Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 11

< January 10	January 12 >

January 11[edit]

Category:Cancelled television programs[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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete the opposite of a current category, this one is for all tv shows that aren't still running. Not defining, not maintainable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most TV series are eventually canceled, so this branch affords the user little additional information or navigational help versus other subcategorizations.-choster (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is utterly unmaintainable. 99.9% of all TV series in existence are now cancelled. *** Crotalus *** 11:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is this unmaintainable?. If they have WP entries, someone will always update them when they get cancelled. Your argument would justify a category for Active television programs, if they are in the small minority--would you support that? DGG (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to the far superior Category:Television series endings by year structure. The articles here should be placed in the appropriate ending year category. Otto4711 (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:Otto4711. NorthernThunder (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with request to rename the catagory Television series cancelled after one episode. I agree the current name is way too broad but the intent to of catagory was to highlight these unique television programs that only lasted one airing.--Kevin586 (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2008 (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 St. Hyacinthe, Quebec[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 discussion was rename to match the main article. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from St. Hyacinthe, Quebec to Category:People from Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec

Nominator's rationale: This category Category:People from St. Hyacinthe, Quebec that has the letters S and T with a dot that makes "St." is sounded like an English name. The rename category would have been renamed Category:People from Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, because the word "Saint" and next to the word is a small dash (-), the makes the city French official name Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec and it has the main article Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec. A lot of Quebec French people use the city official name Saint-Hyacinthe cause of Quebec's official French language. This category has to be renamed from Category:People from St. Hyacinthe, Quebec to it's new category rename, Category:People from Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec. This category must be renamed. Thanks. Steam5 (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. for consistency with main article and official usage. LeSnail (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quebec has English people as well as French people, and this is the English Wikipedia, not the French Wikipedia. As with all Saints, they have various renderings in various languages. Cities, towns and streets in Quebec are "St. ..." in Quebec English. The official name is in French, so it is not the English name. The website uses the French name because it is the official name, and thus not the English name. 70.55.89.222 (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lots of people speak Quebec French and they use it's official name and usage Saint-Hyacinthe and every Quebec municipalities that has Saint- on every English Wikipedia main article, but the category must be renamed. Steam5 (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for consistency. In general, even English-speakers in Quebec use the French spelling. In any case, it is the official spelling. Snocrates 04:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, in cases like these, the category should match the article. -- Prove It ^(talk) 19:09, 17 January 2008 (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:Newspapers by city[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 discussion was relist to garner consensus on one(any) of the multiple options. Relisted on Jan 20. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers published in Pittsburgh to Category:to be determined by consensus

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers of Chicago to Category:to be determined by consensus

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers in Baltimore to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These three categories represent the forms of naming the subcats of Category:Newspapers by city have taken. We should pick one and implement it across the board. I have no opinion as to which. Otto4711 (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something else to determine is whether categories should include just the city name. Otto4711 (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like "published in" best. The New York Times, for instance, is published in NYC, but distributed around the world. Calling it a newspaper "of" NYC or "in" NYC, seems slightly wrong. LeSnail (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to the form used in Category:Newspapers published in Pittsburgh but add the state making them follow the form of Category:Newspapers published in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In the USA, at least, vanishingly few cities have more than one daily paper marketed to a general audience -- last I knew, that list was limited to New York City, Washington DC, Los Angeles, and Chicago. (My memory may be playing tricks, but unless I'm missing scores of cities with multiple daily papers my error can't possibly be enough to make a meaningful difference.) The brutal economics of newspaper publication tend to ruthlessly eliminate all but the highest-circulation paper in any city, as Ben Bagdikian noted nearly 25 years ago in The Media Monopoly. So -- if "daily publication" is the definition of "newspaper", then with respect to the USA any category of this nature will almost always have exactly one member with near-zero probability of growth. If weeklies are considered, the field widens considerably and these categories might actually become useful. If specialised newspapers marketed to specific topics or populations (e.g. Jewish Ledger or Novoye russkoye slovo) are considered, likewise. But all this raises another point: what's the definition of "newspaper"? Without a clear working definition of "newspaper", these categories cannot have coherent inclusion criteria. --7Kim (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment: An issue I had not considered before. Many areas have several cities with several daily papers, that have overlapping distributions. Example: In Hartford, CT, one has the option of purchasing the Hartford Courant, the Manchester Journal-Inquirer, or the New Britain Register, each of which is published in its own city. Perhaps categorising U.S. newspapers by city is not as useful as categorising them by state, region, or metropolitan area. For a similar reason, the physical location of the printing press or editorial offices may not be useful as a defining characteristic.
These comments may not be useful in deciding whether to rename the above categories, but I think it should be food for thought in handling the categorisation structure under Category:Newspapers. --7Kim (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator seems to have missed one option: Category:New York City newspapers. I think I like this one best. --Eliyak T·C 02:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request relisting - Seeing as this discussion is nowhere near any sort of concensus, I would like to see it relisted rather than just closing as "no concensus". Also, I've just posted a note to bring this CFD to the attention of other editors who are part of WikiProject Journalism. Cgingold (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2008 (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.

