Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 24

< November 23	November 25 >

November 24[edit]

Category:Marvel Comics characters with superhuman strength[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.--Mike Selinker 15:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Completely overly broad. It looks like 75% to 80% of all the 3000+ major Marvel characters are here. What purpose does this serve? This was proposed for deletion over a year ago, with very little response that led to no consensus. Maybe consensus can be achieved now.Tenebrae (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree. It's very specific to those who have "superhuman" strength. In categorisation, "large" is not necessarily equal to "bad". - jc37 22:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the absence of a discussion of the parent Category:Fictional characters with superhuman strength. Personally I'm in favor of some sort of categorization on the basis of superhuman ability but deleting one subcat when there's a broader scheme in place is unreasonable. Nominate the entire structure if you find it problematic. Otto4711 (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but only so long as the parent cat exists. -Sean Curtin (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defining, per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Sting_au Talk 12:01, 29 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:Supervillains of the Hood empire[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. Bencherlite ^Talk

Nominator's rationale: This is so remarkably trivial and insiderish as to be useless to most comic-book fans, let alone to the general-audience readership. As a side note, a category called Marvel Comics supervillains already exists.Tenebrae (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overcategorization. This isn't even as orderly as all the formal superteam membership categories we keep deleting. Doczilla (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- SECisek (talk) 16:48, 29 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:Power Standards[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 close as duplicate discussion. This category is lready the subject of an open CfD to which the category is properly linked: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 20#Category:Power_Standards. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The link appeared without any reasons given. This seems to be a useful category for the collection of articles on a relevant topic. However, there may be some structural reason to eliminate it, please let me know. the Elder Delp (talk) 21:26, 24 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:Songs with pop culture reference[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. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Totally unmanageable; fails WP:OCAT and created by an editor notorious for contentious editing. Chubbles (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I expected to find hundreds of entries here, not just a single one--obviously not being used to any purpose. DGG (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - containing "reference" to "pop culture" is not sufficiently unifying to warrant categorization. Far too vague and all-encompassing to be useful. Ungrammatical name to boot. Otto4711 (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- SECisek (talk) 16:49, 29 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:OUN[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. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:OUN to Category:Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists

Nominator's rationale: Rename. OUN is just too ambiguous. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and per established conventions of avoiding abbreviations in category names. GregorB (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Non-Ukrainians will probably not be familiar with this term. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:59, 28 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:Martial arts 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 a slow speedy delete per author request. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Creator requesting deletion - I didn't realize that this title is inconsistent with other infobox categories - content (only two infoboxes) has been moved to Category:Martial arts infobox templates. Bradford44 (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Sting_au Talk 12:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- SECisek (talk) 16:50, 29 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.

Ancient Roman categories[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 all to Category:Ancient people or Category:Ancient peoples (or their subcats) as appropriate, per Ancient history. This won't be done "automatically". And as such, I'm listing this at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual. Someone knowledgeable in the topic is welcome to please help out. No prejudice against someone turning these into lists as well. - jc37 13:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient Roman contacts[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This is a category for "tribes, individuals and other groupings coming into contact with Ancient Rome or were known to the Romans, but whose articles are unclear as to whether he/she/they was/were Rome's enemy or ally". Thus, as a grouping of articles based on the lack of information, it is not defining. Moreover, this category seems to group articles based on the characteristics of articles (the information they contain) rather than the characteristics of subjects.

Also, it's doubtful that the mere fact of coming into contact with or being known to Romans is a defining attribute for most or all of these people and groups. (As below, there is also the issue of categorising individuals based on their interactions with a civilisation.) – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Peoples in contact with Ancient Rome and merge in with those in the debate below, removing articles not about peoples or at least cities. This would be a useful grouping & a great improvement. Many of these articles are under-categorised otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining and poor precedent. Otto4711 (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These categories were my creation, to relieve the groaning-at-the-seams Category:Ancient Roman enemies and allies. If they are not perfect, I hope they are at least an improvement on that one. Neddyseagoon - talk 09:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many tribes that we only know about from their contact with Rome, and that's how they are best defined. The Romans weren't all that exact when trying to assign tribes to larger ethnicities so for many of these, we cannot say much more than where they were at Roman contact, when they fought with or allied with Rome, and sometimes what became of them. So contact with Rome was the thing they have in common. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the articles in the category are about individuals, not tribes. While there are some tribes that are known primarily for their contact with Rome (most had contact with other tribes and civilisations as well), a category cannot capture the essence of that contact. A list or an article is more suited to the purpose. Also, as noted elsewhere, a category of this name would include virtually every group in Europe and the Mediterranean for a 1000-year period. A category with such a broad scope can't really be defining. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider dividing into Groups and Individuals. DGG (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For groups, I'll pose the same question as above: what is the value of a category that includes virtually every group in Europe and the Mediterranean over a 1000-year period? As for individuals, is Category:Individuals in contact with the Ancient Rome in any way defining for people like Cleopatra and Tigranes the Great? The history of their interactions with Rome is significant, but the mere fact of being in contact with Rome is surely not. After all, even merchants and pirates had contact with Rome, as well as everyone in the Italian peninsula. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient Roman allies[edit]

