< April 16	April 18 >

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 Repurpose to talk pages per considerable precedent. --Xdamr^talk 23:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Place of birth missing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete: There is virtually no reason to have this category. It is temporary and almost totally useless. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is a maintenance category, apparently with '000s of members. Have you checked this with WikiProject Biography or whoever? Presumably template-generated. Do you know who set it up and why? I'd want a good deal more back-up on this before deleting; it might make all the lights go out. Johnbod 23:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In fact, if there is a problem with it, it would be that it is not temporary. It has the potential to hang on permanently on the large number of people whose birthplace is unknown or disputed, from Homer downwards. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No they have a different Category! This is supposed to be for those whose pob is (or should be) verifiable but missing. That's what it says anyway. Johnbod 03:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The category system should not be used as an editorial aide memoire. Haddiscoe 11:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Shouldn't this be placed on the talk pages instead of the main articles? Neier 12:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an helpful (in most cases) indicator of an article that needs more work (to find the missing info). Pastorwayne 15:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have no problem with placeholder categories for items that should appear in all biographies. This category serves the same function as Category:Year of birth missing, which is to act as a placeholder until an appropriate category can be added. Dugwiki 16:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to talk pages if it's maintenance get it off the main article and put it where the projects do their doings - the talk page. This was done to the by-source categories which were kept for various project purposes, see no real difference here. Carlossuarez46 16:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As category clutter. All articles need more work, and we don't need categories to tell us that. It isn't the business of categories to do so. They are for navigation, and this is a misuse fo them. AshbyJnr 18:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that categories aren't also useful for maintainence. Category:Uncategorized pages is an ironic example of a category that is extremely useful for helping editors find articles that need a particular type of improvement. Another is Category:All articles lacking sources for articles lacking sources. Then there's Category:Year of birth missing, which is a very similar category to this one. Note that none of these create "category clutter", but rather serve as either placeholders for required categories or as useful tags for vital article improvement or both. Dugwiki 15:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to the talk page as a memo/maintenance category. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's hard to see how this is actually useful, as the articles cover such a broad range of subjects, that few people will be familiar with more than the odd one or two of them. Jamie Mercer 14:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & Move to talk pages This is useful to Wiki-gnomes who hunt these things down & add them, & good luck to them. Johnbod 14:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It reminds (infrequent} editors of the need for information. This is essential for category sorting overpopulated parent cats into nationality subcats. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:26, 21 April 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge, per BHG. >Radiant< 09:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Primates of England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Primates of All England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Proposed delete: these can only ever contain one subcategory each, viz., Category:Archbishops of York and Category:Archbishops of Canterbury resp., so why not use that rather than inventing an extra layer of categorisation? HeartofaDog 21:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)))}[reply]

• Make category redirect' instead; someone will reinvent it if we don't.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made these into one nomination; I see no rational way of treating them differently, and decline to have the same discussion twice. If someone does see a distinction, do mention it below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect - I agree that this is an unnecessary layer of categorization. Note that the category was created by User:Pastorwayne, who was temporarily banned for repeatedly creating non-viable categories. Dr. Submillimeter 08:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (Intentionally staying neutral to the category discussion) - Clarification: He was blocked, not banned. And the primate categories were one of the questions at that time. Please feel free to discuss these, and perhaps a group nom of all subcategories of Category:Primates (bishops), which all apparently have been created by the user in question. I'd like to see what the community consensus is regarding the categories themselves, without regards to the user himself. - jc37 09:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regardless of any decision on Primate categories as a whole, uesful as that would be, these two seem unusually superfluous as they are pointless subcats of Category:Primates of the Church of England - which can only ever contain Canterbury and York - so there seems a strong case for zapping them straight away without waiting for a wider discussion. "Primates of England", in particular, is extremely misleading and if left will only cause confusion with "Primates of the Church of England". HeartofaDog 13:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect that is a good idea for these two, where the Archbishop always is the Primate. Infact, I'll try to do it right now (if I can figure it out). Pastorwayne 12:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you would leave it until a decision has been made. HeartofaDog 13:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • PW, you speak of the CoE "where the Archbishop always is the Primate", but is there any Anglican church where the primate is not in all cases tied to a particular archbishopric? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge both to Category:Primates of the Church of England, because deletion would cast the sub-categories adrift from the Category:Primates of the Anglican Communion. These two categories are, as Dr S says, a unnecessary layer, and most of the other subcats of Category:Primates of the Church of England are similarly unnecessary. As usual with PW's categories, these ones are also inadequately parented, without any place in category hierarchies for the national churches, so if they are to be retained they will need some work. Per discussion above, I think it's regrettable that PW has not heeded previous repeated requests to refrain from category creation, at which he is usually unsuccessful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per BrownHairedGirl; I second her broader concern abut the overall organization of these categories. It would make sense for those using them to revisit the scheme and suggest some alternatives.A Musing 16:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 09:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Unfinished works of art to Category:Unfinished creative works

Nominator's Rationale: Rename It seems that Category:Works of art is a visual-arts category which is a subcat of Category:Creative works which covers all arts. The category under discussion is one I created and populated to cover all arts, so it should be a subcat of the latter rather than the former and its name should reflect this for consistency. —Blotwell 21:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom Johnbod 22:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Really, this whole string of categories needs to be cleaned up, and the category "works of art" should probably be renamed. Why are sculpture, film and mosaics called "art" ("visual art" would be more appropriate) but musical compositions and written works not "art"? If the category is one for "visual art", it should be named accordingly (although film, for example, is not a purely visual art and should probably be a subcategory to "creative works"). Esn 05:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Works of visual art" is not a term, but yes, these are in a bit of a mess. "Creative works" per nom is probably the way to go. Johnbod 10:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Useful to keep a subcat of Category:Unfinished creative works that is specifically an unfinished visual-arts category. Jheald 11:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose make it into a subcat of Category:Unfinished creative works. Less navigation work and clearer intent. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- This is the head cat. 2 of the 4 articles are literary. If a visual sub-cat is needed, that is a separate issue. Johnbod 01:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, and encourage you to keep working on cleaing these up.A Musing 16:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. >Radiant< 09:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Louisville, Kentucky to Category:People from Louisville