Operas by acts[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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. While Category:One-act operas is well-populated and potentially useful for anyone considering operatic double-bills, there is no good reason that I know of for categorising other operas by the number of their acts. Hence I am proposing deletion of the umbrella category and of all the sub-categories except the one for one-act operas. GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These categories serve no useful purpose. --Folantin (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One act operas are not the norm and the category is potentially useful, although there is not necessarily a correlation between number of acts and length. However, having separate categories for 2, 3, 4, and 5 acts serves no useful purpose and is potentially confusing as well. Quite a few operas have several versions, which vary in the number of acts they're divided into. Verdi's Don Carlo is just one example. Voceditenore (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is arbitrary categorisation. Compare to Category:Operas by number of singers or Category:Operas by number of overpaid, egomaniac divas who performed in the 50th rendition - those two have no less validity that this (that is, none at all). Also potentially confusing, as Voceditenore points out. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale. Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these utterly pointless categories.Smerus (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2008 (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:Famous locomotives[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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Famous locomotives to Category:Individual locomotives

Nominator's rationale: Famous is a good word to avoid in category names. Most of these locomotives aren't really famous except to a small group of people. Since they have articles, it is obvious that they are all notable, and there is no reason to say more. The word "individual" is used in some other similar places on wikipedia, such as Category:Individual trees and Category:Individual musical instruments (although we do also have Category:Famous animals), and seems to work well. LeSnail (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(For the record, it appears I created Category:Individual musical instruments awhile ago. No one else has mentioned any problems with it, however, and other people have added subcats. LeSnail (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Rename per nom - if the locos were not famous they would be NN and so not need an article at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2008 (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:American Ballet Theatre dancers[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 discussion was keep. Although WP:CCC was referenced in the discussion, the issue here is not a change in consensus, but a case of mistaken identity. These are acceptable uses of what might at first glance seem to be performer by performance/venue categories. That is to say, analogous categories are things like Category:Borussia Mönchengladbach players or Category:Harvard University faculty, not Category:Random soap opera cast members. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Performer by performance/venue. Not defining. LeSnail (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and my reasoning in the NYC category nominated below. Otto4711 (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- See also:

1.13 Category:Ballets Russes choreographers

which also concers Category:Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo choreographers

1.15 Category:New York City Ballet dancers

1.16 Category:New York City Ballet Repertory

Move entries to Category:American Ballet Theatre.

If this is to be done please move the entries from: Category:American Ballet Theatre dancers to: Category:American Ballet Theatre

Robert Greer (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would still be inappropriate overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not agree with this last point. In what category do entries for a ballet company's dancers belong if not in that company's category? Putting them all in such categories as Category:Ballerinas and Category:Danseurs does not make sense. Most dancers, particularly those about whom an article might be written, remain with the same company their entire careers and are associated with that company's balletmaster's style and choice of choreographers more than anything else (or, in the case of international superstars, divide their time between companies). But they are not like rock stars on tour, opera singers performing in opera houses all over the place, or baseball players being traded. Category:Ballerinas and Category:Danseurs do serve a seperate purpose of allowing a person to look up a dancer whose company affiliation they do not know. Robert Greer (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They should be listified and deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Unless past or present membership of specific of arts companies is not considered a suitable type of category.) The American Ballet Theatre is a dance company not a venue. The category under discussion here is analogous to Category:Royal National Theatre Company members. I can see where it would be useful to look up all the dancers who were members of a particular company, Perhaps rename to Category:American Ballet Theatre Company members? Voceditenore (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RNT category should also be deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dancers usually stay there for most or all of their career, and are primarily known as associated with a particular company. A useful and important distinction. Otto, what makes it inappropriate--you give no actual reason?DGG (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Film actors and directors tended to stay with one studio throughout their film careers, especially under the Hollywood studio system. We don't categorize directors or actors on the basis of studio. This is pretty much exactly the same thing. What makes it inappropriate is the common sense factor that if categorizing by a specific performance role within a creative endeavour is overcategorization then categorizing the performer within the general category for the endeavour is as well. If categorizing Bette Davis for instance under Category:Warner Bros. actors is overcategorization then putting her under Category:Warner Bros. is too. If categorizing a dancer under Dance Company Name dancers is inappropriate then Category:Dance Comany Name is too. It defeats the consensus that was hard-fought and thoroughly discussed on all sides. Otto4711 (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a/Consensus can change. b/as explained by those who know better than myself, dancers are different c/people here seem to see common sense differently, as usual DGG (talk)

