Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 11 October 13 >

October 12[edit]

Category:Blasket Islands[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The result of the debate was keep, nom withdrawn. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Blasket Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: All of the articles in the category are linked in the main article on the Blasket Islands. They are also listed in the Category:Islands of County Kerry. This subcategory is therefore redundant. clariosophic 22:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)clariosophic 23:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Blasket islands produced several fine writers, who I have added to this category, because the islands are known to generations of Irish people primarily through their writings. There is scope for further articles in the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - My curiosity finally got the better of me, and I decided to look into the Blasket islands. I think this category is a nice illustration of the approach articulated in WP:CLS. No doubt Wikipedia could limp along without it, but it does serve those readers who are pursuing their explorations through the Category structure. Cgingold 19:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Cgingold, you got me reading WP:CLS for the first time...this is definitely a useful category. (Sarah777 19:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep You three have swayed the nominator's mind so I now see the value of keeping it. clariosophic 23:14, 17 October 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:African-American topics[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:African American. Kbdank71 14:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African-American topics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: "This category groups miscellaneous topics related to African Americans." Per the title, the category's scope extends to everything related to African Americans, but it is effectively a catch-all 'miscellany' category. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I'm sure there must be an ideal name, but i can't think of it! Johnbod 19:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. But some have non-bio sub-cats; it would be useful to have your comments on the supercat issue just above. Johnbod 19:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had: rename to Category:African American and put all the other relevant categories/articles into it. This structure would untangle the the loop that currently exists and would be a fit with similar categories in the higher category Category:Ethnic groups in the United States. Did I miss something? Hmains 03:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Ethnic groups in the United States
    • Category:Foo-American topics
      • Category:Foo Americans
        • Category:Foo-American soldiers
          • Category:Foo-American soldiers in World War I
        • Category:Foo-American actors
      • Category:Foo-American history
        • Category:Foo-American soldiers in World War I [again]
      • Category:Communities in the United States with Foo majority populations
      • Category:Little Foo Towns
    • Category:Americans by ethnic group
      • Category:Foo-Americans [again]
      • Category:Bar-Americans
    • Category:Communities in the United States by ethnic group
      • Category:Communities in the United States with Foo majority populations [again]
        • Category:Little Foo Towns [again]
    • Category:American history by ethnic group
      • Category:Foo-American history [again]
As to the name of the Foo-American parent class, I think naming conventions favour nouns over adjectives and plural (for Categories) over singular, so "Foo-American" loses on either ground. I don't think "Foo-American topics" is a great name, but the vagueness is probably a good thing; and I don't see the need for a "miscellaneous" subclass: the superclass is the place for articles that don't belong in any subclass. If there turn out to be a lot of such articles that have something in common, they can be hived off into a new subclass. Oh, and standardizing the presence/absence of hyphens in the classnames would be nice too :) jnestorius(talk) 00:11, 18 October 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:Video buses[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: speedy delete per WP:CSD#General_criteria#5 ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Video buses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Mostly empty (one item) category. Creator indef. blocked as sockpuppet. Torc2 20:16, 12 October 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:Pronounced initialisms[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: speedy delete per WP:CSD#General_criteria#5 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pronounced initialismsy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Mostly empty category (2 items, both wrong.) Creator indef. blocked as sockpuppet. Torc2 20:16, 12 October 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:Homosexual Canadians[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 G10 (attack page) and CSD G3 (pure vandalism); creator is indef-blocked. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Homosexual Canadians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Any members of this category belong in Category:LGBT people from Canada — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category is empty. The only reason I didn't nominate it for speedy delete is that it hasn't been empty for 4 days; it was created today. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:43, 12 October 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:Nuclear decommissioning authority[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. Kbdank71 14:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nuclear decommissioning authority (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only a single eponymous entry. Unclear what else would fit in here ReddyRose 19:30, 12 October 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:Nuclear energy company[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 02:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nuclear energy company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Empty category which duplicates already used Category:Nuclear power companies. ReddyRose 19:27, 12 October 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:History of Britain[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:History of the British Isles, per the parent category Category:British Isles, per the main article History of the British Isles. Kbdank71 14:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Britain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete The concept of "Britain" is ill-defined and is unsuitable as a term for a category. (Sarah777 19:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Nominator's comment - arising from the discussion I wish to withdraw the delete proposal and instead suggest rename to Category:History of Great Britain and Ireland. (Sarah777 15:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Note to closing admin: the category has so far been untagged. I have just tagged it, but the closing admin may want to let the discussion run for a bit longer than usual because it has been untagged for 4 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abandon the notion that there is a need for a subcategory relating to an imagined union of two separate islands and two sovereign states; "Europe" as the parent and the various states, modern and ancient, of the offshore islands as the sub-categories is clearer and more accurate. Do we need an "England-France" category to allow for the Norman and post-Norman period? Should all countries occupied by Germany in 1942 be classified under "History of Germany"? Should "History of Britain" be a sub-cat of "History of Rome"? (Sarah777 20:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
On the contrary, the present set-up, including the category under discussion, is set up against all logic and common sense to reflect a particular historical POV. The number of "sovereign states" in the British Isles has varied between one and about 40 at different periods and a supercategory makes perfect sense. Johnbod 21:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The number of states in any section of Europe, ditto. The only "supercategory that is required or that makes sense is "History of Europe". (Sarah777 21:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep I have some sympathy w. Johnbod's idea of organising it around the physical British Isles. But in reality its a political history, and "Britain" as a term is clear enough to most everyone. And Britain is consistent with what we have already defined in WP articles. An exception to this viewpoint would be folks who take a seperatist or nationalist view, but I'm sure they won't be "confused" in their own minds as they already have taken an opinion on its organisation. Ephebi 13:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Ignoring the POV pushing, please discuss: the main article is named History of the British Isles (with a redirect from History of Britain). The category and main article should match. Should it be Britain or British Isles? Any basis for a decision in the text of the article? Hmains 21:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Britain" is clearly and unambiguously associated with a political entity; the British State. Hence its use as another name for the "British Isles", a geographical term (as claimed) is simply WRONG(Sarah777 21:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
But given this is a historical category, if Irish hyper-sensitivity rules out the neutral geographic expression "British Isles", you need something to cover England, Scotland and Wales when independent, and under personal union, and under different names. Johnbod 23:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and to cover the period when 1/4 of the world's surface was inhabited by "British subjects" Ephebi 21:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In my humble opinion, Britain means Great Britain and does not include Ireland. The real problem is British Isles, being used to mean Great Britain and Ireland. *An analogy in North America would be the historical, colonial term, British North America. To use it today to refer to the United States and Canada would be ridiculous. clariosophic 22:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That category covers only the 93-year period when there was a state called the Kingdom of Great Britain, which I agree is confusing, but that category cannot cover everything in the one we are discussing. Johnbod 23:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I might however be inclined to want to ditch the Category:History of Great Britain as discussed above, since that is very close to this cat. Looking at the actual category, clearly there is a history of Britain and it needs categorising - the subcategories of it seem logical although it does not itself capture many articles and neither does (currently) History of Great Britain, so the two might benefit from a merger, but I prefer this name for it as it's rather more modern than the now less frequently used "Great Britain". In addition note that the fact that we have this category does not imply there should not be others for different entities including Britain as a subset or superset like the British Isles, Wales, Scotland, north-west Europe, etc. MarkThomas 15:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ::You miss the context Mark; "History of Britain" was claimed by another editor to be a parent category of "History of Ireland", and was categorised as such, somewhere. This got me thinking that the plethora of "British" categories was excessive; British Isles; UK; UK and NI; Great Britain; Britain. I'm sure there are more. (Sarah777 20:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
