Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 10

< February 9	February 11 >

February 10

Category:Shabizzlin Videos

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consists of only one page, which itself was nominated for speedy delete (bio) Feeeshboy 23:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Delete − Haha, what is it? Empty? Unencyclopedic? Both? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looks like it will stay completely empty now. Prolog 20:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Nazi World War II propaganda films

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nazi World War II propaganda films

Merge A subject already covered in Nazi propaganda films

Keep Useful intersection. Not all Nazi propaganda films are relevant to Category:World War II. Osomec 11:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Biophys 17:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Japanese World War II propaganda films

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep by analogy with above debate. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japanese World War II propaganda films

Merge A subject already covered in Japanese propaganda films, further more only 2 entries.

Keep as per Nazi category. Osomec 11:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional immortals

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional immortals to Category:Immortals

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Tautology. Ever seen non-fictional immortals?. `'mikka 23:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While it is true that there are no real-life immortals, or at least not that has come public ;), I don't see the need to go from a less ambiguous name to a more ambiguous name. --Farix (Talk) 23:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - although if it does change I am putting God in it. Otto4711 00:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Farix. Yes, immortality is fictional. I understand mikka's very good point that the name is tautologous. However, it's only circular to those of us who realize immortals are all fictional (or of unprovable existence like God). In this case, the taulogical name serves to reinforce the fact that we recognize that they are all fictional (or unprovable). Doczilla 00:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per thinking about Otto's statement. Removing the stipulation that they must be fictional would result in the addition of all kinds of gods and religious figures. --Masamage 00:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While there presumably aren't any "real" immortals, the word Fictional in the category name is consistent with other similar subcategories of Category:Fictional characters, such as those in Category:Fictional characters by superhuman power. So this is a naming convention that is part of a broader categorization scheme and should be kept for consistency. Dugwiki 22:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Since a real immortal being is not unimaginable, the article should specify "fictional". This is the same logic used in the category the above user mentioned; for example, what if someone mutated in a way that gave them a better sense of smell than any normal human could ever achieve? That would be a superhuman power. Thus, the article needs to specify "fictional". Cosmetor 09:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Otto4711. If we remove the 'fictional' qualifier, then that would leave open the possibility of the inclusion of gods of various religions (which should be treated separately anyhow). If mikkalai wants to make a category for immortals, however, she can create it, and link Category:Fictional immortals and Category:Gods to it. --JB Adder | Talk 03:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Damsels in distress

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete; consensus appears to be that putting a character in the category is literary interpretation. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a helpful category. The only criteria given is the article Damsel in distress and there's a sleuth of people who think any female character that was kidnapped once qualifies. Overall, it's not helpful to the project. JuJube 22:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a silly, subjective category. Dr. Submillimeter 23:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. The category is for fictional characters whose main trait is being a damsel in distress. Being kidnapped, if it is the main feature of the plot, certainly qualifies, and I don't see why it is against NPOV, unless you are going to cater people who think that kidnapping damsels is fun rather than distress. God prevent me from seeing the times when wikipedia will adopt this notion of NPOV. `'mikka 23:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as far too broad and fluid. Otto4711 23:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague category that invokes heavy POV. Define "damsel". Define "distress". Not every female character who gets captured fits eithers. Doczilla 00:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too ambiguous. Even assuming that you can objectively name a particular woman in a particular piece of fiction as a "damsel in distress", it's not clear there is a good way to figure out when to claim someone is primarilly a damsel in distress. Most major female fictional characters in action series have at various times been placed in the position of a damsel in distress. Xena and Buffy the Vampire Slayer have both been in their share of danger and had to be rescued by someone else looking for them, for example. Likewise, in many, many suspense movies there is a woman who is in some sort of danger at the end of the film. Should all those one-shot film characters and book characters also be placed here? Thus even if you can objectively say that "in this particular story this particular character is a damsel in distress at this point in the plot", it's not at all clear that you can sort characters that way on a regular basis. Dugwiki 23:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't think of any D.I.D. characters, no matter how stereotypical, who are always in distress at every single moment. It's not a character trait, it's a description of a situation. --Masamage 02:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Surely this is a sexist stereotype. Why not have a category which can include males. Why not people who have been kidnapped - I'm surprised there isn't one already. I'd be interested in an article about the literary trope 'Damsels in Distress'. I just used trope in a sentence! Another lifetime ambition realised. Johnnybriggs 04:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment If the category is restricted to Penelope Pitstop-type fictional characters, then the structure is simply reflecting the gender-typing of 1920s cinema

Delete as too vague to be useful. If there is merit in such a category, then it should have a simple descriptive name such "Fictional heroines rescued from kidnap", rather than a flowery pseudo-literary name. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Toto singles

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename both (may be bold, but no objections were stated). --RobertG ♬ talk 17:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Toto songs, per conventions of Category:Songs by artist and discussion of June 9th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and Category:Within Temptation singles to Category:Within Temptation songs too. ×Meegs 02:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Honorary citizens

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These honorary citizen awards are more awards given to people who are famous enough to win many awards anyway. Categorization of people by awards is infeasible, as it contributes to category clutter. The category tree should be deleted. (A category to hold articles with lists of people who have won honorary citizenship awards, however, may be appropriate.) Dr. Submillimeter 21:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 11:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The same problem as with accumulation of award categories. Such a categorization should discouraged until a technical solution that allows to store and manage this type of information is developed. Pavel Vozenilek 12:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional mad scientists

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 16:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional mad scientists to Category:Fictional scientists

Merge - Category:Fictional mad scientists suffers from POV problems, as it requires users to make personal judgments on whether a fictional scientist is "mad" enough (or possibly just angry enough) to be placed within this category. The category should be merged to Category:Fictional scientists. Dr. Submillimeter 20:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It's a quite subjective distinction. Was Victor Frankenstein mad or just a genius? Not for us to judge. Wikipedia is not for original research, including literary criticism. — coelacan talk — 20:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Otto4711 23:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The line between obsession & madness is pretty thin, and some might argue, to their spouses, say, hypothetically, that 7 years graduate work followed by 4-6 years postdoc is insane. --lquilter 23:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Didn't we already go through this? Doczilla 00:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. And no, we didn't go through this for the category. We did go through it for the list article, which was part of a giant clusterfuck of list article nominations about a month ago. Otto4711 14:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the stereotype of mad scientist was frequently and explicitly employed in fiction since the beginning of Industrial Revolution. Example: Prof. Schultze in The Begum's Millions by Jules Verne. I am not sure what value could be found in this exact category but arguing with POV against a clearly spelled and intentional characteristics of a literary work, just because someone may not like this or that word, is not what could make an article better. Pavel Vozenilek 21:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any literary stereotype of a character will face these kinds of problems. Things which are useful for literary analysis are not necessarily useful for categorizing. Having an article on the "mad scientist" as used in literature, film, etc., would be great; but that doesn't mean it's useful as a category. The filmic mad scientist, for instance, can be pretty different from the literary mad scientist. --lquilter 22:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is being discussed in two places on this page. --Masamage 23:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge. I agree with Pavels logic. Unlike evil scientists or fictional cloners, mad scientists have a longer tradition and are a stereotype that deserves its own category. (As a response to Lquilters reply: the category should remain because of its notablity, not because it is useful for literary analysis.) Before merging, at least listify, and I agree with Lquilter - there should be an article on this phenomenon. --Grace E. Dougle 15:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have both an article and a list. Otto4711 06:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my opinion: merge.--Grace E. Dougle 08:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Arcade Fire albums