Propose renaming Category:Mayors of Louisville, Kentucky to Category:Mayors of Louisville

Nominator's Rationale: Louisville redirects to Louisville, Kentucky. There are at least 48 categories that use just 'Louisville' and only 3 (including Category:Louisville, Kentucky that include the state name. I think that it would be logical for these two categories to follow the same format as the others. ~ BigrTex 21:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, Recent discussion regarding Category:People from Louisville, Kentucky vs Category:People from Louisville. ~ BigrTex 21:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, and in fact do the opposite to the other categories. The city's name is Louisville, Kentucky, and therefore the other categories should give the preferred name. (Otherwise, I wouldn't be surprised if well-intentioned people put someone from Louisville, Kansas in the "People from Louisville" category?) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I considered both directions and don't have a strong preference. I did decide to nominate the simpler direction based on what appeared to be consensus, and the simplicity. If there is consensus to go the other direction, I will tag and do the mass nomination the other way. If others feel that is needed now, please let me know. ~ BigrTex 16:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The difference in size and notability between Louisville, Kentucky and the other Louisvilles is such I don't mind not including the Kentucky except that it is in the parent category. Oppose for now since the main category is Category:Louisville, Kentucky. By the way, not nominating the parent has triggered my oversensitive sense that a nominator be trying to skew the CFD process by changing lesser categories first so as to improve the chances that a CFD on the parent would go the way the nominator desires by presenting a uniformity in the child categories. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I went into this thinking that I'd nominate the other 9 direct subcategories of Category:Louisville, Kentucky the other way to match up with the previous decision on Category:People from Louisville, Kentucky. When I started looking at them, I saw that there really appeared to be consensus already on how Louisville was treated in the subcategories. I had not looked for Louisville (disambiguation) to see that in fact there are other Louisvilles. I don't think that it makes sense to rename the parent category since it already has a parallel form to all of it's siblings. ~ BigrTex 16:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, If this goes through there really has to be a redirect... otherwise some helpful editor will just recreate the "missing" categories. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The associated main article is title Louisville, Kentucky, not "Louisville", and category names should pretty much always match the spelling of their associated main article. Therefore continue using "Louisville, Kentucky" in the category names. Dugwiki 16:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom in order to comply with the standard treatment of subcategories of U.S. city categories. On a wider point, it is the unnecessary disambiguation of U.S. cities which deviates from standard practice. AshbyJnr 18:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nothing is broken. Name matches the one in the main article. In sync with naming conventions. Avoids naming conflicts created by settlement naming standards outside of the US. Vegaswikian 18:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete by Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Bencherlite 10:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artifex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Non-notable hobby team (whose article has been blocked from recreation) and a non-notable unofficial game expansion. DarkSaber2k 15:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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 all. --Xdamr^talk 13:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per precedent in several earlier discussions, membership of a student frat is not a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 13:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all As above, most organizational memberships should not be handled by categories since people can be members of so many different organizations in their lifetime and membership isn't necessarilly all that notable. Better to use list articles for membership most of the time. Dugwiki 16:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization and many, many precedents. Doczilla 16:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per many other CFD discussions in which there was clear consensus that student fraternity membership is rarely, if ever, a defining characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 11:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Annandale 01:03, 20 April 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 12:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a defining characteristic. Fires happen quite often both in superhero comics and soap opera; it's one of the "stock disasters" that authors can set upon their characters. >Radiant< 13:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Most of the characters in that Category have that fire as an important plot point in their repective stories. Characters like Zuko, Freddy Kreuger and Ms. Havisham are all centered around their burns and how they each came to get them. It's more imporant than you might think.--Piemanmoo 16:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per nom ROrange - Gos 16:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per nom? You read the nom, didn't you? The nom sounds like delete. Doczilla 01:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This category truly is not needed. A lot of fictional characters may have been the victims of fires at some point; it's a commonly-used plot element. Moreover, the characters in the category have little in common. I find it funny to see Chef (South Park) in this category with Darth Vader. Dr. Submillimeter 18:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, they have a lot in common, surely? Johnbod 22:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. *gives confused look at Radio Orange's vote* Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Fires can play pivotal roles in many works of fiction, specifically films and novels. If there were some way of excluding such cases as those mentioned by the good Doctor, it's be a stronger keep. Hmmm... we don't have an article on Edward Rochester? Grutness...wha? 01:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - First, there's not a really good definition of what constitutes a "fire victim." Is it a burn victim, or does someone who loses some or all of his possessions in a fire qualify? Second, regardless of the definition, in the vast majority of cases being a "fire victim" is not a defining characteristic. Otto4711 01:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with perhaps some trimming of criteria. I believe currently the characteristics are "burned" by fire, not just losing possessions or a house, which makes it a defining characteristic that is often a physical one. Katsuhagi 03:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional burn victims for two reasons. First, these are characters who were burned, usually scarred both physically and psychologically, not just those who lost their TV in a house fire. Second, some (such as Darth Vader) aren't actually fire victims, as they were burned by lava, contact with red-hot metal or some such thing. Clarity and truth should stand out in a category name. