Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 7 May 9 >

May 8[edit]

Category:Grand Companions of the Order of Logohu[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 keep. After Midnight 0001 04:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Grand Companions of the Order of Logohu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - Overcategorization by honor or award. This is one of many honors that the recipients receive. A list exists at Orders, decorations, and medals of Papua New Guinea which is sufficient. Otto4711 23:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the nomination was made because in looking at the 30 categories on Bill Clinton, this one does not appear to be particularly defining. Otto4711 13:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not, but it is defining for the Prime Ministers, Governor Generals and senior judges of Papua New Guinea. --Bduke 13:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bduke. Postlebury 20:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per various above. Does it matter if Bill Clinton is in 30 categories? No, Johnbod 00:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yes, it does matter if someone is in dozens of categories, because the more categories an article is in the less useful the mass of categories at the bottom of the page becomes. Otto4711 01:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Such clutter in this case might be avoided by not putting Honorary and Royal members of the order into the category. In fact Bill Clinton is the only one of the four Honorary members who is in the category. Michael Jeffery, Andrew Peacock and Gough Whitlam are not. This could be made a guideline somewhere. --Bduke 02:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree about the desirability of reducing category clutter, but removing honorary recipients of honours creates an artificial distinction. I am not aware of the details of the system in PNG, but in the UK, there is very little difference between, for example, the holder of an OBE and an honorary OBE (the main distinction is that the procedure for awarding them is different). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in agreement with Bduke. Acalamari 20:47, 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:Works by Germaine Tailleferre[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 rename. Resurgent insurgent 09:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Works by Germaine Tailleferre to Category:Compositions by Germaine Tailleferre
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, "compositions by..." is the convention in the parent category. One can see the problem here (scroll down to categories T). gidonb 23:34, 8 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:Talossa[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 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Talossa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Almost-empty category about a fictitious country. Delete kingboyk 22:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - oh dear god. That is to say, this is overcategorization as a small category with no likelihood of expansion. The country and the language are both housed in other appropriate categories. This needs to go. Otto4711 21:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I proposed the two articles for merger, and the merged article can go in the main micronation category. No need for a separate category. PubliusFL 23:02, 10 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:Mills[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 as proposed. Sam Blacketer 09:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mills to Category:Grinding mills
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. The introduction to this category previously ended with the phrase, "not for lumber mills" as though lumber mills are the only other type of mill. "Mill" is also a term for a factory, especially in the Industrial Revolution. Perebourne 22:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as categorisation by a word with multiple meanings (sometimes it's a alternative word for "factory", other times it refers to cutting or grinding). This category includes the subcats "watermills" and windmills, so renaming it would create a strange hierarchy unless the subcats were removed. Looking at the articles, I see Temple Mills, a suburban area of outer London; Animal engine, a source of machine power; and Bai Bang, a paper mill project. these articles are essentially unrelated. I suggest creating a more specific categories as appropriate, such as Category:Flour mills; apart from the word, a flour mill (aka gristmill) has little in common with a paper mill. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and remove any rogue articles. This is a fundamental type of mill (which paper mill is not, all paper making facilities belong in the same category, whether or not they are mills). AshbyJnr 10:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question what would "grinding mills" include other than flour mills? Grinding may be a better name, but I'm just wondering about scope --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Category:Pulp and paper mills is an example of a mill category that clearly defines the product produced. I think that following that example, all mills should be categorized by the product that they produce. So Category:Flour mills would be the logical rename. That leaves open the question on leaving Category:Mills as a parent for all of the various types of mills. Vegaswikian 21:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree on categorising mills by the product they produce, but isn't parenting all these very different types of factory in Category:Mills really just categorisation by name? I don't see that a flour mill, paper mill and cotton mill have much in common other than the name and the fact that both process a raw material. Is the use of a variety of raw materials really a sufficiently common characteristic? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom The product a mill produces is not necessarily the same throughout its life. The proposal to categorise by product is not consistent with the two main existing subcategories, which sort the articles by technology, ie wind or water, which is far more relevant. Craig.Scott 00:10, 11 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:Capoeira 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 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 keep --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:17, 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:Country Studies[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. There is clear consensus for deletion and retaining the template. Vegaswikian 20:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete There was a previous discussion that has the result that this category should be moved to talk pages, but this was ill-thought it, has not been implemented and is not sensibly implementable. The category is added by a template, which should remain on the article page as it is a reference (and usually the main or sole source of the article). If the template is moved to the talk page, the article will not give its references, and no doubt in five minutes flat someone will slap an "unreferenced" tag on it, which will be incorrect, and will create two messy self-referential categories in the place of one. Hawkestone 21:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 10:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question why was the discussion before ill-thought out, and why can't it be sensibly implemented? The fact that it hasn't been implemented isn't reason to delete, only to implement - the other two points need some detail for us to understand them, especially since this was a relatively recent decision and affects what is a very large category.A Musing 17:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It won't be done because it can't be done by bot, and it is far too much trouble to do manually. Abberley2 19:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, because the issues raised here affect several categories, and a wider decision is needed on the issues involved.
    This category is added by {{Loc}}, which provides the link to the source material material. The 24 March CfD for source material categories supported moving these templates to the talk page, but as far as I can see, this has been implemented for only one of the categories (only 1 is redlinked). From the comments above it seems to me that what we are looking at here is a technical problem in implementing a previous decision, and that the technical issues should be revisited for all the categories discussed in the 24 March CfD.