Category:Ancient Roman allies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Female allies of Rome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Ancient Roman enemies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Ancient Roman tribal enemies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Female enemies of Rome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This categorisation scheme is not viable, for several reasons. First, if expanded across time and space, we'd have enormous category clutter on many articles. How many "Allies of X" and "Enemies of X" categories could be appended to articles about individual countries? Second, the allegiances of political leaders – and the tribes and/or nations that they represent – are about as stable as the attention-span of a 3-year-old. One's ally today may well end up to be one's enemy the next day (for instance, the Goths appear in both Category:Ancient Roman allies and Category:Ancient Roman enemies, as does Etruscan architecture for reasons I can't comprehend). Third, categories are simple creatures by nature, and are simply not suited to capturing the complexities of foreign policy. Few can be neatly classified as either allies or enemies, and certainly not without substantial original research. Politics consists of infinite shades of grey, and a simple Manichean classification scheme not only fails to reflect its essence, but can also easily mischaracterise it.

(The above paragraph is essentially a copy-and-paste of the nomination satement for the Byzantine categories.)

There is also the issue of whether being an ally or enemy of Rome is a defining attribute of these people, tribes, and cultures. (Incidentally, categorising individuals as "allies" or "enemies" of a civilisation that existed for more than a millenium is rather awkward, I think, as foreign policy is generally construed within the framework of interaction between states.) While it may be for a few, it isn't for most. These categories contain articles and categories for tribes and civilisations with a unique history, beyond their interactions with Rome, that spans centuries. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the relevant ones to new Category:Peoples in contact with Ancient Rome - see debate above, removing individuals and merely geographical articles. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While that would take care of the original research issue, there are still a few issues with such a title and scope. First, such a category would include virtually every tribe, civilisation, and state in southern and western Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East for a time period of around 10 centuries. Second, is the mere fact of being in contact with Rome defining? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of them would have said yes! Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think being conquered by Rome, enslaved by Rome, or massacred by Rome might be defining (then again, they did it so often and over such a long period of time that we might up end up with a duplicate of Category:Peoples in contact with Ancient Rome), but merely having contact is probably not. It's not as if Rome "discovered" them. There is also still the issue that the category would include virtually every group in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East over a 1000-year period. I'm not suggesting that no interaction with Rome is defining, but rather that these specific categories (and Category:Peoples in contact with Ancient Rome) do not work well. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and oppose merging/renaming into "contacts" category. Non-defining, untenable in the long run, sets a bad precedent. Otto4711 (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and oppose merging/renaming per Otto. Categorisation-by-alliance is the road to horrible category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These categories were my creation, to relieve the groaning-at-the-seams Category:Ancient Roman enemies and allies. If they are not perfect, I hope they are at least an improvement on that one. Neddyseagoon - talk 09:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I believe that they are an improvement over the overly broad "Ancient Roman enemies and allies" categories, I think the problems of these categories are inherent to any attempt to classify individuals or groups by alliance. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If these and the above cats are deleted there will be numerous articles that will only end up in Category:Ancient peoples when much more narrow categories - such as these can be constructed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, as Category:Ancient peoples has many other subcategories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At t he moment, there does not seem to be a place for all of them there. Keep for further discussion in the History workGroup. as for the category above, consider dividing into individuals, and Groups, people is ambiguous and confusing. Possibly if this were done there wouldn't be need for the separation into friends and enemies. I agree with Black Falcon that there might not be all that many friends who had not previously (or subsequently) been enemies. DGG (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "all of them" isn't really that many, since the categories included in this nomination include a high number of articles about individuals, which do not belong in Category:Ancient peoples. Moreover, if necessary, new subcategories could be added to the currently 50 or so. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:57, 30 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 security specialists, and others[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 both Category:Computer specialists and Category:Computer professionals to Category:People in information technology. Keep Category:Computer security specialists - There were concerns about renaming the security "specialists" to "people". - jc37 13:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