Keep - the lists in the article American Ballet Theatre suggest this is a legitimate category, but we do not need both the categories ABT dancers and ABT, and these should be merged. On the wider point, I would suggest membership of a theatre or ballet company should be legitimate if the company has a significant stability of memebrship. I recall that participants in certain TV shows get listified, because the appearance quite ephemeral. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing ADMIN - please consider this item with those on Ballets Russes choreographers; New York City Ballet dancers; and New York City Ballet Repertory - all below. They all raise the same issues. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2008 (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:Radio stations in the Peoria market[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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 16:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in the Peoria market to Category:Radio stations in Peoria, Illinois

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent geographic category and for consistency amongst radio stations by geographic area categories. JPG-GR (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. LeSnail (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or other rename. These stations aren't all licensed to Peoria, Illinois or even based in Peoria; though, admittedly, a lot more stations have gotten studios in Peoria in the last 5 years. Indeed, I think Arbitron technically calls this market "Peoria-Pekin, Illinois" because there are at least 5 stations licensed to Pekin (WVEL, WBNH, WCIC, WGLO, WXCL), and most stations in this market are actually licensed to places other than the city of Peoria. WBYS Canton can't be heard at all in Peoria, and WCDD Canton and WVEL Pekin (though WVEL now is part of a combined studio in Peoria) can only barely be heard in Peoria with a good receiver; categorizing them as "in Peoria" is laughable for those stations. Radio markets take a much larger area than the biggest city in the market, and I believe imprecise category names cause confusion and for novice Wikipedians trying to do the right thing intuitively. If the proposed wording is becoming consistent on Wikipedia categories, someone needs to start consistently asking that "market" or some similar wording stay in the category. (Not arguing against putting "Illinois" in the name, though.) --Closeapple (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with the market categories (which, by name, aren't all that numerous), is that the job is already much better handled by the template (in this case, {{Peoria Radio}}). Personally, I'd rather these particular categories were just deleted - let the templates do their navigational job and let the categories (i.e. Category:Radio stations in Illinois) do their categorizing job. JPG-GR (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Peoria, Illinois market is the name the rating market. It is generally considered that the predominant city in an area has categories that include like articles from other places. In this case if there is a major concern, the station articles can include the category for the place that they are actually licensed in. If someone wants to address the naming of all radio station market categories then go for it. But based on past consensus, there is no reason to not do this rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2008 (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:Punjabi Word[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 discussion was rename to Category:Punjabi words and phrases. Kbdank71 16:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and we don't have articles about Punjabi words. These articles are not about words, but about things whose names come from the Punjabi language. That these things are part of Punjabi culture is defining, and they should be categorized to reflect that, but this is merely categorization by name. On the other hand, there are many other such categories. I would like to use this one as a test case to see what people think about them. If kept, this should be renamed to Category:Punjabi words and phrases for consistency with the rest in Category:Words and phrases by language. LeSnail (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean Category:Punjabi words and phrases? Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Adam. Nomination amended. LeSnail (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the four articles in the category seem to be a disparate collection of punjabi loan words into English - probably mainly Indian English. As such it seems to be a legitimate intersection. The articles (or some of them, at least) are more than mere dictionary definitions, so that transwikify is probably not an appropriate option. The category seems to be Category:Punjabi loan words into English. Is that the right name? I would be happier if this were commented on by some Indian wikipedians. 77.100.162.219 (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's Comment - I think more appropriate name for this category will be Category:Romanized punjabi word. Please have a look at Romanagari and Romanization. Thanks everyone for their part, especially LeSnail to point it out. Quality check (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:27, 14 January 2008 (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:Radio stations in the New Orleans market[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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 16:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in the New Orleans market to Category:Radio stations in New Orleans, Louisiana

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent geographic category and for consistency amongst radio stations by geographic area categories. JPG-GR (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and overwhelming previous consensus on this type of rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2008 (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:Radio stations in the Bloomington-Normal market[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 discussion was rename to to Category:Radio stations in Bloomington, Illinois. Kbdank71 16:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in the Bloomington-Normal market to Category:Radio stations in Bloomington-Normal, Illinois

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent geographic category and for consistency amongst radio stations by geographic area categories. JPG-GR (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or other rename. Same argument as for adjacent Category:Radio stations in the Peoria market above, though maybe less so since "in Bloomington-Normal" is a little less specific than "in Peoria". Examples of non B-N stations in the market: WDQZ Lexington; several stations in Livingston County, Illinois) like WJHV-LP Fairbury, WPJC Pontiac, WTRX-FM Pontiac, WYST Fairbury. (Not arguing against putting "Illinois" in the name, though.) --Closeapple (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Same responding comment as that of the Peoria market above. JPG-GR (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Radio stations in Bloomington, Illinois and overwhelming previous consensus on this type of rename and to match the name used in the template header. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2008 (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:Choreographed fight[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 discussion was rename Category:Choreographed fight to Category:Choreographed combat. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Choreographed fight to Category:Choreographed combat

