< March 24	March 26 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename to Fictional species derived from humans per below --Syrthiss 16:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misleadingly named category for fictional species. 'Rename to Category:Human-derived fictional species (suggestions for a better name would be welcome). -Sean Curtin 04:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the rename, though not sure the above is the right choice. Staecker 13:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the proposed rename is better than what we have Where ^(talk) 16:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. Somehow, the name sounds wrong... "Fictional species" is good, but "human-derived" sounds a bit vague. Derived by humans or from humans? What to consider "human", etc.? But "Fictional species derived from homo sapiens" sounds even more awkward... --Koveras 16:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: How about Fictional human species? The header on the category page can make it clear exactly what is meant. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 17:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection: Humans of Noon Universe and Edain would also fall into this category if you name it like that. Counter-proposal: Category:Humans and their progeny in fiction. --Koveras 18:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we really want to exclude those groups? The category might be more useful if it includes them than if it doesn't. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 19:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's every human race in fantasy, and most of those in SF. Much too large.Category:Fictional human-related species? Humanoid again includes too much (Vulcans, Perelandrans... Septentrionalis 19:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the other hand, I think, Stillnotelf is right, after all, fictional humans should also be included into some kind of category... There are not many articles about them, anyway: a total of 10 listed in Human (disambiguation). They are not going to overload the cat, according to my calculations... Moreover, I do not think that "Fictional human-related species" would be a good name, since it would also include, e.g. the Middle-earth Elves, since they are also related to humans (being the "First People", while the Men are the "Second Ones", because both are the creations of Iluvatar). --Koveras 13:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to (something like) Category:Fictional species derived from humans...?  Whatever name is chosen, suggest it begins with "Fictional..."  Regards, David Kernow 04:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the rename proposal, current name is confusing and does not make it clear that it is fictional. --Keolah 23:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I think we all agree that the category should be renamed. The only question is what the new name should be. Thus far, there have been five suggestions. If you're in favor of renaming the category, please indicate which you prefer, otherwise make a further suggestion after this post:

• Category:Fictional human species
  • We can always subcategorize if this one gets too large. -- stillnotelf is invisible 17:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Fictional human-related species

• Category:Fictional species derived from humans
  • David Kernow 16:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC) (as above)[reply]
  • Keolah 19:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Human-derived fictional species

• Category:Humans and their progeny in fiction
  • Koveras 16:59, 31 March 2006 (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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 16:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates work already done by categorizing in Category:Living people and the politician subcategories. waffle iron 18:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete worthless subcategory. Postdlf 19:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ReeseM 02:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 02:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Alan Liefting 10:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Super Ted 20:09, 26 March 2006 (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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 16:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inherently POV and a bad precident. Do we want Category:Dead Christians and Category:Dead Jews (and which of those categories would Jesus Christ belong to?) I understand that they wanted to distinguish between dead people that remained Scientologists until death, rather that former Scientologists that died, but I don't believe that this category is the right idea. (There already is both Category:Former Scientologists and Category:Scientologists, as well as categories for death, so this becomes just a union category. JRP 16:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it would be "inherently POV", but other than that, I agree with JRP. "People who did not leave the Church of Scientology" is already covered by Category:Scientologists and so this category just becomes a union of the two. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; "dead people by religion" is a ridiculous categorization system. Nothing is gained from intersecting whether or not someone is alive with what their religion is/was. Postdlf 19:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is silly Where ^(talk) 02:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ReeseM 02:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 02:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overcategorization. Q0 05:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. We don't need every union categories. Date of death = Dead. Category: Scientologist = Scientologist. We can figure it out. PS. It's not inherently POV, that's just crap. Tat 23:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Alan Liefting 10:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Made only for the South Park episode. Lord Falcon 20:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object The category was made due to a controversy on how to label Lisa McPherson (since she didn't count as a "former scientologist" since she had never left the church before death) and has nothing to do with South Park. The Fading Light 7:42, 26 March 2006
  • There was indeed at one time a controversy, but IMHO, it's been settled now for quite some time -- due to the fact that she never left the Church, she's in Category:Scientologists; due to the fact that she died due to lack of medical care while under the supervision of the Church, she's in Category:Scientology controversy. I'm not casting aspersions on your intent, but I'm a little unclear on how this category would resolve the controversy you refer to, or any other. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lisa McPherson can be in the scientologist category, and the scientology controversy category. Ronabop 03:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Silly cat. Crumbsucker 10:02, 29 March 2006 (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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 16:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this category would be for people who wrote biographies of writers, but it seems it is simply for people who produced biographies its creator considers to be of literary merit. It is point of view. Having "literary biographers" category in the first sense isn't very helpful either as a good number of people wrote biographies of both writers and non-writers. Merge into category:American biographers Bhoeble 15:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge per nom. ReeseM 02:50, 26 March 2006 (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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 16:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another category by Oscara, presumably intended to include Mario and Luigi. Too narrow in scope to be useful. Currently unpopulated. Pagrashtak 14:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 15:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although I wonder if he was thinking about different similar characters like Wario, Waluigi, Dr. Mario...? -- stillnotelf has a talk page 18:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not enough Marios to have its own cat Where ^(talk) 23:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete User:Oscara - nothing that is a real contribution from this user. Lord Falcon 20:27, 26 March 2006 (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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 16:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oscara seems to be adding every Nintendo-related article that Nintendo Database has ever discussed to this category. It does not serve any purpose. Golbez 09:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oscara just removed the CFD notice. I've restored it. - Hbdragon88 11:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — I've had to restore the CFD notice again. Pagrashtak 14:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 15:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the article is ((prod))'d anyway, it's not notable. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 18:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above Where ^(talk) 23:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete User:Oscara - nothing that is a real contribution from this user. Lord Falcon 20:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ouch. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 21:18, 26 March 2006 (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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 16:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative word order is better I hope Hawkestone 02:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename Hawkestone 02:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. "Defunct" is generally the first word in the names of categories of defunct things. Bhoeble 15:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Bhoeble Where ^(talk) 23:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. --Khoikhoi 05:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 04:18, 29 March 2006 (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 page.