    I am inclined to think that the solution lies in deleting the categories, because the maintenance usage of the categories can be duplicated by using the whatlinkshere function for the template, but that there should be a wider discussion on whether or not that is an acceptable solution for all the categories concerned, rather than making a possibly inconsistent decision for this category. That solution was discussed at the previous CfD, but the objection by User:Jheald was that "There's no clickable link on the page to the template, so a user can't easily get from the page to the template's 'what links here' link." I suggest that this could be resolved by incorporating in the template a whatlinkshere link; if that is not acceptable, another option is to delete all the categories. However, the "move to talk page" decision would require a bot to maintain it, and no such bot appears to be available. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category is of no use. Perebourne 17:02, 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:Companies headquartered in Tokyo[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 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Companies headquartered in Tokyo to Category:Companies based in Tokyo
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per convention of Categories:Companies by city. Greg Grahame 21:40, 8 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:Unsuccessful U.S. House of Representatives candidates[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. Sam Blacketer 09:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Unsuccessful U.S. House of Representatives candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as non-defining. Politicians suffer from chronic category clutter as it is, even without the addition of a hierarchy of categories for their failures. Honbicot 21:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Overcategorization by non-achievement. Hawkestone 22:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. We don't categorise things by what they are not. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreated content. I know we've deleted a category with a very similar name, in fact I think I nominated it, but I'm not finding the old discussion. Speedy or not, delete as hopeless categorization. Otto4711 22:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subjective cat. Doczilla 00:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary and overcategorization. Bulldog123 10:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Hawkestone: an overcategorization of a non-achievement. There is no need for it. Acalamari 20:40, 15 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:Psychodynamic psychotherapy[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: already merged to Category:Psychodynamics. This appears to have occurred without consensus, so this is closed with no prejudice toward recreation.--Mike Selinker 22:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[[:Category:{{{1}}}]] - Category:Psychodynamic psychotherapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category is almost empty, and this topic does not, and will not in the foreseeable future warrant a separate category. meco 21:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, these topics: "psychic energy or libido, value, equivalence, entropy, progression and regression, and canalization" should be moved to Category:Psychodynamics. To save us all some time, I'm just going to do the merge. If there is some big issue with this, we can always revert back. --Sadi Carnot 05:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interested users might also like these recent comments made by delete-happy User:meco who has now twice reverted my clean-up efforts. --Sadi Carnot 09:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can empathise with User:Sadi Carnot's frustration at my intervention in said user's solo project of establishing a strong connection between thermodynamics and psychodynamics. Surmising from this user's user page this is a pet project, and scanty connections between the two disciplines are being puffed up by littering the article on Psychodynamics with incidental linkages that at best show how thermodynamics served as a faint inspiration for the establishment of psychodynamics back in the 1870s.
Consequently, I find the "solution" of simply moving the entries from Category:Psychodynamic psychotherapy to the newly created Category:Psychodynamics to be an attempt to circumvent the current process. In addition this category has been populated with a bunch of articles which have much less to do with Psychodynamics than with Psychoanalysis proper, and I shall not hesitate in nominating that artificial category for deletion also. __meco 09:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hence, per the history lesson (below), psychodynamics (1874) came before psychodynamic psychotherapy (1920s) and is thus a sub-branch of it, thus the correction of the category which I made. --Sadi Carnot 10:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
History lesson for misinformed meco[edit]

To help appease your confusion, although I’m not going to type up a history lesson for you, quoting from chapter one, “Freud’s Scientific Heritage”, of Calvin Hall’s 1954 book A Primer in Freudian Psychology: first in 1859, when Freud was three, his family took him to Vienna to see the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species. The following year Gustav Fechner founded the science psychology when he demonstrated, in 1860, that the mind could be studied scientifically and that it could be measured quantitatively. These two men, Darwin and Fechner, had ‘a tremendous impact on the intellectual development of Freud.’ Hall continues:

”There were other influences that affected Freud even more profoundly. These came from physics. In the great physicist, Hermann von Helmholtz, formulated the principle of conservation of energy. This principle stated, in effect, that energy is a quantity just as mass is a quantity. It can be transformed but it cannot be destroyed. When energy disappears from one part of a system it has to appear elsewhere in the system. The fifty years between Helmholtz’s statement of the conservation of energy and Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity was the golden age of energy: thermodynamics, the electromagnetic field, and quantum theory.”

This is the basis of Freud's psychology. Hall goes on to discuss how the founding thermodynamicists, namely “James Maxwell, Max Planck, James Joule, Lord Kelvin, Josiah Gibbs, Rudolf Clausius” had an influence on Freud and that after studying under Ernst Brucke, who was a close associate with Helmholtz, who had worked previously with him in the years 1838-42, in the laboratory of the German physiologist Johannes Muller, that Freud “quickly became indoctrinated by the new dynamic physiology” and that “he was to discover some twenty years later that the laws of thermodynamics could be applied to man’s personality as well as to his body.” I hope this clarifies your uncertainties. There are dozens of books written about this topic, try reading some of them. I personally own over 130 thermodynamic books and about a dozen psychodynamic books. --Sadi Carnot 10:17, 15 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 early modern theatre companies[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 as proposed. Sam Blacketer 10:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:British early modern theatre companies to Category:English early modern theatre companies
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The term British is generally problematic, having several contested meanings. Its use here causes anachronisms because the period covered includes a time when the area was divided between the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England and time when the two were united as the Kingdom of Great Britain. Rather than mislabel pre-union threatre companies as "British", it seems better to divide the category into English and Scottish companies ... but since these theatre companies are all English, a straightforward rename will do. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this seems like an overly specific subdivision of the parent category... Otto4711 17:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification - by overly specific I wasn't referring to the British vs English business. As a ignerunt Yank, I don't claim to understand the importance of that distinction. I meant that breaking out "early modern" companies seems overly specific. Otto4711 05:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the people who specify disagreement with your comment understand that; I certainly did. All these had finished by 1645; you may think this an over-specific distinction, but others do not. Johnbod