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If the category is renamed as suggested, will this lead to debates on whether or not specific characters are burned severely enough to be included in this category? Most ordinary people suffer burns at some point in their lives anyway, so simply being burned is not necessarily a defining characteristic. Dr. Submillimeter 07:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but that's precisely the kind of pointless argument that's easy to squash in Wikipedia. Trying to add a movie where some character briefly burned themselves on a stove would be so pointless that editors could easily counter it, just as trying to add a novel to romance because an extremely minor character went on a date in one scene can be easily countered in the regular course of editing Wikipedia. If you try to create categories that are foolproof even when nobody will apply common sense, you'll fail anyway. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 22:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as potentially somewhat useful, slightly-more-than-trivia category which might be better done as a list but might not, and is unlikely to be doing any harm. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Brown Haired Girl; again, we need a thoughtful way of subdividing the fictional characters category, and this is part of a comprehensive scheme. If there is a desire to rethink the scheme, I'd recommend the category talk pages. A Musing 14:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a defining characteristic. Actually what exactly is a fire victim? Maybe if kept a rename is in order. Vegaswikian 22:16, 22 April 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 12:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a defining characterstic either. Orphans are preternaturally common in fiction, in part because this means the author needs not describe the parents. >Radiant< 13:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete recreation of this excessively broad category. It would include millions of characters. Doczilla 16:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as overly broad and in most cases non-defining. As has been noted previously, anyone becomes an orphan if one lives long enough. This is not re-created, though, as the previous CFD closed no consensus. Otto4711 01:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it looks to be an easily manageable size now, and if it gets too big it can always be divided into subcategories. Besides, orphans in fiction have been out of style (i.e. much rarer) for a couple of decades now. I'm not sure why it would include millions of fictional characters, especially since the vast majority of fictional characters aren't notable enough to have articles just about them in Wikipedia (usually the article is just about the book or film, in which case the category wouldn't be applied anyway because a novel or movie is not an orphan). Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is such a common plot device that it is not really a defining characteristic for fictional characters. Note that the category includes many recently-created characters (such as Leela (Futurama)). Dr. Submillimeter 07:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Who, it should be noted, has two living parents so hardly qualifies. Otto4711 17:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - But she grew up in an orphanage! Doesn't that qualify her as an orphan? Dr. Submillimeter 08:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Last I heard an orphan is someone whose parents are dead. A person with two living parents is not an orphan. Otto4711 14:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there is a need to subcategorize the large category of fictional characters, and for many characters the fact that they are an "orphan" is absolutely the defining characteristic. Indeed, if you look at Jane Eyre or Little Orphan Annie, it is the MOST defining characteristic noted among their categories, and if you look at Batman, Catwoman, Clark Kent, or Harry Potter, I'd say it is the second most defining feature in their categories (after the superhero/wizard thing). An argument can be made for not overdoing the fictional characters, but if we're going to have them, we've got to have some useful categories for them.A Musing 16:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That it's defining for a few people doesn't mean it's generally defining. Being "orphan" is exceedingly common in fiction. There is indeed need to subcat the large category of fictional characters, hence we do that by profession, background and a number of other things. >Radiant< 08:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per A Musing. It is a common, but not excessively frequent, defining characteristic. "... this means the author need not describe the parents"? I suspect that authors more frequently just don't describe the parents, rather than make someone an orphan out of laziness for no plot-based reason. "Anyone becomes an orphan if one lives long enough"? Not really relevant for fictional characters. Bencherlite 08:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say that it is pretty relevant for ficional characters, especially those who are continuing characters. Should Sydney Bristow be categorized as a fictional orphan, despite the fact that she wasn't an orphan until the last ten minutes of a five-year series? We have deleted categories for fictional mothers, fictional fathers, fictional grandparents, fictional widows and fictional widowers, despite in some cases a character's status as one or more of these things being very important to their characters. This category is strongly akin to those and should be deleted for the same reasons those were. Otto4711 00:45, 22 April 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 12:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After "by nature", "by profession", "by politics" et cetera, the "characters by situation" cat seems like a superfluous placeholder. >Radiant< 13:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I created this for categories for refugees, crime victims, accident survivors, etc, where none of the other parent cats fit very well. If the children all go, it should go as well, but not until then. Oh and please tag it. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep its useful as a placeholder for smaller categories. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please define "smaller categories"? Why would smaller categories be in a different subcategory than "larger" categories? What if a smaller category grows larger, should it be moved? >Radiant< 08:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such as Category:Fictional adoptees and all the rest in there. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 22:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As part of the comprehensive scheme that is sensible and coherent. A Musing 14:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious which scheme you refer to. >Radiant< 08:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got about a thousand entries in the subcats to this one; there has been some work trying to make sense of fictional categories here utilizing a series of stock characteristics. In the case of fictional characters, this is a sensible approach, since authors regular use these stocks in an alleghorical or symbolic manner. I think it makes sense to either follow this approach broadly or reject the approach altogether, (echoing here User:ProveIt), but I don't think addressing it piecemeal is the right way to approach it. Also, this category has never been tagged - I'd suggest tagging and leaving open for a period.A Musing 13:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - "by situation" is far too vague as a categorization scheme, making the category fairly boundless. Most of the categories here can be and are categorized under their real-life counterparts (Category:Fictional child abuse victims is a child of Category:Child abuse victims for example) which seems to be standard practice. Otto4711 14:17, 23 April 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.