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the band article was moved to simply "Arcade Fire", rendering this category is obsolete. The new category, "Arcade Fire albums", has already taken its place. Evan Reyes 20:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Superceded. — coelacan talk — 20:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete empty. ~ Bigr Tex 19:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People who have been pied

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- a recreation of a previously deleted category with no new reasons mentioned why it should be kept and no chance that the result will be anything but delete -- Samuel Wantman 01:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I have a hard time believing that this is a necessary category. List of people who have been pied already exists. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to keep them both unless issues of drive space make this impossible, as I find myself browsing categories more than I do lists. I'm pretty sure there are people out there who prefer lists to categories, so I would advocate keeping the list too. Anynobody 20:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning toward delete~~. A pretty well-populated category, but very broad. Eventually it would have to include anyone who ever appeared in any classic vaudeville productions or silent film comedy. I'm not sure it's a good idea. Daniel Case 20:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was just created and populated today, presumably from the list. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, reading this and other comments here, I upgrade to speedy delete. Daniel Case 05:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Being hit with a pie is simply not noteworthy. Moreover, this category could contribute to category clutter. Dr. Submillimeter 20:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Modification of vote: Speedy delete - This is the recreation of deleted content. Dr. Submillimeter 21:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incidents of "dignified" folk hit with a surprise pie are quite notable. But this is list material. Clutter as a category. — coelacan talk — 21:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment note that this has undergone discussion before see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_29 YDAM TALK 21:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This was to delete and listify. The category is the recreation of deleted content. Dr. Submillimeter 21:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should be speedy-deleted, based on the previous "delete" outcome of scarcely more than ~~2 months~~ a year ago. Clutter as a category. The list is more than enough coverage for this silly topic. -- Lonewolf BC 21:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was 2005, so it was 14 months ago. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, but not one that matters. The "listify and delete" outcome was unanimous, even including the category's creator in that first instance.
-- Lonewolf BC 02:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. This is not encyclopedic.--schgooda 21:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic and misnamed. Not only is being hit with a pie not a defining character of a person, but that would be Category:People who have been hit with a pie. Category:People who have been pied would mean people who have been coloured two colours simultaneously. Grutness...wha? 23:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice. Utterly unencyclopædic.--cj | talk 23:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt this nonsense category. Doczilla 00:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as before. Osomec 11:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not an attribute that should be used to categorize people. -Will Beback · † · 19:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not an attribute that should be used to categorize people.Momento 01:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Skyscrapers categories

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, though if anyone wants to listify it then go for it.--Wizardman 22:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:OC#Arbitrary inclusion criterion Knockedingup 20:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is nothing arbitary about this rational, consistent and useful scheme. Postlebury 00:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would this be better in a list? Since the hight is important, knowing the actual hight would also appear to be more important then the range of heights that would apply to these categories. Having these in a category does nothing to state the actual hight of the building. Another possibility would be to only keep Category:Skyscrapers by height and list articles in there with a 4 digit sort key for their height. Vegaswikian 07:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categories are usually maintained better than lists and if the list was maintained it would grow to be unmanageably large. Osomec 11:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do agree that the exact numbers chosen are somewhat arbitrary, however as set of subcats to Category:Skyscrapers by height it makes sense. The alternative would be to place them all in one big category and in this case I don't think that would be an improvement. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. This is a perfect example of when the all-new sortable lists are useful. You can automatically sort the information by height, build date, country, or you name it. It's simply a better way of presenting the information. >Radiant< 15:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide a reference link for sortable lists? Vegaswikian 19:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lists aren't sortable, rather tables are. See meta:Help:Sorting. It requires Java as I understand it. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify per my comments above. The choices are arbitrary and the contents of the category don't list the height so a list is clearly a better choice. Vegaswikian 19:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify In a category, the reader is only seeing the name of the building and no other information. A sortable list by height, though, provides readers with exactly what these categories are trying to accomplish. Delete and listify to a list sortable/sorted by height. Dugwiki 23:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Osomec above. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is arguably the most useful way to categorise skyscrapers, that is more useful than categorisation by place. Olborne 14:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI don't think it is arbitary and it is easier to maintain than a list.--Grace E. Dougle 14:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Business dynasties

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Business dynasties to Category:Business families

Merge - there is no objective definition as to what constitutes a "business dynasty." Merge to the parent cat. Otto4711 19:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Sounds like some editorializing. — coelacan talk — 21:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Osomec 11:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom --Grace E. Dougle 14:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Private roads

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of private is not clear. Roads open to the public but where there is a cost incurred belong in Category:Toll roads. This is the case for the only two roads in this category the M6 Toll and Highway 407. These belong to the respective governments but are built & maintained by a private company. Private roads where members of the public don't have the normal right to drive along are clearly not the same thing. JBellis 18:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Confusing, and probably wrong. — coelacan talk — 21:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olborne 14:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Batman-inspired heroes and villains

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete after {{listify}}ing complete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and listify for purposes of annotation, per consensus against "heroes" and "villains" categories and because the same logic that applies to deleting and listifying super-team members kind of applies here. If consensus is to keep categories, then suggest merge to Category:Batman-inspired characters to address the POV issues. Otto4711 17:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How many of these categorys are there? —mikedk9109^SIGN 18:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vague category. I know we've addressed this in several forms already, probably close enough to speedy delete as recreation. Doczilla 00:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to POV issues with the terms "hero" and "villain". And I'm not sure a "Batman-inspired character" cat would fly. It has a potential for POV and OR problems. — J Greb 19:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify--Grace E. Dougle 14:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Incredibles heroes

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Incredibles heroes to Category:The Incredibles characters

Merge - here's a novelty, a "heroes" category instead of villains. Merge to the characters cat per the same consensus against other "heroes," "villains" etc. categories. Otto4711 17:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all the other "villain" and "hero" categorys. I could call anyone I wanted a hero or villain depending on who I like in the series, comics, movies, etc. —mikedk9109^SIGN 18:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious merge per above. Doczilla 06:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although normally subjective, within The Incredibles fictional setting, "superhero" is something like a job title. Thus, it can be objectively defined in this case. Cosmetor 21:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There aren't enough characters in the movie for another category to be needed. --Masamage 23:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Robin supporting characters and villains

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. >Radiant< 13:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Robin supporting characters and villains to Category:Robin supporting characters