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Matches its subcats and the article that's in it and just generally makes more sense. Otto4711 (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agree with rename. dab (𒁳) 20:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Snocrates 23:41, 20 January 2008 (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:Fight arrangers[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 discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - feels like overcategorization, also small with unclear growth potential. If retained, rename to Category:Fight choreographers as "fight arranger" is ambiguous (could mean someone who sets boxing matches and the like). Otto4711 (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2008 (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:Ballets Russes choreographers[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 discussion was keep. These are acceptable uses of what might at first glance seem to be performer by performance/venue categories. That is to say, analogous categories are things like Category:Borussia Mönchengladbach players or Category:Harvard University faculty, not Category:Random soap opera cast members. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - performer by performance overcategorization. Equivalent to categorizing film directors by studio. Otto4711 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- See also:

1.6 Category:American Ballet Theatre dancers

1.15 Category:New York City Ballet dancers

1.16 Category:New York City Ballet Repertory

Move entries to Category:Ballets Russes and Category:Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo.

If this is to be done please move the entries to: ::Category:Ballets Russes and: ::Category:Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo respectively.

Robert Greer (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would still be inappropriate overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with this last point. In what category do entries for a ballet company's choreographers belong if not in that company's category? Balletmasters, even more than dancers, are associated with a company's style more than anything else! They are not like baseball managers. Robert Greer (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Choreographers usually are associated with primarily one or a very few companies for their career, and are well-known as such. A useful and important distinction. Possibly combine the two of them here--they seem to have an overlap. Otto, what makes it inappropriate--you give no actual reason? Actually, I think categorizing film directors by studio would be a very good idea, and I hope someone picks it up. DGG (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Film actors and directors tended to stay with one studio throughout their film careers, especially under the Hollywood studio system. We don't categorize directors or actors on the basis of studio. This is pretty much exactly the same thing. What makes it inappropriate is the common sense factor that if categorizing by a specific performance role within a creative endeavour is overcategorization then categorizing the performer within the general category for the endeavour is as well. If categorizing Bette Davis for instance under Category:Warner Bros. actors is overcategorization then putting her under Category:Warner Bros. is too. If categorizing a dancer under Dance Company Name dancers is inappropriate then Category:Dance Comany Name is too. It defeats the consensus that was hard-fought and thoroughly discussed on all sides. And I hope no one picks up the terrible idea of categorizing directors by studio for all of the same reasons that characterizing other performers by venue has been firmly decided against. Otto4711 (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

consensus can change. I think it should, if it leads to absurd results inappropriate for the specific subject area DGG (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've offered no argument that listing the choreographers in the company article is either "absurd" or "inappropriate." Otto4711 (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep examination of the article on Ballets Russe makes it clear that they had relatively few choreographers. The company was one of the most significant of its time, and they tended to stay for a significant time. This is thus not an epemeral association. If actors or directors spent a significant part of their lives working for a single Hollywood studio, I do not see why they should not be categorised in that way. At the other extreme, people who appeared in a TV show or were awarded a prize have been listified, but that is not appropriate here. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Why is a list of choreographers in the article for the company inappropriate? Otto4711 (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See comment concerning New York City Ballet dancers; substitute baseball manager for baseball player. Robert Greer (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A list may be appropriate as well; they serve complementary functions; there is no policy or guideline or practice against having both, as we appropriately do for many thousands of subjects. DGG (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2008 (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:Artemis Fowl Talk pages[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 discussion was merge Category:Artemis Fowl Talk pages to Category:WikiProject Artemis Fowl. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Talk pages do not get categorized in the same way that article pages do. This is a replication of an article style category being used for talk pages. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:WikiProject Artemis Fowl ... this is just a badly named project category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 19:23, 17 January 2008 (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:New York City Ballet dancers[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 discussion was keep. These are acceptable uses of what might at first glance seem to be performer by performance/venue categories. That is to say, analogous categories are things like Category:Borussia Mönchengladbach players or Category:Harvard University faculty, not Category:Random soap opera cast members.

Nominator's rationale: Delete - performer by performance/venue overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete performer by performance. LeSnail (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- See also:

1.6 Category:American Ballet Theatre dancers

1.13 Category:Ballets Russes choreographers

which also concers Category:Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo choreographers

1.16 Category:New York City Ballet Repertory

Move entries to Category:New York City Ballet.

If this is to be done please move the entries to Category:New York City Ballet.

Robert Greer (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would still be inappropriate overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I do not agree with this last point. In what category do entries for a ballet company's dancers belong if not in that company's category? Putting them all in such categories as Category:Ballerinas and Category:Danseurs does not make sense. Most dancers, particularly those about whom an article might be written, remain with the same company their entire careers and are associated with that company's balletmaster's style and choice of choreographers more than anything else (or, in the case of international superstars, divide their time between companies). But they are not like rock stars on tour, opera singers performing in opera houses all over the place, or baseball players being traded.

