Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 21

< October 20	October 22 >

October 21[edit]

Category:Wildfires in Australia[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename as proposed. Sam Blacketer 11:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wildfires in Australia to Category:Bushfires in Australia

Nominator's rationale: There is no such thing as a wildfire in Australia, Reeks of American BiasExtraDry 23:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to eliminate Americanism. Snocrates 05:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Johnbod 01:14, 26 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 Sinceros singles[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 (empty).--Mike Selinker 01:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:The Sinceros songs, see discussion of June 9th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. These can be speedied, as we know the outcome in advance. (I think it's a corollary of WP:SNOW: "Quickly do the things everyone knows will be done.")--Mike Selinker 12:11, 25 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:World Wrestling Entertainment guests[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. No-one else commented other than the nominator but if there was a good reason to depart from precedent in this case, someone could have made it. No purpose would be served by relisting or waiting for someone else to renominate. Sam Blacketer 17:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we don't do Guest star categories, they are considered Performer by performance. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:27, 21 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:People from Offaly[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 as nominated. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:People from County Offaly, convention of Category:Irish people by county. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. I thought I'd caught all the stragglers in my tidyup after mass renamings over the last few weeks (Cydebot has put in a claim for overtime) but this is a newly-created one (created 21 Oct). I'll see if the creator will agree to it being speedied. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:27, 22 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:Fictional cemeteries[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The material does not justify a distinct category. One of the category's two members does not belong (the subject of the article Pet Sematary is a horror novel, not a fictional cemetery) and the other is already categorised in Category:DC Comics locations. In general, it's unlikely that a cemetery that exists solely in a work of fiction will be notable. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Haven't we deleted this one in some form already? Doczilla 07:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<s.>Keep. There's no obvious way to give Valhalla Cemetery a "Fictional (X)" category without this, and it should have one.--Mike Selinker 15:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is in Category:DC Comics locations, which is a second-level subcategory of Category:Fictional locations. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not good enough, sez I. The DC category is things-from-this-source, but it needs a things-that-are-like-this category. I can't think of what else a cemetery might be other than a cemetery.--Mike Selinker 12:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have merged Valhalla Cemetery into List of locations of the DC Universe since the subject of the article did not seem to be notable. The sole remaining member is the article Pet Semetary, which is about a real horror novel. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, I vote delete then.--Mike Selinker 22:25, 25 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:Fictional amusement parks[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 relisted to oct 29. Kbdank71 14:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The material does not justify a distinct category. Of three category members, one is miscategorised (the article's subject is a real TV series episode) and one is a redirect. The article Pleasure Island (Pinocchio) should probably be merged into Pinocchio. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fictional carnivals and amusement parks, and also bring Category:Fictional carnivals into that.--Mike Selinker 15:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my reply regarding the merge at #Category:Fictional carnivals. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because of the activity there, I'll change this vote to Keep. These articles need somewhere to go in the "Fictional (X)" tree, and this seems as good a name as any.--Mike Selinker 19:43, 26 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:Fictional shopping malls[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 upmerge. Kbdank71 14:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The material does not warrant a distinct category. The category's sole member (Twin Pines Mall) is already categorised into Category:Back to the Future locations and has been tagged for merging since May. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to category:Fictional shops.--Mike Selinker 15:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vegaswikian 02:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Fictional shops. No reason not to use the broader parent category. ×Meegs 08:22, 26 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:Space Empires[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:Galactic empires. Every article in the Category:Space Empires category is listed in the article Galactic empire as being a galactic empire. . Kbdank71 14:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Space Empires to Category:Galactic empires

Nominator's rationale: To conform to the title of the main article, galactic empire, to which space empire redirects. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not all space empires are galactic empires. Some consist of a small number of solar systems, some consist of several galaxies. The current name is more neutral. Tankred 01:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If there is no consensus for my proposed rename, then rename to Category:Space empires (capitalisation fix). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Space empires, per Tankred's points. – Aitch Eye 17:10, 24 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:Cars (film)[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 relisted on oct 29. Kbdank71 14:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The material does not warrant a distinct category; the articles are adequately interlinked via Template:Cars and various "See also" and in-text links. Please also note that one of the members (Category:Cars characters) has been nominated for deletion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:48, 21 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:Businesses in Portland, Oregon[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 14:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Businesses in Portland, Oregon to Category:Companies based in Portland, Oregon