Nominator's Rationale: Rename to remove POV "villains" from category name per consensus. Otto4711 17:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per all the other "villain" and "hero" categorys. I could call anyone I wanted a hero or villain depending on who I like in the series, comics, movies, etc. —mikedk9109^SIGN 18:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:DC Comics characters - Labeling characters as "supporting" a specific character is bad. First, it suggests that they do not become independent characters in their own right, which is not always true. Second, it suggests that the characters do not interact with other characters in other comic books series, which is also untrue. The entire Category:DC Comics supporting characters hierarchy needs to be critically discussed. Dr. Submillimeter 21:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dr. S. Doczilla 06:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Rodan villains

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was already deleted. Vegaswikian 20:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - category has been empty since February 2. Otto4711 17:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Another "villain" category plus its empty. —mikedk9109^SIGN 18:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete empty POV category. Doczilla 00:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mothra villains

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was already deleted. Vegaswikian 20:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - category has been empty since its creation in October 2006. Otto4711 17:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Another "villain" category plus its empty. —mikedk9109^SIGN 18:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Villain to character renames

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Masters of the Universe villains into Category:Masters of the Universe and rename Category:El Muerto villains to Category:El Muerto characters. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection, I have merged Category:El Muerto villains with Category:El Muerto; it contained only one article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Rationale: Rename per consensus against "villain" categories. Otto4711 16:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge first one and rename the 2nd per all the other "villain" and categorys. I could call anyone I wanted a hero or villain depending on who I like in the series, comics, movies, etc. —mikedk9109^SIGN 18:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that other non-"villain" MotU categories are housed at Category:Masters of the Universe so merge the "villains" category there rather than renaming it. Still rename the El Muerto cat, though. Otto4711 22:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:More villains

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Soap opera villains to Category:Soap opera characters

Category:Power Rangers villains to Category:Power Rangers characters

Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer villains to Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters

Category:Sonic the Hedgehog villains to Category:Sonic the Hedgehog characters

Category:Angel (TV series) villains to Category:Angel (TV series) characters

Merge - still more "villains" to "characters" merges, because of the consensus on "villain" in category names. Especially problematic for soap operas where allegiances change frequently over the course of the series. Otto4711 16:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all the other "villain" and "hero" categorys. I could call anyone I wanted a hero or villain depending on who I like in the series, comics, movies, etc. —mikedk9109^SIGN 18:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Doczilla 00:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep soap opera villains, no opinion on the other categories. On soap operas, where characters and their intentions are usually painted in black and white strokes, it is clearly identifiable who is a villain and who is not. There are some characters who have reformed from their villainous ways (Victor Newman), but were still known for the most part by viewers as being a villain. I think this is a quite verifiable character trait in a soap character. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 10:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with such a classification is that it requires a POV judgment call. Soap opera characters are notorious for switching back and forth between "villainy" and "heroism" so often that the classification becomes useless. Otto4711 16:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can cite a source from the people who created the character, then it isn't a POV judgment call. I don't mean to be rude in this, but do you actually watch soap operas? I'm not trying to discount your opinion if you don't, I'm just curious. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 22:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used to watch all of the ABC soaps and got hooked into a couple of the NBC and CBS ones, and never missed 90210 or Melrose Place (except, dammit, the week where Kimberly actually died). It's been a number of years but I have enough experience watching them to know that characters "switch sides" so often that even with a creator's original intent the characters are rarely maintained as "villains." Otto4711 23:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "antagonists". That word is objective and useful. Cosmetor 21:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Antagonists" categories have already been deleted as having many if not all of the same POV problems as "villains." Otto4711 23:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, if the search function is working properly, it appears that the only categories for fictional antagonists that exist are the ones you created a few days ago as an attempted workaround of the CfD of another batch of villain categories. Otto4711 23:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all - "Villain", "adversary", and "antagonist" characters switch sides all the time, especially in some of these genres. Dr. Submillimeter 09:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they're "protagonists" at one time and "antagonists" at another, then they count as both "protagonists" and "antagonists". We don't stop categorizing someone as a "king" if he becomes a king and then loses his position (through death, for instance); why do the same for -tagonists? Cosmetor 18:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "characters", that word is objective and useful. >Radiant< 14:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is ridiculous. A villain is a specific type of character. It is not hard to define whether or not a character is villainous. Maybe some of them have good qualities but if a character like the High Evolutionary or Makuta kills people in cold blood, manipulates people and generally gets on everyone's nerves they deserve to be classified as a villain, whether or not they believe themselves to be evil or not. I realise that some characters like Vegeta and Miranda Priestly are open to debate but when you look at characters like Palpatine and Ganon who are pure evil you realise that the villain categories are perfectly logical and relevant. But if you think the term villain is too strong then change it to antagonists.
- No, don't be silly. And sign your posts. A lot of characters, especially in shows like Heroes and the Buffyverse etc. are very ambiguous or morally open to interpretation. Is Cassidy Casablancas a villain /antagonist or seriously fucked up victim? Oh, yeah, merge please. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Villain" and "antagonist" are two very different things. An antagonist is someone who opposes the protagonist. That is all. Cosmetor 09:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Super Bowl champions

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:1966 Green Bay Packers Super Bowl I Championship Team into Category:Green Bay Packers players
Merge Category:1967 Green Bay Packers Super Bowl II Championship Team into Category:Green Bay Packers players
Merge Category:1996 Green Bay Packers Super Bowl XXXI Championship Team into Category:Green Bay Packers players
Merge Category:1968 New York Jets Super Bowl III Championship Team into Category:New York Jets (AFL) players
Merge Category:1974 Pittsburgh Steelers Super Bowl IX Championship Team into Category:Pittsburgh Steelers players
Merge Category:1975 Pittsburgh Steelers Super Bowl X Championship Team into Category:Pittsburgh Steelers players
Merge Category:1978 Pittsburgh Steelers Super Bowl XIII Championship Team into Category:Pittsburgh Steelers players
Merge Category:1979 Pittsburgh Steelers Super Bowl XIV Championship Team into Category:Pittsburgh Steelers players
Merge Category:1974 Pittsburgh Steelers Super Bowl IX Championship Team into Category:Pittsburgh Steelers players

This kind of categorization just doesn't work very well, see Terry Bradshaw for example, and January 31st discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ mean Merge all per nom. Otto4711 19:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nom (though as of right now, all of the member articles are still in their team cats). Categorizing by team year is not practical. ×Meegs 19:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all - Classification like this is not feasible, as many players' category lists are already too long without specifying each year that they played in a championship team. 20:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Merge all with no objection to listification (as one list to cover all 40+ winning teams). BTW, my spellchecker suggests "Superb Owl", which triggers wonderfully surreal ideas of what the trophy looks like. Grutness...wha? 23:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all Category clutter - which there is much of on articles about American major league sportsmen. Osomec 11:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dutch world champions in sports

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. This seems rather arbitrary and as far as I can tell we don't have it for any other nationalities. All the members are also in appropriate subcats of Category:Dutch sportspeople so a merge is pointless. the wub "?!" 16:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dutch world champions in sports to Category:Dutch world champions in sport

