Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 17

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

February 17[edit]

Category:Militant Zionist groups[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: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Militant Zionist groups to Category:Zionist organizations
Nominator's rationale: The category substantially overlaps with Category:Jewish paramilitary organizations (broader scope) and, for the most part, its contents also are in Category:National liberation movements. Category:Zionist organizations does not contain so many pages as to necessitate splitting out a subcategory with just 4 organizations. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The relevance and significance of this cat far exceeds that of the other two you mention and should warrant a cat of its own even if it only contains 4 articles. "Militant Zionism," or Radical Zionism, is quite distinct from ordinary Zionism, and I believe the assumption that Militant Zionism is a National Liberation Movement might be WP:POV. Even if at present the cat only contains pre-1948 organisations, other, later ones may be added in future. Nahum (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made a number of categorization changes recently but, for what it's worth, Haganah and Lehi already were categorized as national liberation movements. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is some duplication in the categorization here but identifying the military subgroups is important even if they are not so numerous, rather than having them lost in a sea of societies and aid groups and the like. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2011 (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:Pre-IDF military units[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 Category:Militant Zionist groups.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pre-IDF military units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The function of this category—grouping articles about Jewish armed forces prior to the founding of the IDF in 1948—is performed better via the categories Jewish military units and formations, Jewish paramilitary organizations and Militant Zionist groups. All pages in the category already appear in one or more of the other categories, all of which are more descriptive than this one—"pre-IDF" merely implies "pre-1948". -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of Speedy nomination
  • delete I thought I knew what this category was supposed to be about but looking at the membership seems to indicate that it is meant as a kind of catch-all. Really what this sounds like is Category: Militant Zionist groups. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2011 (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:Jewish army units[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: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Jewish army units to Category:Jewish military units and formations
Nominator's rationale: There is not enough content (just 9 unique units) to justify subcategorization by branch (army, air force, marine, navy). Moreover, since there have been few or no non-IDF Jewish air force, marine or navy units, it is unlikely that subdivision by branch ever will be needed (IDF units are contained within Category:Israel Defense Forces). -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2011 (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:Colon[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: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Colon to Category:Colon (anatomy)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match Colon (anatomy). I think colon alone is just too ambiguous, given its various meanings in anatomy, grammar, places, etc. The nominated category should probably be a disambiguation category of some sort, similar to what currently exists at Category:Colón. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2011 (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:Antimagyarism[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: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Antimagyarism to Category:Anti-Hungarian sentiment
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match the article Anti-Hungarian sentiment. Antimagyarism means the same thing and redirects there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2011 (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:Stage works by P. G. Wodehouse[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: rename. We have no "stage works" categories; "plays" is what the category system calls these things.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Stage works by P. G. Wodehouse to Category:Plays by P. G. Wodehouse
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This was nominated at the speedy section under crtierion C2C but was opposed (see copy of discussion below). My rationale is that this is the usual and pretty much universal way to categorize "stage works" that are by a particular author: see Category:Plays by author. This is the case whether the works in question are drama, comedy, musicals, revues, or some other genre. The objector's opinion that "plays" necessarily implies "drama" is not one that is borne out by the way similar categories have been applied in the past, as far as I can tell. (If for whatever reason "plays" needs to be avoided in this one case, I would think something like "theatrical works" would be a slightly more consistent name for the category system, since there are a lot of categories that use the word "theatre" and terms derived from it, but not really any that use "stage".) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