  • Comment - It seems like the right thing to do, but I will abstain from this and the following related CFDs in favor of opinions from WPers from across the pond. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, and strongly disagree with Otto's very strange comment. Johnbod 18:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 20:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Mais oui! 20:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The first part of the nominator's reasoning is misguided, as explained in the discussions below. Oliver Han 21:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with BHG's view below, but here she is correct, as all these predate the Union with Scotland (& most predate the union of the crowns also). Johnbod 19:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for clarity; disagree with Otto's comment. This being said, I note all the companies listed are English, so if someone doesn't add some others, this could also be renamed as "English". A Musing 22:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity - this one is being renamed as English! Johnbod 23:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! A Musing 00:57, 9 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 theatre companies[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no renaming. The consensus of the debate is that 'British' is acceptable as an adjective for the UK. Sam Blacketer 10:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:British theatre companies to Category:United Kingdom theatre companies
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, because these categories all refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and/or its predecessor United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The term "British" is the subject of complex disputes, and is not NPOV in Northern Ireland. The term "United Kingdom" is already generally used for stub categories, e.g. Category:United Kingdom comics stubs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I would support a complete scrub of the category system for the word "British."--Mike Selinker 20:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.--Mais oui! 20:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "British" is the adjective for the UK, and it is as legitimate as any other in the world. Alex Middleton 20:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The nominator has not claimed to have been confused by these categories. That was because "British" is the usual adjective for the UK, and "Of the UK" is the usual meaning of "British". The alternative adjective did not take off because it was a political stunt that most people saw no need for as there was a universally understood term already. Thus this proposal is minoritist political correctness. It is also inconsistent the names of hundreds, if not thousands, of long standing categories. Oliver Han 21:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Northern Irish Catholics are not unusual in resenting current state boundaries, but they are not entitled to a semantic veto. Wikipedia should reflect the world as it is, not as a minority would wish it to be. It is refusing to use (or attempting to change) standard English for fear of giving offence that is POV. Hawkestone 22:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename To this American, I've never quite felt that "British" included Scottish, Welsh or Irish; I generally think of it as a synonym for "English". I think UK is simply clearer. A Musing 22:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose British includes the other constituent countries, because without the other constituent countries, there would be no concept of "British". AshbyJnr 10:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm, it doesn't include Northern Ireland, which is why the country is called United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If you were right, it could just be the "United Kingdom of Great Britain". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What does the name of the country have to do with it? We are talking about the adjective. In any case, in everyday life people don't get as far as the "of" when naming the country. You know what this category is being used for, and even though you don't approve of that usage, you must know that that is a conventional usage. It is supported by the majority community in Northern Ireland. The minority community in Northern Ireland is a little over 1% of the UK population, and it is the majority that determines what "British" means in English, just as it is the majority that determines what "apple" and "car" mean in English. The issue you have is that want Wikipedia to apply a different usage that reflects a specific POV. You say you want "NPOV", yet you regret that Wikipedia will not adopt the preferred terminology of a Marxist intellectual on the fringe of British politics. Something doesn't add up there. AshbyJnr 20:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not advocated the usage of Nairn's terminology, so that's a red herring; I noted his work as the only attempt I was aware of to generate an inclusive adjective. Saying that I am trying to impose a minority POV is a complete inversion of the proposal: are you seriously saying that the majority to do not recognise that name of the country is "The United Kingdom"? Where there is a neutral alternative, wikipedia should not choose between majority and minority POVs, but use the neutral term. In this case, a universally understood NPOV term exists. Why insist on a less inclusive one??. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It isn't a red herring, as the only apparent reason why you are not advocating it appears to be that you know such a proposal would have no hope of success. "United Kingdom" is not a neutral term when used as a adjective, as it is only used as an adjective by people who have some reason to make a point of not using the normal adjective. AshbyJnr 00:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think it's a pity that you have not assumed good faith. The reason I didn't suggest the term "UKanian" is that it is almost unknown, and I would oppose its use even if other editors favoured it: its lack of currency makes it a failed neologism, and it would be no more appropriate than supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.
              You are right, though, that I do have a very strong reason for not wanting "British" used as the adjective here, viz. that it offends a small but significant minority of the UK's population. Sure, those not offended may not mind using "Britain" for "United Kingdom", and it's rarely an issue of contention outside of Northern Ireland. But we have a non-divisive alternative to using "British", and it's a pity that the response here as so often been majoritarian. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is correct as it is. Some people may not like it, but that's irrelevant, just as Northern Ireland is categorised as part of the UK, because it is part of the UK, and the well-known fact that some people don't like it being so is deemed to be irrelevant. Postlebury 20:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Huh? This a proposal to name the category "United Kingdom", not to remove the "UK" from the name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per various above. Johnbod 00:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and keep, we have ample precedent for "British" parent categories with "English", "Scottish" and "Welsh" subcategories, e.g. Category:British actors, Category:British guitarists, Category:British rock music groups, etc. This is a well-established scheme, and a perfectly reasonable and correct one, recognized world-wide. The fact that some of my fellow Americans are ignorant of the fact that my Scottish ancestors are just as British as —and arguably more British than—Queen Elizabeth II is completely irrelevant. I might listen to a motion to rename all "British" categories, but changing this one in isolation would be horribly inconsistent and a very bad idea! Xtifr tälk 19:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply when I checked the category tree, the normal current usage "British" for people, and "United Kingdom" for things and organisations. This nomination would bring this category into line with the other UK categories for non-biographical articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a good point. However, we do have musical groups classified as "British". For places and physical objects, I can see why UK makes sense, but for collections of people, I think "British" is better. And I think this is closer to being a description of a collection of people. But I am at least willing to listen to counterarguments. Xtifr tälk 16:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here's an example of the problems this category causes: one of the theatre companies categorised here as "British" is Field Day Theatre Company, in Derry/Londondery. I very much dount that anyone in Derry/Londondery seriously argues that that the city is not currently part of the United Kingdom; some folk are delighted it is in the UK, others hate the situation, but I think you will near-unanimous agreement that at the moment it is in the UK. However the term "British" is explosive in Northern Ireland, because the assertion/rejection of Britishness is a key marker of the conflict; as one example of how that matters in the arts, see what Northern Irish poet Seamus Heaney's had to say about his inclusion in the "Penguin Book of Contemporary British Poetry".