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Most of them, and very likely all of them, won a world title in only one sport, as opposed to multiple sports. AshbyJnr 16:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Dutch sportspeople. This seems like kind of an arbitrary way to split people up, lumping them together based on being "world champions" in any particular sport they happen to play. Otto4711 22:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Otto4711. Osomec 11:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming is ok in my opinion as I agree with AshbyJnr's point of view that these mainly won their world championship in just one sport. I however don't see what the problem is having this category. Merging is not necessary as all athletes are already mentioned in subcategories of Dutch sportspeople, but are also mentioned in this category as an opportunity to have all athletes being world champion from a certain country together. It's just an extra way of navigating, I really don't see why this should be merged/deleted? SportsAddicted | discuss 02:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per AshbyJnr. And being world champion is distinctive and notable for a category, similar to the 'Olympic gold medalists' category. Razororz 08:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Italian people in Canada

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. empty and unnecessary as Category:Italian expatriates in Canada and Category:Italian Canadians already exist and fit naming convention Mayumashu 16:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Non-Chinese known by Chinese names

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the categorization of people by whether they are better known by their "Chinese" name in China. This is a strange variant on categorization by name, a form of overcategorization. The articles on the individuals in this category probably have little to do with each other except possibly for a vague connection to China. For example, compare Pearl S. Buck, Matteo Ricci, Donald Knuth, Henry Arthur Blake, and Gautama Buddha. The category should be deleted. Also note that this category was nominated for deletion in a 2006 February 7 discussion with no consensus reached. Dr. Submillimeter 16:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If kept or no consensus, rename to Non-Chinese people known by Chinese names. David Kernow (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strong potential for this category to be indiscriminate, and per Gautama and Knuth, it probably already is. — coelacan talk — 21:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this trivia. Doczilla 00:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This kind of information should be present in the article, if it is important. Ferdinand Verbiest is example where the Chinese name is historically relevant, Donald Knuth is example where this ultratrivia stuck inside because someone had enough of time and stamina to re-insert it. Pavel Vozenilek 12:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify or delete. --Masamage 01:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless. You could translate almost any East Asian name into Chinese. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Stanley Cup champion teams

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete (Skudrafan's point, that a merge would be incorrect, seems reasonable). --RobertG ♬ talk 12:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:1953 Montreal Canadiens Stanley Cup Championship Team into Category:Montreal Canadiens players
Merge Category:1967 Toronto Maple Leafs Stanley Cup Championship Team into Category:Toronto Maple Leafs players
Merge Category:1999 Dallas Stars Stanley Cup Championship Team into Category:Dallas Stars players
Merge Category:2000 New Jersey Devils Stanley Cup Championship Team into Category:New Jersey Devils players
Merge Category:2001 Colorado Avalanche Stanley Cup Championship Team into Category:Colorado Avalanche players
Merge Category:2002 Detroit Red Wings Stanley Cup Championship Team into Category:Detroit Red Wings players
Merge Category:2003 New Jersey Devils Stanley Cup Championship Team into Category:New Jersey Devils players
Merge Category:2004 Tampa Bay Lightning Stanley Cup Championship Team into Category:Tampa Bay Lightning players
Merge Category:2006 Carolina Hurricanes Stanley Cup Championship Team into Category:Carolina Hurricanes players
Delete Category:Stanley Cup champion teams

In the long term, this kind of categorization will very quickly become unfeasible. Martin Brodeur is now in 25 categories and growing quickly. See also Grant Marshall or Joe Nieuwendyk. I'm sorry this just isn't going to work ... no objection to list articles for this kind of thing, but categories just aren't the right method for this kind of information. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nom. I agree that there are too many categories for the NHL Mayumashu 15:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all - These extra categories contribute to category clutter. Links would be better. Also note the category clutter in the articles on Wayne Gretzky, among other people. Dr. Submillimeter 15:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge all per nom. Membership of a winning team does not necessarily mean that a player was a top player in his own right. AshbyJnr 16:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all, unwelcome category clutter. Osomec 11:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sub cats into Stanley Cup champion teams Think the top level cat is still worthwhile. However,the subs can go. --Djsasso 20:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify 70.51.8.159 05:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support all, including the deletion. There are too many categories for the NHL. Olborne 14:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Mergers are not the best option, as not all the people listed in these categories are players; also listed are executives, coaches, and other non-playing members of the organizations. This is because not only players get their names on the Stanley Cup, and therefore not only players are considered part of the "championship teams". Given the fact that all the players in the categories should already be listed in the parent categories, you might as well just Delete. Skudrafan1 16:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not merge per Skudrafan. Most, and possibly all of the players are already in their main team cats. An unsupervised merge would add nonplayers to the player cats, and is not worth it. ×Meegs 01:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a useful category since it shows indivual stanley club championships. How ever it has to be expanded for it to be completely useful. 65.95.56.90 23:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete all. In any case do not keep. Lists do the job. Wimstead 14:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Paris Hilton

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Unnecessary eponymous category. lquilter 15:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the defender of Category:Anna Nicole Smith, I was alerted to the nonessential Category:Paris Hilton. Included within it are the subcats Paris Hilton albums and Paris Hilton songs, which don't need to be here; links to several filmic works (including the infamous sex tape) all of which are linked from the lengthy Paris Hilton article, Heiress Records which is also linked from her article, and a South Park episode which (now) is linked to from the Paris Hilton article. --lquilter 15:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia should avoid promoting people of such empty celebrity. AshbyJnr 16:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Celebrities don't need their own categories. Thanks lquilter! You beat me to it. — coelacan talk — 20:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To reiterate my objection to the the late Ms. Smith, people don't need categories as Wikipedia is not the Kevin Bacon game. -- KelleyCook 12:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No need for this eponymous category. Maybe if she's elected President. Otto4711 14:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a useful category to make it easier to navigate from article to article that relate to her. There appear in my opinon to be enough articles to warrent a category. Although I'm not a fan that isn't a reason to wish to get rid of this category as others above seem to suggest. --Pinkkeith 21:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Other actors or musicians do not have their own categories. There is no Category:Clint Eastwood or Category:Madonna. Why should Ms. Hilton be an exception? --Kralizec! (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Category:Madonna (entertainer). There are many, many who have their own categories. I'm sure Mr. Eastwood should have one too. --Pinkkeith 14:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like all the articles in this category already have links (or should have links) in her main article. The subcategories likewise already are (or should be) in other appropriate parent categories and those links can likewise be accessed from the main article. So this doesn't appear to be a necessary eponymous category, and generally speaking most people should not have their own unique category unless it is clearly necessary to help the reader somehow (imagine having one category per biographical article on Wikipedia.) Dugwiki 23:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Dugwiki above. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per topic article rule. Tim! 08:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That rule does not mandate eponymous categories; it merely mandates placing the eponymous article in the category if such a category exists. Otto4711 06:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because she is not notable enough to have her own category.--Grace E. Dougle 15:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fauna of the Lower Colorado River Valley