Category:Ballerinas and Category:Danseurs do serve a seperate purpose of allowing a person to look up a dancer whose company affiliation they do not know. PS I take the liberty of cross posting this from related discussion on this page concerning Category:American Ballet Theatre dancers:

Robert Greer (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Unless past or present membership of specific of arts companies is not considered a suitable type of category.) The American Ballet Theatre is a dance company not a venue. The category under discussion here is analogous to Category:Royal National Theatre Company members. I can see where it would be useful to look up all the dancers who were members of a particular company, Perhaps rename to Category:American Ballet Theatre Company members? Voceditenore (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dancers usually stay there for most or all of their career, and are primarily known as associated with a particular company. A useful and important distinction.Robert and Voce seem to know how the system works. Otto, what makes it inappropriate--you give no actual reason? DGG (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Film actors and directors tended to stay with one studio throughout their film careers, especially under the Hollywood studio system. We don't categorize directors or actors on the basis of studio. This is pretty much exactly the same thing. What makes it inappropriate is the common sense factor that if categorizing by a specific performance role within a creative endeavour is overcategorization then categorizing the performer within the general category for the endeavour is as well. If categorizing Bette Davis for instance under Category:Warner Bros. actors is overcategorization then putting her under Category:Warner Bros. is too. If categorizing a dancer under Dance Company Name dancers is inappropriate then Category:Dance Comany Name is too. It defeats the consensus that was hard-fought and thoroughly discussed on all sides. Otto4711 (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As with other similar nominations we are dealing with companies with some stability of membership, not with single perfomances or an ephemeral cast for a stage show, whcih dispersed as soon as the show closes. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cast of a film has copmplete stability of membership but we do not categorize on that basis. Otto4711 (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each film is a unique event with a production period measured in months and a cast that will probably never work together again. A ballet company has 10 to 30 principal dancers and perhaps half that many soloists, most of whom willspend their entire careers in the same company, typically having risen from apprentice to corps de ballet to soloist to principal. The company will dance from 10 to 50 ballets (with the exception of New York City Ballet which dances over 400) and the same dancer will dance these ballets with the same partner over the course of a decade or two (a partner's retirement being a traumatic event, especially to a ballerina if it is the danseur who retires). This is what "mode of production" refers to in my comment on NYCB rep. And ballet dancers have no more in common with film actors than with baseball players. Robert Greer (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many actors remained with the same film studio throughout their careers, especially under the studio system. We don't categorize on that basis. Many broadcasters at various levels remain with the same broadcast outlet throughout their entire careers. We don't categorize on that basis. The notion that ballet dancers are some special breed apart and above from film actors or baseball players is classic bias. Your arguments in favor of all of these categories are largely boiling down to "but I really like ballet!" and that's not a legitimate argument. Otto4711 (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - those dancers who have gone on to other companies could be considered similarly to the alumni of tertiary institutions Paul foord (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2008 (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:New York City Ballet Repertory[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 discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 16:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category is capturing ballets performed by a particular dance company and people associated with the company. The latter is improper overcategorization. The former is as well, with the added problem that since ballets can be performed by any number of companies and categorizing them in that fashion will lead to massive category clutter. Otto4711 (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- See also:

1.6 Category:American Ballet Theatre dancers

1.13 Category:Ballets Russes choreographers

which also concers Category:Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo choreographers

