< September 23	September 25 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 -- Drini 15:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Category:Uncertain novae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete. The definition of this category is vague. A description on the page says that the category should include objects where the identification of the objects as novae/supernovae is uncertain; objects that have been shown not to be novae/supernovae; objects where the properties of the novae/supernovae are uncertain; and hypothetical novae/supernovae. Grouping such objects toghether under the header of "Uncertain novae" seems inappropriate. Even if the description on the page is ignored, it seems uncertain as to what belongs within this category. George J. Bendo 23:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, almost no ghits, and the top result is the category page, a bad sign. This does not appear to be a formal classification in use in the scientific community. --Dhartung | Talk 23:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dhartung. Edton 22:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and this should have been speedied. Dekimasu 05:29, 30 September 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 regarding 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 keep --Kbdank71 16:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gravy Train!!!! albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Since both GT albums link to each other's pages, what's the point of having a category (Especially if the band might not release another album?) Ohyeahmormons 22:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, due to special status of Category:Albums by artist, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, these categories should be created even if the artist has only released one album. --musicpvm 07:12, 27 September 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 regarding 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 keep --Kbdank71 16:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Greek poets to Category:Modern Greek poets

• Rename, As below for Category:Greek writers. This is a list of Modern Greek poets and should be called that. Category:Ancient Greek poets is a separate cat. When divided, they can be joined by a supercat. JCScaliger 22:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Currently Category:Ancient Greek poets is a subcat of both Category:Greek poets and Category:Ancient Greek writers. It seems perfectly good the way it is. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ProveIt. - jc37 21:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Ancient Greek category should be a subcategory of this category. Edton 22:28, 25 September 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 regarding 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 keep --Kbdank71 16:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Greek writers to Category:Modern Greek writers

• Rename,This is a list of Modern Greek writers (with a handful of exceptions, which should be moved to Category:Ancient Greek writers anyway). When the category is moved, there can be a new Category:Greek writers, which contains both of these, and Category:Byzantine writers, as subcats. JCScaliger 21:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Currently both Category:Ancient Greek writers and Category:Byzantine writers are subcats of Category:Greek writers. I don't see any problem with that. If there's a few ancient Greeks among the modern ones, just move them ... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ProveIt. - jc37 21:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Ancient Greek category should be a subcategory of this category. Edton 22:28, 25 September 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 regarding 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 Per multiple arguments discussed-- Drini 15:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Category:Banned books (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete As per the discussion for [films] - if the voting goes in favour of delete, of course. Lugnuts 18:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe I've seen it before, if that's true it should be speedied as a recreation. At any rate, delete as arbitrary (banned where? for what reason? etc). >Radiant< 19:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as pace the ALA, "banned" can mean "required to have parental permission to check out by order of the school board" and such. Some works are notable for the frequency of their banning, such as Huckleberry Finn or anything by Judy Blume, but in general this is not an inherent quality of a work; it's more like a movie rating. As such, not only is it vague but it's geographically limited (sometimes to a single school district).--Dhartung | Talk 23:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the same reason I favour keeping banned films. Sure, this is not a perfect category but I'll make my point again. Radiant argues that it's too arbitrary and he's right to a certain extent. On the other hand I suppose then that everyone would be ok to keep the category "books banned for immorality in the UK in the 40's". However that seems like overly specific and an unnecessary fragmenting of a possibly interesting category. I think we have to trust that readers know how to use a category like "banned books" in a smart way. Yes, you'll have books in there that have been banned in countries with wildly differing customs, for reasons rangeing from defamation lawsuits to morality issues and so on but readers can look up the details in the individual articles. Simply deleting the category takes away that possibility and I really don't see how it improves the encyclopedia as a whole. Maybe we should put a little disclaimer for this in the category page. Actually, I'll try that. Let me know what you think. Pascal.Tesson 04:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well actually there already is such a disclaimer. I think the cat should stay as long as the articles describe their own banning. Pascal.Tesson 04:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, provided category specifies that article makes mention of banning - Provided the articles in the category actually specify that the book was "banned", I'm for keeping it. Note that while it's possible many books are banned in, say, North Korea, 99% of those book articles do not mention that banning since it would not be notable. Thus mandating that an article specify a book was "banned" eliminates almost all the non-notable book bannings, and allows the category to remain focussed only on those books where the banning of the book is actually important to its background. Dugwiki 16:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dugwiki. This is a reasonable navigation tool and categorically important. Might reconsider if there's an older CFD, but No binding decisions. -- nae'blis 17:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this useful category. If it is not clear which books should be included, simply clarify the definition at the top of the category page, as to the criteria. Being unclear is not a good enough reason to delete. --Blainster 20:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too broad. Every organisation and their cousin has created a must read list, and a do not read list. - jc37 21:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure I get your point here. It's pretty clear that the category is intended for books that were banned by law in some state. There's no point in renaming the cat as "banned books by law in some state at some point in time" to make that explicit. Pascal.Tesson 00:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of banned books - and some examples are not necessarily "states". Not to mention that out of each of the hundreds of countries, each one could have a "banned list", which could number in the thousands for each : ) - jc37 10:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless it contains a caveat that no book article can be added directly to it. Only list articles should be added to it. Book articles should be added to a subcategory (books on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, books banned by Nazi Germany, etc); any of which might themselves be subcategorized in a variety of ways. I accept that book banning is a topic worthy of categorization, but the current category is so vague as to be utterly useless as it stands. The current disclaimer more or less admits as much. Being unclear is absolutely a good enough reason to delete. With my propsal, any list or subcategory could itself be nominated for deletion if it was too trivial or open-ended. jnestorius^(talk) 21:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If I understand your thought, that would require renaming the category to category:Lists of banned books? - jc37 21:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No. The hierarchy would be something like