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge into Category:Fauna of the United States. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fauna of the Lower Colorado River Valley to Category:Fauna of the United States

Merge - The fauna listed in this category are not endemic to the Lower Colorado River but are instead commonly found throughout the Southwestern United States. Following the results of the 2007 January 31 discussion, I suggest merging to Category:Fauna of the United States. Dr. Submillimeter 14:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. AshbyJnr 16:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this problem (fauna by political entity) has been discussed few months ago (see Category talk:Biota by country for discussion and similar CfDs). One of the suggestions was to categorize fauna by ecoregions but I do not know how much work has been done there and whether someone is still active here. Pavel Vozenilek 12:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - First of all, the Lower Colorado River Valley is not really an ecoregion. The area is part of the Sonoran Desert. Second, some of the animals in this region are also found elsewhere in the United States, so they cannot be placed into a single ecoregion category. Also, note that no one did any significant work on dividing articles into ecoregions. If articles are divided into ecoregions, then the word "endemic" must be used; otherwise, animlas such as the house sparrow and the coyote will accumulate multiple categories. Dr. Submillimeter 19:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ouch, my comment was rather complaint about general problem with fauna classification on WP. I should have make it clear (or put it elsewhere). Pavel Vozenilek 21:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Blackmore's Night

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to exist only to parent Category:Blackmore's Night albums, but that is what Category:Albums by artist is for. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it now contains 5 articles and 1 subcategory. Geevee (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that it holds the band's members. ×Meegs 20:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that it holds a second category for its band's members.--Mike Selinker 03:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Ok, it's being used. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Avifauna of the United States by state

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge all. the wub "?!" 18:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Avifauna of the United States by state

Category:Avifauna of Alabama

Category:Avifauna of Alaska

Category:Avifauna of Arizona

Category:Avifauna of Arkansas

Category:Avifauna of California

Category:Avifauna of Colorado

Category:Avifauna of Florida

Category:Avifauna of Northern Florida

Category:Avifauna of Georgia (U.S. state)

Category:Avifauna of Idaho

Category:Avifauna of Kansas

Category:Avifauna of Michigan

Category:Avifauna of Montana

Category:Avifauna of Nebraska

Category:Avifauna of Nevada

Category:Avifauna of New Mexico

Category:Avifauna of North Carolina

Category:Avifauna of North Dakota

Category:Avifauna of Oklahoma

Category:Avifauna of Oregon

Category:Avifauna of South Carolina

Category:Avifauna of South Dakota

Category:Avifauna of Texas

Category:Avifauna of Eastern Texas

Category:Avifauna of Northern Texas

Category:Avifauna of Southwestern Texas

Category:Avifauna of Western Texas

Category:Avifauna of Utah

Category:Avifauna of Washington

Category:Avifauna of Wisconsin

Category:Avifauna of Wyoming

Merge all into Category:Birds of the United States - Categorizing birds by state is not feasible. Many North American birds, especially migratory birds, have ranges that include multiple U.S. states; the almighty house sparrow is found in every state. Consequently, many articles on North American birds could be placed into multiple categories very easily. (The house sparrow could be placed into 50 "Birds of State X" categories.) The resulting category clutter will render navigation useless, as the categories will be unreadable on most of these pages. Moreover, as birds generally do not care about political boundaries, this subdivision is not meaningful. Furthermore, given the decision to merge "Fauna of State X" categories into "Fauna of the United States" following a 2007 January 31 discussion, the same should be done with these categories. Hence, the category tree should be merged into Category:Birds of the United States. Dr. Submillimeter 14:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nom. Birds are wide-ranging and unconstrained by political boundaries. Categorizing them by state is unfeasible. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. AshbyJnr 16:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nom. Katr67 04:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all. It ain't pretty. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 17:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Politicians from Luxembourg

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Luxembourgian politicians--Wizardman 04:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Luxembourgian politicians. Dryke 13:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per other countries and WikiProject Luxembourg convention on the adjectival form. Bastin 14:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Support per conventions of Category:Politicians of European nations, however, please tag the category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, stick to naming conventions.--Grace E. Dougle 15:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Mongol Empire

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 23:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Mongol Empire to Category:People of the Mongol Empire

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, in better English. Honbicot 12:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category like "Khans of M. E." or "Generals of M. E." or so may be better than the ultra generic "people". People may bring in Russian princes, everyone from China of this period etc. Pavel Vozenilek 13:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Business and Finance Acronyms

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. If anyone wants to listify the only member at closing was cost of goods sold. the wub "?!" 16:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Listify, +category not required and lack of entries Octopus-Hands 12:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep or maybe listify--trust me there are hundreds of these acronyms. they are the jargon of business school and finance literature. I know they need to be in wikipedia. I will look into what a list is.Mrdthree 14:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any special rules to lists or can I make a list: list of business acronyms and then redirect list of finance acronyms and list of accounting acronyms there? Mrdthree 15:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon you could start List of business and finance acronyms (having checked that something like it doesn't already seem to exist); it could always be moved/renamed later should people wish so. (Don't forget to categorize it accordingly and link it to some relevant articles!) Regards, David Kernow (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the articles will be at the full name, indeed the only one in the category at the moment is at the full name. Osomec 11:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expand Articles are in the full name, but most mention their common acronym if they have one. Something common like EBIT is very clear to those in the know, but complete mud to non-finance people. We shouldn't assume people can figure out or find out what a common financial acronym means; we should tell them. In fact, I think Wiipedia should expand its disambiguation pages for acronyms, because there are many acronyms with multiple meanings (depending on subject) in common use all around the world. SueHay 01:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify, category contains only one actual acronym. >Radiant< 14:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why would one wish to look up an acronym except to discover what it means, in which case typing it in the search box will be quicker. Olborne 14:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category makes no sense to me. Not useful.--Grace E. Dougle 14:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename category:Business acronyms. We kept category:Computing acronyms and category:Military acronyms, so I see no reason this should be different.--Mike Selinker 18:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Real-Estate Gurus

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an evaluative, slangy title (miscapitalised) that has no source in Wikipedia; there's no article on this term that I can find, and its application is (at best) subjective). I've removed it from articles that don't mention the term — and found that the category was thus emptied. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot even see an article named "real-estate gurus" being kept, let alone a category. --Ezeu 15:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is what their agents might call them, but it is not what an encyclopedia should call them. AshbyJnr 16:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague, subjective (and inappropriately capitalized, by the way) category. Doczilla 06:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bad title.--Grace E. Dougle 15:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Manga and anime characters

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all. the wub "?!" 18:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Manga and anime characters to Category:Anime and manga characters

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The category is for both anime and manga, anime comes first alphabetically. It's also the standard (our wikiproject is called "anime and manga", not "manga and anime." Articles also follow this convention (for example, List of games based on anime and manga, List of shōjo anime and manga, and so on. A lot of our anime/manga-related categories are already like this (Category:Anime and manga terminology and Category:Anime and manga inspired webcomics), but it seems Category:Manga and anime characters started off as "Manga and anime", and all its subcategories also ended up being named the wrong way.