  • Category:Stage works by P. G. Wodehouse to Category:Plays by P. G. Wodehouse — C2C Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. "Plays" implies straight drama; many of Wodehouse's stage works are musicals and revues, not plays, which is why the term "stage works" was adopted. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to Play (theatre), the word is not so limited—it can be used in a general sense to mean a theatrical production. There is an extensive category tree for Category:Plays, which includes a number of different genres and Category:Plays by author, and there is a category tree for Category:Musicals if that's what you were intending, but there is nothing for Category:Stage works, nor is there even an article called Stage work. Having it in the Category:Plays by author tree helps users find it from an alternate route of category tree browsing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • While, according to Play (theatre), "the term "play" can be either a general term, or more specifically refer to a non-musical play", the entire article is written from the latter perspective, and that is how I would usually interpret the term. Wodehouse's works for the stage include a small number of "plays" (in the sense of straight drama), several "musicals", and one or two "revues": it was precisely because his works cover several stage genres that I adopted the term "stage works", a term that is, despite what you imply, widely used in wikipedia, as, for example, in Kurt Weill, Johann Strauss II and List of compositions by Thomas Arne. Trying to shoehorn everything into rigid categories doesn't always make sense. Jimmy Pitt talk 23:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was implying that the term is not widely used (or used at all) in the WP category system, which is true. If a play can be a wide range of theatrical works, I see no reason not to use the standard naming for categories of this type. One doesn't need a shoehorn if the shoe slips on pretty well. (It would also be appropriate to add more specific categories like Category:Revues and/or a subcategory of Category:Musicals, where appropriate.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2011 (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:Motorcycling destinations[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: upmerge to Category:Motorcycling subculture and purge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Motorcycling destinations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: So ambiguous in what qualifies inclusion within it as to be useless. Literally anywhere could be a "motorcycling destination". SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the article exists, it should meet the nobability requirement. If reliable sources describe the subject of the article as a popular motorcycling destination, then it belongs in this category. All the articles in this category generally meet these criteria, as far as I know. I don't see what's ambiguous about letting reliable sources tell us whether or not a location is a notable motorcycling destination. --Dbratland (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Motorcycling subculture, or rework/cleanup. Sure, Blue Ridge Parkway doesn't belong, but places like The Rock Store, and the Ace Cafe derive their main notability from their relation to motorcycling or motorcyclists; browse any sportbike forum and the significance of a pilgrimage to the Tail of the Dragon is taken for granted. Sooner or later, however, placing them all in the main category will become untenable, and we will need to settle on a system for terminology and categorization of subcultural meccas. For example, how we might we in the future subcategorize out the beaches in Category:Big wave surfing, the mosques in Category:Bangladeshi diaspora in the United Kingdom, or the various and sundry theatres, festival grounds, and San Francisco neighborhoods among Category:Hippie movement?- choster (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I expect if the category grows, it should be split to put roads like Maryhill Loops Road and Stelvio Pass in one cat and public houses like Ace Cafe London and The Rock Store in another. Currently they're thrown together because there are so few items in the category it didn't seem urgent to split them. The word "destinations" is a bit of a kluge that is meant to cover both roads and bars/inns/restaurants. --Dbratland (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a number of sources support keeping Blue Ridge Parkway. American Motorcyclist described it as one of "America's top-10 motorcycling roads". --Dbratland (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention of motorcycling at all in Blue Ridge Parkway, and the articles I saw in Google Books looked like travel guides, not essays into the significance of the road in motorcycling subcultures. That is the key. The total number of motorcyclists who've visited, say, the Dixie Travel Plaza undoubtedly far exceeds those who've visited Newcomb's Ranch, but whereas the latter mentions the relationship of the place to motorcyclists in the opening, there is none in the former. Similarly, people of Bangladeshi origin or descent attend religious institutions all across the United Kingdom, but Brick Lane Mosque merits a place in Category:Bangladeshi diaspora in the United Kingdom because of its special significance to that community. I could be convinced, but compare for example a broader search on motorcycle Route 66 vs motorcycle Blue Ridge Parkway. We can't be attaching a relationship to every curvy road that attracts weekend bikers, which goes to GOf's point below about better defining the scope of the category. My proposal to upmerge is an attempt to maintain what we have while that scope is defined and the category more fully populated.- choster (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? We take the source material that states that Blue Ridge Parkway is a notable motorcycling destination, add a section to Blue Ridge Parkway containing what the sources say, cite it, and call it good. You can't do that with just any old road or establishment you choose; it is only possible in those cases where the sources tell us it is a notable motorcycling destination. Nobody proposed using "total number of motorcyclists" as a criterion. We don't know that statistic and we don't care. We are following what the sources tell us, nothing more or less. --Dbratland (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Articles meet this criteria by having WP:RS indicating they are a destination. Certainly the word "destination" can be taken down the slippery slope, but it's roughly equivalent to a "tourist attraction". tedder (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If kept, this really, really, really, really needs a definition, so we know what is added and what is not added. At first glance, the lack of a definition or inclusionary criteria makes this look (to a biking outsider like me) to be seemingly arbitrarily chosen. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Edit away. --Dbratland (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Motorcycling subculture per choster and cleanup the parent. This is so open ended that one really wonders about how notable the locations are to be included here. Just mentioning this fact in the article is not grounds for inclusion in a category like this. It needs to be a major heading in the article with significant well cited text. If this is kept, it will be a maintenance nightmare. If the consensus is to keep, then it would need to be cleaned out of all of the articles that don't meet the criteria I mention above. I'm not convinced that the introduction that was added really eliminates the issues that exist. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge as suggest by choster, with whom I am in general agreement. The category definition was a step in the right direction, but I often think that if a category absolutely needs a definition, there is something wrong with the category name or something wrong with the category itself. In this case, I think it's the latter. I'm still not clear on exactly how to determine what would go in the category and what would be excluded. It's not clear cut, and I feel that in most cases category application should be clear cut, as it states in WP:CLN. But here I don't see the topic "prominently discussed" in all of the included articles, as that guideline suggests. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2011 (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:Photographs (people)[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. Under any name, categorizing articles named for persons under a method of generating their likenesses is a bad idea.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Photographs (people) to Category:People featured in famous photographs
Nominator's rationale: First of all, the current name makes no sense without having to read the category's description to understand the intent of the category. Second, the category's description makes no sense; it states this category is for "articles about well-known photographs where the article is named after the person in the photograph." If the article is named after the person, e.g. John Smith, then the article is about John Smith, not the photo featuring John Smith (this was the case for every such article in this category that I checked). If the article were about the photo, it should be titled Photograph of John Smith, or some such, and then it would be excluded from the definition of this category because the article would not be named after a person. (The description goes on to say, "If the photograph has a recognised name, it should be placed in Category:Photographs instead," which doesn't make sense, either, because the name of the photograph does not necessarily reflect the name of the article, and the article title is how we're deciding what goes here, isn't it?) It may sound like I'm really just arguing to change the category's description, but since the current name, as said, makes no sense, it seems a better idea to change the name to something that clearly describes the category's contents, than to simply change the definition of a name that has no inherent logical meaning. 63.104.174.146 (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under either the current or the proposed names, it should be deleted for being overinclusive. There are indisputably many "famous" photographs of people who are not famous because of those photographs, from world leaders to celebrities (Lincoln's portrait(s) by Mathew Brady; Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin at Yalta; Truman holding aloft the paper with the incorrect headline "Dewey beats Truman"; Betty Grable's pinup; Albert Einstein sticking his tongue out; Demi Moore nude and pregnant on the cover of Vanity Fair; John Lennon and Yoko Ono nude on the cover of Rolling Stone...etc., etc.) and those subjects should by no means be categorized by such a fact. So if this has any value, it should be renamed to target people who are famous only because they were the subjects of photographs. Even then, it would naturally include every model... So I don't know if it has a chance.

    I agree with the nom that in any event, if this is a people category, then articles about the photographs themselves (or the image files) do not belong in it. If there are no standalone articles on the people, then redirects (titled after their names and targeting the photograph articles) would be appropriate in the category. postdlf (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2011 (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:Scotland national football team results and fixtures[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: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Scotland national football team results and fixtures to Category:Scotland national football team results
Nominator's rationale: Per this AfD and the resultant repurposing of the only page in this category which contained fixtures, this category is purely about results now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:16, 17 February 2011 (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:Georgian media[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: rename to Category:Media in Georgia (country). This almost certainly needs to be revisited, as creating "Georgian (country)" would match a lot of category tree formats. But we don't have consensus on that yet.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Georgian media to Category:Media of Georgia (country) or Category:Media in Georgia (country)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate the word "Georgian", as has been done at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 10#Category:Georgian people and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 28#Category:Georgian culture. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:58, 17 February 2011 (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.