Category:Banned books --> List of books banned by the Nazis; ;list of books banned by the Kansas Board of Education;  list of books banned in the Peoples Republic of China; etc
|
|--- Category: Books banned by the Nazis --> Das Kapital; All Quiet on the Western Front; ...
|
|--- Category: Books on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum --> Luther's Bible; Discourse on Method; ...
|
|--- etc

If someone adds, say Tom Sawyer, directly to Category:Banned books, it will be removed or moved to one or more subcategories, and/or added to one or more lists, if any relevant ones exist. jnestorius^(talk) 22:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then, yes, I think naming conventions are such that it should be named category:Lists of banned books. - jc37 22:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. That would imply that all subcategories were also lists. jnestorius^(talk) 22:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is likely to cause confusion, then Category:Lists of banned books could be a subcategory of Categroy:Banned books, with the revised stipulation that no articles at all should be in the top-level category. jnestorius^(talk) 22:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I think this would be a very decent compromise, I'm worried about the transition. I'm sure no one is going to volunteer to write all those lists. What do we do in the meantime? Pascal.Tesson 00:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comment actually I misread the proposed compromise. The work needed is not as bad as I would have thought with the opportunity for subcats. It will however require constant attention to maintain as such but I think that would be feasible. Hey I'd even volunteer for the maintenance! And hey, maybe this can also be applied to resurrect the cat for banned films. Pascal.Tesson 00:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is nonsense. This is a legitimate category, if you like, in the description you can put an outline that it must have been banned by a government. The category serves as a reminder that not everyone views art from the same perspective. One person's on-the-edge art is another's pornography. Mallanox 23:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Would my proposal impinge on that reminder? jnestorius^(talk) 23:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate the compromise and it is preferable to a complete removal of the category. I will admit, I'm not a big fan of lists but to have the information somewhere is better than lose it altogether. I hope your idea is not overlooked when the category gets deleted. Mallanox 00:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment well the Banned films category has now been deleted Lugnuts 08:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Indufficiently specific. Almost everything must be banned somewhere. Golfcam 04:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The List of banned books already exists. So that should help listification : ) - jc37 10:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous comments about the prevalence and variety of bans. Hawkestone 12:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not susceptible to a simple definition that won't make it far broader than can have been intended. Twittenham 22:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A category is not the right way to cover this as inclusion or exclusion is a black and white matter possessing no sublety. Brammen 18:07, 29 September 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 regarding 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 -- Drini 15:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Category:Star Fox characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete, Fox McCloud is now the only character who has his own page. (trogga) 17:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Ohyeahmormons 22:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I added the Spanish interwiki link to the same category. There is quite a few more characters there, so if anyone would like to translate them, then this category could be kept. GilliamJF 12:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Cswrye 00:36, 26 September 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 regarding 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 -- Drini 15:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Probably should be kept as list in the Leslie Ward article. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Leslie Ward produced scores of caricatures of members of the late 19th century British establishment (the National Portrait gallery has 254 in its index [1]). At the moment only a small number of his works are included in Wikipedia but this may increase in the future. Before I created the category I did consider linking to all those Wikipedia articles with images of his caricatures from the Leslie Ward article by means of a list or by a gallery but decided that doing so would:

1. encumber the Leslie Ward article with a list longer than the article text itself.
2. a gallery, with 44 images would take too long to display on a slow connection and if the number of images grew further would become impossible.

Although the fact that Ward produced a caricature of them for Vanity Fair may have been some sort of indication that they had "arrived", Ward's subjects generally merit their articles on the grounds that they were members of the Victorian establishment not that they were his subjects. Hence, I thought it too intrusive to create a direct link from the text of a subject's article back to Leslie Ward.

However, a collection of Ward's subjects (albeit incomplete at present) is still an interesting way of viewing the VIP's of the period and by linking the articles by means of a category, there is a direct link created in both directions between artist and subject as well as between one subject and another. - DavidCane 18:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it's a little too big to try to listify in the Leslie Ward article ... It sound to me like its a subject that deserves an article all it's own. But not a category. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and listify. From the point of view of a celebrity, it's trivial information in which magazines they've had an interview. This is the same principle only a century earlier. >Radiant< 19:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify in separate article per above. David Kernow (talk) 06:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify to List of caricatures by Leslie Wardin, per above. - jc37 21:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a trivial attribute of these people. Edton 22:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a defining characteristic. Golfcam 04:11, 27 September 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 regarding 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 -- Drini 15:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Global Professional Wrestling Alliance members, just expanding the acronym. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, sounds good to me. --Kiltman67 17:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Rename

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 regarding 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 --Kbdank71 16:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, aparently created just to parent Category:Without a Trace episodes. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Cast and crew can be added to the category and such. Ohyeahmormons 22:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's generally a bad idea to give television shows and movies their own category. Many actors in the IMDB, for example, star in 50 to 100 or more movies and television shows during their career. If most of those movies and programs each had their own category, then a tyipcal actor could easily end up with 50 or 100 distinct categories at the end of their article. So, my opinion, a television show should only have its own category IF the show can be demonstrated to have numerous articles related directly to it outside of just cast listings and episode guides. Dugwiki 16:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, note that cast listings and episode listings typically appear within the article itself or a sub-article. So creating a category for cast listings adds extremely little to a user's ability to find articles about actors who took part in that show; they can typically get the same information by reading the article and clicking the links there. Dugwiki 16:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, compare to The West Wing (TV series). - jc37 21:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Many television shows have their own categories. For shows that have lots of articles (for the show itself, cast members, episodes, themes, and so on), this is a meaningful categorization scheme. --Cswrye 00:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dugwiki. Brammen 18:09, 29 September 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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Port cities in South Africa, convention for country subcats of Category:Port cities. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Port city/ies" seems an awkward (made-up?) term; unless city status is a useful distinction, why not simply "Port/s"...?  Port city redirects to Port, but I note there's no corresponding Category:Ports... Perhaps there's an old (CfD) consensus against "Port/s" somewhere...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. The distinction between Category:Ports and harbours and Category:Port cities is supposed to be the distinction between Alexandria Port and Alexandria. In practice, however, the country ports and harbours categories are a mix of both. In this case, the category is clearly for port cities, but other cleanup and renames in the Ports and harbours tree are in order, such as Category:Ports and harbours of Japan. -choster 19:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Ports and harbours – missed that one; thanks!  (Have now created Category:Ports, Category:Harbours and Category:Harbors as redirects.)  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Another thought: if the consensus is to rename this category, should it (and its fellow "Port cities in" categories) be renamed "Port cities of..." per my (mis?)understanding of naming conventions...?  Unsure, David Kernow (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current convention in country subcategories of Category:Cities seems to be in. I'm not sure off the top of my head if Category:Ports and harbours should fall under this rubric or not, but we can take care of those with a later CFD.-choster 17:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay; thanks for input. Regards, David (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Golfcam 04:12, 27 September 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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Brandon University alumni, since they have exactly the same members. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --Cswrye 00:36, 26 September 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 regarding 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 with subcats -- Drini 15:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC) I nominate these categories with the same reason as they were nominated last time:[reply]