          I think that illustrates the point nicely: until this CfD, I have never seen anyone object to the use of the term "United Kingdom" to describe the country, but the word "British" is highly divisive in one part of the UK. The term British is not a controversial adjective in England, but it is in one part of the Union. I'm really saddened to see that some editors seem happy to use the controversial term just because the objectors are in a small minority. I don't knbow Field Day's politics, but do we really want to risk follow Penguin in having ourselves denounced for applying the "British" adjective to an institution which rejects it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • To look at it another way, do we want to honour of standing shoulder to shoulder with Penguin against political correctness? Think of it as a companion stance to Wikipedia's glorious role as the only major web "property" that has not cut a deal with the fascist tyrants of the PRC. Greg Grahame 13:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per comments on the next discussion. Craig.Scott 00:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose with honour. Can we have a medal for not being politically correct? It should be an eye opener for some people that a resource controlled by the public is not likely to follow the priorities of the establishment, which only represents itself in its craven political correctness. Greg Grahame 13:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Are we going to rename the British Isles, British High Commissions and British Embassies (eg the British Embassy), to cite but three? -- roundhouse 23:13, 12 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 media[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no renaming. The consensus of the discussion is that 'British' is an acceptable adjective for the United Kingdom. Sam Blacketer 10:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:British media to Category:United Kingdom media
Category:British comics to Category:United Kingdom comics
Category:British small press comics to Category:United Kingdom small press comics
Category:British underground comics to Category:United Kingdom underground comics
Category:British comics characters to Category:United Kingdom comics characters
Category:British magazines to Category:United Kingdom magazines
Category:British computer magazines to Category:United Kingdom computer magazines
Category:British satirical magazines to Category:United Kingdom satirical magazines
Category:British sports magazines to Category:United Kingdom sports magazines
Category:British record labels to Category:United Kingdom record labels
Category:British student theatre to Category:United Kingdom student theatre
Category:British student media groups to Category:United Kingdom student media groups
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, because these categories all refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and/or its predecessor United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The term "British" is the subject of complex disputes, and is not NPOV in Northern Ireland. The term "United Kingdom" is already generally used for stub categories, e.g. Category:United Kingdom comics stubs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as stated "United Kingdom" is an awkward adjective (especially in UK English, as opposed to US English). How about Category:Media in the United Kingdom, etc? Bluap 19:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The parent category is Category:Media by country, and the standard format there is "<fooian> media" or "<foo> media". There are indeed a few "media of <foo>" categories, but inconsistent naming formats like that impede the use of Wikipedia:Classification templates, which are a brilliant device where they are used. It's unfortunate that there is no adjective for the UK (Tom Nairn's "Ukanian" never caught on), but wikipedia copes fine with using "New Zealand" as an adjective in category names, so why not "United Kingdom"?--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename. I don't think this adjective is any more awkward than "United States."--Mike Selinker 20:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.--Mais oui! 20:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "British" is the adjective for the UK, and it is as legitmate as any other in the world. Alex Middleton 20:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The nominator has not claimed to have been confused by these categories. That was because "British" is the usual adjective for the UK, and "Of the UK" is the usual meaning of "British". The alternative adjective did not take off because it was a political stunt that most people saw no need for as there was a universally understood term already. Thus this proposal is minoritist political correctness. It is also inconsistent the names of hundreds, if not thousands, of long standing categories. Oliver Han 21:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per next discussion up. Hawkestone 22:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for clarity. A Musing 22:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per BHG and Mike S. Doczilla 00:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is correct as it is. See discussion above. AshbyJnr 10:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "British" and "American" are adjectives, and "United Kingdom" and "United States" are nouns. Postlebury 20:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per last discussion. Johnbod 00:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per the above discussion. We have Category:British comics containing Category:Comic book publishing companies of the United Kingdom. However, this is echoed elsewhere e.g.: Category:American comics containing Category:Comic book publishing companies of the United States so we can have both depending on the title. If there was an overwhelming mood to change them then I suppose it'd have to be to "Categroy: Comics of the United Kingdom" as "Categroy: United Kingdom comics" is clumsy. In fact I might support it going the other way to "Categroy:British comic book publishing companies" but I suspect if it ain't broke (and they are both right) let's not try and "fix" it. (Emperor 14:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose and keep; this is better than the previous nomination above, as it at least tries to cover a broader spectrum of categories, but it still leaves probably several hundreds of "British" categories, which is inconsistent, and, as Postlebury points out, "British" is actually an adjective, while "United Kingdom" is not. I don't see the point, I don't see the need, and I certainly oppose renaming only a small subset of these categories. Xtifr tälk 20:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is not the case that the current names breach the norm for non-biographical categories. There are five uses of "British" in the main national menu, and dozens at the next level down. Wherever the convention required the "Fooian X" form, "British" is used. "United Kingdom" is only used as a noun - and there again it is being used consistently with other countries. There is no good reason why the UK should not be treated the same as other countries, when it has an adjective. The only valid exceptions to usual practice are for countries like the two Congoes, where using the adjective would create confusion. Craig.Scott 00:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The UK has an adjective, even if PC people find that reality hard to accept. Greg Grahame 13:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "British" may not be correct for some natives of the UK (and this is news to me) but "United Kingdom" is not an adjective for anyone. -- roundhouse 22:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My dictionary (Collins, 1987) says 'British - of or denoting Britain, a country of W Europe consisting of Great Britain (E, S & W) and part of the island of Ireland (Northern Ireland)'. -- roundhouse 23:55, 12 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:Indiana Jones artifacts[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. Sam Blacketer 10:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Indiana Jones artifacts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete This information has been included, in list form, into the main Indiana Jones article. ColdFusion650 16:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dr. Submillimeter. Although there are only 4 articles on fictional artifacts, it makes sense to group them together (there are only 4 films, and only 2 articles on soundtracks, and they have cats). I think the issue with this cat is that it was including objects whose notability isn't that they were depicted in a film, but instead are important legendary religious artifacts. I'd say Keep and kick out the non-Indiana Jones specific articles.-Andrew c 20:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Placing serious articles in pop culture categories is not intellectually respectable. AshbyJnr 20:28, 9 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.

