Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 23

< February 22	February 24 >

February 23

Category:100 Highest-income places in the United States

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 09:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highly subjective — what counts as a "place"? Does Bill Gates' house count? Also, totally unverifiable, unless "place" is defined rigorously (e.g., "incorporated town recognized by the U.S. census of 2000" or something). Finally, the category is misnamed; if for some bizarre reason it's kept, the "H" in "Highest" should be un-capitalized. 63.102.70.70 23:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On top of the issues mentioned in the nomination, the category also breaks the general rule against distinguising between "current" and "former" status for articles. What is "high income" now might not be high income a year or two from now, and places that used to be high income a few years ago might not be currently as well off. Plus the limit of "100" appears to be an arbitrary number. Dugwiki 00:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly verifiable, but not suitable for a category as American political boundaries are rather arbitary. Nathanian 00:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague, unverifiable category. Doczilla 08:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is based on an official list of census data. It is as verifiable as any category that exists. Please use factually correct arguments to justify deletion (which I have voted for by the way), not ones which show that you haven't looked into what the category is actually for. Nathanian 11:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Nathanian and the factual basis for the category. Hmains 19:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to reread what Nathanian said above. He actually recommend deleting the category, not keeping it. The only thing he disputed was that the numbers themselves are verifiable. He hasn't disputed other issues, such as the arbitrariness of "100" and that the numbers change over time. Dugwiki 20:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly listify. A category that's supposed to have exactly one-hundred members is a bad idea; a on-going maintenance nightmare. Could be ok as a list, although the number one-hundred still seems a bit arbitrary. But definitely should not be a category. Xtifr _tälk 20:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This seems to be a permutation of categorization by arbitrary inclusion limit as described in Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Why list the top 100? Why not the top 50 or the top 150? Moreover, as cities will shift in and out of this category over time, it will be difficult to maintain. Dr. Submillimeter 22:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The size of the places is too variable for this to mean much. Wimstead 16:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arbitrary inclusion threshold, and cat membership will shift over time in ways which must be defined arbitrarily: per Dugwiki, which set of census data will qualify for inclusion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "highest-income" is not a defining attribute of places like NY, Boston, and so on. Adds to category clutter. --lquilter 18:11, 28 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:Pegasus Award winners

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 09:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a minor award given annually for achievement in Filk music. While, given the winner's list, this is not likely to be one of many awards that the winners receive, it is still overcategorization by award. Otto4711 20:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per reasoning in Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award winners, most award winners should be cataloged using list articles, not categories. Dugwiki 00:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or listify. It may be a minor award, but it is internationally known, so the reasoning above doesn't quite apply.
- Weak Delete. It is the award of the the Filk music community, but, if it doesn't deserve a separate article, it probably doesn't deserve a separate category. Please ensure that there is mention of the award in the individual award-winner's articles, though. Done for all the ones presently listed in the category. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, over-categorization, obscure award (international doesn't matter—it's still not well-known), not a defining characteristic. For some of the members, e.g. Poul Anderson, it's downright trivia. For others (professional filkers), it's probably redundant; I doubt if any professional filker would become notable enough to have a Wikipedia article without receiving this award (and if they did, that would only emphasize the obscurity and unimportance of this award). Thus, not-defining. Xtifr _tälk 20:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC. If Pegasus Award is later turned back into an article, these can be listed there. Prolog 01:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor award handed out at a festival. Craig.Scott 13:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dugwiki -- award-winners is not a helpful category scheme. --lquilter 18:12, 28 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 by region of Mexico

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 to Endemic birds of Eastern Mexico etc. Tim! 18:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Avifauna of Eastern Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Birds of Eastern Mexico
Category:Avifauna of Central Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Birds of Central Mexico
Category:Avifauna of Western Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Birds of Western Mexico

Propose rename categories "Avifauna of <Region>" to "Birds of <Region>" per previous discussion here. Alternatively, if these regions are not appropriate for classification of bird species, merge all into Category:Birds of Mexico. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The categories may or may not be more useful if restricted to endemic birds. Perhaps the word "endemic" should be placed in front of the word "birds" in each category name? Dr. Submillimeter 13:23, 23 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 by region of the US

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 to Endemic birds of the Northeastern United States etc. Tim! 18:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Avifauna of Northeastern United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Birds of the Northeastern United States
Category:Avifauna of Eastern United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Birds of the Eastern United States
Category:Avifauna of Southwestern United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Birds of the Southwestern United States
Category:Avifauna of Northwestern United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Birds of the Northwestern United States