Far too specific, could lead to categories such as "People named Tim who died young" or "Entertainers under 5'6" " - Trevor MacInnis

These categories have been already been nominated four times. The last time, after seven days, there was a consensus for deletion (13 delete to 3 keep), but they were not deleted according to the policy. Instead, someone WP:SPAMmed (votestacking) a bunch of editors who voted keep. bogdan 13:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The reason the voting period was extended, was because over half of the categories on the list were added to it two days into the vote. --Blainster 20:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Entertainers who died before age 20
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 20s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 30s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 40s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 50s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 60s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 70s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 80s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 90s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 100s
• Category:Entertainers by age upon death
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide before they were 20
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 20s
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 30s
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 40s
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 50s
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 60s
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 70s
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 80s

• Delete as nom. bogdan 13:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I voted the last four times. Q0 13:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be willing to accept listify as a compromise. Q0 08:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A suggestion the listify these categories has been made in the past as a compromise between those voting to keep and those voting to delete. Q0 13:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: per Q0 - this is ridiculous. Why are these so offensive to people?! —Wknight94 (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per above. I also think these categories are quite useful.Ohyeahmormons 22:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Idea that these would lead anywhere is a straw man argument at best and absurd at worst. These have been around for about a year now and having "led" to anything, let alone the ridiculous examples as nom. gives, i.e. under 5'6". etc. Big difference between someone dying prematurely (a much talked about occurrence - see Jimi Hendrix, Chris Farley, etc., etc.) and people named Tim which no one cares about. Classic straw man debating. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please point me to a discussion of entertainers who died in their 70s. Brammen 19:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As far as vote stacking after 7 days, I'll remind people that, last time, the categories weren't even properly tagged for 3 days so the people they may have had them on their watchlists didn't know they were here until there were already several deletes in the list. If you'll WP:AGF re: vote stacking, I'll WP:AGF re: nom. these 5 times in less than a year and not strictly following process one or two of those times. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild delete, I just don't see age at time of death as an defining characteristic. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Time of death seems as significant as Category:Births by year or Category:Deaths by year. Q0 16:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all. Two people who live in the same era have something encyclopedic in common, whereas two people who died in their 60s don't. However the year of birth and death categories should be deleted as well imo, so they mean nothing as a precedent. Osomec 17:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Category is not a database tool. Was on CfD before Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_29#Category:Entertainers_who_died_aged_x_etc._categories (no consensus). Pavel Vozenilek 16:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These categories are useless. Osomec 17:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was interested in seeing who had died roughly my age, and who had died at an earlier age than me. Yes, maybe a little morbid, but I vote keep it. Scholastica547 19:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 19:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I say Keep the highest and lowest on each one. In other words Keep Category:Entertainers who died before age 20, Category:Entertainers who died in their 100s, Category:Entertainers who committed suicide before they were 20, and Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 80s. Those four are unusual enough that I think they are a part of these people's notability. Delete the rest.--T. Anthony 05:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note-I'm also good with listifying instead. The List of famous people who died young could deal with most under thirty.--T. Anthony 05:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify as solution to lack of consensus. David Kernow (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I hope that if the listify option is done as a compromise, that the lists would not end up being nominated for deletion. Q0 11:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've never liked these. However, it should be obvious that the suicide ones will need to be merged into category:Entertainers who committed suicide, since they would otherwise have no category in category:Suicides. I later would like to see that large category subdivided by type of entertainer (actor, singer, whatever), which would make it a little more manageable. (I also have no objection to listifying these.) In absence of the merge, though, I would vote keep on the suicide ones, just to preserve the data. So hopefully the merge will take place.--Mike Selinker 14:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tim! 17:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Listify and Move as suggested by Mike Selinker. Do not keep. Vegaswikian 19:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The reason given for nomination is invalid. Categories don't "lead to" anything. They are only as specific as described. These categories are very useful for research. --Blainster 20:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I think about this, isn't this information really better included in the article text? Saying that Foo died when he was 37 years old would add informative text and sill allow searching. It does not take up much more space then a category and is more precise. Vegaswikian 22:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the information (presumably) is listed in the article (birth/death dates). No need for another listing as a category at the bottom of each article page. Plus, do we have taxidermists by age of death? How about presidents? it becomes a bit too much. Age of people (living or dead) categories should probably all be deleted. - jc37 21:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a trivial attribute of these people. Edton 22:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp 23:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful categorization. --Chris S. 00:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a defining characteristic. Golfcam 04:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Overcategorisation. Greg Grahame 21:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These are the most trivial categories on the articles on which they appear, and frankly out of place. Hawkestone 12:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivial. --Peta 12:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sort of categories that make Wikipedia look like it is produced by people with too much time on their hands. Twittenham 22:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, WP is produced by people with too much time on their hands! --Blainster 02:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Overcategorisation Jklamo 10:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These non-standard, trivial categories. Brammen 18:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify in response to Hawkestone's comment. Dekimasu 05:26, 30 September 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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Italian American athletes to category:Italian-American sportspeople
• Category:Italian American musicians to category:Italian-American musicians
• Category:Italian American politicians to category:Italian-American politicians
• Category:Italian American actors to category:Italian-American actors