In fact the reason "History of Ireland" is no longer a sub-cat of the "History of Britain" is 'cos I removed it.! Contrary to your comment here! (Sarah777 20:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Category:History of Great Britain should probably be renamed with the relevant dates - if the thing is going to be categorised that way. I think much of the stuff in it is not just on that period anyway. But both "Britain" and "Great Britain" have both political and geographic meanings, and are therefore ambiguous. That is why "British Isles" is the only solution, unless you want to put everything just under "Europe", which clearly does not seem sensible to most people (including me). Johnbod 20:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on John! You know there is no such place as the "British Isles"; it is a former Imperial British term referring to a brief period in history. This outrageous POV is merely being kept in place by force of numbers of editors with a nationalist British POV. (Sarah777 20:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
It is clearly a purely geographical term precisely because it was never used with a political meaning at the time when they all were one state. Could it be more obvious? Your presumed alternative of "offshore islands" was only invented very late in the development of Irish nationalism, and is barely known outside Ireland. Er, who has a POV here??? Johnbod 20:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not suggest using "the offshore islands" as the parent category; I suggested "Europe". British readers might be very confused by the "offshore" term as many of them are still under the illusion that they live on a "mainland"! (Sarah777 19:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Rename to Category:History of Great Britain and Ireland, which includes all the relevant territory, and avoids either using a disputed geographical term or creating a new one. We do need an inclusive category for shared aspects of the history of this group of Islands, because so many aspects of that history are entangled (for better or worse depending on perspective). Is this name acceptable to all? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:History of the British Isles to match History of the British Isles. If we can't satisfy everyone (and we can't), the very least we can do is be consistent on such matters. Anything less is unprofessional and inappropriate. If the article gets renamed in the future, we should likewise rename the category to match. Xtifr tälk 07:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Totally unacceptable to this user. It just perpetuates a term which has no present reality. The article should be changed as well. clariosophic 12:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:History of the British Isles. It's a geographic, not a political (or possessive) term. The only debate should be what's included. "British Isles" (IMO) includes all islands from Lowestoft to Limerick, but others disagree, so perhaps the range should be Lowestoft to Isle of Man and remove Irish articles from the category. Folks at 137 17:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any sources to justify that usage? the article British Isles naming dispute explains the dispute over using the term, but I have never before heard of the term being used to describe a grouping which excludes Ireland, however logical that might appear. Wikipedia is not the place to try redefining a widely-used term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I'm not among those who dispute the wider definition that includes Ireland. How else would I describe the archipelago that includes the islands of Great Britain, Isle of Wight, Isle of Man, Shetlands, Outer Hebrides? I know "Great Britain" can be taken to include the smaller, adjacent islands, but is there a limit? The Isle of Man (for example) is both geographically and politically separate and the Northern Isles are quite separate. My comment had a shade of cheek about it, but I get the impression that the intention is to erase the geographic expression "British Isles", which I have always found to be inclusive and concise. Others disagree: so perhaps the term should be redefined. Folks at 137 05:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Merge/Clarify "Britain" is far to fuzzy a word to have in the title of a history category. In pre-history its a generalist term of an unknown quantity depending on the writers perspective or use of modern terms. In Roman times it can mean (inaccurately) the island, (depending on time) the entire archipelago or, more often and with greater accuracy, roughly modern-day England and Wales. From the fall of Rome to the 17th century the term didn't exist in any real sense. Until the 19th century there was never any question that Ireland was not included in it. From then until the early 20th century it became blurry whether it meant the island of Britain, the UK (to the protest of contemporary Irish people), the British Isles, or the entire British empire. In the 20th century, it disintegrates to mean the UK only, excluding they 26 counties of Ireland, though folk memory and usage (to the vexation of Irish people) is to often include them, and maybe even Northern Ireland depending on what tone of voice is employed by a speaker. Today, the very idea of Britain is a hot topic in UK and Irish social and political science, politics, and history just as it was when the term was reinvigorated in the 17th century. Throughout this whole affair the only thing that is half-way consistent is that there is an island called Britian ... well, maybe - unless you go back to the Romans, when the island was Albion and "Britain" mean ... ummm, depends when you're talking about ... maybe the archipelago, maybe the modern-day England and Wales, or, hell, maybe even the island.
