Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 16 November 18 >

November 17[edit]

Category:Exalted characters[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 delete per CSD C1 (category that is empty for at least 4 days). – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Exalted characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Empty Category. As far as I can tell all of the individual articles where deleted or never created. Not likely to ever be popuplated Peripitus (Talk) 23:43, 17 November 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.

Defunct football competitions[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 as nominated. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former German football competitions to Category:Defunct German football competitions
Propose renaming Category:Brazilian football competitions (defunct) to Category:Defunct Brazilian football competitions
Nominator's rationale: Per all other defunct football competitions categories. – PeeJay 23:05, 17 November 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:Football competitions in the Netherlands[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. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Football competitions in the Netherlands to Category:Dutch football competitions
Nominator's rationale: Per most other categories in Category:Football (soccer) competitions by country. If the country's adjectival form was not so obvious, this would be fine, but the Netherlands has a perfectly good adjective to use, so why not use it? – PeeJay 22:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional nudists[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. Although there is no prejudice against creating Category:Fictional social nudity advocates, it is doubtful that it could be adequately populated. Most of the articles in Category:Fictional nudists are not about naturists, but instead characters who do not require clothing, wear skintight or supposedly 'flimsy' clothing, or have appeared nude. With few exceptions, the articles make no reference to naturism. In those few cases where the "nudist" (or "naturist") label is supported by the article, it is not clear that the "social nudity advocate" label would apply, since not every naturist (real or fictional) is an advocate of social nudity. – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional nudists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: While being a nudist is fine, it is generally not a defining characteristic for real people or fictional characters. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category with no clear inclusion criteria. Who gets to say how much time each character spends nude and under what circumstances to qualify? Doczilla (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While we don't have a Category:Nudists for obvious reasons, we do have Category:Social nudity advocates. I don't have the time or interest to go through these articles myself, but if that is a defining aspect of many of these characters, it suggests the possibility of a Category:Fictional social nudity advocates. I have notified the creator of the category and solicited his input. Cgingold (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - many of the characters are included not because they are "nudists" (I think the preferred term these days is naturists anyway) but because they are frequently depicted as not wearing clothes because they are made of plant matter or otherwise don't require clothing. In one case the person appears to be in the category because she appeared in some "nudie-cutie" type films several years before her introduction in the comics. No strong objection to a "fictional social nudity advocates" category but of course this would need to be reliably sourced in the article. Otto4711 (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Otto etc Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too subjective as to what qualifies.Balloonman (talk) 19:04, 19 November 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.

Mass re-name[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 close; as noted by Mike Selinker, the appropriate venue is Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. However, I do want to note that the naming conventions for a number of these categories are not entirely clear, as many non-article categories do not include "Wikipedia" in their titles (e.g. Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and Category:Protected). While it may be appropriate to rename all of them, individual nominations that allow the unique circumstances of each case to be considered are probably preferable to a mass nomination.

For this reason, I will not procedurally relist these categories at WP:UCFD, with one exception: Category:Uniandino wikipedians, the new discussion for which can be found here. – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