Propose rename categories "Avifauna of <Region>" to "Birds of <Region>" per previous discussion here. Alternatively, if these regions are not appropriate for classification of bird species, merge all into Category:Birds of the United States. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely that should be "of the Whatever United States". LukeHoC 11:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably; nomination changed accordingly. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The categories may or may not be more useful if restricted to endemic birds. Perhaps the word "endemic" should be placed in front of the word "birds" in each category name? Dr. Submillimeter 13:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the move as suggested. --Peta 22:45, 23 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:Female war leaders

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 09:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category is for women who were heads of state during wars. It currently only includes Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher. Both of these women already have multiple categories highlighting their achievements; this extra category is not needed. The category only contributes to category clutter. Moreover, the category says nothing about whether this is a particularly special achievement for a woman or whether female national leaders behave differently from male national leaders during times of war. It would be better to highlight such issues in an article instead of a category. For these reasons, I advocate deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 11:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although there are other female heads of state during wartime, categorizing it seems very unncessary. Corpx 11:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LukeHoC 11:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for overcategorization and vague category name. "War leaders"? A category name should be self-explanatory. Doczilla 17:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 00:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above arguments. 'War leader' is too vague; does it mean a political leader, military leader, both? Either way, a 'war leader' is a non-defining attribute (in its strict sense). Heads of State/Government are first and foremost Heads of State/Government—leading in a time of war is incidental.

Xdamr^talk 17:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very misleading. Pavel Vozenilek 18:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wimstead 16:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the category could be re-habilitated to include a large number of female warriors, and thus be a useful category. Remember, don't judge a category by it's current inhabitants, but by it's potential inhabitants. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, judging that it is better not to populate it. Craig.Scott 13:04, 26 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 Louisiana

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 and suggest nominating Birds of the United States to Endemic birds of the United States. Tim! 18:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Avifauna of Louisiana to Category:Birds of the United States

Merge Category:Avifauna of Louisiana into Category:Birds of the United States. See previous discussion here for rationale. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Birds are not restricted by political boundaries. Consequently, the birds of Louisiana are found in other states as well. Categorization by state is not meaningful. However, categorization by state leads to severe category clutter problems. Therefore, this should be merged into Category:Birds of the United States. (I missed this in my previous nomination.) Dr. Submillimeter 11:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per nom. Birds pay no attention to political boundaries. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this is recurrent topic (see Category talk:Biota by country). Fauna should not be categorised by an political entity. Look on Eurasian Lynx for one horrendous example of misuse of such categories. Pavel Vozenilek 18:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Unfortunately, the discussion at Category talk:Biota by country did not appear to lead to any action. Within the past month, I have been working to compress these "animal by country" categories into "animals by region" or "animals by continent" categories. I am also trying to relabel categories for animals found in specific locations with the word "endemic" so that this does not happen again. Dr. Submillimeter 22:43, 24 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 Southeastern United States

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 to Endemic birds of Southeastern United States. Tim! 18:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Avifauna of Southeastern United States to Category:Birds of Southeastern United States

Nominator's Rationale: Rename to Category:Birds of Southeastern United States or merge into Category:Birds of the United States. See previous discussion here on by-state categories. I'm not at all clear on whether the Southeastern United States is an appropriate area to classify birds species by. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The category may or may not be more useful if restricted to endemic birds. Perhaps the word "endemic" should be placed in front of the word "birds" in the category's name? Dr. Submillimeter 13:24, 23 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:Natural history of the Galápagos

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 Tim! 18:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Natural history of the Galápagos to Category:Natural history of the Galápagos Islands

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - The parent category is Category:Galápagos Islands. Adding the word "islands" to this category not only matches it to the parent category but also addes formality. Dr. Submillimeter 08:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom. Good reason to change name. Useful for reader understanding. Hmains 19:33, 24 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:Flora of the Galápagos

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 and suggest mass nomination of other fauna categories. Tim! 18:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Flora of the Galápagos to Category:Endemic flora of the Galápagos Islands