In sum, either merge with "History of the UK" or rename to "History of the British Isles" or stick with it being just the island of Britain. On the last point, this creates a bit of bother. "History of Great Britain" is currently for the Kingdom of Great Britain (actually very accurate), but naming consensus on Wikipedia is for the island to be called Great Britian (actually inaccurate unless you are a medieval mapmaker labouring over the spelling of Brittany). There would be certainly problems with working with it as meaning "History of the British Isles" as this is both inaccurate, has a strong whiff of not being NPOV (I'll stop short of saying POV as I don't think there is any mal-intent), and would be explosive for Irish History to be included as a subcat. --sony-youthpléigh 13:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think what you've managed to describe (with more or less accuracy) is a concept that is indeed very fuzzy. I made the observation earlier that history is inherently a political issue and not geographic. What is even more apparent through this dialogue is that 'British history' is not dictated by the geography of the island, but by the politics of the people on and around those islands. I'm also afraid that having period-limited descriptions would be unmanageable; the timelines of the various armed services would have to be-invented for each incarnation. If we look to compare this with a country with a more violently fragmented history, such as Category:History of Germany, there doesn't seem to be any issues with WP attributing its history to the generic and widely recognised "German ..."; there's no break-out of subcategories into the '2nd Reich'/ 'Central Germany & Alsace-Lorraine', 'German princely states without Hanover', etc. (or is it just that the Westphalian Liberation Front is quieter on the English pages?) Ephebi 16:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC) (Updated to include the omitted word 'not'!)[reply]
  • to help clarify the discussion, note this diagram from British Isles (terminology) . Also note that, almost exactly a year ago, User:Neddyseagoon added the following text to the History of Britain category This category should only be used for articles whose remit somehow overlaps any of these categories:..., which IMHO makes its use perfectly adequate and clear. By coming up with all of these new suggestions re-using other pre-existing political states, we are ignoring the need to have something that deals with the 'fuzzy' overlapping cases Ephebi 20:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's another image from the same article that is perhaps more to the point except in its conclusion of British Isles as a geographic location. I think we should all be able to agree that Ireland and Great Britain are the two principal islands of the area. Forget about trying to include the other islands in the title, just call it Great Britain And Ireland. clariosophic 21:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • agreed its a good diagram but unfortunately it doesn't address history. Ephebi 22:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That still leaves us with the conundrum apparently that the Category: History of Britain, with all of its disclaimers as to only certain political subdivisions being included, has as its main article History of the British Isles which treats both islands together. How much better to have one category and one main article with the same name that recognizes both islands in these islands by name. For better or worse, it seems that the history of both isles is inextricably entwined. clariosophic 22:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC) If Great Britain and Ireland won't do because there was once a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, why not call it Ireland and Great Britain? clariosophic 23:01, 17 October 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:Norman family[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. Kbdank71 14:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Norman family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete 4 members, we don't have an article for this family, and unnecessary eponymous cat - every member can be or should be linked from each other. Carlossuarez46 17:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articlify and delete This is an article, and a useful one, masquerading as a category. Johnbod 18:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and send Johnbod to the sin bin for his horrid neologism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article Norman family created yesterday should serve the purpose. clariosophic 22:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever. If an article has been created, that is fine and should help anyone interested. I created the category since there were so many English bankers from that family, and there are still members prominent. By the way, there are six, not four, members listed, including one peer (extinct peerage). wikibiohistory 10:52, 16 October 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.