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 and Rename per earlier discussion. --Xdamr^talk 11:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer, in the event that this category is not deleted, it should be renamed to Category:Fictional characters with eidetic memory per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 15#Category:Fictional characters with an eidetic memory. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia, not a defining characteristic, not objectively definable. >Radiant< 13:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, I strongly disagree, it is often an important and defining characteristic for many characters currently in the category. --Philip Stevens 16:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per Phillip Stevens. Most of the characters in that category have eidetic memory as one of their defining characterists. --Piemanmoo 16:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this Category is being also discussed for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 15#Category:Fictional characters with an eidetic memory. Bencherlite 00:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, useful grouping.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This suffers from the same problems as some of the fictional character by superpower category; the category may be interpreted in many different ways. This could contain a wide range of characters with various advanced memory skills and not necessarily characters formally tested for having an eidetic memory. Hence, the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 14:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This category was listed for renaming on April 15 and so currently has two templates and two discussions going; this is disruptive and confusing. In addition, it is a defining characteristic, and while I might be tempted to rename, I would not delete. A Musing 14:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Eidetic memory is a significant characteristic. Q0 10:48, 21 April 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.

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. --Xdamr^talk 13:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary middle layer cat, no article content. >Radiant< 13:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this one I agree on. And it's confusing to boot. A Musing 14:08, 20 April 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 12:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging with Category:Fictional millionaires, as the distinction is not really made in most fiction and both boil down to "characters that are excessively rich". Otherwise we'll end up with Category:Fictional quadatimegazillionaires for Scrooge McDuck. >Radiant< 13:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Alternatively, delete both as unclear inclusion criterion. >Radiant< 08:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• merge as per nom. A lot of pre-1970s fiction wouldn't have had billionaires anyway, I guess. The globetrotter 19:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merger. The category is reasonably well-populated, and there is a big difference between a billionaire and a millionaire; the latter category includes owners of largish homes in most major capital cities (a million dollars in London buys you only a modest terraced home, and in Dublin there are thousands of very modest semi-detached houses seling for over a million dolars). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong oppose The differene between a millionaire and a billionaire is vast, as is the difference between a sterling millionaire and a Zimbabwean dollar millionaire. Merge both to category:Fictional wealthy people, which covers the purpose of the category without needless innaccuracy. AshbyJnr 18:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Wealthy" is a subjective term that should not be used for categorization. Dr. Submillimeter 19:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In practice in fiction the difference is not "vast". Also, if as you say this is an unclear inclusion criterion (per different currencies) that would be a good reason to delete it. >Radiant< 08:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I agree that "wealthy" is too subjective. However, works of fiction often refer to characters as "billionaires" or "millionaires" etc. so it is easy to label them thus without any argument. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both to Category:Fictional wealthy characters. Millionaire and billionaire are now-centric, place-centric, and arbitary. They are both far less clear than "wealthy", and should both be deleted if they are not renamed. Jamie Mercer 14:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both to Fictional wealthy characters; that is is the defining characteristic that both are getting at, and million and billion are quite relative based on time period (e.g., a 19th century millionaire and a current billionaire are going to be relatively comparable for many authors). A Musing 16:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming "wealthy characters" is not an option. That is incredibly open to interpretation. I may view Homer Simpson as "wealthy" should I choose to. Instead, definite merge into millionaires. All billionaires are millionaires, and both are groupings of the same exact stock character, and it is only for organizing by these valuable stock tropes that fictional character categories exist.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that's an excellent point! All billionaires are also millionaires. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 22:34, 20 April 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.

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. --Xdamr^talk 13:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a defining characterstic, we wouldn't use this categorization for real people either. Drinking alcohol is quite common in fiction, and who exactly is "alcoholic" is not objectively definable. >Radiant< 13:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete category with way too much room for subjective inclusion. Doczilla 16:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we'd probably have to include Homer Simpson and that ain't right! The globetrotter 19:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think the previous two voters might have misunderstood the definition of "alcoholism". Alcoholism is far from being the same thing as liking some beer now then. Homer Simpson is most definitely not an alcoholic. I think this is a necessary category, and the introduction at the list of fictional alcoholics explains the relevance of this quite nicely. Esn 05:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Homer Simpson is most definitely not an alcoholic"- he's currently listed in this cat! As Doczilla asserts below, this cat is too subjective. The globetrotter 11:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, perhaps there needs to be a tightening of criteria... but that's a different topic that should be approached on the talk page rather than on an AFD. It seems to be that the category is a valid one in principle. Esn 05:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Esn. We didn't misunderstand alcoholism. We're saying that the overwhelming majority of people editing this will. The fact that you say Homer Simpson is most definitely an alcoholic invokes an opinion on your part, an interpretation. Even though it sure seems to be correct, can you cite when he was formally diagnosed as an alcoholic? Do you know what the diagnostic criteria are? Do you know what the correct diagnostic term is? If we get to decide that he gets this diagnosis, how do we determine what other character gets the diagnosis? Doczilla 07:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said not. And why should it matter that the overwhelming majority of people do not understand what alcoholism is? The purpose of wikipedia is to educate, not to give in to ignorance. If the problem is a lack of knowledge among the general populace about what alcoholism is, the solution is to put some strict criteria onto the page to guard against that and to monitor it from time to time. Esn 10:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I overlooked the word not. You're still asserting your opinion, which makes this category one big subjective problem per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Doczilla 16:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - again, the issue here is once we have all these fictional characters on the system, how do we subcategorize them, and certainly many authors use alcholism as a defining characteristic for their characters, just as they may use wealth, status as an orphan or other key traits.A Musing 16:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, subjective (Is Peter Griffin an alcoholic? Is Patrick Bateman?), non permanent (Phil Mitchell recovered from his alcoholism), situational (DSM defines the condition of alcoholism by its interference with your ability to function - this does not apply to all cultures or even Bender who by this definition cannot be considered an alcoholic) and finally it is trivial (Who cares? Alcoholic is not a stock character, rather it is a frequent character trait making it an unuseful grouping.). And finally, to further cement my point, Wikipedians are not qualified - whether they're doctors or not in real life - to make medical judgments on fictional characters, as supported by the STRONG PRECEDENT in deleting fictional psychopaths, narcissists, sociopaths, anorexics, compulsive eaters, etc. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Doczilla. Vegaswikian 07:06, 23 April 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.