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - This category will be useful for categorization if it includes only flora that are endemic to the Galapagos Islands (as it does now). If it includes widespread or invasive flora, it will become category clutter, as such plants are found in many locations (and thus would accumulate many categories for the specific locations where they are found). I recommend adding "endemic" to the title to indicate that the plants are only found in the Galapagos Islands. I also recommend adding "Islands" for formality and to match the parent category. Dr. Submillimeter 08:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, no other countries/localities use endemic in the category title - although the categories should really only include native and endemic species - thats a categorisation issue, this change would make the GI different to the way all other places have categorised their flora and fauna. I'm OK with adding Islands to the name however.--Peta 22:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One more thing, adding endemic excludes other species native to the wider region from the category. --Peta 22:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is part of an effort to add "endemic" to the title. Some categories already use endemic or its equivalent (see Category:Native fauna of Hawaii, for example.) Without the word endemic, people will put non-endemic species in these categories, making the category system a mess. (See boar for example.) Dr. Submillimeter 01:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - An addendum to the above comment: Category:Native fauna of Hawaii was renamed Category:Endemic fauna of Hawaii. Dr. Submillimeter 08:53, 25 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 Galápagos

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 and suggest mass nomination of other fauna categories. Tim! 18:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fauna of the Galápagos to Category:Endemic fauna of the Galápagos Islands

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - This category will be useful for categorization if it includes only fauna that is endemic to the Galapagos Islands (which is mostly the case now). If it includes migratory and seagoing animals, it will become category clutter, as such animals are found in many locations (and thus would accumulate many categories for the specific locations where they are found). I recommend adding "endemic" to the title to indicate that the animals are only found in the Galapagos Islands. I also recommend adding "Islands" for formality and to match the parent category. Dr. Submillimeter 08:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, no other countries/localities use endemic in the category title - although the categories should really only include native and endemic species - thats a categorisation issue, this change would make the GI different to the way all other places have categorised their flora and fauna.--Peta 22:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is part of an effort to add "endemic" to the title. Some categories already use endemic or its equivalent (see Category:Native fauna of Hawaii or the nomination below this one, for example.) Without the word endemic, people will put non-endemic species in these categories, making the category system a mess. (See boar for example.) Dr. Submillimeter 01:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - An addendum to the above comment: Category:Native fauna of Hawaii was renamed Category:Endemic fauna of Hawaii. Dr. Submillimeter 08:53, 25 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:Galápagan restricted-range endemic bird species

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 Tim! 18:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Galápagan restricted-range endemic bird species
Category:Birds of the Galápagos

Merge into Category:Endemic birds of the Galápagos Islands - These categories are very useful, as they indicate which birds are found exclusively within the Galapagos Islands. However, neither category name is very good. Category:Birds of the Galápagos fails to indicate that the birds are endemic (found only within the Galapagos Islands), so people may try putting migratory and seagoing birds within the category inappropriately (which will cause categorization problems later, as such birds are found in many locations). Category:Galápagan restricted-range endemic bird species is very clumsy, and "restricted-range" is redundant with "endemic". I suggest using Category:Endemic birds of the Galápagos Islands to match the article on endemic birds of the Galápagos Islands. Dr. Submillimeter 08:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename I was the originator of the first category, and it was named in line with equivalents for other geographic areas, but the proposed new name serves just as well. Note however that "restricted range endemic" and "endemic" do not mean the same thing, although they do for the Galápagos Islands on account of the islands' small size. SP-KP 16:02, 23 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:Women's Colleges that are Coeducational

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 to Former women's universities and colleges in the United States that became coeducational. David Kernow (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Women's Colleges that are Coeducational to Category:Former women's universities and colleges in the United States