Parliamentary constituencies in Ireland[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. Kbdank71 14:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Simplify names of Dáil Éireann constituency categs; rename others to put historic in brackets at the end for clarity and for consistency with other similar categs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but all the other categories in the trees seem to use "historic". Johnbod 20:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The case for "historical" over "historic" seems rather marginal, but as Johnbod points out, "historic" is used for the related categories, which also include the UK's constituency categories at regional and at county: see the category tree. There are about 4 or 5 which use "historic" at the start and which should also be renamed, but 40 with the suffix "(historic)". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reference cited above, though, tells us not to be surprised to see historic and historical used interchangeably.clariosophic 12:47, 16 October 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:Future V8 Supercar tracks[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 02:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Future V8 Supercar tracks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unused and an invitation to create WP:CRYSTAL articles. Carlossuarez46 16:42, 12 October 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:Former Christian Science Churches, Societies and Buildings[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. Kbdank71 14:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Christian Science Churches, Societies and Buildings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete all these are already at Category:Christian Science which is not so large to be divided in this manner. Carlossuarez46 16:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This category, and two of the articles, were only started in September. The List articles gives reasons why this category is more interesting and significant than one would have thought. Johnbod 17:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Johnbod. clariosophic 14:23, 18 October 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:Fogenviewed[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. Kbdank71 14:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fogenviewed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete categories distinguishing how various images were uploaded seems to be ocat to me - there's only one image here anyway, for which this category is probably not defining. Carlossuarez46 16:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's that - it's something to do with copyright (see below) but exactly what is unclear. Johnbod 20:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I have found so far to explain what fogen is is ths image-creation software, which doesn't appear to me to raise any copyright issues. If there is a copyright issue, could someone explain why the name "fogen" tells us anything about copyright? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It tells us that there is a fair chance of the image being a copyvio. The upload process is described here. Since most of the uploads are from new users but at the same time will appear to be correctly formatted our normal copyvio detection process break down. Thus another process is needed. The cat is part of that process.Genisock2 23:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read Wikipedia:Fromowner documentation, and it's still not entirely clear what's going on here, but I presume that "fogen" is a contraction of "fromowner-generated". This does seem like it may be a worthwhile exercise, but the category names are deeply obscure; per WP:NCCAT#General_naming_conventions, categories name should not use abbreviations unless hey ae very well name. I could consider changing my !vote to a "rename" if the category contained a clear description of what it's for and there was a proposal for a name which could be understood without fifteen minutes research (even "fromowner-generated" is a long way from being self-explanatory). But at the moment the category name is about as obscure as it gets, and none of the linked documentation offers a clear explanation this all makes for a category which editors will simply remove from articles because it will appear to them to be nothing to do with the image they have uploaded. --09:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)
From owner general actually. The name matches the internal code used in the uselang function and succinctly identifies the image stream while keeping naming internally consistent.Genisock2 13:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You need to spell out the case for keeping these more comprehensibly to save them. Would a template work instead? Johnbod 18:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The cat is part of a template. Templates don't produce galleries of images which slows down the decision making process.Genisock2 00:13, 16 October 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:Fogen[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. Kbdank71 14:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fogen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete categories distinguishing how various images were uploaded seems to be ocat to me - there's only one image here anyway, for which this category is probably not defining. Carlossuarez46 16:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there have been more in the past. The Cat is important because the form of image upload produces a lot of copyvios that get missed by the new image patrolers. As a result it is useful to have them all in one place so they can be reviewed. It should actualy be empty at the moment but I haven't decided on the copyright status of the image in it.Genisock2 17:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the throughput here? Johnbod 18:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It varies and isn't really relivent. Deployment of Image:Replace this image.svg is increasing slowly and as long as it remains deployed we need that page.20:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genisock2 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong delete: as discussed above at #Category:Fogenviewed, the category name is about as opaque as it gets, and nowhere in the underlying documentation can I find a clear explanation of the process behind it all, or of why the "fromowner" terminology is appropriate. I don't want to hinder the work of image upload patrollers, but if their categories are going to be routinely attached to a large number of images, they need to be clearly named and backed by a clear and succinct explanation of what the process and the category are about. At the moment, the explanations are mostly self-references, e.g. the text in this category says "images in this catigory have been uploaded through the fogen system", with no links or explanation of "fogen" means. If the reader somehow manages to find the unlinked documenation, they'll have to read down to the second section (at Wikipedia:Fromowner documentation#What_it_is) says "The fromowner system is what kicks in when you click one of the the images on the right."