To conform to "-American" hyphenation and standard Wikipedia usage of "athlete" to mean "track and field star."--Mike Selinker 11:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Since Italian-American is being used as an adjective, it should be hyphenated. Dekimasu 11:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it should. I've rewritten the nomination to reflect this, for several new categories.--Mike Selinker 15:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Michael 16:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The problem is, if this is renamed to "Italian-American", there was an AFD on "Italian-American actors" a year ago or so that was successful, and a particular user would definitely delete this page based on that AFD (and he's done so before). No such outstanding AFD is in effect on "Italian American actors", however Mad Jack 19:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then tell that guy to stop.--Mike Selinker 20:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact remains that they are the correct titles for the categories in question. Dekimasu 05:21, 30 September 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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public houses in Cambridge, England to Category:Public houses in Cambridge

• Rename, supercat is Category:Cambridge and main article Cambridge is the English one. Tim! 10:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. -- Necrothesp 23:50, 25 September 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 regarding 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 with subcats -- Drini 15:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC) That means deleting[reply]

• Category:Sjk
• Category:Sjk 2005
• Category:Sjk Houston
• Category:Sjk Katrina
• Category:Sjk September 2005
• Category:Sjk blather
• Category:Sjk carpentry
• Category:Sjk cats
• Category:Sjk entries
• Category:Sjk love
• Category:Sjk carpentry

Category:Sjk carpentry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete as nonsense, only populated by a user's internal pages. Dekimasu 08:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I think there's a general policy against personal user cats. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also Category:Sjk -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all under Category:Sjk as nonsense. User:Sj is active but should find some other way to organize his "klog" (which is borderline as user pages are not to be used for blogs, but this is about his Wikipedia editing). --Dhartung | Talk 00:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Sjk and subcats. This could get real out-of-hand real quickly. Recury 19:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a blog or personal webspace. 70.51.11.116 03:31, 26 September 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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prisons and detention centres into Category:Prisons

