Vegaswikian 00:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a list within the screenwriters' individual articles is plenty. I honestly don't think anyone looking for screenplays written by Charlie Kaufman or whoever is going to start anywhere but the screenwriter's article. Otto4711 03:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Otto4711's argument here makes perfect sense to me: I can't see what is added by such a category, so long as all film pages have links to the screenwriter, and so long as the screenwriter's page has a link back to the films.
  - Comment Oh, and I'm aware that by the same logic many similar categories should be deleted. But actually, I don't see why not. Compare (for the case of a particularly prolific author) Category:Novels_by_Agatha_Christie with the list found at Agatha_christie#Novels; the list on the author page is both much more complete and much more helpful, in that it includes dates, alternative titles, and full details of all detectives. --Jbmurray 01:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to ~~"(X) screenplays."~~ "screenplays by (X)," per Radiant below. This seems a clearly preferable choice to listifying. "Films by" is too vague.--Mike Selinker 01:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or delete and list in article. Rename should include screenplay in category name, screenplays by... or (x) screenplays. ∴ here…♠ 23:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Query, considering we usually do "Books by foo" instead of "Foo books", and so forth, wouldn't Category:Screenplays by bar likewise be better than "Bar screenplays"? >Radiant< 08:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Either is fine.--Mike Selinker 20:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "screenplays by X" per (Otto's 2nd choice and) Radiant. Johnbod 20:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my opinion is to delete, not to rename. Otto4711 23:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Sleep On It 20:24, 6 May 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 artist[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< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Covers the exact same purpose as Category:Works by author. Suggest merge; the difference between an "author" and "artist" isn't necessarily clear for works. >Radiant< 13:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No, it clearly is a super category above "Works by author" it also contains

Albums by artist

Buildings and structures by architect

Compositions by composer

Fabergé eggs

Films by director

Films by writer

Works by heads of state or government

Music videos by director

Operas by composer

Paintings by artist

Sculptures by artist

Songs by artist

Songs by lyricist

Symphonies (not too sure why this one is here though!!)

Also work by author is a holding category for the various "xxxx by author" sub-categories. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger - "artist" is more far-ranging, as noted by Kevinalewis, and maintining the authors sub-category structure is useful and logical. Otto4711 15:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge There is a certain amount of ambiguity in the names, but a merger would deepen this into considerable confusion. Johnbod 15:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah, I have to disagree with Radiant on this one. "Works by artist" doesn't even have any articles in it; it looks to be a category solely meant to organize the various subcategories of all types of art works, not just written ones. Don't merge. Dugwiki 21:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom Sleep On It 20:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge per Kevinalewis. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:32, 7 May 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:History of the Democratic Republic of Congo[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: merge. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:History of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to match Democratic Republic of the Congo. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom as duplicate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom Johnbod 15:27, 7 May 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:Amazonas[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. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Amazonas to Category:Amazonas (Brazilian state)

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, There are four different South American countries (Brazil, Colombia, Peru, and Venezuela) that have first order subdivisions names Amazonas. Amazonas itself is a disambiguation page to those four entities. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as suggested by nom to match the corresponding article at Amazonas (Brazilian state). Categories should almost always match the name of their lead articles unless there's some compelling reason why not (which I'm not seeing in this case). Xtifr _tälk 11:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Johnbod 13:13, 2 May 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:Sports Administrators[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: merge. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the much better populated Category:Sports executives and administrators already exists. T@nn 02:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant category. Merge any members into the more inclusive category (which also happens to be correctly capitalized). Doczilla 06:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom as duplicate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete Honbicot 10:49, 3 May 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:Finland Russians[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. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Russian-speaking Finns, to match Russian-speaking Finns. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, as in article Russian-speaking_Finns. ∴ here…♠ 23:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, Russian-Finns could have worked too but this is better Sleep On It 20:28, 6 May 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.

Hollywood families - A[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. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - as with many other categories named for families, these are unnecessary for navigational purposes. The articles for the family members are easily interlinked through the texts and, in the cases where there is more than one surname in the family, the categories do not serve to illustrate the family relationships. For particularly complex families an article is a good option. Otto4711 01:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These aren't the only noteworthy families with those names. Doczilla 06:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per doczilla, or rename to indicate specific family branch known for something. ∴ here…♠ 23:50, 3 May 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:South_American_historians[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. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:South American historians to Category:Historians of Latin America

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This is a confusing category: what's meant is historians of South America, rather than South American historians, in that none of the people who are included are in fact South American. Moreover, Chomsky, at least, is primarily a historian of Cuba, which is not generally considered to be "South America." Indeed, looking at Category:Historians by field of study, I see that the usual format is indeed "Historians of..." I suggest this category be re-named to "Historians of Latin America," but I don't know how to do that. Jbmurray 01:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom for much improved clarity (don't worry about how that's done; if there is consensus for the change, the armies of wikislaves will be whipped into action to do the renaming). The change to "Latin America" looks good to me, but that term has previously caused some controversy at CfD because of complexities of definition (see the article Latin America), so there may be some objections. It might be better to call this category Category:Historians of South America and to create a separate Category:Historians of Central America. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd recommend it be Latin rather than South America, although I'm well aware of the complexities of defining the term, simply because that's how most such historians would see themselves. (I've started to beef up Wikipedia's coverage of Latin American Studies, including adding a category to that effect.) --Jbmurray 05:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a persuasive reason. Do you have a source to confirm that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the major association in the field is the Latin American Studies Association. (Admittedly, rather confusingly, the major journal for Latin Americanist historians is the Hispanic American Historical Review, but nobody calls themselves a historian of Hispanic America these days.)

Rename per nom. Abberley2 10:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. ~~NB I think all comments above were made when nom was to rename to "South" not "Latin" - the point of change should have been noted.~~Johnbod 17:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, nom was always for change to "Latin America." --Jbmurray 17:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Sorry, discussion had me confused. Johnbod 02:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename ambiguous otherwise Sleep On It 20:21, 6 May 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.