    I can see that somewhere in all of this there may be a need for categories which help in copyright patrolling, but this is not it. If this category is deleted, I would not object to the creation of a clearly-named and properly-documented category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New image patrolled are an irrelevance. They missed another image today Image:Nikon D300.jpg do you want a situation where that kind of image is missed?Genisock2 13:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want a solution where we do not have a large subset of new images dumped into a category whose name is incomprehensible and whose documentation is so obscure that even seasoned category-watchers at CfD are having a hard time understanding it. Your aims are great, but if you want to tag so many new images, you need to explain this process in clear and simple language which can be quickly and easily understood by editors who just want to upload images and not have to try to understand the internal technical workings of your system. You clearly have a system which works; but now you need to make it user-friendly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The documentation is no more obscure than it needs to be. Since the process uses a couple of functions that I wouldn't expect anyone below the level of advanced admin to understand that may not held you. The system is set up so that you don't have to understand it to use it. Seriously try uploading an image through it (see Wabee Lake for a starting point). It takes you and leads you step by step through the process. Actually understanding it is only required for maintenance and we leave that to the handful of admins who understand the mediawiki namespace and it's relation to templates and the like. "CfD regulars don't understand what you are up to" is not a deletion reason.Genisock2 15:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but "ordinary-users don't understand" is a deletion reason, and even if the regular CfD crew don;t get it, what chance does a newbie have of figuring out why her or his newly-uploaded image has this weirdly-named category? It is perfectly possible to write an accessible explanation of what the category is for. Explaining how it works may involve more technical terms, and there is no reasonwhy both tasks cannot be done. Great efforts are made elsewhere to ensure that the bits of wikiedia which ordinary editors encounter are both labelled and described in plain English, using non-technical terms and avoiding jargon except where it is fully explained; there is no reason why this fogen stuff needs to be an exception. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEL#Reasons_for_deletion please show where it says that CFD regulars have to understand it. As for your claim of simplification you clearly haven't read the GFDL lately. Your average user isn't going to notice the cat and even if they do they are unlikely to worry about it complaints so far after over a thousand uploads through the related fromowner system are zilch. The critical line is about as simple as it can get "Images that do not appear to be copyvios should have their tag replaced with {{MultilicenseFogenviewed}}. Others should be tagged for deletion." seams fairy easy to understand. If you don't understand the other sentence it is unlikely to matter since the information is only important to those trying to maintain the system.Genisock2 17:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#General_naming_conventions: "avoid Avoid abbreviations". See also WP:DEL#Reasons_for_deletion "Patent nonsense or gibberish", "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia" and "Newly-coined words or terms (i.e., neologisms).". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't say avoid uselang keys.Genisock2 13:05, 17 October 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:Alumni of Elam Art School[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. Kbdank71 14:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Alumni of Elam Art School to Category:Elam Art School alumni, per convention of Category:Alumni by university or college in New Zealand. LeSnail 16:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:27, 12 October 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:Protoscience[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. Kbdank71 14:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Protoscience (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: unmaintainable due to the polysemy of the term. "protoscience" can mean (a) the pre-modern history of science, (b) scientific conjectures, (c) fringe science, all of which already have due categories. dab (𒁳) 11:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I initially thought that this category seemed too disparate to be worth keeping, but on reflection it seems rather useful. Essentially it is a grouping of things which are not fully classifiable as scientific under the dominant contemporary understandings of science, and that seems to me to be an important grouping of ideas. I fear that if this category did not exist, subjects such as alchemy would end up being categorised as pseudoscience, which would be a historically inaccurate labelling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - most of what should go here belongs in the various history of sceince categories and this becomes a place for fringers to say "it's not pseudoscience it's protoscience" --Rocksanddirt 17:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - created (by me) due to the Alternative medicine article in 2004, along with Category:Pseudoscience. The word does mean something to the non-querulous - David Gerard 14:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The word does mean something to the non-querulous" -- how does that justify a 'keep' vote? we don't create categories merely on grounds that a term exists. dab (𒁳) 09:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As things currently stand, it looks like this will probably be closed No concensus. I strongly urge the closing admin to relist it, as it is a very complex subject that really demands further discussion. I'm glad David Gerard dropped in (I posted a note on his talk page), and I hope he will have more to say, in response to my forthcoming comments.