• Merge. Both categories seem to overlap and in fact Category:Prisons is a child of Category:Prisons and detention centres. Category:Prisons and detention centres only mentions prisons and none of the subcats or entries mention detention centres. Vegaswikian 07:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, secondary meaning not used. --Dhartung | Talk 09:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe there's a significant distinction between these terms in some countries, e.g. a "detention center/e" is used for suspects, defendants etc, whereas a "prison" is used for convicts...?  David Kernow (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that there is not much difference in the various names, jail, prison and detention center. Our local jail is called the Clark County Detention Center. Vegaswikian 23:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't know how a detention centre differs from prison, but how about a correctional facility? or for that matter, an asylum? - jc37 21:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge "Detention centre" is basically a softer synonym for prison, and it isn't important enough to be given this level of prominence in the category system. Edton 22:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Having now looked over the category and sub-cats, there is a distinct differemce between the categories (which, by the way is stated in the introduction of the category. Plus (while IANAL), there is apparently an international law distinction. - jc37 22:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Internment camps, for example, are not prisons. -- Necrothesp 23:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would the correct top level cat be if you included concentration camp, internment camp, deportation camp and any other name that might be used? The main prison article does metion detention centre. Note that internment camp is not included in the two cats being discssed so maybe it does not belong here. Vegaswikian 05:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not? Is an internment camp not a detention centre? It's not actually a prison, but it makes sense to put like with like. -- Necrothesp 13:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure if it is or isn't. Internment camp meets prisons and detention centres at Category:Imprisonment and detention. So maybe the solution is for each type to be a subcat at that level. Vegaswikian 05:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Golfcam 04:13, 27 September 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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stateless people to Category:Stateless peoples