relisted from CfD November 15. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: 'Professional' 'Specialist' was POV words. Sdv213s 00:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge:Category:Computer specialists and Category:Computer professionals into Category:People in information technology; Rename Category:Computer security specialists to perhaps Category:Computer security people. The first two seem un-needed intervening layers, with no clear distinction, and are parents and subs of each other (always a bad sign). What does nominator want to do with them? Johnbod 03:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Johnbod; if the nominator isn't going to suggest something, let consensus form without it....Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Johnbod, but I would prefer Category:Computer professionals to be the survivor to exclude those who merely use IT. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but to Category:Computer specialists. Avoid "professional" as this term introduces ambiguity - while some may belong to a professional body, it is not a requirement to go through the licensing steps or handle liability, such as is required of "the professions", e.g. doctors, lawyers, civil, structural or other engineering professions. Ephebi (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To both the last two - I was suggesting merging both to Category:People in information technology, but leaving the security people their category off that. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or keep --- "cryptographers" have it easy, they don't need to be "specialists" or "professionals". What do you want to call security people? The subjects of these articles are all notable for very similar reasons, all working on similar problems. Merging them into "People in IT" is like moving "Physicists" into "Scientists". --- tqbf 05:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

? No one is suggesting merging the security people; the other categories cover a very wide range indeed. What do you want renamed, and to what? Johnbod (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly nobody is suggesting merging all the article content. But merging this category with "Computer Specialists"? The current category is descriptive, informative, useful, and encyclopedic (it's also flypaper for vanity articles, which I'm glad of). If the name needs to change, that's fine. I don't have a good alternative. "Persons involved with information security"? "Information security practitioners" (bad, excludes researchers)? It's tricky. But merging with a general computer category destroys value; it doesn't add it. --- tqbf 05:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, no one above is suggesting that. Johnbod (talk) 11:19, 23 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, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is just a renaming discussion, can we split it out from the merge discussion? If there's no objection, I'm taking the tag off the category page. --- tqbf 02:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the tags. This has already been relisted once. Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you to address the substance of my comment? Several of these categories are listed for deletion. Security isn't. Let's just open a new discussion for it. --- tqbf 03:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 2, rename 1 - or whatever. Why start a new discussion? That's not how we do things. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks. --- tqbf 03:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm a little troubled by renaming Category:Computer security specialists to Category:Computer security people. For instance, David Wagner is a computer scientist who researches and publishes and practices in this area. Deirdre Mulligan is an attorney who researches and practices law in the field of computer security law. Now, Category:Computer security specialists seems to me to include Wagner but not Mulligan, but "people" seems to include both, plus people who may be known in the business, or even notorious for breaking into systems in a non-friendly fashion. (One practice in computer security is for hackers to develop proof-of-principle or actual break-in attempts and let the system people know that, so they can improve or fix security vulnerabilities. However, someone who broke in for criminal purposes would also be a "person", no? ) --Lquilter (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand what's POV about a "specialty". I agree, "people" is less descriptive and a bit fluffy; one of the problems this category already has is devolution to a "who's who" directory. --- tqbf 20:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Computer professionals to Category:Computer specialists, keep Category:Computer security specialists since this fits well under Category:Computer security. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 01:17, 28 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:The Bill regular actors[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. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: We don't cat. people by the shows they've appeared on. Also the name of the category is vague too. What exactly is "regular"? Lugnuts (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:OCAT#Performers_by_performance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and BrownHairedGirl. --Beloved Freak 00:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- SECisek (talk) 16:50, 29 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:James Bond allies[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 both to Category:James Bond characters, except for the lists, which should be merged to Category:Lists of James Bond allies. - jc37 08:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:James Bond allies to Category:James Bond characters

Suggest merging Category:James Bond enemies to Category:James Bond characters

Nominator's rationale: Merge - per extensive precedent we don't categorize fictional characters on the basis of being allied with or enemies of other fictional characters. Otto4711 (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:James Bond allies as Category:Lists of James Bond allies and move the few non-list articles into Category:James Bond characters. Merge Category:James Bond enemies as nominated. I also suggest renaming Category:James Bond henchmen as Category:Lists of James Bond henchmen but will await the outcome here before nominating that one. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the above-mentioned precedent for categories have any application to lists? If so then the lists of allies and henchmen for each film would have to be merged into a list of characters for each film. However, if this is just a precedent that you folks have developed for categories alone, they I recommend that you make an exception in this case and allow Category:Lists of James Bond allies and Category:Lists of James Bond henchmen as well-populated categories containing fairly well-developed pages. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:46, 29 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:Public Image Ltd albums[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 with redirect. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Public Image Ltd albums to Category:Public Image Ltd. albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The band's name contains the extra full stop. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, but whichever is version is used, keep a {{category redirect}} from the other version. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, matching Category:Public Image Ltd. members.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, with a redirect.--Beloved Freak 23:59, 24 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.