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The current name is a contradiction in terms, as a women's college cannot be coeducational. The category description says that it is for former women's colleges which now admit men. I chose the new name to coincide with Category:Women's universities and colleges in the United States. I'm not an expert on categories, but perhaps this would be best placed as a subcategory of that one. If the current name is kept, the improper capitalization needs to be addressed. Djrobgordon 07:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, but I propose as an alternative Category:Women's colleges that became coeducational. I made the change to the associated template before coming here. "Former" I think is overbroad in that it implies inclusion of defunct colleges. Wl219 08:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I prefer your suggestion as well. It's a better description, and more succinct. --Djrobgordon 16:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that Category:Women's colleges that became coeducational is a fantastic new name. It affirms that the college was once exclusively female, but is not any more and does not suggest that the college was closed (such as Evelyn College for Women) or absorbed into another school (such as Radcliffe College). How does one go about changing it? MUW Fan 17:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - agree with the other comments. Metamagician3000 00:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support nominator Great new name. Makes more sense. The only reason I don't support the alternative that Wl219 proposes is because a school like Florida State University started all-male, went all-female, and then became coeducational. I feel like it's better defined as "former women's university" over "women's colleges that became..." Overall, though, I would be happy with either renaming. Kushboy 06:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support nominator. I think Category:Former women's universities and colleges in the United States is definitely the best wording. The Florida State example also came to mind for me, so I agree that the original proposal makes the most sense and can cover all the different situations I can think of. Beginning 20:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think we can solve the Florida State problem by creating and including it in a companion Category:Men's colleges that became coeducational and Template:Men's colleges that became coeducational. There's nothing about WP that says Florida State can't be in both. Wl219 22:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up - Although I think the Men's college category may become over-populated given the history of sexism in the US... Wl219 23:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "former WU&C" might include colleges that went kaput before they ever became coed. Is that intended? Is that okay? Otherwise, why not something like, "historically women's U & C", parallel with "historically Black colleges"? That also fixes the Florida State problem because it wasn't a historically women's college. And we do not need "Men's colleges that became coed"; it's not a notable feature of them, because it was the default for most colleges & universites. --lquilter 18:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Historically black colleges and universities is actually a legal term as defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965; the definition is: "any historically black college or university that was established prior to 1964, whose principal mission was, and is, the education of black Americans, and that is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association or is, according to such an agency or association, making reasonable progress toward accreditation.” I am not aware of any similar classification for historically female schools. MUW Fan 03:43, 1 March 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:Bronze Medallion recipients

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 09:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - overcategorization by award. Otto4711 07:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an award given by New York City to people who are so famous that they win many awards anyway. The category says little about the people's achievements while contributing to category clutter. This award's recipients are already listed at Bronze Medallion (New York City award), so no listification is necessary. Dr. Submillimeter 11:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorization; not a major award enough to merit a category. Prolog 01:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Bronze Medallion is a rating in life-saving. 70.55.84.248 06:56, 1 March 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 characters who can resurrect themselves

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 of a category that seems able to resurrect itself. I am not salting since the names are changing with the resurrections. Vegaswikian 23:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This category has little or no potential for growth. Very few characters actually satisfy the conditions, and in most cases those it is used on are simply immortal. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've made a change on the parent/grandparent thing. It should be that Category:Fictional immortals should be kept far and separate from this category because not all immortals can resurrect themselves, per say. Shall I list an example? Power level (Dragon Ball) 06:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point entirely. By removing the cat, which Snapper restored, you're only making my case better. Those who can resurrect themselves are by definition immortal. Also, you've completely misunderstood the relation between parent and sub-cats. Having a parent cat of immortals in no way implies what you think it does. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt as recreated content. For good or ill, consensus is that a category for fictional characters who can resurrect themselves is not appropriate. Variations on this category have been created and deleted several times already. Otto4711 07:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt - This category appears to have the ability to resurrect itself. Two variants on this category title were deleted within the past week. Two other variants were deleted in Oct 2006 and Jan 2007. This category needs to be blocked. Dr. Submillimeter 07:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no good reason to delete it. Characters who can resurrect themselves are not "simply" immortal, and deserve a separate category. Furthermore, people who can resurrect themselves are not necessarily immortal. For example, some role-playing games allow characters to cast spells on themselves that will resurrect them if they die while said spells are active; however, this is not immortality, as the characters can still die permanent deaths and presumably age normally. Even if that weren't the case, the category is specific enough to warrant its separation from "fictional immortals". One might, and I emphasize "might", think that there aren't enough fictional characters to fill the category at this time, and that it should be deleted for that reason, but under no circumstances should its recreation be prevented because more fictional characters with this ability might be written in the future. Cosmetor 08:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, consensus can change, but to consistently recreate a cat immediately after a CfD result of "Delete" or "Speed Delete" is flat wrong. It reads as the editor does not believe consensus matters. Additionally, with the situation with the Feb 17 nom, this verges on looking like disruptive editing. — J Greb 20:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an improper recreation. LukeHoC 11:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt this persistent recreation. Someone just keeps bringing it back. The name isn't even accurate. Doczilla 17:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt the previous CfDs are here, here, and here. The Feb 17 CfD was either circumvented or the closing admin did not bother to close the section. Could someone look into the deletion of the category involved in that one and find out what exactly happened? Additionally, I strongly suggest that all three previously deleted cats be salted as well as the suggested rename from the Feb CfD. — J Greb 20:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Woohookitty deleted that last discussion per CfD/speedy. Vegaswikian 23:48, 23 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:Palindromic places

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 09:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest this category either listified or renamed, as it's not the places that are palindromic but their names. Category:Places with palindromic names...?