• Rename , "Stateless people" is ambiguous between "Stateless persons" and "Stateless nation". The latter is intended. As per MoS, cat names should be in plural. This also solves the problems for the other "Women without a country" and "Men without a country". I surmise the only motivation for using "men" and "women" is that "people" was taken by the aforementioned category. There is no need for male/female division here. jnestorius^(talk) 05:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:Women without a country and Category:Men without a country to Category:Stateless persons jnestorius^(talk) 06:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Formerly stateless people to Category:Formerly stateless persons. Maybe there will be a Category:Formerly stateless peoples some day? jnestorius^(talk) 06:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and merge per nom. "Peoples" is obviously better here. "Formerly stateless people" seems underpopulated. --Dhartung | Talk 09:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Category:Women without a country and Category:Men without a country to Category:Stateless persons & *Rename Category:Stateless people to Category:Stateless peoples. It is important to distinguish individuals from groups. Cwolfsheep 18:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Cwolfsheep. --kingboyk 14:34, 26 September 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 regarding 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 with subcats -- Drini 16:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Category:Ancient Indian People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete, Very vague title. The creator of the cat also created all the articles currently in the category, and they are all duplicates of existing articles. musicpvm 05:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The historical existence of these people is at the least open to doubt. Edton 22:40, 25 September 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 regarding 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 -- Drini 07:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Category:Jim Steinman artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete, This is a category for every person who has worked with Jim Steinman (or even performed his songs). That is not a notable characteristic. The category also sets a very bad precedent. musicpvm 05:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify. --Dhartung | Talk 09:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify per Dhartung. ("Jim Steinman artists" also does not necessarily indicate that these artists worked with Steinman.)  David Kernow (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify. Normally I prefer categories but this one sets a bad precedent. It's not even as if many of these people are famous because of Steinman (Meat Loaf, yes, Celine Dion absolutely not). --kingboyk 14:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, don't listify. If this is notable information, it can be added to Steinman's article, which isn't that long and doesn't have daughter pages. Dekimasu 05:35, 30 September 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 regarding 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 -- Drini 16:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Category:Fictional participants of a love triangle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete, Overcategorization. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --musicpvm 05:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep UnDeRsCoRe 14:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename 70.49.98.186 14:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to what? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 17:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overcat, and not a meaningful characterization for the group as a whole. >Radiant< 19:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Listify if wanted. - jc37 21:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not a meaningful category. Listify if desired. --Cswrye 00:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Could potentially encompass half of Shakespeare and 95% of soap opera characters. Listify if desired -- that would also have the advantage of being able to show who's involved with whom. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 05:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Almost all-encompassing category. Useless. --tjstrf 05:46, 26 September 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 regarding 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 -- Drini 16:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Category:Soap Opera characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete, Recently created copy of Category:Soap opera characters. Because all of the articles to which it has been added already have proper subcat listings, e.g. Category:General Hospital characters, the best solution is to delete this category. Is there any way to speedy this? CovenantD 02:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --musicpvm 05:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category has a large membership and is meaningful in the context of the subject. --Infrangible 17:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC) redirect - didn't see that it was a duplicate. --Infrangible 01:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too broad. >Radiant< 19:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this excessively broad category that has already been addressed through other categories and past AfD discussions. And if kept (which I don't expect), its title needs to be fixed. The O in Opera should not be capitalized per Wikipedia style for article and category titles. Doczilla 19:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. We just went through a similar problem with the category's creator having created a comic book category. Doczilla 19:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Category:Soap opera characters duplicate/fork. David Kernow (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Empty and redirect to Category:Soap opera characters. Delete is okay, but we'll probably see this again because it's a plausible capitalization. -- nae'blis 17:05, 25 September 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 regarding 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 --Kbdank71 16:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, premature, there's not even a Croatoan Society article yet... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed, at this point the inclusion of the group in the 3 established characters is all that should be needed. If, at a later date, DC produces material focusing on the group, it may be reasonable to create a main artical and members category. — J Greb 02:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Twittenham 22:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Main article, Croatoan Society, has been created and since this group was introduced as part of the 52 event it seems safe to assume they will return (either during the event or in the aftermath). Nick Curtis 15:32, 2 October 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 regarding 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, no redirect (if it is recreated, I'll consider a redirect; as it stands there are way too many unneeded redirects) --Kbdank71 16:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Villages in Virginia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Virginia does not have a special definition for villages. These should all be placed in Category:Unincorporated communities in Virginia. NE2 01:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Category:Unincorporated communities in Virginia -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, are there any Category:Towns in Kansas? Category:Towns in the United States says there aren't any in Missouri or Oregon. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't aware that redirecting categories worked. --NE2 09:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Category:Wikipedia category redirects for some examples. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see - it's a hack. I'm not sure that it would be useful in this case; is village a common enough name for an unincorporated community that someone might assume the category exists and redlink it? --NE2 15:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If we delete it, it will likely be back again in a few months. The redirect solves the problem once and for all. -- ProveIt ^(talk)
          • Is there a bot that recategoriz/ses articles etc added to ((categoryredirect))ed or ((deletedcategory)) categories...?  I've forgotten...  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's patrolled by RobotG -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Duly noted – thanks!  David (talk) 05:05, 26 September 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 regarding 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 -- Drini 07:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not needed, probably created just to parent Category:Travis Tritt albums. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, doesn't deserve an eponymous categories. There are so many eponymous cats that should be deleted. --musicpvm 05:50, 24 September 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 regarding 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 16:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mosaics to Category:Mosaic works of art

• Rename, It is too easy for members to confuse the categories "mosaic" and "mosaics". My research indicates that "Mosaics" is supposed to be for "mosaic works of art" as noted on the top of the category. It will be better if it therefor named so. Note that "Mosaics" (works of art) is a sub-category or "Mosaic" . Goldenrowley 00:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why this distinction required (or what exactly the distinction might be)... I suspect those mosaics worth mentioning in a general encyclopedia are those generally considered to be works of art, so Category:Mosaics sufficient...?  Apologies if I'm missing something obvious, David Kernow (talk) 05:08, 26 September 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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Engineering colleges and universities. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Cswrye 00:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Hawkestone 12:15, 28 September 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.