Great Britain and stamps[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. Conscious 08:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This cat also covers N Ireland. Mais oui! 12:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • My impression is that this, and the below proposal, don't fall under any of the speedy renaming criteria. No opinion on whether it should be renamed, though. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-08 12:53Z
  • Moved from speedy, and support. I'd like to see us eliminate "Great Britain" from any category name, so if there are others out there, let's find them. Possible exceptions could be made for the Olympics categories, where the country was competing under the name "Great Britain."--Mike Selinker 15:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for accuracy. The country is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Kingdom of Great Britain ceased to exist when Ireland was signed up via the Act of Union 1800. Mercifully, that is before the introduction of postage stamps, or else we'd need a separate GB category.
    In response to Mike, "Great Britain" is the correct name for the union of Scotland, Wales and England from 1707-1800, so it should remain in use for categories relating to that period. While we are on the subject, I'd also like us to remove the inaccurate and POV adjective "British" from category names which refer to the United Kingdom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: we should be using "United Kingdom" as the correct adjective, as the NZ cats use "New Zealand" as an adjective. That is what the United Kingdom Parliament does, for example. Same applies to all the NI cats, eg. it is the Northern Ireland Assembly, not the Northern Irish Assembly. And there are very, very, very good reasons why those names were picked. --Mais oui! 17:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: That would be a POV override of accurate standard usage. Oliver Han 21:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been aware of the full name of my country for decades, so I don't need to learn it at this late stage. Nonetheless, "British" is the correct adjective. The English language is full of quirks, which is one of its great attractions. Oliver Han 10:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per all above. Johnbod 16:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per all above last R_Orange 18:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and even England have postage stamps issued in their names, do these get lumped together as UK stamps (the do - for now - apparently all come from the Royal Mail) or are separate categories going to crop up for these regional ones? Carlossuarez46 20:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have any problem with separate categories for these entities.--Mike Selinker 20:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that whilst some issues are/were only sold in parts of the UK, they are all valid if put on a letter throughout the UK; so no need to split. Johnbod 23:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per norm --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 23:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose For better or for worse, catalogs for postage stamp collectors list Great Britain as the name of this country, not United Kingdom. Same with albums for mounting stamps. Changing this name would not match the practice used in the hobby so no good reason for change. Hmains 04:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Hmains. AshbyJnr 10:42, 9 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:Movies filmed in Oregon[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:Films shot in Oregon. cjllw ʘ TALK 10:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Movies filmed in Oregon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Films shot in Oregon, convention of Category:Films by location. -- Prove It (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and per convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Just be careful that films set in Oregon are not mixed in accidentally. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, but - last time some cats of this sort were nominated it was suggested that categorizing films on the basis of where they were filmed is problematic because of the possibility that bits of the same film can be shot in a great many different locations, leading to clutter. We may want to re-visit that conversation. Otto4711 20:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can see the theoretical problem, but do we have any actual examples of films where multiple locations have created clutter? It might be a good idea to ask the relevant wikiproject to consider this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I don't know of any specific films where this has caused an issue; I was only mentioning it since it had come up the last time. Otto4711 18:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom Bulldog123 22:31, 12 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 supervillains[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 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British supervillains to Category:Supervillains
  • Merge. Only features one article, is disruptive to the "Supervillains" parent and is not a notable division on its own unless "American supervillains" or something equally lame was made to be a pair with it. ~ZytheTalk to me! 13:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There aren't many British Supervillains anyway so the division of category representing one article isn't surprising. It could be merged, but as the one link shows it might not even be worth that unless another editor contributes drastically to the page, which I doubt R_Orange 19:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge If this were part of a broader scheme that subdivided all supervillains by fictional nationalaity I might reconsider. But in this case it seems odd to try and split out just British supervillains from the rest. Dugwiki 21:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Unless British supervillain is defined separately which it probably isn't Bulldog123 22:08, 12 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:Sport Car Racing infoboxes[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 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sport Car Racing infoboxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Redundant duplicate of Category:Sports Car Racing infoboxes, created in error. DH85868993 13:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete duplicate created in error. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:35, 8 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:Arab people by occupation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no renaming (keep). Sam Blacketer 10:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of the "people by nationality" category tree. However, the term "Arab" can refer to a rather large set of countries, so a rename would be in order to clarify this. The proper word is probably "Saudi Arabian"? >Radiant< 12:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, and oppose rename. Despite the surges of Pan-Arabism at various times, the term "Arab" is widely used as a ethnic as well as a pan-national category, and it certainly has a much wider application than just Saudi Arabia. I was inclined to suggest deletion as an ill-defined grouping which cuts across national boundaries (Sudan, for example, is half-Arab), but since many Arab nation states are 20th-century creations (e.g. Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq), I think that this category may be the most meaningful way of categorising Arab people in the period of the Ottoman Empire. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you are saying it shouldn't be part of "people by nationality" since it's not in fact a nationality? >Radiant< 13:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm saying that it's both an ethnic and a pan-national category, so if it should stay it belongs in the nationality category, and I think I have set out why I think it should stay. Sorry if I wasn't clear. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • By the way, you'll see pitched battles are fought over the characterization of Ottoman poets as either Arab or Persian (and sometimes Turkish, since many wrote in multiple languages and are claimed by multiple "national" inheritances. Not dissimilar to the Anglo-Normans that get both claimed and disclaimed by both France and England.A Musing 14:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now Historically, referencing the Arab empires (e.g., the Caliphate, the Fatimids) and the Arabs as one nation within the Ottoman empire is probably the best way to categorize through most of history; I'd use the contemporary nation-state categories for the short twentieth century period alone. This is how I've been trying to do it among the Arab poets, including in the various lists, but I don't think a set standard has evolved on Wikipedia. Ultimately, it might be useful to split up the empires individually, so poetry of the Caliphate is separate from Arab poetry of the Ottoman period, either by use of sub-cats or by splitting out the historical states under the X by nation to reflect historical polities, though I note that hasn't even been attempted with the medieval European states or the German or Italian states for the pre-unification periods. Unfortunately, categories of nation-states don't work well historically (for example, should a 15th century Dutch person be under Burgundy and a 16th century Dutch person be under Spain, since the Netherlands was part of these nations during those periods?), and thus far Wikipedia has opted in favor of a bias toward projecting current nation-states back to their claimed inheritances - that approach can work in Europe, where contemporary nations are mostly based on separate historical languages, but it falls apart in most of the rest of the world (though perhaps not East Asia).A Musing 14:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BHG & A Musing above. Johnbod 16:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per A Musing (an expanded view of BHG's as I read it). Carlossuarez46 20:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I agree with all that A Musing says, esp the point about the limitations of classification-by-nation-state. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For historical reasons as already explained. Only about 10% of Arabs live in Saudi Arabia. Oliver Han 21:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename into appropriate nation unless it refers to Medieval Arabs, as there were no nations. Perhaps make a new one for such. Bulldog123 10:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Qustion What would you propose to do for Arab people in the period between the Middle Ages and the creation of the modern nation states in the 20th century? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be forward, I can hardly think of any examples of famous Arabs who would fit that bill. If any do exist, they would probably be categorized as Ottomans, since thats where most Arabs lived during that period of time. Bulldog123 22:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split/Rename, I strongly agree that this is, as it stands, primarily an inappropriate overcategorization by ethnicity. There is a strong case for Medieval Arabs as a valid category (especially for Abbasids), as pointed out by A Musing, but the category name should reflect that, and non-medieval people of Arab ethnicity should be categorized by country just like everyone else. I think the easiest way to deal with this is to split/rename this to Category:Saudi Arabians by occupation and Category:Medieval Arabs by occupation, and go from there. The second of those should presumably be reparented similar to Category:Ancient Romans by occupation. Xtifr tälk 19:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I agree that it would be useful to create Category:Saudi Arabians by occupation, but that country was created only in the 1930s, and most Arab nations were created within a few decades of then. Renaming this category as "medieval" would leave us with nowhere to categorise Arab people between the medieval era and the 20th century. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • See category:Saudi Arabian people by occupation. AshbyJnr 00:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks! problem solved :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It may make sense to pull in the appropriate Wikiprojects to discuss how to deal with categorization during the period before modern nation-states in the Middle East and South and Central Asia - note that South Asia faces even more daunting difficulties, since India is a land of 22 languages and a plethora of national heritages over many century. It is simply more useful for Westerners to have an overarching Arab or Indian category, even though identifying works as Abbassid or Mughal has more meaning to anyone familiar with the periods and history of these regions. Similarly, for literary pursuits, language is often more meaningful than nationality in regions where much of the history is in multi-lingual empires rather than linguistically coherant nation-states. But, these broader issues shouldn't affect this CfD.A Musing 17:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. AshbyJnr 00:39, 11 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:Rhythmic contemporary musicians[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 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rhythmic contemporary musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Rhythmic contemporary is a U.S. radio format, not a music genre. Grouping loosely-related artists together based on what types of radio stations they're played on is not useful and lends itself to original research. szyslak 11:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I like a lot of these artists, listen to them on several radio stations (I have 3 Chicago urban stations preset plus 1 Dance), I have never heard of this term. It has lots of google hits and a good Rhythmic contemporary article. I do not think the category is defining unless and until I see the Grammy's acknowledge it as a defining class. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per as the two above R_Orange 19:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Oliver Han 21:16, 8 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:Anglican Primates of Ireland[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 as proposed. Sam Blacketer 10:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Anglican Primates of Ireland to Category:Anglican Archbishops of Dublin
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, the Anglican Archbishop of Dublin is ex officio the Anglican Primate of Ireland: the two titles are inseparable, and the post is much better known as "Archbishop of Dublin". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - The title "Archbishop" is much more frequently used than "Primate" for these individuals. Dr. Submillimeter 11:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - I thought we were talking about a wing at the zoo. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - This made me laugh, it does sound rather odd! R_Orange 19:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If it is appropriate and helpful to categorize Christian Primates at all, then it is so for ALL and not just for some. Yes, they are the "Archbishop." But that does not tell the whole story. "Primates of X" says much more than just that they are Archbishops. And may I respectfully suggest we all familiarize ourselves with the content before offering a vote. Please see Primate (religion). Pastorwayne 12:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply' PW, please read the nomination before making your recommendation. The proposal is not to stop categorising these articles as primates, just to remove the intermediate category. The nomination will make it quicker and easier for the reader to get from Category:Primates of the Anglican Communion to the list of articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - The two categories are identical and "Archbishop" is more commonly used. -- roundhouse 22:28, 12 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:Anglican Primates of All Ireland[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 as proposed. Sam Blacketer 10:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Anglican Primates of All Ireland to Category:Anglican bishops and archbishops of Armagh
  • Merge, because the Anglican archbishop of Armagh is ex officio the Anglican Primate of All Ireland: the two titles are inseparable. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The two categories are redundant, and the title "Archbishop" is much more frequently used than "Primate" for these individuals. Dr. Submillimeter 11:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per as above R_Orange 19:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If it is appropriate and helpful to categorize Christian Primates at all, then it is so for ALL and not just for some. Yes, they are the "Archbishop." But that does not tell the whole story. "Primates of X" says much more than just that they are Archbishops. And may I respectfully suggest we all familiarize ourselves with the content before offering a vote. Please see Primate (religion). Pastorwayne 12:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply PW, I suggest that before casting a vote, you familiarize yourself with WP:CAT, WP:OCAT and related material. As per comments at other related CfDs, you appear to be trying to use the category system for tagging articles rather than categorising them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The two categories are identical and "Archbishop" is more commonly used. -- roundhouse 22:27, 12 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:Final albums[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. Sam Blacketer 10:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Final albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. These albums have nothing in common other than the fact that the group or artist which recorded them did not record again. This is categorisation by a trivial characteristic, because unlike Category:Debut albums, many of these recordings will have been made without the knowledge that they would be the last one.