per naming conventions
here are just a few. βcommand 20:40, 17 November 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:United States popular history[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. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States popular history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete: Poorly defined, underpopulated, and collects articles of dubious correlation. I can't see what purpose it serves. Lkjhgfdsa (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably a way for an individual editor to classify things he/she thinks are "worth remembering". Snocrates (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vague, subjective category. Doczilla (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Snocrates & Doczilla & common sense. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In addition, I have just added this category's parent cat, Category:Popular history, for deletion here. I have notified the creator of both CFDs with {{cfd-notify}}. I think perhaps he/she may have confused "Popular history" with "Popular culture". Cgingold (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is this US mythology? 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All the articles I have looked at appear to concern fiction, not "history" at all. This cannot be allowed to remain as it is. It might renamed to something without the word "history", but I have no idea what. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment from originator: Hi. i am the originator of this category. i originally had meant it for events in popular history, meaning actual events which did have their own entry but otherwise had no major historical importance or political significance. However, you're correct, it looks like the categiory has somehow turned into some odd collection of popular culture. So perhaps we don't need it as it currently stands. However, I'm flattered that people did use it though. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:43, 21 November 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:UFC venues[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. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UFC venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Over classification of venues by tournament. If this is really something to keep, then rename to either Category:Mixed martial arts venues or Category:Combat sports venues. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we don't categorize places by what events may transpire there. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If this was an article, it would be an obvious deletion under WP:NOT#DIR. As a category, it seems to fail the basic guidelines that describe when to use categories. I think most obvious is that UFC is not even mentioned in some of the articles, but I would hazard a guess that UFC is not "prominently discussed" in any of the articles. --JJLatWiki (talk) 20:56, 19 November 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:Prince Hall Freemasons[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 – no reason to treat this any differently to its deleted parent. I have made a note of the 15 names currently in this category, and put it in my sandbox for the purposes of anyone wanting to listify this group separately to the main list. BencherliteTalk 01:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prince Hall Freemasons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is essentially a subcategory of Categorgy:Freemasons which was the subject of a recent CfD nomination and deletion (see: here - also see the previous deletion determination for that category from March, 07). Prince Hall Freemasonry is a branch of Freemasonry and thus all of the same problems with verifiability and over categorization that were raised in the deletion discussions about Category:Freemasons hold true for this category as well. These men can and should be added to List of Freemasons, which was determined to be a better method of dealing with such information. Finally, I just don't see the logic of deleting (twice now) a broader category on Freemasons in general and yet keeping a sub-category on the same sort of information. Had Category:Freemasonry survived deletion, I would now be nominating this cat for merger into it. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments by Nominator - To avoid making people read both of the old CfD discussions, the issues here are primarily three fold. [1) There is the issue of Verification... A category such as this becomes a magnet for unsubstantiated claims that people were or are currently Prince Hall Freemasons. This was and is a real nightmare for the members of the Freemasonry project who constantly have to monitor this category to removed unsubstantiated additions. [2) There is the issue of overcategorization.... Even when it is verifiable that the subject was or is a Prince Hall Freemason, the fact of his membership in the Fraternity is usually of very minor note (often amounting to a "trivial" one sentence mention in the article) that had no real importance or influence on the subject's life. In the case of this sub-category we can add the fact that it is also a relatively small category with not a lot of potential for growth. There just are not all that many notable Prince Hall Freemasons. [3) There is the issue of Listification... It was determined in the March, '07 deletion discussion about the broader Category:Freemasons that the List of Freemasons article was a better way to organize and maintain this sort of information. Category:Freemasons was deleted (twice now) for good reasons, the List serves the same purpose and is much easier to monitor and maintain. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no seperate list of Prince Hall Freemasons, and so listification would present a dilema. Do the Prince Hall Freemasons get segregated into their own seperate list or does the category get degraded and so go on the undifferentiated List of Freemasons? Sensitivity aside, neither course is good on data management grounds. At the very least this decision should be set aside until the idea as to whether a List of Famous Prince Hall Freemasons needs to be started. The Category:Freemasons decision was made easier for people because there was a long established list with some well established editors. This plainly does not apply for Prince Hall Freemasons, and a hastily set up list will not meet the bill either.
As to being a relatively small category, I'm afraid that's simply not true. This page lists a large number of Prince Hall freemasons, some of whom are very important indeed. Jesse Jackson, Thurgood Marshall, Andrew Young, Alex Haley and Al Sharpton are names that spring out. None are currently listed in the category (although that will probably be changed).
Verifiability is, as always, a red herring here. Articles can be verified. If there is no assertion on the article then it can be removed. Citations can be requested and sources challenged. Editors not loading category monitoring scripts is not a valid reason for removing a category.
Finally "Prince Hall Freemasons" does not have the vandal magnetic qualities that plain of "Freemasons" has.
JASpencer (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: They are Freemasons, and so should be included in List of Freemasons ... in fact the list already includes several Prince Hall Masons. Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 17 November 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:Mobile phone culture[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 Conditional Keep - It needs an introduction clearly explaining its inclusion criteria. If this hasn't happened in a relatively short period of time (30 days, or so), then it may be speedied per the DRV (or nominated here at CFD if the introduction is contested). Obviously discussion to refine the introduction would be preferrable to deletion, if possible. - jc37 14:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mobile phone culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This was depopulated boldly but then deleted prematurely. Consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 12 was to list here for discussion. The original deletion claim was that the category has been added to articles in a manner that violates WP:NPOV. This is a neutral nomination. Chick Bowen (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but possibly rename. This category groups articles related to the use of mobile phones, in particular those things which have take on wider social significance. It is a sub-category of Category:Popular culture, which seems reasonable, and I cannot see any POV issues here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another misuse of the word culture for marketing purposes. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete oh silly me, I was thinking of the bacteria that may live on mobile phones as otherwise there is no such definable thing as "mobile phone culture" unless one wants to add things like rudeness, traffic accident, and theft and such to the category as they too tangentially have something to do with society's use of mobile phones. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to have been caught up in the misguided crusades against any mention of popular culture in WP. It's a reasonable sub-category of pop culture per BrownHairedGirl. Mobile phones have not only become ubiquitous, they have become part of many people's self-identity (for better or worse). If there is a POV problem, it is deal with through editing, not deletion. Dhaluza (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per keepers above. Not so small, and absolutely certain to expand. The other mobile categories are huge & full of acronyms - this is a valid sub-cat. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this, to my surprise, does appear to be an appropriate grouping of articles on the use of mobile phones. BencherliteTalk 01:04, 23 November 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:Super Friends characters[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 - jc37 10:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Super Friends characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Hmmm. On the one hand we don't categorize super heroes by their team affiliation, which this is. On the other hand, we do categorize TV characters by the show, which this also is. Characters who appeared on the show but weren't created for it (like Superman, Batman, Aquaman and Wonder Woman) aren't categorized. So, leave as is? Delete? Rename to emphasize it's for characters created expressly for the show? Otto4711 17:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Adding another category to the likes of superman for every guest appearance is a no-no, because there could easily be dozens of such categories added. So I'd say delete unless the category can be restricted to characters who were either regulars of the show or created for the show. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't categorize these characters by team membership and we don't categorize them by every single show in which they've appeared. Aside from Wendy, Marvin, and Wonder Dog (all three of whom share a single Wikipedia article), I doubt any characters created for the series even have their own articles. Doczilla 21:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, actually, all of the characters in the category were created for the show. And all of the Legion of Doom characters created for the show have articles too. Otto4711 23:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this will lead to lots of cat clutter as various groups of characters cross-over form combos that have longer or shorter durations. Carlossuarez46 22:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the category only covers characters who were introduced in the show. Category:DC animated universe characters already covers characters from the 1990s Batman/Superman series. -Sean Curtin 05:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 05:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:Overcategorization (Small with no potential for growth)... there are a limited number of characters introduced by the TV show.