1.15 Category:New York City Ballet dancers

NYCB Repertory is a special case. City Ballet has the largest rep. of any ballet company in the world, over 400 ballets in all, and dances approx. 80 per year. This is literally ten times as many ballets as most other companies. Further, most of their ballets are only danced by other companies with the permission and under the supervision of the affiliated Balanchine Trust. Robert Greer (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- There may not even be a WP article for some of those ballets, so a linked list would be much more useful I think. Listify and delete.-choster (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of New York City Ballet repertory already exists. Otto4711 (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The history of this category and the aforementioned list is as follows: I attend almost every program that City Ballet performs (not every performance, but each of the 12 to 15 "bills" they put up over the course of eight weeks in the winter and spring and in most cases the different casts who dance). Fortunately, there are $15 tickets available for us poor folk. Ballet -- and dance in general -- are not well documented on Wikipedia or elsewhere and are even more ephemeral than theatre, which at least leaves behind a script after closing night. Wikipedia seemed an ideal vehicle to record dance / ballet, to make them a little less ephemeral. I began by creating the list of New York City Ballet rep. and articles for some of the individual ballets and engaged in longish discussions with more experienced Wiki. users including admins. on the best way to do so. NYCB dances so many ballets -- over 400 -- there will be that many eventually, though it will take five years before they cycle through their rep. -- that they would overload any category in which they were deposited. One often sees tags that a category has become ungainly and needs to be broken into subcategories, so I created this category to nip that problem in the bud. I also created categories for NYCB dancers, ABT dancers, Category:Ballets Russes choreographers, Category:Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo choreographers etc. If these be deemed a foolish consistency I ask only that whoever it is that decides to remove them move their entries to their related über category: New York City Ballet dancers to Category:New York City Ballet; American Ballet Theatre dancers to Category:American Ballet Theatre;Ballets Russes choreographers to Category:Ballets Russes;Ballet Russe de Monte Carlochoreographers to Category:Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo etc. NB These last two are seperate entities for entirely different ballet companies! Robert Greer (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS There is an article for every entry in the category. It is not possible as far as I know to create an entry in a category for an article that does not exist. There are red links for many of the ballets in the list because it will take five years for City Ballet to dance some 400 ballets! Robert Greer (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have taken the liberty of reformatting your comments somewhat more conventionally. Breaking them up as you had been can lead to comments getting mixed up together (as happened in a discussion up the page; I've unscrambled it). Otto4711 (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful and appropriate category. Ballets are generally written for particular companies, and are known to be so by those who are interested. We may even need subcategories--perhaps by decade? There will be a WP article for every important work of classical arts, if enough people work on them--and being performed by a company such as this is a sufficient proof of notability for every one of them. Otto, we don't delete categories because they are fairly small art first,17:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I am familiar with the standards for small categories and indeed made no suggestion that this category be deleted on the basis of its size. Nor have I made any suggestion about the notability of any particular article within the category. The problem is that even if a particular ballet is initially written for a particular company, there is no theoretical limit on the number of companies that can then perform the work. Currently there are over 80 companies listed in Category:Ballet companies and every one of them that's currently active could perform any of the ballets in this category. 80+ categories on the basis of what company performed them is untenable. Any significant number of by-compnay categories is untenable. Otto4711 (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- It is NOT the case that '... there is no theoretical limit on the number of companies that can then perform the work.'