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Naming conventions--to match parent and grandparent cats. Katr67 15:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 28 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:Flat races for fillies & mares only[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 of about all for these categories. There is consensus here to not keep as is. There is disagreement as to whether to rename or merge. So that we at least have consistency with the other CFD, I'm going to rename these. If merging is still desired, a new CFD for all of the categories (these and from the prior CFD) can be opened. Kbdank71 13:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Flat races for fillies & mares only to Category:Flat horse races for fillies and mares

Propose renaming Category:Flat races for fillies & mares ≈ 1½ miles +‎ to Category:Flat horse races of at least 1 1/2 miles for fillies and mares

Propose renaming Category:Flat races for fillies & mares ≈ 6 furlongs‎ to Category:Flat horse races of about 6 furlongs for fillies and mares

Propose renaming Category:Flat races for fillies & mares ≈ 7 furlongs‎ to Category:Flat horse races of about 7 furlongs for fillies and mares

Propose renaming Category:Flat races for fillies & mares ≈ 1 mile‎ to Category:Flat horse races of about 1 mile for fillies and mares

Propose renaming Category:Flat races for fillies & mares ≈ 1⅛ miles‎ to Category:Flat horse races of about 1 1/8 miles for fillies and mares

Propose renaming Category:Flat races for fillies & mares ≈ 1¼ miles‎ to Category:Flat horse races of about 1 1/4 miles for fillies and mares