Keep Although the category is small with little potential for growth, I think this is acceptable since it is a "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", in this case Category:Television characters by series. This category is viable as long as it is reserved only for characters created for the series (and an introductory paragraph is added to that effect). -- Supermorff (talk) 12:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Supermorff. These characters are not DC Comics characters, so they need a source. This is it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sean Curtin, Supermorff et al. AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:32, 23 November 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:Germany articles needing images[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, without prejudice to recreation as part of a more developed categorisation scheme. For similar reasons, I am also merging Category:Germany articles needing maps to Category:Wikipedia requested maps in Germany. (In both cases, only a modification to Template:WikiProject Germany is needed.)

Most articles in Category:Germany articles needing images are about locations in Germany, and most already have images (a coat of arms and one or more location maps). So, either the WikiProject tags have not been updated in a long time, or what's really requested is a photograph. The situation is much the same with Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Germany. Since the two categories have virtually the same composition (in terms of the distribution of article subjects), there is little reason to keep them separate at this time.

While the suggestions for subcategorising by subject or region have merit, neither the discussion here nor the one at Template talk:WikiProject Germany produce a consensus for a particular scheme. Also, while Template:WikiProject Germany can be modified to permit such subcategorisation, subcategories could be populated only by individually modifying the project banner on every article talk page (500+ at the moment), so it's best not to proceed with one or another until there is agreement.

I will note the result of this discussion at both relevant talk pages. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Germany articles needing images to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Germany
Nominator's rationale: It seems wasteful and higher maintenance to have these two categories largely duplicating each other. The latter is more consistent with hundreds of other similar categories for countries and regions, so I suggest that the former should be merged into the latter - this would require a change in {{WikiProject Germany}} but not a massive amount of work. I suppose an argument can be made for making a distinction on the grounds of the name of the former category having a wider scope than the latter (to include biographies etc; also the former says "images" but in practice it appears in almost all cases this just means "photographs") but I am sure that just using the latter category for the lot won't be too confusing. Because of the way articles are sorted into both categories using templates, I don't think that making the photographs category a subcategory of the "images" one and making the images category for non-photographic images only is likely to work - for one thing the template by which articles are added to the "images" category doesn't "fine tune" in this way, and secondly, the vast majority of image requests made are for photographs (maps are dealt with differently and don't appear as requested images). I think a merger would make it easier both to use the categories and to maintain them. TheGrappler 20:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, provided that the relevant templates can be tweaked appropriately and the end-result is a situation which is clear to the users of the templates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, the Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Germany is of more general use; for example is uses such as {{reqphoto|architecture|in=Germany}}. So yes the WikiProject Germany template should direct to this category. Would be useful though to separate places (including buildings and geographical features) from subjects/objects (such as people and products) if that is not too difficult.Traveler100 10:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delay merging until a bot has gone through Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Germany and checked for the presence of {{WikiProject Germany}} if it does not exist create {{WikiProject Germany|class=|importance=|imageneeded=yes}} instead of {{reqphoto}}. If it already exists add imageneeded=yes to the project tag.