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 & Delete. --Xdamr^talk 13:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify & delete. This category is used on articles of real people that happen to have a fictional counterpart in what appears to be an alternate history fiction writer. Extremely undefining. >Radiant< 13:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Change scope. If these people have articles about their fake versions, than this category would be fine for those "fake" articles. As it's highly doubtful that any of them will, pragmatically we can just say listify. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete per nom. Doczilla 01:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete per nom. Vegaswikian 18:34, 18 April 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.

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. --Xdamr^talk 13:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With a ten-liner explanation of what this cat is supposed to mean, and prevalence of weird character quirks in e.g. cartoons, this boils down to original research, and is not objectively defined. >Radiant< 13:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep as OCD is a major defining characteristic of many characters. --Piemanmoo 16:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is reminiscent of a class of categories deleted several months ago. The problems with categories like these is that they rely on individual editors attempting to judge who may be considered to fit in the category; the judgments will vary from person to person and will invoke original research. With this specific category, editors need to assess whether characters could be considered "obsessive-compulsive" based on how the character is portrayed. Is just being clean considered "obsessive-compulsive", or do the characters have to be afraid of germs as well, or do they need to compulsively clean up and organize things wherever they go? What are the limitations? This is why these types of categories should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 18:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Too subjective to categorise and, as said above, the parameters of OCD applies to fictional characters (or even real people) are vague. --Scottie_theNerd 18:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - I'd love to find a way to save this, as there are a handful of characters who really fit, and it's close to the line; there may be an alternative, but looking at the characters on the list, it has not yet proven particularly useful. My view is subject to change with a good argument on the other side.A Musing 16:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Vegaswikian 07:08, 23 April 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. >Radiant< 08:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this name boils down to "characters that were alive in 1940-1945", it should be merged with the more meaningful Category:Fictional World War II veterans. >Radiant< 13:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --Piemanmoo 16:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Nelvana of the Northern Lights does not appear to have been a member of any armed forces and thus is not properly categorized as a "veteran." Characters who did not survive the war (e.g. The Losers) are not properly categorized as "veterans." Otto4711 00:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Otto4711. The definition of veterans does not apply to many such characters. Doczilla 01:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. I'd be okay with delete too because it's essentially an undefined category that could fit way too many characters -- but not the suggested rename. Doczilla 03:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what's a fictional WWII character? Every character from every book, movie, tv show, etc. that was around then or did something related to the war? Colonel Klink? Tommy and Tuppence? Fictional portrayals of real people? These people have really nothing in common. Carlossuarez46 03:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge, undecided on further action. Not all possible fictional characters related to World War II are veterans, and if anything, the term veteran as applied to soldiers actively serving may be misleading. Usually the term veteran is for afterwards. Which might apply to some characters, but wouldn't cover all of them. So if anything, that category may be a problem. I'm not sure what the proper course of action is to take here to be honest. It may be best to keep this category, and if necessary sub-categorize as appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 05:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge. The term "veteran" would not include, for example, fictional soldiers killed during WWII. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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 Category:Marianne (personification). --Xdamr^talk 12:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that this is a very common girl's name (Maryann, in English, I suppose) I was rather surprised to see that this cat is actually about a national symbol of France. Suggest renaming to reflect that, or merge with Category:National symbols of France. >Radiant< 13:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - for the reasons stated above. ROrange - Gos 16:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - What is the proposed new name? Two people have said "rename" without saying what the new name should be. Dr. Submillimeter 18:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Marianne (personification) per Mermaid. >Radiant< 08:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as performer by performance, same as recent discussion. ~ BigrTex 21:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was last brought up on March 18, and the decision was to "keep"; it was not even a no-consensus. Revisiting this often is disruptive to editors who use and populate categories. A Musing 22:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, on March 18 it was decided not to delete this. I am here suggesting that we rename this. >Radiant< 08:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But you haven't actually come up with a proposed name, so there is no idea to support. Haddiscoe 11:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd not be opposed to a sensible rename if one is proposed; I am opposed to merger or any other form of deletion.A Musing 11:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Marianne (personification) per Mermaid. Keep certainly. The last discussion was here [1]. Is there no rule against bringing things up again so quickly for no good reason (other than ignorance of nominator)? Could be renamed to "Models for Marianne" I suppose. It's a very big thing in France. Johnbod 22:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, in that last discussion it was decided not to delete this. I am here suggesting that we rename this. >Radiant< 08:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment "...or merge..." ie delete. Johnbod 10:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely you know the difference between a merge and a deletion? >Radiant< 08:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete as performer by performance and non-defining. Otto4711 00:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We covered all this last time; there is no "performance", & at least one of the models was voted for by 36,000 French majors - see the main article. Johnbod 02:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posing for a piece of art is a performance. And regardless of how a particular model was chosen, I still maintain that this is not a defining characteristic of the women so selected. Otto4711 03:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a defining characteristic, per the previous discussion. Haddiscoe 11:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and deletion is not the aim of this nomination, so saying it should not be deleted is a straw man. >Radiant< 08:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jheald 11:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Rename to Category:Marianne (personification) if such is needed. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm on the fence on this one - personification seems cumbersome. Having now actually read the article (and learned more about Marianne than I ever expected), how about Category:Marianne (French symbol) to get across the French aspect? A Musing 16:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - We have deleted categories devoted to people who played presidents of the United States and other roles. The reason we deleted them is because categorizing people by the roles they play is overcategorization. Categories for people posing for a work of art, even one that is a national symbol of a country, is also overcategorization, either by action or appearance or by role. The truly descriptive name for the contents of this category is Category:People who have portrayed Marianne and if this were "People who have portrayed..." any other role or personage then there would be no question that the category would be deleted. If posing for Marianne is not seen as a role played by a performer but is instead seen as an award or honor, then it is still overcategorization by award. A list of the women appears in the main article and each of the women's articles notes her portrayal of Marianne. There is also, as a result of the last CFD, a succession box in each of the women's articles. This is more than sufficient for anyone interested in Marianne and the women who played her and the category is completely unnecessary. Otto4711 16:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment - the previous CFD was IMHO wrongly closed as "keep." There were three for deletion and three for keeping including one "keep" person who changed his mind in the course of the discussion. The CFD should have closed "no consensus." Otto4711 17:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The current name is meaningless. The proposed renames are clearly performer by performance overcategorisation. The suggested merge is bizarre: Brigitte Bardot is not a French national symbol. Can't be fixed, so needs to be removed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:30, 24 April 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.