I've only begun sorting through the array of issues that need to be considered in order to arrive at a well-grounded recommendation. First and foremost, this category is one of a group of related categories -- including Category:Pseudoscience and Category:Fringe science -- and needs to be evaluated in that context. (In fact, there is yet a fourth such category, Category:Voodoo science, which is such a hideously stupid name for a category that I just put it up for deletion a little while ago.) Besides the issue of the related cats, there is a whole lot more that needs to be discussed, which I simply don't have time to go into at this moment. But I will take that up when I find the time later today. Cgingold 15:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can still encourage some people to discussion. Normally nominations are closed seven days after the nomination started, so you should still have two days left. TheBlazikenMaster 16:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • we can well keep the category around and insist that it be only used for the narrow sense of pre-modern topics. dab (𒁳) 09:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - After spending a considerable amount of time rooting around in these categories and subcats, and reading a goodly number of main articles, as well as several lengthy talk page discussions, I've come full circle and can now say authoritatively, This is all a huge mess!

There have been any number of discussions of the same basic kinds of issues we're grappling with here, with little discernible progress towards resolving disagreements and achieving a stable concensus on choice and usage of terminology. Even so, the articles Fringe science and Pseudoscience do seem to have arrived at a reasonably good delineation of their subjects.

Protoscience, however, has not achieved stability, and was recently completely overhauled -- resulting in a very different presentation of the subject -- by User:Dbachmann (who, I've just discovered, is none other than User:dab). This suggests that the notion of "Protoscience" may simply not be well-enough established (and defined) to serve as a functional category on Wikipedia. Although I have a pretty good sense of how I myself would use Category:Protoscience if I were put in charge of it -- in a nutshell, I would use it for fields such as Category:Astrobiology and Category:Evolutionary psychology -- the problem, of course, is that the criteria are bound to be construed and applied in rather different ways by the various editors who make use of it. Bottom line -- as much as I might like to use it in the way I described, all such judgments would surely have to be reached on the basis of WP:OR.

Dbachmann has suggested keeping the category purely for pre-modern topics. No doubt that would make it much easier to define and restrict, but I'm not sure that there's enough material to justify the existence of the category. What else would it be used for, besides Category:Alchemy and presumably, Category:Proto-evolutionary biologists? For example, what about Category:Astrology, does that qualify as a Protoscience, or is it just a precursor? Cgingold 15:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restrict and rename to Category:Conjectural protoscience Assuming Dab's three meanings, as given above and (rather more fully) recently added to the category page, have broad concensus as alternative meanings of the term, then if his assertion that all three meanings are well categorised elsewhere is correct, the category can indeed be merged and deleted. I have no problem with history of science categories covering the first meaning. But he has clearly not looked at where conjecture goes - Category:Conjectures is purely a mathmatical category, a sub of Category:Unsolved problems in mathematics and should not be messed about with. Category:Fringe science seems to cover the third meaning acceptably. A rename is needed to clarify the purpose of the category, which should also be explained on the category page. Johnbod 18:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear. I'm afraid it would only make matters worse to add the word "conjectural" to the already-poorly defined term "protoscience". I think I can see what you're driving at, but it would be a guaranteed source of problems. (further comment below) Cgingold 14:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. After reading the above, I'd lean towards a delete. That may be the easiest way to clean this up. If there are some valid groupings, maybe Category:Conjectural protoscience, then those can be created as a start to cleaning this up. Vegaswikian 22:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete after reading the additional comments. Vegaswikian 23:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The word "protoscience" is too problematic for this to ever be able to exclude any goofy theory, so deletion is probably the only realistic alternative. John Carter 17:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There really is no concensus on usage and application of the term "protoscience", so I have somewhat reluctantly concluded that the problems this category presents are insurmountable, and far in excess of any theoretical benefits it might provide. Also, I've neglected to point out that, by my understanding of the terms, much of what is currently in this category really belongs in Category:Fringe science in any event. Cgingold 14:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the term is just too poorly defined to support a category, and the attempts at definitions that have been given are all well supported by categories themselves already. This doesn't even seem to comply with the definition at the Protoscience article ('science' that predates the modern scientific method, as opposed to modern fringe science) - a good sign that it's unsuitable as a category. Terraxos 02:02, 16 October 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:Polymer personalities[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:Polymer scientists and engineers. Pfft, plastic people. You people think you're soooo funny, don't you?. Kbdank71 14:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Polymer personalities to Category:Polymer scientists