Here's one example: the first album I checked when looking at the category listing was In Through the Out Door, which turns out to be Led Zeppelin's last album. It was recorded in 1978, and the band remained together for another 2 years, disbanding in 1980 only after the accidental death of John Bonham. Similarly, Richard and Linda Thompson's Shoot Out The Lights is often described as an album by a couple in the process of breaking up, but as the article makes clear, the timelines don't support that interpretation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 7#Category:Sophomore_albums. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Categorization by coincidence. Otto4711 12:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's kind of a living/dead categorization for albums. After all, Led Zeppelin and the Thompsons could record more albums together, if they started liking each other again. Hell has, after all, froze over.--Mike Selinker 15:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Johnbod 16:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How does one know that an artist will never record another album? Alex Middleton 20:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Death is a pretty good indication... but beyond that, you don't. Wintermut3 01:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although the category contains some limitations about albums before death, I could see the posthumous albums making their way in and besides, how do Elvis' post 1977 albums fit in? See Elvis sightings... :-) Carlossuarez46 05:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Carlossuarez46 05:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep saying they have "nothing in common" is redundant. Going by that logic, then why keep Category:1996 albums, for example? They have "nothing in common" apart from the year of release. Now I agree it does need to be cleaned up abit to only include bands that have split up. But if they did reform, it's not that difficult to remove the tag from one album and add it to the next when they split again... Lugnuts 15:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The year is not a trivial piece of info, though. Tarc 16:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a random, trivial connection. AshbyJnr 20:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as trivial. It also suffers from the current / former maintenance problem. -- Prove It (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivial, non-defining overcategorization, potential maintenance nightmare. As far as I know, Jimi and Tupac are still releasing albums, so death clearly indicates nothing. Xtifr tälk 20:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, delete, I guess. Before you do, is there anyone willing to sort out which of these really belong in the somewhat underpopulated Category:Posthumous albums. I find that categorizaton to be non-trivial and many here would fit there. Yes, I realize I can't demand this chore of the closing admin... -MrFizyx 19:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thought, most are not posthumous, and are better described as "final". Quite a few titles contain the word "Last" or "End" and even titles like Let It Be and Full Circle seem to support a common theme. Changing to keep despite the existence of both real and hypothetical exceptions. -MrFizyx 20:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a wrongly-assuming category. There is no proof an artist will stop releasing albums after their death. After all, Ray Charles and Tupac Shakur still release albums, and they've been dead for some time. Acalamari 20:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In which case those would be posthumous, but not "last" as described here. The Beatles Anthology offered a new song decades after the band broke up, and well after Lennon died, but Let It Be will always be widely considered as the group's "last album" (yes, even though Abbey Road was recorded later). What are you assuming is being assumed? Is there a better term for what this category should be? Some could be deemed "farewell albums", but I suspect that term would raise even more objections. -MrFizyx 21:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I've just been looking at the "Posthumous albums" and "Final albums" categories, and I think I've made a mistake with my deletion reasons. Yes, "Final albums" is about the album an artist/band releases before death/breakup, while the "Posthumous albums" category is about albums released after death. After my review of the categories, I'm changing my deletion reason: The "Final albums" category should be deleted because it's coincidental, and as Brownhairedgirl said, many of the artists/bands listed weren't planning on those albums to be their "last albums". My old reason was wrong: my mistake. Acalamari 23:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very well. My point is that for many of these finality is not coincidental. Warren Zevon recorded The Wind knowing full well that it was likely to be his final album. The Beatles retitled what was to be Get Back as Let It Be knowing it was their last. The question seems whether or not we should eliminate the category because some of its contents appear to be coincidental. -MrFizyx 01:02, 16 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:Cult film stubs[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 withdrawn by nominator, to allow discussion to be moved to WP:SFD. See Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion#.7B.7BCult-film-stub.7D.7D_.2F_Cat:Cult_film_stubs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

:Category:Cult film stubs to Category:Film stubs

  • Merge - with the deletion of the Cult films category it makes no sense to maintain a category for cult film stubs. Merge to the parent cat. The associated template {{cult-film-stub}} should also be deleted; can that be done as part of this nomination or is there a separate process? Otto4711 04:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn per BHG. Will renominate at SFD. Otto4711 12:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. and many precedents. Doczilla 07:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close discussion here, and nominate {{cult-film-stub}} at WP:SFD, where stub types should be discussed. I will ask the nominator withdraw this CfD to allow SfD to handle this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:30, 8 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:Ally McBeal[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 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ally McBeal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - in the absence of the improperly categorized articles for cast members and crew, there is insufficient material remaining to require the category. The few remaining articles are easily interlinked through the main article. Otto4711 03:57, 8 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:Alien (film series) 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 merge --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alien (film series) films to Category:Alien (film series)
  • Merge - there is no reason to maintain a subcategory for the film articles. Unnecessary layer of categorization. Otto4711 03:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Doczilla 07:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 20:17, 8 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:Cult science fiction 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 merge --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cult science fiction films to Category:Science fiction films
  • Merge - we've deleted one of the parent categories for this category, Cult films, along with the similar Cult television series category. The same issues of subjective inclusion criteria apply to this category. Merge to the parent cat so as not to orphan anything. Otto4711 03:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. We've long since established that we don't categorize as the subjective "cult" film. Doczilla 07:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but there's probably a difference between a CULT film and just a regular science fiction film. Perhaps merge into both. Bulldog123 08:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Haddiscoe 09:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 20:18, 8 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:Orthodox Judaism by city[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. The argument for deletion that a category is unpopulated should always be deferred to allow time for the category to be populated; and I don't see any other substantial argument for deletion. Sam Blacketer 09:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Orthodox Judaism by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Hasidic Judaism by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Hasidic Judaism in New York City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Orthodox Judaism in Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Orthodox Judaism in New York City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Orthodox Jews and Judaism in New York City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. This category and its web of subcategories hardly have any articles in them. In several cases, they serve only as container categories for a small number of subcategories, making those subcategories more difficult to locate. The number of relevant articles does not justify the existence of these categories at this time, though it might in the future. For now, they just take up space and make things more difficult for people browsing the category tree. The categories in Category:Orthodox Judaism in Jerusalem should be upmerged to Category:Judaism in Jerusalem and Category:Orthodox yeshivas in New York City should be upmerged to Category:Jews and Judaism in New York City. --Eliyak T·C 02:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Eliyak T·C 02:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Orthodox Jewish communities. Don't need to specify a location, but it should be kept in an orthodox Judaism category.--Sefringle 03:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because these categories are still under construction, and will contain hundreds of existent articles. For example each rabbi in Category:Orthodox rabbis, Category:Hasidic dynasties, Category:Orthodox yeshivas and Category:Orthodox synagogues will be placed within a specific city. Instead of worrying about getting rid of them User:Eliyak could easily find the articles to fill them up, of which there are hundreds. The suggestion that these categories should be upmerged into more generic categories will mean that the hundreds unique Orthodox, Haredi and Hasidic articles and biographies that exist on Wikipedia (but that have not yet been entered into these categories) will not be categorized by the cities they are in and which they distinguish. IZAK 03:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two points:
      1. It is perfectly possible to create one category at a time, populating it with the relevant articles. This is what should be done. In this way, the justification for the existence of each category would be made apparent as it is created. User:IZAK created these categories four months ago and they have been sitting around since then. If there are numerous articles which belong in the categories, they should be placed there, and then it would be readily apparent why these sub-categories are necessary.