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. --Xdamr^talk 13:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pictures of Pembrokeshire to Category:Images of Pembrokeshire

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per convention of Category:Images. Haddiscoe 12:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom (and I've relocated it in the category tree, as a sub-cat of "Images of Wales" rather than of "Images of Europe") Bencherlite 11:56, 18 April 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.

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. --Xdamr^talk 13:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unrecognized Slavic countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I propose for deletion this category. It has only one article: Transnistria, and I don't think we need categories for only one article. Is debatable even if Transnistria is Slavic and if is a "country" - is in fact a region of Moldova which self-declared its independence but this independence is not internationally recognized. The main ethnic group in that region - Moldovans - is not a Slavic ethnic group (while is true that there are other 2 Slavic ethnic groups - Russians and Ukrainians which together outnumber Moldovans). The official name used even by the separatist regime in Transnistria is "Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika" (Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic), even this official name is showing a non-Slavic caracther, and the current rethoric of Transnistrian authorities is based on an "internationalist" caracther, not on a Slavic caracther of this region (the fact that this is only propaganda is an other issue). Better include Transnistria in both categories as "Russian speaking" and "Romanian speaking" teritorries (Russian-Slavic and Romanian-non-Slavic, being the two main languages in this region) and get rid of this category with a single article. Outlying only the "Slavic" caracther of Transnistria and not also the Romanian one is POV.--MariusM 09:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It does seem both unnecessary and POV-ish. -- ChrisO 13:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've never understood why was it created in the first place. Alaexis 14:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Johnbod 22:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 11:15, 18 April 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.

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 Category:Films directed by Roman Polanski. --Xdamr^talk 13:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Films directed by Roman Polański to Category:Roman Polanski

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, We recently renamed the biography from "Roman Polański" to "Roman Polanski". The reasons included: it is the name by which he's best known in English-speaking countries and it's the name he uses in his film credits and that he currently uses on his website. The pro-"Polański" editors argue that this is the traditional spelling of the name but haven't provided any sources showing it's the actual name of the subject. This rename proposal seeks to mirror the article name in the category name for consistency. Will Beback · † · 08:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. We've been killing the eponymous categories pretty heavily lately per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Doczilla 08:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I don't understand- this is just a rename, not a deletion. I'm not proposing to "kill" anything. -Will Beback · † · 08:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Doczilla. Haddiscoe 12:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename without the accent to Category:Films directed by Roman Polanski If renamed per nom will indeed get killed by hungry deletionists. Haddiscoe, are you in favour of deleting all the "films by Director" category? If not, why this one? Johnbod 12:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Films directed by Roman Polanski, convention of Category:Films by director. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete Note that this is a subcategory of Category:Films by director, which is similar to Category:Books by author and Category:Albums by artist. These particular categories are currently exceptions to the general rule of thumb against eponymous categories since these works only generally have one associated artist for the category (ie one director to one film, and one author to one book). That's why we have Category:Films by director but try and avoid using "Films by actor". Dugwiki 16:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Rename to Category:Films directed by Roman Polanski Modify the category name to "Films directed by Roman Polanski" to remain consistent with the naming convention of other subcategories of Category:Films by director and to match the associated article Roman Polanski. Dugwiki 16:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Films directed by Roman Polanski per convention. Esn 05:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Films directed by Roman Polanski - This is a standard way of naming categories for films directed by individual people. The diacritic should be removed to match the article on Roman Polanski. This should not be controversial. Dr. Submillimeter 19:55, 18 April 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.

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. --Xdamr^talk 13:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Military operations involving Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to Category:Military operations of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Nominator's Rationale: Found doing March cleanup. Was a speedy but needs to be a full discussion. Vegaswikian 06:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per the corresponding category naming convention. Kirill Lokshin 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename in Category:Military operations involving Israel. Is shorter and will include possible Israel-linked millitary operations not related with palestinians (what about a possible future Israel-Iran conflict?)--MariusM 13:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  There's already a Category:Military operations involving Israel; I think this was intended to be a sub-category for a particular conflict. Kirill Lokshin 13:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nomination. Carom 18:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Scottie_theNerd 18:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 19:42, 18 April 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.

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. --Xdamr^talk 13:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Waffen-SS units to Category:Military units and formations of the Waffen-SS

Nominator's Rationale: Found doing March cleanup. Was a speedy but should have been a full discussion. Vegaswikian 06:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per the corresponding category naming convention. Kirill Lokshin 11:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nomination and Kirill. Carom 18:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. Johnbod 22:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 19:43, 18 April 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.