This request for renaming also includes the renaming of the "manga and anime" bit in the following categories to "anime and manga".

Rename all and I'm adding the stub category to the list as well. This should have been corrected before all of the cats for fictional element were created, but when writing or speaking, it is far more natural to put "Anime" in front of "Manga". --Farix (Talk) 13:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom; I'm not knowledgeable about anime/manga, but the above seems sensible. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, but instead of "Anime and manga characters who can fly," it should be "Anime and manga characters with the power to fly" so that it matches its supercategory ("Fictional characters with the power to fly"). --Masamage 19:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your suggestion to rename "Anime and manga character who can fly" will require another CfD, since this group-cfd is just for swapping the "manga and anime" part. I don't want to over-complicate things. But if no one else does so, i'll submit another CFD per your suggestion after this one closes. --`/aksha 03:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No objection, but please run the stub cat past SFD (where it should have been listed in the first place), since it will require template changes. Grutness...wha? 23:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. SFD submitted here. --`/aksha 03:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Rename them all. Let's have some consistency on the Anime and manga Wikiproject. --Squilibob 12:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all: "Anime and manga" sounds better. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all: "Anime and manga" does sound better than "Manga and anime". Even though manga is usually created before its' anime equivalent, it should still be renamed because of its correspondence to the Anime and Manga WikiProject, as well as other WikiProjects on Japanese related articles of certain manga/anime. Power level (Dragon Ball) 18:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency with project.--Grace E. Dougle 15:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional evil geniuses

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 16:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional evil geniuses to Category:Fictional geniuses

Merge - The term "genius" probably suffers from POV problems, but "evil genius" is worse. As indicated in the discussion of Category:Fictional evil scientists below, the determination of whether a character is evil suffers from POV problems (with a specific example given). This category should at least be merged into Category:Fictional geniuses. Dr. Submillimeter 09:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Isn't Category:Fictional mad scientists a more fitting target for merge? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory look at the category indicates that not all of the categorized characters are scientists. Otto4711 19:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have now nominated Category:Fictional mad scientists to be merged into Category:Fictional scientists. Dr. Submillimeter 20:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, although "genius" as applied to a fictional character may be too subjective. Otto4711 14:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As a fictional nature, evil geniuses are a separate grouping from geniuses in general, and it is right to have them in different groupings. --tjstrf talk 18:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The High Evolutionary is in here. Is he evil, or is he good? It is because of characters like him that we should avoid dividing fictional character articles into "evil" and "good". Dr. Submillimeter 19:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - He's lawful neutral :) >Radiant< 14:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, both "genius" and "evil" are subjective. Failing that, at least merge. >Radiant< 14:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment although I have seen the phrase used to mean "a genius for evil", rather than merely "a genius who is evil". --lquilter 00:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it as it is - This category has purposefully shown the nature of "fictional geniuses" and separated from others, which helps the readers find the targets more easily. Causesobad → (Talk) 16:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- per tjstrf's comment. Power level (Dragon Ball) 19:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate. The category is in heavy use. I see no pov problems, because in fiction the difference between good and evil is very clear, most of the times. --Grace E. Dougle 15:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional cloners

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is such a common "fictional scientist" activity that it is no more interesting than building a robot or a laser. It is also commonly used for jokes, as seen by the inclusion of Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes). The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cloners? Don't invent words here. Doczilla 00:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Otto4711 14:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a unique feature. As for "jokes", they don't matter; we can just fix the jokes themselves. Cosmetor 21:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Calvin actually did clone himself. Sort of. --Masamage 01:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Masamage 01:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Grace E. Dougle 15:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The feature is narrowly uncommon enough to warrant unique categorization. - Gilgamesh 23:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional evil scientists

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 19:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional evil scientists to Category:Fictional scientists

Merge - The application of the word "evil" to characters suffers POV problems. The High Evolutionary, who is listed in this category, is a good example; he has worked both with and against other "superhero" characters, and his actions are not always "evil". The category should be merged to Category:Fictional scientists. Dr. Submillimeter 08:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Doczilla 00:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Otto4711 14:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging - this is the same case as Fictional evil geniuses and my comment like above. Causesobad → (Talk) 14:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Service engineering

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term is a neologism that even doesn't have its own article on Wikipedia yet. Google search doesn't indicate a consistent usage of this term in the literature. Categorisation of articles seems arbitrary and adds no value to the articles categorised. Creator of category was asked on category talk page to provide meaning and links to support the usage of this term but failed to come up with plausible answers other than that "I hope anyone working in this area will recognize that there is something in common about the subjects collected under this category". I for one fail to see any non-trivial connection among the categorised articles. --Pkchan 08:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I personally dislike it when people create poorly-researched articles on Wikipedia in the hope that someone else will "repair" it. These categories are worse. Dr. Submillimeter 08:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional megalomaniacs

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. >Radiant< 14:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category suffers from POV and original research issues. Determining who qualifies to be listed as a "megalomaniac" is subjective and requires using personal judgment rather than referenced material. It should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 08:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 00:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's for characters who want to control the planet, galaxy or universe and/or control everything/everyone around them. How hard can it be to define that? Stop deleting every Fictional character category.
Delete per nom. Otto4711 14:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is simply about characters who want to rule the world/universe. That's a totally objective definition; there's no POV issue. Cosmetor 21:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Megalomania (emphasis on mania) is different from simply having imperial tendencies. Megalomania is a psychological disorder, from which some supervillains may suffer causing them to have delusions of being able to defeat superheroes, or set up a better world in which their family or occupational traumas don't occur. But the comments of Cosmetor and anonymous editor point out exactly the problem: That most people think it's just for the ordinary supervillain who wants to rule the world. There are, at least, hypothetical supervillains who are not megalomaniacs. The Emperor Ming, for instance, did rule the universe, or much of it, and wasn't really megalomaniacal, nor were his potential successors. In fact, it's really a POV term used by those who are already in power to distinguish social upstart supervillains. Umm -- delete per nom. --lquilter 23:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I see your point. Fictional attempted world conquerors would be a good alternative. Cosmetor 03:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Some of these people are not trying to conquer the whole world, but just part of it. Some are trying to conquer other planets. Some are trying to conquer the whole universe. This classification does not really work. Dr. Submillimeter 09:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Then how about Fictional conquerors? That works. Cosmetor 18:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Random comment Not all of them are conquerers. They just love power. Anon
- And fictional conquerors wouldn't have the same meaning. Delete per nom. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Even if the meaning is slightly different, there is a lot of overlap. It's more practical to shift over the whole category and remove the exceptions than eliminate it and create the new category from scratch. Cosmetor 01:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For POV, clean out all those who have 'imperial tendencies' only.--Grace E. Dougle 14:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename for the reason stated above, and I see no POV problem with this one since it is usually fairly explicit if someone wants to rule the world. Katsuhagi 01:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After all of the discussion from people voting to "keep", I am confused as to what should be put into this category if it is kept. Does it include people who "want to rule the world" or people "with imperial tendencies" or people who have conquered other people? Dr. Submillimeter 09:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response All three. Duh!