Nominator's rationale: - per the outcome of this CFR, to remove non-standard characters from the category names. Otto4711 15:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Relucant rename~~ per nom. If we are going to keep these categories, then they are more easily used without the hieroglyphics. But can anyone offer any good reason why the 118 articles under these categories should not be all listified and then upmerged to Category:Flat horse races for fillies and mares? The upmerged 118-member category would still all fit on one page.
I can't think of any other categories which are sub-divided by closely-grouped numbers. We don't have Category:Towns of about 6,000 people, Category:Towns of about 7,000 people, Category:Towns of about 8,000 people and so on; we don't have Category:Roads of about 60 mile long, Category:Roads of about 70 miles long etc; we don't have Category:people aged about 60, Category:people aged about 70; we don't have Category:buildings about 60m high, Category:buildings about 70 metres high; nor do we have Category:cars wot do about 6mpg, Category:cars wot do about 7mpg, Category:cars wot do about 8mpg and Category:cars wot do about 10.5mpg.
Even Category:Mountains has only two by-height categories, both which record relatively small groups of unusually high mountains: Category:Eight-thousanders and Category:Alpine Four-thousanders (although Category:Mountains and hills of the United Kingdom has sprouted a series of dubious by-height categories under Category:Peak bagging in the British Isles, which look to me like candidates for listifying).
Even under Category:Athletics, Category:Running by distance is divided by length of race in broad groups except at the extremes (e.g. we have Category:Short distance running rather than Category:100 metre running, Category:200 metre running etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection whatsoever to upmerging the subcategories, nor to upmerging the corresponding subcategories that were listed at the previous CFR. Otto4711 01:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Category:Flat horse races for fillies and mares per discussion above. The categories from the previous CFR will require a separate nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and that nomination is at CfD Oct 22#Open_flat_horse_races. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename / Don't Merge The three basic variables which define all flat horse races are age, sex and distance. Combining the three to make snappily titled categories is not easy. But regardless of what they're called these categories are necessary to show the various sub-divisions of the sport and to make sense of an otherwise ramshackle collection of articles. -- Zafonic 18:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if kept. Merge if the horse experts say that it makes sense to group the races into a broader cat. 02:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs)
- Note that these categories span a range from 6 furlongs to 1 1/4 miles, in other words the longest race is less than twice the distance of the shortest. That's hardly a defining difference, and the 118 races in these categories would make an excellent sortable list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are 131 articles not 118, and the uppermost distance is 1 1/2 miles. -- Zafonic 09:07, 28 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:Contras[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 13:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale: For additional clarity: outside the context of Nicaragua-related categories, etc. the subject matter of this category is not sufficiently clear to readers. Cgingold 15:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the category's creator, I'm responsible for its current name, but if I were creating it today, I would probably have named it Category:Nicaraguan Resistance. The term "contra" is rejected by some of the rebels as terminology reflecting their foes' perspective, while the term "Nicaraguan Resistance" appears to have been accepted as a self-identification by veterans of all the groups as well as their former enemies. --Groggy Dice T | C 23:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we were having this discussion in 1982 rather than 2007, I would probably be inclined to agree with you on this, GD. However, the name Contras has long since been settled on as a term of reference for these groups. Moreover, it has an inherent specificity which is lacking in "Nicaraguan Resistance", which could include any time period or refer to resistance to any government/regime. So we would be forced to specify "Nicaraguan Resistance to the Sandinista government/regime", or something to that effect. All in all, I think we're better off with Category:Nicaraguan Contras. Cgingold 19:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per original proposal. It's more of a well-known term today. Snocrates 23:32, 25 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 Life and Times of Juniper Lee[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. Sam Blacketer 11:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - material is appropriately interlinked through the main article, which serves as an appropriate navigational hub. Category is not warranted. Otto4711 14:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unneeded. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 17:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 18:13, 21 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:Jackie Chan Adventures[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. Sam Blacketer 11:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - following category cleanup, the remaining material doesn't warrant the eponymous category. Otto4711 14:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unneeded. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 17:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 18:12, 21 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:Biker Mice from Mars[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. Sam Blacketer 11:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - following extensive cleanup the remaining material is interlinked and doesn't warrant the category. One of the four articles is tagged for speedy delete as empty. Otto4711 14:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unneeded. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 17:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 18:12, 21 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:Rocko's Modern Life[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. Sam Blacketer 11:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - material is interlinked through text and template, doesn't warrant an eponymous category. Otto4711 13:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unneeded. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 17:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's just underpopulated. Yes, it is also all connected by the template, but that's a good template. See Category:Relient K for a cat that is populated mostly by template things, but not totally. I will attempt to populate now.—Scouter Sig 22:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the articles you added, for people associated with the production of the show, are improperly categorized per WP:OC#Performers_by_performance.2C_and_vice_versa. The four remaining articles are remain extensively interlinked and the category remains unnecessary. Otto4711 04:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Aside from the biographical articles (which should be removed from the category even if it is kept), there is not sufficient material to justify an eponymous category. The relevant articles are adequately interlinked through in-text links and the template. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:08, 28 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 Loyalists[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.

Nominator's rationale: These two categories are redundant, both created by the same editor for unknown reasons. Black Loyalists is the preferred term, used as the name of the main article, Black Loyalists. Cgingold 13:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Black Loyalists per nom. See my comment at Talk:Black Loyalist#"African American Loyalists" for additional information. The creator of this category agreed with me that Black Loyalist is the more WP:COMMONNAME. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Johnbod 18:16, 25 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 Apprentice contestants[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. Sam Blacketer 11:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. overcategorization. performers by performance. Number1spygirl 12:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to Category:The Apprentice US contestants and Category:The Apprentice (UK) candidates. Otto4711 16:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 17:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, performer by performance. Doczilla 18:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is a duplicate category, not for other reasons. —Scouter Sig 22:36, 26 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:People by city in Turkey[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 13:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People by city in Turkey to Category:People by province in Turkey.