Nominator's rationale: Rename, align with parent categories. Tikiwont 09:28, 12 October 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:Strategic thinkers at IDSA[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. Kbdank71 14:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Strategic thinkers at IDSA to Category:Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses faculty
Nominator's rationale: Rename, expand the acronym and change "strategic thinkers" to "faculty" which is what these folks are termed in the article, standardization. Carlossuarez46 06:06, 12 October 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:Hyperinflation Scholars[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:Economists. Kbdank71 14:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hyperinflation Scholars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete a fairly narrow specialty, which I think monetarists, or economists is sufficient to cover. It would be impractical to separate all academicians into the most narrow field in which they work or we'll end up with Category:Effects of elevated levels of cholesterol on longevitiy in bovines scholars and the like. Carlossuarez46 05:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / Merge per nom. It's underpopulated right now; no reason one of the subcategories of Category:Economists can't handle this. Snocrates 08:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Economists should suffice and per above. VincentValentine29 11:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per both. Only one of the 2 is a biography anyway. Johnbod 12:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge since economists can handle it; hyperinflation is apparently a defining element of only one guy and he is prominently mentioned in the hyperinflation article anyway. --lquilter 13:46, 12 October 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:Working dog registers[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. Kbdank71 14:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Working dog registers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete one entry and a long explanation, we don't even have an article on Working dog registers/registries. Carlossuarez46 05:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are plenty of other dog categories where this breed should fit in. Ephebi 09:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Ephebi. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have just filled out the category as much as I could; there are four items in it now. --Eliyak T·C 03:11, 17 October 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:Ausar Auset Society[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 03:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ausar Auset Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: the one article categorized here has no reference to membership in this society; nn & non-defining. Carlossuarez46 04:07, 12 October 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:County-designated highways in Michigan[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 03:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:County-designated highways in Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category composed of mostly stubs that have since been merged to the list article (the only article currently in that category). —Scott5114↗ 03:19, 12 October 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:Amritsar massacre[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 03:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Amritsar massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorisation. This is a category for "people, places, or events related to" the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. It currently includes four articles, three of which really shouldn't be there. The massacre is an important part of Amritsar's history, but it's not a defining characteristic of the city of one million (moreover, it's overcategorisation in the form of location by event). Also, Reginald Dyer and Michael O'Dwyer are biographical articles, but this is clearly not a biographical category. The articles are adequately interlinked via the main article. – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the category's articles are few and already well referenced in the eponymous article. Ephebi 09:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very limit dataset as above, linked more than adequately from the main article Kernel Saunters 13:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all. Johnbod 18:53, 15 October 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:Universal Monsters universe[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. Kbdank71 14:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Universal Monsters universe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The term "Universal Monsters universe" does not appear to be in wide use. The category is based on the assumption that the monster films produced by Universal take place within the same fictional universe and there do not appear to be any reliable sources that support this notion. Delete. Eddie's Teddy 02:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Universal Monsters. -Sean Curtin 04:26, 13 October 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 Invisible Man 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 delete, OCAT. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Invisible Man characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There were several stub articles for characters that I merged and redirected either to the book or the film article. There's only one aticle left and it doesn't need its own category. Eddie's Teddy 02:38, 12 October 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_October_12&oldid=1138389003"