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:People who declared bankruptcy

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 23:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This meets the "Non-defining or trivial characteristic" criteria at Wikipedia:Overcategorization. This is not a defining characteristic of a person, in fact the category is defined as being "famous" people who declared bankruptcy and not people who are notable because they declared bankruptcy (are there any?) So it seems like this category is a collection of trivia and gossip. This might possibly become a list, but I'm skeptical that an encyclopedic list could be created. If it can't survive as a list, it definitely shouldn't be a category. If there are people who are notable because of having declared bankruptcy, the category could remain with just those people. I'm doubtful. Samuel Wantman 07:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I disagree, I would be happy to see the word "Famous" changed or removed but I think this works as a category. I would also be happy to see a separate category of people who are famous for having gone bankrupt.

It is a vital and misunderstood element that bankruptcy cannot be gossip or trivia. Debt could be gossipped about for example but bankruptcy has to be a fact, it is a formal legal state and a definition of an individual that deserves a better Wikipedia entry than it currently has. People who don't make it onto the list include Walter Scott, Donald Trump, Abraham Lincoln, Michael Jackson because they weren't or haven't yet been bankrupts. If I was using an encyclopedia to research the history of bankruptcy or how it works in different countries it would seem to me ridiculous not to have some case studies. What surprises me is that some articles are very inaccurate about the subject including the aforementioned Bankruptcy entry. Also "people who have declared bankruptcy" only describes self petitioners and does not cover people who have been declared bankrupt. Perhaps there should be two lists. Furthermore, in the world we live in bankruptcy is just as valid a common connection between people as any other. There is cultural significance in those who have fought back from adversity such as Heinz, Ford, Hilton, Barnum etc and in those who tasted success and came to a sticky end. These 100 people have great and tragic stories worth reading in the context of each other. I would be happy to hear suggestions for a new category. Johnnybriggs 08:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just randomly looked at 5 articles in the category. 2 of them had no mention of bankruptcy at all (one was just a stub). The other 3 had a sentence or two about bankruptcy, but it was far from being a case history or a significant part of the article. If case histories about bankruptcy are to be written, they would be a valuable addition to the project, but just adding a category like this has little value. If this is an important subject, write an article or list about important case histories. --Samuel Wantman 09:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The point is surely that the articles are deficient in that they gloss over or ignore this important element of someones life. Also I have noticed articles which claim a person has gone bankrupt when they are merely in debt. This is even more wrong. The category is not the problem and hopefully the articles will be updated and improved now they have been highlighted by it. I will certainly continue to work on them allJohnnybriggs 12:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and Samuel Wantman's further points in discussion. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bankruptcy filing itself is rarely defining (although it may be famous or notable and worth mentioning in a biographical article). If an article is in order on some cultural or political aspect of bankruptcy it could include an appropriately limited and referenced list. --lquilter 15:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:It is as least as defining as "people who have been treated for alcoholism" and considerably more so than "people who have been pied"!Johnnybriggs 07:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the "people who have been pied", but not so sure about the alcoholism thing - for good or ill, in the US at least, "people who have been treated for alcoholism" usually means AA which means taking on an identity as an alcoholic. At any rate, the existence of bad categories is not a defense for other bad categories. (If the objection were, "this category won't work" for some structural reason, then an example of a similar category would help. But if the objection is inherent to the subject of the category--like a non-defining attribute -- similar examples don't really help, although they do bring the other bad categories to everyone's attention.) --lquilter 23:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Samuel Wantman. AshbyJnr 16:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 00:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this category looks as very prone to assume just the modern era. Bankruptcy was not uncommon since medieval times in Europe and was, until modern era, tied to a person and was much more defining characteristic (you end up in prison or shoot yourselves) than today. Pavel Vozenilek 21:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I would certainly agree with this. Bankruptcy comes from medieaval Venice and arrived in England during the reign of Henry VIII. I notice under the category Divorce, there are several notable cases. Perhaps this will be the next category I will look at. I don't know if it is the same in America but in the UK you become "A bankrupt" and are referred to in law as such. It is a state of being.

Delete or, at a minimum, restrict At a minimum, the category should be restricted to articles which significantly mention the person's bankruptcy with verifiable references. People who are only rumored to have gone bankrupt or whose articles don't even mention the bankruptcy should definitely not be included (in general articles should only be categorized using information within the articles themselves.) I also could be convinced to support deleting the category altogether given the problems cited above of a possible lack of significantly suitable articles, and because of likely misapplication. Dugwiki 23:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI still think you are getting this the wrong way round. Many Wikipedia articles need to be updated with a chapter on bankruptcy. Kevin Maxwell didn't even have an article(I submitted a stub). It is probable that the hagiographers who write some of the articles omit episodes such as a bankruptcy - or more likely they don't understand what it is- as evidenced in comments above. Bankruptcy has a legal definition, it is not a rumour, it can't be gossip- it is a provable public fact (in the US/UK anyway). Michael Jackson, Jeffrey Archer, Abraham Lincoln are described as bankrupts all over the Web but they aren't. Mike Tyson and Joe Jackson are. What we need is a definitive list Johnnybriggs 04:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. This is an unimportant and vindictive category. Let's move on.Conrad Falk 23:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify or delete. --Masamage 23:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could listify it but I don't see how that would change any of the above objections. I object to this being vindictive since bankruptcy is a legal fact and is part of the myth of many great individuals, Heinz and Ford spring to mind. Certainly no more than List of "Major League Baseball players suspended for performance-enhancing drugs" or

"List of sportspeople who tested positive for banned substances" or "incarcerated celebrities" which features Oscar Wilde, hero and icon to many, imprisoned for who he was.

Comment At least you proved it isn't trivial heh heh
delete as trivial.--Grace E. Dougle 08:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And comment: in most countries bankruptcy laws are designed in order to give people a fresh start. They are not permanently in this state of bankruptcy, but only for a limited period of time. Bankruptcy is a possibility to evade a state of being in debt for lifetime, because part of the debt is agreed to be relieved by the creditor(s), when an individual declares bankruptcy. Therefore bakruptcy cannot be a 'defining' factor of someones life.--Grace E. Dougle 09:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why is that different from "People arrested for drunk driving".

I also doubt Britney Spears "defines herself" as a "Mouseketeer" but she was one. If you read some of the arguments above I think they prove this category is far more significant and substantial and worthy of development than many of the ones currently being suffered. Johnnybriggs 07:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It's not much different, considering they're both up for deletion. --

Not from what I have just seen - i.e. no marker. 82.27.163.158 13:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masamage 07:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- We should seriously consider listifying all such non-defining categories. All the arguments that compare one questionable category to several other questionable categories only convince me that there is much more work to be done at CFD. -- Samuel Wantman 07:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are categories such "articles with weasel words" which define articles, I don't see a problem with a catgory which defines an article.
Comment I doubt Alex Ferguson defines himself as a Scotland football manager, although lots of other people would.
Comment I really don't see the point of removing links between articles as it will hinder research rather than help.