David Kernow (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as arbitrary standard for inclusion. These places have nothing in common other than the coincidence that their names can be spelled the same way backward and forward. There might just barely be enough justification for a list but not for a category. Otto4711 06:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. LukeHoC 11:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#Unrelated subjects with shared names. ~ Bigr Tex 15:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe listify. I'd find a list interesting, and the list would be unobtrusive. It's too trivial for categorization, though. The list would have been helpful a few years ago when I needed to discuss palindromes in a lecture. I say "maybe", though, because there are palindrome sources on the Internet. Doczilla 17:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would follow similar reasoning to the cfd discussion for Category:Palindromes which was deleted Jan 23 2006. Dugwiki 00:45, 24 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:Wikify from August 2006

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. Prove It ^(talk) 14:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- this [1] Wikipedia backlog taskpage has been cleared of all the work inside it - no new tasks are expected to be added here. So can it be removed? Guroadrunner 05:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD C1. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 05:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as empty. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:05, 24 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:Discontinued Microsoft software

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 09:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this category is likely to rampantly grow. So, either delete, or split into more subcats. --PlayStation 69 05:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's manageable for now. Maybe split Windows X into a Category:Discontinued Microsoft Windows versions but the overall category is worth keeping. Wl219 09:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MS mostly keep releasing newer versions of programs without phasing them out entirely Corpx 11:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete endless category. We don't advertise for Microsoft. We're not their help desk. The "discontinued" distinction is like categorizing by whether people are dead or alive, which Wikipedia explicitly says not to do. Doczilla 17:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The category by itself doesn't advertise for MS. There are multiple non-adv. articles on notable MS software products, and it is useful to distinguish between the ones MS still supports and the ones they don't. Using the people dead/alive analogy is erroneous. WP has categories for defunct companies, airlines, etc. etc. and this is more similar to those. Wl219 22:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lugnuts 20:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and break out the Windows versions per Wl219. SubSeven 04:21, 28 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:Poltergeist saga

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 Poltergeist films. Tim! 18:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deelete as redundant to Category:Poltergeist films. Otto4711 04:56, 23 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:Law & Order cast members

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 listify and delete. the wub "?!" 20:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify, Delete just as related nominiation, these are subcats of Category:Law & Order cast members. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All the shows are completely independent of each other than an occasional connection. Should be kept seperate. Corpx 10:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete These are better suited to a list and will help avoid category clutter. ~ Bigr Tex 15:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete, but there should be separate lists for each show. Crumbsucker 02:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment these all seem to have been included under the Actors by series nomination; they should already be liable for speedy deletion once listified.

Xdamr^talk 17:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Corpx. All are independent. A list would be impossible to manage, keep track of, etc. Linking directly from the actors' article is of great help. Michael 01:34, 3 March 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:Poltergeist saga people

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 09:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this category is serving as an ersatz writer/producer/director by series category. Participants in the Poltergeist film series can be noted in the article for the participant, the relevant film or both. No justification for this category. Otto4711 04:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 08:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Categorizing people by project is inappropriate, as it leads to category clutter. Dr. Submillimeter 13:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Dr. Submillimeter. --Xdamr^talk 17:46, 24 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:Bivalve images

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 09:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All images on the commons, commons does a better job of image organisation. Delete Peta 04:27, 23 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:Sponge images

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 (checked all images are tagged {{nowcommons}}). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved all images in this category to the commons, image galleries and categories are better set up there, and this will be empty as soon as the transwikied images are deleted. DeletePeta 04:17, 23 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:Myxozoan images

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 (checked all images are tagged {{nowcommons}}). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved all images in this category to the commons, image galleries and categories are better set up there, and this will be empty as soon as the transwikied images are deleted. DeletePeta 04:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - good deal then! Corpx 10:56, 23 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:Lists of films with features in common