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. --Xdamr^talk 13:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Frigidity drugs to Category:Female sexual dysfunction drugs

Nominator's Rationale: Found doing cleanup from March. Was listed as a speedy, but I don't think this qualifies as a speedy. Vegaswikian 06:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod 22:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:52, 18 April 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.

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. --Xdamr^talk 13:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wrestlers who won a title in their debut match (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category is empty (there were articles, but they were removed since they were just the first televised match or their first match in an organization, none are their first matches). Category is pretty much useless since wrestlers don't get title matches for their first match. Who is the last boxer (for example) to have their very first fight be a title match? TJ Spyke 05:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per above.-- bulletproof ^3:16 05:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete trivia. Doczilla 08:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 12:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete something to note on their page - but nothing to start one about ROrange - Gos 16:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-existent, per nom. Johnbod 22:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The category is never going to become a reality. It doesn't happen. --Scottie_theNerd 18:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. The Hybrid 22:06, 18 April 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.

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. --Xdamr^talk 13:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Templates for territorial disputes to Category:Territorial dispute templates

To follow "...templates" format used by other template category names. David Kernow (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Adambro 18:00, 17 April 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 09:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:IDEN phones to Category:IDEN mobile phones

Nominator's Rationale: Mobile phones categories

Firstly this is *NOT* my nomination. However. For the record not all phones with IDEN are mobile phones. See this page with motorola desktop office-phones from TELUS with IDEN walkie-talkie. [2] (Scroll to near the bottom of the page) CaribDigita 03:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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. --Xdamr^talk 13:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Mormonism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. The category subjectively labels various critics or publications as "anti-" (or associated with it) when this would normally be asserted, disputed, explained, or qualified in the articles themselves. Regardless, they don't identify themselves individually or collectively as such. The category also contains a blacklist used for censorship purposes. The controversial Anti-Mormon article redundantly does the same. Anon166 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 12:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. ROrange - Gos 16:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this vaguely named category with subjective inclusion. Doczilla 16:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too subjective--Sefringle 03:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too subjective, because I can see no way of clearly defining the threshold for inclusion. Whether the test is having personally murdered at let a dozen mormons in one week, or of having criticised an attribute of mormonism in a scholarly journal, the test would inevitably be arbitrary. --08:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, but if and only if Anti-Christianity, Anti-Islam sentiment are deleted. It seems like this is the only one with anything close to consensus, and if the others are not deleted, this is an effective vote for keep. Cool Hand Luke 03:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep if a category is to be kept, so should its anti-category. This is simply fairness to different points of view. Hmains 03:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are you saying there is the pro-Mormon category? Anon166 03:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hmains's inference that the main category is a "pro-Mormonism" category is just plain wrong. Jamie Mercer 14:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nom. --TheEditrix2 18:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The article Anti-Mormonism makes it clear that the meaning of this term varies widely, and frequently appears to be an attack label. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wouldn't Category:People related to anti-Mormonism be potentially worse than this parent category?--T. Anthony 13:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Most people are not accustomed to Mormon methods, but if someone was on that list, Mormons would not be allowed to read their material in good standing, and might not be allowed to attend their son's or daughter's Mormon wedding as a result. Even the people who debate the material often admit to never reading it. The point is that Wikipedia is being used for blacklists, but masquerading it as a legitimate religious topic. The word "anti-" is purely POV when it is used to denote anti-[POV] itself. Although anti-[racism] is a legitimate category for an illegitimate deed, it is only legitimate because anti-[POV] is not, otherwise racism would be defended by its opposition. Ironically, some editors are announcing that the Mormon topics are now pro-Mormon, emboldened by the fact they have made them so. Anon166 14:51, 21 April 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Scots-Irish Americans. --Xdamr^talk 13:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scots-Irish American actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, per WP:OCAT, being Scots-Irish American and being an actor is not a valid intersection. Is Scots-Irish American acting any different that Scottish-American acting, Irish-American acting, English-American acting, Greek-American acting, German-American acting, etc.? Carlossuarez46 01:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can see a use for this category for actors who play mainly character roles as Scots-Irish Americans. Probably would need a rename to emphasize that such as Character actors who portray Scots-Irish Americancharacters so as to avoid miscategorization. No idea if any of the current membership of the category would qualify. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I can see a use for this category for actors who play mainly character roles as Scots-Irish Americans" - lol - there really isn't a huge history in the movies of playing "Scots-Irish American" characters Mad Jack 05:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• if deleted, first upmerge articles to its parent Category:Scots-Irish Americans Hmains
• Merge with Scots-Irish Americans. I would support keeping this, BUT, "Scots-Irish Americans" is a very small category at the moment so it need not have any sub-cats. Mad Jack 05:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Scots-Irish Americans - It is unapparent that ancestry has any major impact on some of these people's careers. For example, I would not have guessed that Dolly Parton or John Wayne were of Scots-Irish ancestry based on their performances (or anything else). I also suggest limiting Category:Scots-Irish Americans to either just Scots-Irish immigrants to the United States or possibly first and second generation Americans, simply because the ancestry is more important to these first two generations than in subsequent generations. Dr. Submillimeter 06:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Scots-Irish Americans per Dr. Submillimeter. Haddiscoe 12:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - for reasons given above. ROrange - Gos 16:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge for now as unnecessary subdivision of Category:Scots-Irish Americans. However, in reply to Dr S, note that Scots-Irish culture is, for example, the most important root of country and western music. I don't think that this category helps us understand the individuals involved, which is why I support deletion, but I hope that deletion will not be taken as a precedent for denigrating the importance of Scots-Irish traditions in American society. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Based on this comment, I would say that the importance of Scots-Irish traditions in American society should be described in an article. It would be much more useful than this category. (Maybe an article already exists?) Dr. Submillimeter 09:01, 18 April 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Irish-Americans. --Xdamr^talk 13:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irish-American actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, per WP:OCAT being Irish-American and being an actor is not a valid intersection of ethnicity and occupation; they are unrelated. This category is further troubling by no limitation on how "Irish" one need be. Even were there some intersection between being Irish-American and being an actor, how valid is that if the actor is 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, or 1/32 Irish by ancestry? Does his/her acting become half as Irish as we figure out his/her family tree? The category calls for "notable" Irish descent, not sure if that means that one's Irish ancestors must have been notable or some % makes your descent "notable" or whether someone has just bothered to figure out that someone with a typically Irish surname probably "notabl[y]" belongs. Carlossuarez46 01:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can see a use for this category for actors who play mainly character roles as Irish Americans. Probably would need a rename to emphasize that such as Character actors who portray Irish-American characters so as to avoid miscategorization. No idea if any of the current membership of the category would qualify. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• if deleted, first upmerge articles to its parent category Category: Irish-Americans Hmains 02:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Actors who portray Irish-American characters" (why "Character" actors?) would be a hard category to define. For example, if an actor once had a 2-minute role as a character named "O'Leary", I could imagine them being placed in there. Hard to define and too much original research. Although "Irish-American actor" is not a particularly notable intersection, the category needs to exist simply because "Irish-Americans" is too large and would benefit from sub-categories. Mad Jack 05:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why character actors? Because by definition if an actor is notable for portraying characters of a particular ethnicity then he is a character actor and thus would be in Category:Character actors. Rather than having in such cases dual catting, might as well have a single cat with a name that conveys the information as succinctly as possible. Caerwine Caer’s whines 15:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Irish-Americans - It is unapparent that ancestry has any major impact on some of these people's careers. For example, I would not have guessed that Stephen Colbert, George Clooney, or Tommy Chong were of Irish ancestry based on their performances (or anything else). I also suggest limiting Category:Irish-Americans to either just Irish immigrants to the United States or possibly first and second generation Americans, simply because the ancestry is more important to these first two generations than in subsequent generations. Dr. Submillimeter 06:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Dr. Submillimeter. Haddiscoe 12:38, 17 April 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Greek Americans. --Xdamr^talk 13:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Greek-American actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Per WP:OCAT; being Greek-American and being an actor is not a valid intersection; the ethnicity and the occupation are not related. Carlossuarez46 01:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can see a use for this category for actors who play mainly character roles as Scots-Irish Americans. Probably would need a rename to emphasize that such as Character actors who portray Greek-American characters so as to avoid miscategorization. No idea if any of the current membership of the category would qualify.Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• if deleted, first upmerge all articles to its parent category Category:Greek Americans. Hmains 02:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with "Greek-Americans" I would have said "Keep" had there been more people in "Greek-Americans", but at the moment that category is probably not big enough to warrant a sub-cat. Mad Jack 05:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Greek Americans - It is unapparent that ancestry has any major impact on some of these people's careers. For example, I would not have guessed that Jennifer Aniston was of Greek ancestry based on her performances (or anything else). I also suggest limiting Category:Greek Americans to either just Greek immigrants to the United States or possibly first and second generation Americans, simply because the ancestry is more important to these first two generations than in subsequent generations. Dr. Submillimeter 06:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Dr. Submillimeter. Haddiscoe 12:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with "Greek Americans" - not enough reason to create a sub-category ROrange - Gos 16:20, 17 April 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 09:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Disaster preparedness in the Caribbean (region) to Category:Disaster preparedness in the Caribbean