Inkworld trilogy[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: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Inkworld books to Category:Inkheart trilogy books
Propose renaming Category:Inkworld characters to Category:Inkheart trilogy characters
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Category:Inkworld trilogy. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom as original nominator. Both are used, so it seems uncontroversial to match to the article name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2011 (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:SOBSI[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: rename. If the article is moved, we can put this back.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:SOBSI to Category:Sentral Organisasi Buruh Seluruh Indonesia
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The proposed name is a heck of a mouthful, but if renamed it would match the article Sentral Organisasi Buruh Seluruh Indonesia, which is the usual way of treating eponymous categories. If renamed, definitely keep a redirect from the nominated category, since SOBSI redirects to the article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2011 (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:Dokdo class landing platform experimental ships[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: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Dokdo class landing platform experimental ships to Category:Dokdo class amphibious assault ships
Nominator's rationale: The category covers the class and first-ship articles (with more ships to come in future) of a class of 'LPH' designated ships in the Republic of Korea Navy. Now, the other type of 'LPH' that comes to mind is the U.S. Navy's Iwo Jima-class , which is categorised as Category:Iwo Jima class amphibious assault ships. Therefore this is proposed for renaming for consistency and accuracy (and because, I believe, the "LPX" designation that leads to "experimental" in the current name only applied to the class during the planning stage before it was named...). The Bushranger One ping only 00:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename: considering that the main article names them as Dokdo class amphibious assault ships, it ought to at the very least be consistant with that. Unless consensus swings to rename that article to the name of the category, it doesn't make much sense to keep it as "landing platform experimental ship", because the "experimental" will drop off sooner or later, and the LPH hull classification doesn't really match with our naming conventions. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 18:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "LPH/LPX" expanded out is overly detailed for the category name when it is unnecessary. "amphibious assault ship" sufficient covers all the commando-carrier-like L?? ships. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2011 (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:Roller coasters at Tokyo Disneyland[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: no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Roller coasters at Tokyo Disneyland to Category:Roller coasters in Japan
Nominator's rationale: There's only one page in this category. Category:Tokyo Disneyland contains other non-roller coaster attractions at Tokyo Disneyland. There's really no need to have a special subcategory of Category:Roller coasters in Japan and Category:Tokyo Disneyland for Space Mountain (Tokyo Disneyland) c y m r u . l a s s (talk me, stalk me) 00:46, 17 February 2011 (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.

Actors who have played Superman characters[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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Actors who have played Superman/Superboy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Actors who have played Lex Luthor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Similar categories to these have been deleted over the years I don't know how many times. They are a variety of performer by performance overcategorization: "Avoid categories which categorise performers by their portrayal of a role. This includes portraying a specific character (such as Darth Vader, or Hamlet)." Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both categories; as per nom, unnecessary categorization. --Ckatzchatspy 01:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom's reference of "performer by performance" over-categorization. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above and being non-defining. It's certainly not the first think thing I think of about Kyle MacLachlan. Lugnuts (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There might be some characters out there who would be typecasting/defining for an actor sufficently to merit categorisation (The Doctor?), but I don't think these are. (And besides, wouldn't the first one be better as Category:Actors who have played Kal-El, anyway? ;) - The Bushranger One ping only 06:44, 19 February 2011 (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:Works by John Gardner[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: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Works by John Gardner to Category:Works by John Gardner (American writer)
Propose renaming Category:Novels by John Gardner to Category:Novels by John Gardner (American writer)
Propose renaming Category:Essays by John Gardner to Category:Essays by John Gardner (American writer)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match John Gardner (American writer) since John Gardner is ambiguous and there are a number of works by John Gardner (British writer) with articles on Wikipedia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_17&oldid=1138395004"