Ballets are subject to copyright. In the case of City Ballet, George Balanchine, and Jerome Robbins they are very tightly controlled by the Balanchine and Robbins trusts, which license them to other companies on a case by case basis (and often decline to do so despite the foregone royalties) and only then with the stipulation that a repetiteur (of which there are about a dozen in the case of Balanchine and who in most cases originated one of the roles and in any case danced the ballet and knows all the roles and their interpretation) be brought in to teach the ballet to the company (likewise Martha Graham, Merce Cunningham, Twyla Tharp, Mark Morris, etc.) There are approximately five companies in the U.S. that dance a significant number of Balanchine's ballets, all of which are led by former City Ballet dancers who danced for "Mr. B." You might argue that this a a practical limit, not a theoritical one, but this is a practical world, not a theoritical one, and there is nothing theoretical about the mode of production of ballet (which I love) or theatre (of which I am a practitioner). I should hope that Wikipedia would reflect our all too practical world, not a -- perhaps better! -- theorical one. Finally, given how few people write about ballet (or modern dance) on Wikipedia, there will 'never' be "any significant number of by-compnay categories." Robert Greer (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And ballet companies never license other companies to perform their ballets? Otto4711 (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As with other similar nominations we are dealing with companies with some stability of membership, not with single perfomances or an ephemeral cast for a stage show, whcih dispersed as soon as the show closes. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cast of a film is completely stable and we do not categorize on that basis. This is a category for ballets, not dancers, so your cookie-cutter argument about the supposed stability of a dance troupe doesn't apply. Otto4711 (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each film is a unique event with a production period measured in months and a cast that will probably never work together again. A ballet company has 10 to 30 principal dancers and perhaps half that many soloists, most of whom willspend their entire careers in the same company, typically having risen from apprentice to corps de ballet to soloist to principal. The company will dance from 10 to 50 ballets (with the exception of New York City Ballet which dances over 400) and the same dancer will dance these ballets with the same partner over the course of a decade or two (a partner's retirement being a traumatic event, especially to a ballerina if it is the danseur who retires). This is what "mode of production" refers to in my comment on NYCB rep. And ballet dancers have no more in common with film actors than with baseball players. Robert Greer (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, once again you're just copying and pasting your response from one CFD to another. Sometimes that works, in this case it doesn't because this is a category for ballets, not dancers, so your defense of a dancer category (which remains flawed for those categories) really makes no sense in relation to a ballets category. Otto4711 (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since this category essentially relies on some ballet companies being more notable than others, where does that stop? It is really rather subjective and time-sensitive advertising material anyway, since the mere presence of something in repertoire is not a guarantee that it will be performed any time soon or even ever again. A more accurate categorization would be to note which ones were actually performed; but then again there's the super-notability question again. One could also record, on the same principle, each time a symphony or other orchestral work is performed, and by whom-- especially since the variation in notability of orchestras is surely not so extreme-- there must be at least ten orchestras in the USA alone whose schedules could be so encoded. And as the stated repertoire changes, are we going to add "former repertoire" categories? Mangoe (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2008 (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:RangjungYesheWiki[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 discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article on RangjungYesheWiki, so keeping this would set precedent to create/keep categories such as these relating to any Wiki, no matter how non-notable. No prejudice against recreation if the article is ever created and is notable enough to be kept. VegaDark (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2008 (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:Radio stations in Raleigh-Durham[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 discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 15:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Raleigh-Durham to Category:Radio stations in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per established precedent, categories of this type should include the state name. JPG-GR (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. –Pomte 11:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. LeSnail (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose is there another Raleigh Durham that might be causing confusion? Not that I know of. Precedent is established for geographic names which might cause confusion (London, Paris, Washington, etc.) but this one shouldn't be a problem.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This is not a actual place so including the state makes sense. Having said that, a better name to match the parent Category:The Triangle, North Carolina might be Category:Radio stations in The Triangle, North Carolina. Right now, there appears to be some overlap in how those two names are being used in categories. I don't know if they are the same or not. But if The triangle is the parent and not Category:Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina or Category:Raleigh-Durham then maybe this alternative needs to be considered. Which ever way this goes, some renaming of the categories in this area is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would be perfectly happy with Category:Radio stations in The Triangle, North Carolina or similar, except I don't know if that's a good choice. Not being from the region, I've heard of "Raleigh-Durham" often, but never "The Triangle" (sans the Bermuda Triangle). As for overlapping, that's why I don't care for these regional based categories, but that's just my opinion. JPG-GR (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The area is commonly referred to as either The Research Triangle or The Triangle but with all the Tri-cities and Triangles for other clusters of 3 similarly sized cities, we should avoid assuming The Triangle is very descriptive. The Triad or Piedmont Triad is just up the road in fact. --Rtphokie (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to triangle... per Vegaswikian. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Travtim^(Talk) 16:03, 11 January 2008 (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:California Golden Bears football coaches[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 discussion was relisted on jan 22. Kbdank71 16:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Cal Bears football coaches, convention of Category:Cal Bears football, or the reverse, to match California Golden Bears football ... one should be become a redirect. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom Travtim^(Talk) 15:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Merge to match California Golden Bears football. VegaDark (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge as above and rename Category:Cal Bears football to Category:California Golden Bears football. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:53, 21 January 2008 (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:High schools in the District of Columbia[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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:High schools in the District of Columbia to Category:High schools in Washington, D.C.

Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools in the District of Columbia to Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools in Washington, D.C.

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the parent category Category:Education in Washington, D.C.. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with either. EagleFan (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Travtim^(Talk) 15:45, 11 January 2008 (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:Communications in the District of Columbia[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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Communications in the District of Columbia to Category:Communications in Washington, D.C.

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the parent category of Category:Washington, D.C. and the 2 children cats. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Travtim^(Talk) 15:46, 11 January 2008 (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:Wikipedia featured widescreen desktop backgrounds[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 discussion was close as comment on pending move. Kbdank71 15:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be deleted as it relates to the Wikipedia article "Widescreen" ... also, what's the harm in having something if it's not doing any harm to anyone? We have lots of seemingly pointless articles or irrelevant or infrequently visited articles on Wikipedia, why not have a category for widescreen wallpapers? Surely it would be used. Are you kidding me, people? 68.3.214.66 (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe that this is a comment on a closed discussion to transwiki to commons. I'll probably close this as a comment and not a discussion since the category is still tagged to points to the previous discussion. The transwiki will take a while. Objections to closing this? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2008 (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:Mormonism-related criticism[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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mormonism-related criticism to Category:Criticism of Mormonism

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Criticism of Mormonism and to match parent (and other subcategories of) Category:Criticism of religion. Snocrates 03:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Travtim^(Talk) 15:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency with related categories and main article. Maralia (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2008 (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:Mayors of Aliso Viejo[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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mayors of Aliso Viejo to Category:Mayors of Aliso Viejo, California

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with parent categories Category:People from Aliso Viejo, California and Category:Aliso Viejo, California, and with main articles List of mayors of Aliso Viejo, California and Aliso Viejo, California. LeSnail (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Travtim^(Talk) 15:47, 11 January 2008 (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:Mayors of Fort Worth[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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mayors of Fort Worth to Category:Mayors of Fort Worth, Texas