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, I'm not sure what purpose the "(region)" suffix serves, it is not needed. jwillbur^talk 00:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Answer. It is region not a country as per one of the cats listed within. But if you had to choose between one (as a region) or by country. It would be better to nix the cat linking it to "by country" and leave it by Caribbean. The part with "(region)" ending then could stay or go in that case. CaribDigita 03:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it should be moved out of Category:Disaster preparedness by country, probably moved up a level to Category:Disaster preparedness. I still think the name change is a good idea. jwillbur^talk 15:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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. --Xdamr^talk 13:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per the convention with football where the per nation player categories are only named something different than "X-ian footballers" for English-speaking countries where football is not synonymous with soccer, countries where athletics unambiguously mean track and field should use "X-ian athletes". As far as I know, the U.S. and Canada are the only two nations where that ambiguity exists. Rename:

Category:Colombian track and field athletes → Category:Colombian athletes

Category:Singaporean track and field athletes → Category:Singaporean athletes

I've also sent off Category:Turks and Caicos Islander athlete for a speedy rename to make it plural instead of singular, despite it having only one entry at present. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While I see the point in comparison with footballers, the term "footballers" is not ambiguous in the same sense as the term "athletes." "Footballers" is simply not used in those countries and readers will not confuse the meaning, since American Football players are not referred to as "footballers." Thus the category remains unambiguous. The same is not true for "Athletes" in the US and Canada, where an athlete may be a participant in any sport. Changing these categories will result in confusion and possibly the addition of non-appropriate persons to the category in question. Perhaps, if people are truly opposed to the use of "track and field", the term "decathaletes" would be more specific.MArcane 04:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not proposing the rename of either the U.S. nor the Canadian track and field athletes categories, just the pair for Colombia and Singapore. Except for those four, the other 156 per nation athletes non-stub categories in Category:Athletes by nationality already use just "athletes" and this proposal will leave only the countries where athletes compete in more than just track and field (the U.S. and Canada) with the extended name. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename both. Sorry, I misunderstood the intent of the rename. In light of the comment above, it seems logical.MArcane 02:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per nom. Haddiscoe 12:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per nom. Johnbod 22:29, 17 April 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.