Comment I take it "former Drug Addicts" will also be going, bankruptcy is a legal fact, drug addiction isn't- although it has all the same pathos, schadenfreude, hubris and redemption as bankruptcy.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Golden Age of Hollywood

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category, and what would qualify for inclusion, are subjective and vague. —tregoweth (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Golden Age of Hollywood is detailed in the article which it is linked to and runs from the end of the silent era in the 1920's tot he end of the 1940's (i.e. 1949). Therefore any moved created during those times are considered as having been produced during the Golden Age of Hollywood.--Ozgod 09:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far too broad to make a good category, when one takes into account how exhaustively Hollywood is covered on Wikipedia, and that the main relevant articles have umpteen categories already. AshbyJnr 16:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vague era terms like this are not useful for categorization. Dr. Submillimeter 20:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague cat. Doczilla 00:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This kind of vaguely defined information requiring sufficient context should be part the text. Seeing just a list or a category does not help the reader to understand the topic better. Pavel Vozenilek 21:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:2001 Colorado Avalanche Stanley Cup Championship Team

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was void in favor of this discussion. ×Meegs 01:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Colorado Avalanche players. I really think this kind of thing works better as a list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_10#Category:Stanley_Cup_champion_teams -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Disney protagonists

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 17:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The category "film protagonists" was deleted back in November but for some reason this sub-cat was kept. The reason for keeping it was that Disney protagonists are somehow "different" from other protagonists. I don't find that persuasive and with the deletion of other "protagonist" categories this category should be deleted for all the same reasons. Otto4711 06:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as subcat of film protagonists. Doczilla 00:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wimstead 14:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Protagonist is an objective term. It means the central/viewpoint character of a work of fiction. For instance, Aladdin is the protagonist of the movie "aladdin". There is no moral judgement involved. Cosmetor 09:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So... are Chip & Dale protagonists or Donal Duck? On which pieces of fiction that makes up the body of those characters is that distinction made? some Disney characters can be have an argument made that they only fit one literary definition or not. Not all though. — J Greb 11:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given that the entire body of Disney fiction leads a need to pick and choose references to define a character's place in this cat, it becomes open to POV debate without such annotation. That leans more to a full blown list, though such a list may be OR without appropriate verifiable references. — J Greb 11:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Streets in Toronto

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Streets in Toronto to Category:Roads in Toronto Smcafirst or Nick • Sign Here • Chit-Chat • Contribs at 02:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per discussion of July 16th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. (originally posted on User talk:Smcafirst) I don't really mind too much either way, though my preference is to leave it as is. Looking under Category: Streets and squares by city, there are already many cities whose categories are named "Streets (and squares) in City X", and I'd much rather leave Toronto's category where it is in order to keep it consistent with other cities. My perception is that "roads" is used more for higher levels of government (county/state/country) instead. (Although, of course, the fact that there's no county structure above the City of Toronto does blur this line a bit.) I also don't think this request should have been posted under speedy. - Hinto 04:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Per nom. Mix Precipitation 19:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wheat Ridge High School

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real need for such a category, see also related discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Writer's organizations

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was moved to speedy rename section. David Kernow (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Writers' organizations lquilter 04:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to speedy...? David Kernow (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Head. Desk. Must remember speedy ... must remember speedy.) (moved to speedy) --lquilter 06:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather here first than not at all – thanks for spotting and nominating! David (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Radio stations serving Pittsburgh

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 per standard. >Radiant< 14:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom Robert Moore 04:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh???? Vegaswikian 20:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Radio stations in Pittsburgh which is the standard form. These are generally, or at least they should be, based on the Arbitron rating areas. Vegaswikian 20:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Sequoia High School

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real need for such a category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More catcruft. (Perhaps someone could start up a separate wiki just for categories.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mel Etitis. We don't need a category wiki, just a school wiki. Vegaswikian 20:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Zedla 06:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Masamage 01:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Six By Seven EPs

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Six By Seven EPs into Category:Six By Seven albums. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Six By Seven albums, convention of Category:Albums by artist. At some point, categorization just starts getting in the way. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge these two articles per nom. No need to categorize this much. I certainly doubt that the EPs will ever make the albums category too big. delldot | talk 05:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per July 3 consensus to merge bands' EPs cats into their albums categories.--Mike Selinker 18:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:High Schools in Yuba City

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge into Category:High schools in California and Category:Yuba City, California. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:High schools in California, convention of Category:High schools in the United States, or Keep. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into both Category:Yuba City, California and Category:High schools in California. The category has limited growth potential in a relatively small city, and the city category itself has few articles. Orange County has a population of over 3 million and doesn't break out schools by city or high schools at all. -choster 15:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Will & Grace crew

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a variation on performer by performance categorization. A crew member, writer, producer, etc. is likely to work on any number of projects. Categorizing on the basis of "crew" is clutterful. Otto4711 02:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Otto. Doczilla 05:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Categorizing crew by the projects that they have worked on is infeasible in the long term. Dr. Submillimeter 08:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is no consensus to delete performer by performance categories. Tim! 10:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — catcruft. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previous similar discussions; overcategorization. Prolog 20:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perfomer-by-performance categorisation is nothing more than a road to chaos and clutter. Given that crew are even less notable than actors, this seems to be a prime example of overcategorisation.

Xdamr^talk 14:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Stratovolcanoes of Canada

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge. Vegaswikian 23:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Volcanoes of Canada, or Keep. Is it time to break up Category:Stratovolcanoes? -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Not useful. - Darwinek 18:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Category:Stratovolcanoes is not approaching problematic size. — coelacan talk — 21:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:NFL Cheerleading

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 23:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:National Football League cheerleaders, or Delete. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rather less then helpful category. — coelacan talk — 20:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom --Djsasso 20:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename.--Mike Selinker 18:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Philippine Moro Affairs

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename. After reading the comments with no consensus other then to rename and looking at the parent I'm going to rename this to Category:Moro. Vegaswikian 00:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Philippine Moro Affairs to Category:Moros

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, this is a category for an ethnic group. The current name is not compliant with the capitalisation policy and is awkward. Another possibility it to rename it to Category:Moro people, but that sounds like a category for biographical articles. A third option is Category:Moro people (ethnic group). CalJW 00:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Moro. This would be consistent with the category names for other Philippine ethnic groups and avoids the plural that is used as the umbrella for biographical articles. Hmains 21:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Moro or whichever form that complies with the capitalisation policy has most support (excluding the current awkward name). Olborne 14:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Moro (ethnic group)- the category Category:Moro is too iprecise.--23prootie 05:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.