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 Tim! 18:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this may be a first for me. A category that should be deleted which contains some 30 articles that should all also be deleted. Every one of the articles constitutes an indiscriminate list or directory seeking to gather every trivial mention of the subject matter with no regard to the importance or lack of same to the work of fiction from which it's drawn or the real world. It's a category for articles that shouldn't exist and the category shouldn't exist either. Otto4711 02:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a wholesale attempt to purge 30 articles with no consideration of their individual merit. The reason given for each article is a canned sentence with only the subject of the article changed in each. There are thousands of list on Wikipedia and many are quite useful. The same criteria given here could be used to purge them all. From WP:LIST: "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." This discussion should be consolidated in one place and I think here would be appropriate.--agr 04:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have considered the individual merit of the articles contained within this category, and my feeling is that the vast majority of them have none. Those articles have been nominated for deletion. WP:NOT bars loosely associated depositories of information and this category serves no function but to house such depositories. Otto4711 04:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the sticking point is "loosely associated." Most of these articles have a very narrow focus. E.g. List of films involving amputees. They are not much different than many topics in Category:Lists of books, for example. Again there are thousands of such lists on Wikipedia and detailed guidelines for their construction. See WP:LIST and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Some of the lists in this category I agree do not fit within those guidelines. List of films which end in protagonist's death is far too broad, for example. There's another whose name I don't think I have to repeat here. But most are tightly defined and potentially useful to people interested in film or the underlying topic, e.g. mental illness, computers or passwords.--agr 11:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LIST and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) are guidelines. If a list falls afoul of an actual policy then its conformity with these guidelines becomes irrelevant. WP:USEFUL is also not a compelling argument. Otto4711 16:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT is far from clear cut. It says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply:" and it then enumerates several types of article that are not allowed. The type of list we are talking about are not one of them. Guidelines exist in part to provide interpretation of policies. A guideline is "generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow." Under your interpretation of WP:NOT almost none of the lists on Wikipedia would survive and the list guidelines would be pointless. If so those guidelines should be changed and that process would be the right place to debate the role of lists on Wikipedia. --agr 17:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A goodly number of the lists on Wikipedia probably shouldn't survive, and the vast majority of the lists in this category are among them. Judging from the number of "...in popular culture" articles that have been getting deleted lately as being indiscriminate/directories there does seem to be an increasing consensus that this sort of list does violate WP:NOT. Otto4711 00:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm going to disagree with the contention that there is "increasing consensus" that lists of trivia fall under WP:NOT. In fact, if anything, the consensus in the discussions I've seen seemed to be that WP:NOT is generally overly and incorrectly cited in afd and cfd discussions as a means to try and remove materials individual editors feel is "trivial". There is as yet no consensus on what constitutes trivia, nor any real consensus on pop culture articles. Dugwiki 00:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The category doesn't fall afoul of any one particular wiki policy. While of limited usage, that's no reason to delete. The category needs to be cleaned up as do the individual articles, but that is a separate issue. Zotdragon 17:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Zotdragon Lugnuts 20:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with User:agr's take on the nature of this move. Several of the articles in there are *%$#; and should be AfD'd, but that doesn't mean all of them are nor that the category serves no purpose. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah, I agree with the above comments. The nomination appears overly broad. If the intent is to try and delete the included articles, that needs to be handled on a case by case basis at afd, not here. And if you assume that the articles are (at least for now) kept in place, then this category probably makes sense as a way to index them. So I'd recommend closing this particular discussion and, if desired, instead nominate the individual articles that might appear to require deletion. Dugwiki 00:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Change to Keep I have voted in support of many of the lists included in the category, but there are some that should be deleted as well. This category could use a name change as suggested by Hoverfish below. Lists of films is a good collection of lists of films which is well-organized. The category should be renamed to better cover the variety of lists on the page.--Nehrams2020 05:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename As long as some or most of the lists are kept, we will have them loose again under the parent category (Category:Lists of films), which has already lots of loose pages in it. I was trying to put some order in the parent category, so I created this category and it helped for a while. I dout that all these lists will be finally deleted, as they will get support from many editors, so this category should stay to keep them contained. Hoverfish Talk 07:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a round through all individual lists, I have to add Strong keep (still with "rename", if a better name is found). Many lists are going to be kept and they need this category to be contained in. Hoverfish Talk 09:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for all the reasons given so far, plus the fact that the original nominator's attempt to delete pretty much all the articles in the category looks like it it going to fail on at least half of them. However, I would support a category rename if a better-sounding name was found. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:52, 25 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:A-level English Literature Set Texts

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 09:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are probably several thousand books that have been set as A-level texts by one of the various British exam boards over the last 60 years or so, and many of them will also have been set as texts for various other exams in the UK and other countries. This is not a defining characteristic of the books. Haddiscoe 00:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Peta 04:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as non defining. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - This category does not represent a view shared by the rest of the world. Dr. Submillimeter 07:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LukeHoC 11:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 17:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unworkable category. Metamagician3000 00:23, 24 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.