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with main article Fort Worth, Texas and parent category Category:Fort Worth, Texas. LeSnail (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rename well deserved. Unfortunately, there are thousands of such city based categories to rename. Hmains (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe we need to make these a speediable nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, but the consensus to name them this way has only been around for a few months I think, so maybe it is premature to do so. LeSnail (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Travtim^(Talk) 15:47, 11 January 2008 (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:Mayors of Plano[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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mayors of Plano to Category:Mayors of Plano, Texas

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with main article Plano, Texas and parent category Category:Plano, Texas. LeSnail (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rename well deserved. Unfortunately, there are thousands of such city based categories to rename. Hmains (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Travtim^(Talk) 15:48, 11 January 2008 (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:Bay of Plenty-East Coast[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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category describes two regions in New Zealand, both of which now have their own category. This category is currently empty and unlikely to be repopulated. Cheers. – Liveste [talk • contrib] 02:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Travtim^(Talk) 15:48, 11 January 2008 (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:German of Portuguese descent[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 discussion was rename Category:German of Portuguese descent to Category:Portuguese Germans. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:German of Portuguese descent to Category:Germans of Portuguese descent

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Should be plural. Alternately, rename to Category:Portuguese-Germans. Olessi (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overcategorization. Most people are of multiple nationality/ethnic descents. Breaking them down on this basis leads to ever more fragmented caregories. Next up, Category:Germans of Portuguese descent who have some Lithuanian in them. Stop the madness. Otto4711 (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and ~~rename~~ ~~to Category:Germans of Portuguese descent per nom~~ See below. Good call to fix the name. Bad call to delete it that flies in the face of well-discussed WP consensus. Nonsense exaggeration is not an argument deserving respect or discussion. Hmains (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this "well-discussed consensus"? Can you link to it? Or are you assuming that it exists because the categories do? As for calling my argument "nonsense," first off that's not really very civil and secondly considering that people are creating categories like German-Irish Americans and People of Welsh descent in Great Britain and the like, the notion that someone might decide to create Category:Portuguese-Lithuanian Germans isn't that much of an exaggeration. Otto4711 (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename per nom and because 'German of Portugese descent' is poor grammar.Kyriakos (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Travtim^(Talk) 15:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Category:Portuguese Germans to match all but one of the other categories in parent Category:German people by ethnic or national origin. Hmains (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename according to the proposal by Hmains. Dimadick (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2008 (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:Romantischen Opern[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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Romantischen Opern to Category:Romantische Opern

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Without an article, the correct German grammar is "Romantische Opern". Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename per nom. --Folantin (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Travtim^(Talk) 15:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - an obvious case Voceditenore (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2008 (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 escapees[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 discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 15:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - this was nominated for discussion along with its parent cat and got kind of lost in the bog over the discussion of the parent. Being an "escapee" is not a defining characteristic for the vast majority of fictional characters who have escaped from something or someone. Many fictional characters have been imprisoned or captured at some point in their fictional history and escaped from it. Every character from Alias could be in this category, most of the characters from 24, most of the characters from Lost, every super-villain ever, any fictional character who's been kidnapped, etc. Even if this were restricted to those who have escaped from some form of formal custody, that still isn't a defining characteristic of most of said characters. Otto4711 (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I agree that this is not defining in almost all cases. Snocrates 03:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the sake of Clemens Forell, Edmond Dantès and Dr. Richard Kimble, to name some important fictional escapees in German and French literature, and English-language TV. -- Matthead DisOuß 13:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It is non defining in most cases, however there are a couple of fictional characters who are escapees by role definition. Nevertheless, too few for a category of their own Travtim^(Talk) 16:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Otto, above you argued against a category because you (mistakenly, as it happens) thought there would be too few members. Here you argue against one on the basis there will be too many members. DGG (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have mis-stated my position on a category above, as I have not argued for the deletion of any category on this page on the basis of its being too small. Small categories may of course be deleted if there is little or no growth potential, but then I would have specifically said "small" and "no growth potential" in the discussion. You are clearly mis-reading my comments here. The nomination is based on the fact that in most instances a character's having happened to escape from something or someone is not a defining characteristic of that character. Fictional characters undergo a wide variety of activities and states of being and we only categorize on the basis of those that are most defining of the character. Otto4711 (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and in some cases, then, is would be a defining characteristic. The placement of individuals in the category would be an editing question. I apologize for misunderstanding, but a category being too large is a reason to establish subcategories also. DGG (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any definable characteristic that a fictional character might have might for one character or another be defining in some way. We don't have categories for every single definable characteristic, say for being an environmentalist (deleted) or a rape victim (deleted) or a teetotaler (deleted) or a nudist (deleted) or a narcissist (deleted) or a fire victim (deleted) or a...and these are just a few of the ones I recall off the top of my head. I could go on for days. Otto4711 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Matthead has demonstrated, there are characters for which it is a defining aspect. Since the definition given with the category is for those escaping from a prison, I don't think we are in danger of placing abduction victims in there. Dimadick (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2008 (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.