Centuries by period[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. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient history by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Bronze Age by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Classical antiquity by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Copper Age by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Early Middle Ages by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:High Middle Ages by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Industrial Revolution by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Iron Age by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Late Antiquity by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Middle Ages by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Modern history by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Renaissance by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These categories overcategorise and miscategorise individual century categories such as Category:40th century BC. Not only does this 12-category categorisation scheme completely duplicate Category:Centuries (thus making a merger unnecessary), it also erroneously uses the framework of Category:Categories by century.

Members of Category:Categories by century should contain subject-specific categories or articles. For instance, the subcategories of Category:Sports by century and Category:People by century are directly relevant to the topics sports by century and people by century. That is not the case with the categories included in this nomination, which contain only the generic century categories, all of which already appear in Category:Centuries.

In addition to the two issues of unneeded duplication (i.e. overcategorisation) and miscategorisation, there are two more problems with this category scheme. First, when discussing eras like the "Bronze Age" and "Ancient history", any start and end year is necessarily either arbitrary (e.g. 4012 BCE), an estimation (e.g. circa 4000 BCE), or biased toward the history of a particular culture (see next paragraph). The category system is not suitable for making and applying arbitrary or approximate cutoffs, since categories are severly limited in the amount of context that they can provide.

Finally, though it's probably unintended and a byproduct of systemic bias in articles, this categorisation scheme is quite Eurocentric. It divides history mostly based on the development of Mediterranean (later, European) and Middle Eastern cultures, largely ignoring the alternate paths taken by civilizations in Africa, the Americas, and Asia. While this is fine for Category:Industrial Revolution and Category:Renaissance, century categories that apply to the entire world (e.g. Category:16th century) should not be needlessly divided into these periods.

Delete all as nom, without prejudice to recreation if/when there is subject-specific content to place in these categories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. This is getting ridiculous - look at the nine categories that Category:5th century is in - all the "era"-type ones relating purely to Western history btw. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The members of these categories have a universal scope and should not be categorized according to any one part of the world's level of development. ×Meegs 08:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - the end of eras will vary considerably from region to region in the world. The "Industrial Revolution" category is particularly mistaken. Scholars will argue about its precise dates but will agree on approximately 1750-1850, though there is the Second Industrial Revolution and Industrial Revolutions in various countries at later dates, as Germany in the late 19th century, Japan in the 20th, and China currently. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because all the centuries carefully match the acknowledged time periods that they have been matched to, please take a look. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Those are European eras whereas the centuries are applicable to global and non-European topics. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. As above, they are named to be global and the information varies region to region. Not only that there is considerable debate over the dates that apply to some regions. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Could be replaced by a list or table showing the time periods these "acknowledged time periods" represent. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For info - such information can be found here - at least in outline and agreed it is incomplete - List of archaeological periods :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:34, 27 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:Hurricanes never impacting land[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 to Category:Atlantic hurricanes, as all of these are Atlantic cyclones. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: DELETE. Not used except for a few storms and doesn't seem very useful. --CWY2190^T^C 01:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple upmerge of each article to the appropriate subcat of Category:Tropical cyclones by basin. Categorizing on a negative characteristic is often problematic, plus I loathe the use of the word "impact" as a verb. Otto4711 (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple upmerge per Otto. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple upmerge per Otto. --Beloved Freak 23:55, 24 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:People from Den Haag[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 (with capital T). Bencherlite ^Talk 00:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Den Haag to Category:People from the Hague

Nominator's rationale: The English name of "The Hague" should be used, not the Dutch one. ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 00:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as proposed. Usual procedure is to use English names for places which have them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and per Sam Blacketer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People from The Hague - the definite article needs capitalising here. Grutness...wha? 19:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People from The Hague per Grutness. --Beloved Freak 23:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Grutness ("The Hague" instead of "the Hague"). This probably qualifies for speedy renaming. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Grutness. --Soman (talk) 11:03, 29 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.