      2. Even if numerous articles could be, and are, placed in the categories, they should not exist if they are the sole category in another inclusive parent category - for example Category:Judaism in Jerusalem under Category:Jews and Judaism in Jerusalem, which I plan on nominating for deletion in the near future. Such a complex category structure might be necessary if it is fleshed out with sufficient articles and subcategories. Otherwise, it is a mess which serves only to confuse and place a barrier before users who are looking for a topic, or simply browsing the category tree.
--Eliyak T·C 04:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to the two points:
      1. Eliyak: Um, kindly refrain from telling us what "should be done"! Your defense is full of holes: You cannot admit that these categories can be populated with "relevant articles" at the same time that you are also nominating them for deletion. That is a failure of logic and harmful to the long-term growth of Wikipedia. In effect you are saying that because I started the categories but have not had the time to fill them up that you are therefore nominating them for deletion. This makes it seem that your only objective is to attack me but not to do the work of populating the categories which anyone may do when they get to it.
      2. Again, you are sending a mixed message: You admit that these categories could be "fleshed out" but at the same time you allege that it's a "mess" and a "barrier" -- which is puzzling because the whole point of the categories is to help users who are not familiar with ORTHODOXY to have a chance to learn more about that complex world, and there is no "easy" way to categorize the world of Orthodoxy. Your alternative, if it can be called that, would be to merge categories that deal with Orthodoxy into general categories that deal with Judaism (and not with Orthodoxy.) So how would that help understanding and categorizing sub-categories pertaining to Orthodoxy? Finally, if you really wanted to hash this out with me or with other Judaism editors, you could have contacted me on my user talk page or put up a centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism where this discussion really belongs, so that those who really know something about this subject can give intelligent opinions, but instead you have chosen this globalized and more confrontational and way, ultimately more harmful to the growth of Category:Orthodox Judaism (-- hey, why don't you nominate that for an "upmerge" to category:Judaism whilst you are about it?) Nothing much about any of this makes sense to me, when, as you even admit yourself, these categories have value, but it's only because "I" haven't worked on them for four months they now need to go -- well, am "I" the only factor here (very ridiculous to claim) or is it the long-term value these categories have for Wikipedia (the correct approach!) IZAK 06:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Categorization by location for buildings, organizations, and other places are common for other religions. I see no reason why this should not also be done for Orthodox and Hasidic Judaism. Although the categories may be underpopulated at this time, they certainly have the potential for growth. I could conceive of categories for other cities being created as well. (London probably has a notable Orthodox Jewish community.) Dr. Submillimeter 07:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Bulldog123 08:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dr. Submillimeter. Carlossuarez46 20:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We need separate categories for Orthodox Judaism. They cannot be subsumed into Judaism categories.--Redaktor 22:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dr. Submillimeter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:00, 14 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:Lists of number-one songs on the virgin radio airplay chart[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. cjllw ʘ TALK 14:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of number-one songs on the virgin radio airplay chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category duplicates lists (which the creator conveniently hard-linked into the category description) which are themselves up for deletion (see here and here). Category and its contents would be copyvio even if fully completed. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-08 02:04Z

  • Delete - The category's creator is currently under a 48 hour block for removing maintenance tags from another article (which s/he also did to this cat [1], [2]), so I suspect the editor is highly unlikely to bring this category up to standards. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible delete. Categorising song articles by their rankings on individual radio stations will lead to a disastrous case of category clutter, with some songs potentially ending up in hundreds of categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 10 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:Myst comics[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 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Myst comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Apparently the only comic book made based on this video game franchise lasted for two issues, and there's no suggestion any others are planned. Of the two articles in the category, one is on this comic series itself and the other is on an issue of the comic. Also, someone has proposed merging the two articles, which I think is sensible.Eloil 00:31, 8 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:CHUM Chart[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 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CHUM Chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the only article is also already housed in this category's parent. The category is small and seems to have little room for expansion. Otto4711 00:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems like a clear case of overcategorization. If the subcat only has 1 article and the parent cat only has 2, one of which is the same article from the subcat, then there is an unnecessary step in the categorization scheme. Also, the title is a ambiguous, and it isn't apparent to readers what exactly the category is intended to hold.-Andrew c 01:54, 8 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_8&oldid=1142606382"