Nominator's rationale: The entries in the category actually correspond precisely to the Provinces of Turkey. Although most provinces of Turkey have the same name as their capital cities, in all cases where there is a difference it is the province and not the city that is found here. Furthermore, even if the city name and province name are the same, it is not always the case that Turkish individuals categorized as "People from X" are from the city of X, but they are always from X Province. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey#Categories of cities. --Lambiam 09:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by conventions of Category:People by city. Italy already solved this exact problem by creating People by Italian province. It did not need to rename People by city or town in Italy to do this. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean we should just manually change each occurrence of "Category:People by city in Turkey" to "Category:People by province in Turkey"? What is the advantage? Maybe you misunderstood, but the argument is simply that the category is misnamed becuase it actually comprises the provinces and not the cities. A similar argument would apply if someone had by accident used the name "Category:People by province in Tuva", if the provinces are not in Tuva but actually in Turkey. --Lambiam 10:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting that if some People from Ankara are not from Ankara, but from Ankara Province, then way to correct the error is to move them to People from Ankara Province. Italy has both People from the Province of Naples and People from Naples. There really are people who are from Ankara, and they should stay where they are. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note, this category was created by a mass rename per the discussion of July 23rd. It's original name was People by Turkish city. The current name was NOT chosen by mistake. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion on 23 July. The original category name was quite specific in meaning cities, not provinces. —Scouter Sig 22:36, 26 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:Etrog[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 13:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Etrog to Category:Citron

Nominator's rationale: Merge, the cats have almost the exact same articles, one is a subcat of the other, and I am led to believe that the names are simply the Hebrew and English names for the same thing. Gentgeen 09:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Etrog being non English is less suitable for the category name. Graeme Bartlett 00:34, 22 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:Roman slavery[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 13:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman slavery to Category:Slavery in ancient Rome

Nominator's rationale: Rename, for consistency with other "Slavery in..." categories in Category:Slavery by location, and other categories specifying "ancient" in Category:Ancient Rome. EALacey 08:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: this would also be consistent with the main article Slavery in ancient Rome. EALacey 08:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename* - No brainer. No substantive change involved, just standardization of the name layout. MrZaius^talk 16:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Tankred 01:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. —Scouter Sig 22:33, 26 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:Odakyu Enoshima Line[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 13:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Odakyu Enoshima Line to Category:Odakyū Enoshima Line