I have left a note with 52 Pickup (talk · contribs) to contribute to this CfD as he is the main contributer to {{WikiProject Germany}}. He might be able to include a photocat parameter which would allow articles to be placed in subcategories by region similar to Traveler100's idea. Agathoclea 08:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The modifications proposed by Traveler100 can be made in the WP Germany banner, we just need to clarify exactly what should be done. I propose that further discussion take place over at Template talk:WikiProject Germany and that this Cfd be placed on hold until the matter has been settled. - 52 Pickup 20:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 05:46, 17 November 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:Computer-related events and awards[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 and start over I mean Rename to Category:Computer-related awards : ) - This category - and several of its subcats - are a mess. I moved several to Category:Computer conferences and some of the other subcats (and removed this as the "parent cat"). But from what I can tell, there is still needed at least two additional categories to help clean this up: One to deal with Computer-related trade shows/expos, and another to deal with "camps" (as opposed to "conferences"). And probably a third to be a parent cat to all of these (Category:Computer-related events?) Please feel free to clean this mess up : ) - jc37 14:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Computer-related events and awards to Category:Computer-related awards and Category:Computer-related events
Nominator's rationale: Rename - The last of my category structure cleanup for Category:Awards. Split into Category:Computer-related awards and Category:Computer-related events which is in keeping with the standards in both parent categories, Category:Awards by subject and Category:Events. By far most articles and subcategories are one or the other, not both, so a combined category is not really warranted here. lquilter 19:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, and to remove any "events" - computer-related events can be anything from MacWorld to geez, windows crashed again. Carlossuarez46 22:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 05:35, 17 November 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:Free personal information managers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was No move - The problem is that there are other pages that should be dealt with first. There is this category's parent Category:Personal information managers. And then there's the merge proposal for Personal information manager and Personal information management. And there is even a List of personal information managers. Essentially, it would seem to be the question of whether these are "managers", or "management software". And since it's PIM, not PIMS (among many other references}, I'm going to follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms (as well as the apparent current convention), and say "No move". That said, someone is welcome to place a category redirect at Category:Free personal information management software (redirecting to Category:Free personal information managers). - jc37 14:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Free personal information managers to Category:Free personal information managers software
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Most categories used for software have either "software" or "(software)" as part of the name. Thus quickly identified in lists of subcategories and supporting "Category:software" searches. tooold (talk) 04:13, 17 November 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:Scottish National Party (SNP) politicians[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 both. BencherliteTalk 00:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Scottish National Party (SNP) politicians to Category:Scottish National Party politicians
Category:Scottish National Party (SNP) MPs to Category:Scottish National Party MPs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. (SNP) is not part of the name of the party, nor is it needed for disambiguation. This will bring the categories in line with Category:Scottish National Party, Category:Scottish National Party MSPs and other related cats. Warofdreams talk 00:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional narcissists[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: whether as a very slow "speedy delete" for recreation or as a result of the discussion matters not for present purposes. BencherliteTalk 00:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional narcissists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Speedy delete, recreated material, no objective definition. ~ZytheTalk to me! 00:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I would give the category a chance first before we delete it. It does have merit. 86.133.200.236 (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but no objection to listifying. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - recreated material, no objective inclusion criterion, and no list for all the same reasons that other lists of fictional characters with supposed mental disorders have been deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete recreation lacking inclusion criteria. Doczilla (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per norm. --AKR619 (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you mean "as per nom" then the nomination is to delete. If you mean "pe norm" then to what "norm" are you referring? Otto4711 (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete re-creation, still ill-defined and non-defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As far as I can see all the characters in the category exhibit behaviour consistant with narcissism. I could put some inclusion criteria at the top of the page if it would please you and then we can leave it a week then decide whether or not it should be deleted. Because I do strongly believe the category has potential. 86.133.200.236 (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Otto. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly it's struck, not striked. Secondly I was merely re-stating my vote and making another point whilst I was at it. 86.133.200.236 (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, in this context it's struck. You'd say striken when referring to a person in the past tense. Anyway, I really see no need to delete the category as most of the characters in it are indeed narcissistic. I think we should leave it a while before coming to a decision on whether or not to delete it, would anyone agree? 86.133.200.236 (talk) 18:00, 20 November 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.

Politicians by party[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 all as nominated, without prejudice to a further Whig-related discussion if merited. BencherliteTalk 00:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UK Workers Revolutionary Party members to Category:Workers Revolutionary Party members (UK)
Category:UK Liberal Unionist politicians to Category:Liberal Unionist Party politicians (UK)
Category:UK Socialist Workers Party members to Category:Socialist Workers Party members (UK)
Category:UK Whig politicians to Category:Whig politicians (UK)
Category:UK independent politicians to Category:Independent politicians (UK)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To follow the convention used for other subcategories of Category:British politicians by party. This convention was the consensus achieved in several CfRs earlier in the year, e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 17. Warofdreams talk 00:47, 17 November 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_November_17&oldid=1138388882"