Nominator's rationale: Merge, duplicate categories. The second matches the spelling of the main article for the category, Odakyū Enoshima Line. Aitch Eye 06:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support and, suggest a speedy per spelling conventions. Neier 05:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge per WP:MOS-JA --MChew 14:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(speedy) Merge to match spelling of main article and leave a category redirect. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:12, 23 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:Ayyavazhi ethics[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 upmerge and delete. Sam Blacketer 17:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The only entry 'Neetham' is already categorized under the main parent category. Sfacets 05:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the sole member already appears in the main parent article, upmerge to Category:Religious ethics and delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:57, 21 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:Cars 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. Sam Blacketer 11:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The material does not justify a distinct category; all of the individual character articles were merged into the main List of Cars characters. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 08:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unneeded. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 17:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. —Scouter Sig 22:32, 26 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:Fictional trails[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 upmerge and delete. Only two articles in the category by now and I think they both fit. Sam Blacketer 16:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The material does not justify a distinct category. All three articles are already otherwise categorised into Category:Sword of Truth locations or Category:Middle-earth locations. In general, it's unlikely that a trail that exists solely in a work of fiction will be independently notable. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 08:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 17:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Fictional streets and roads.--Mike Selinker 15:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Fictional streets and roads. Best to keep these articles in a by type category whenever reasonable. ×Meegs 08:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Fictional places. These are definitely not streets or roads, so they don't fit in that proposed category. —ScouterSig 22:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From the article: "the Rath Dínen was the hallowed road where the Kings and Stewards of Gondor..." Hawker's Trail is described as a path between two cities, and that sounds like a road to me. Roads do not need to be paved to be roads.--Mike Selinker 02:29, 28 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:Test[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 as a test. Vegaswikian 08:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete category, it seems to have been made as a test. Sakkura 03:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 05:22, 21 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:Fictional palaces[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to to Category:Fictional castles and fortresses. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The material does not seem to justify a distinct category. Both current members are already otherwise categorised, appearing in Category:Sword of Truth locations. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 05:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unneeded. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 17:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Fictional castles and fortresses. They need to go somewhere in the "Fictional (X)" tree, and this seems an okay landing point.--Mike Selinker 15:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the reason Mike gives, we certainly should not delete this outright. At most, upmerge to Category:Fictional buildings. Keeping it, or merging to Mike's target would also be ok. ×Meegs 08:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Fictional castles and fortresses per Mike. —Scouter Sig 22:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Fictional castles and fortresses. -- Aitch Eye 01:33, 27 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:Fictional museums[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 remove mis-categorized articles and merge Flash Museum into Category:Fictional buildings. One article does not a category make. If other articles about fictional museums are written or found, recreation is permissible. Kbdank71 13:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The material does not justify a distinct category. The article The Space Museum is about a Doctor Who serial, not a fictional museum, and so is miscategorised. The article Xanadu (Citizen Kane) gives no indication that it is about a museum. Flash Museum is already otherwise categorised. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 05:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unneeded. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 17:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Flash Museum needs to go somewhere in the "Fictional (X)" category tree, and where else is unclear.--Mike Selinker 15:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is in Category:DC Comics locations, which is a second-level subcategory of Category:Fictional locations. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not good enough. It needs a "FIctional (X)" to put in the tree with things of its kind. I don't know what else these can be than museums.--Mike Selinker 12:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Could it perhaps just be upmerged to Category:Fictional buildings? I know that's intended to be primarily a parent category for the subcategories, but it already contains some articles, so ... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd prefer not. All of these have parent categories on the other side (Category:Museums, etc.), and having only Category:Fictional buildings on one side would suggest that the fictional article should blend with the real ones on the other side, which is super-not-good.--Mike Selinker 22:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or upmerge into Category:Fictional buildings. Though the category is small, it does allow these articles to be members of the Category:Museums. ×Meegs 08:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concieveably could be populated as a subcat of fictional buildings. —Scouter Sig 22:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Selinker and Meegs. -- Aitch Eye 01:31, 27 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:Fictional carnivals[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 13:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The material does not justify a distinct category, especially in light of the fact that two of the three current category members are miscategorised: Category:Carnivàle is a category for a television series and The Greatest Show in the Galaxy is a Doctor Who serial. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 05:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unneeded. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 17:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge into Category:Fictional carnivals and amusement parks~~, also folding in Category:Fictional amusement parks.--Mike Selinker 15:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is a merge necessary? After all, the article Circus of Crime already appears in the 'Fictional (X)' category tree via Category:Fictional thieves. Although the Circus of Crime is a fictional traveling circus, it is primarily a "fictional villainous organization in the Marvel Comics universe". Also, since it is a traveling circus, it's not a fixed location, thus perhaps making its inclusion in Category:Fictional locations somewhat strange. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a perfectly fine argument. We can delete this. Let's make sure we don't abandon anything, though.--Mike Selinker 12:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is appropriately categorized with Marvel Comics supervillain teams. —Scouter Sig 22:28, 26 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:Fictional Orientals[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 (all subcategories are already in Category:Fictional Asians).--Mike Selinker 05:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Fictional Asians, as duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 05:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unneeded. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 17:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge 132.205.99.122 18:31, 22 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:Project Runway participants[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, precedent here. Kbdank71 13:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: overcategorization. performers by performance. Number1spygirl 15:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 05:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unneeded. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 17:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we have in general treated participants in reality television series differently from actors in series. The reasoning behind de-categorizing actors by series is that they tended to include any actor who appeared in a single episode of any given series, leading to massive category clutter on prolific guests. In the case of reality TV series, though, the participant in the vast majority of cases is only going to have appeared in one such series. If we are going to change up that distinction, then the category should be merged to the parent Category:Participants in American reality television series.Otto4711 14:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reality shows like this have a limited number of participants/contestants. Category:American Idol participants shows this: it can be very defining to that person's career.—Scouter Sig 22:26, 26 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.