< April 26	April 28 >

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:Theatres built in the Soviet Union. --Xdamr^talk 16:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Theaters built in the Soviet Union to Category:Theatres built in the Soviet Union

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. This is a follow-up to the recent renaming of category:Theatres in Russia to use the "re" form. The "re" form is used for every country, including the United States, and for all the articles in this category, so there is no reason to leave this name as the solitary inconsistency. AshbyJnr 22:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Theatres in the Soviet Union. This and its related categories appear to be the only ones in the Category:Buildings and structures by country tree that include the "built in" verbiage and I see no need for it. The other "built in" categories should also be renamed. Otto4711 22:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Theatres built in the Soviet Union per nom, and Keep as a valid subcat of Category:Buildings and structures built in the Soviet Union, which is a historical category relating to buildings from a particular period in history. For example, Novosibirsk Globus Theatre is already in Category:Theatres in Russia as well as Category:Theaters built in the Soviet Union, so there's no need to turn this into another geographic category. Category:Buildings and structures built in the Soviet Union doesn't have many clear parallels in other archicture or buildings categories (the closest I can see are the subcats of Category:Architectural styles such as Category:Georgian architecture), but Category:Buildings and structures built in the Soviet Union is a useful categ even if it is unique. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Category:Soviet architecture exists. If this is a distinct style then the category should be renamed to Category: Soviet theatres to reflect that and should probably include examples of buildings from outside the USSR that are built in that style and relocated to the architectural styles category tree. If not, then this category and its brethren are for all intents and purposes temporal subdivisions of the categories of the nations that were formerly the USSR and it does not appear that we categorize other buildings and structures on the basis of having been "built in" previously existing countries. There is no Category:Buildings and structures built in the Confederate States of America category tree, for example, or Category:Buildings and structures built in Yugoslavia. I am not suggesting deleting this category tree, just renaming it to match every other similar category and locating it as a sub-cat of the appropriate national categories. Otto4711 16:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. If this category should exist at all, it should have a special type of name as it is not part of the standard by-country structure. Haddiscoe 14:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - are there any other "building and structires" categories for countries which no longer exist that use this structure? I didn't see any in looking through the parent cat. If not, there there's no real justification for a different name for this one. There are a lot of countries that once existed and no longer do so the USSR is not unique. Otto4711 15:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The USSR had its own unique forms of ideologically-driven architecture which seems to me to merit some form of classification. A different name might be better, but a Soviet-built theatre seems to me to be worth classifying as such, however we label it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds then like my suggestion above, to rename to "Soviet ___" (or perhaps "Soviet-style ___") and repositioning in the architectural styles tree is perhaps the better solution for dealing with these cats. Otto4711 21:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, or otherwise delete. OrchWyn 10:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. There are actually dozens of comparable cats. Category:Crusader castles , Category:Byzantine architecture, Category:Ottoman architecture, Category:Carolingian architecture are all analagous - the tree is so complicated I can't be bothered to find more precise examples beyond the obvious ones like Category:Roman amphitheatre buildings & the many other similar Roman and Ancient Greek cats. No doubt there are cats for British colonial buildings etc etc somewhere. Johnbod 22:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per nom. Not everything has to follow convention if its a better encyclopedic solution. Rgds, --Trident13 22:12, 30 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 Merge to Category:Rugby league teams. --Xdamr^talk 23:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-cat of Category:Rugby league teams, no real distinction between the two. At present international teams are a subcat of 'teams' and clubs has subcats 'British rugby league clubs', 'French rugby league clubs' etc. Why not have the 'teams' category and move the 'clubs' subcats across.GordyB 22:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not sure what you're proposing here - I can't really see a problem as it is. Please clarify. Johnbod 00:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ I think the proposal is to upmerge Category:Rugby league clubs into Category:Rugby league teams on the basis that the articles and sub-categories in C:RLC might just as well be in C:RLT, as there's no essential difference between a rugby league club and a rugby league team. If that's the proposal, whilst I'm inclined to agree at the moment, I'll await developments as it's not entirely clear, and in any event I think that the relevant WikiProject might have some input. So I'll ask them. Bencherlite 01:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose any change for now~~ (the nomination is unclear about what is proposed). I don't know much about rugby league, but don't some sports clubs have more than one team? (I think that some have A and B teams, some have a senior and under-21 team etc). Unless someone can show that no Rugby League clubs have more than one team, then we shouldn't merge or rename two different concepts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll clarify club and team are being used as synonyms here which is why I suggested the "upmerge" (thanks for that term). There are only a few articles on A teams, youth teams etc but bizarrely they are in the 'club' section (which I want deleted) rather than the 'team' section (which would make more sense). The Wigan academy are a different team but not a different club, so it is very strange to classify them as such.GordyB 09:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Rugby league teams: changing my !vote now that nomination and intention are clarified. (thanks for the explanation) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Rugby league teams per (clarified) nom. Bencherlite 09:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Rugby league teams Bongomanrae 11:30, 2 May 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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:Streets in Gatineau. --Xdamr^talk 23:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roads in Gatineau to Category:Streets in Gatineau

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per convention of Category:Streets by city. That convention is different from the one for roads by country, but that's because the articles serve different purposes. The articles about long distance roads are mainly about how the roads help you to get from A to B, whereas the articles about streets in towns are mainly about the features of those streets as places in their own right. Nathanian 21:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 14:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy 70.55.201.213 03:50, 1 May 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 16:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per many precedents. People do not have an article for belonging to a fraternity. Haddiscoe 21:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and extensive discussisons in previous CfDs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:46, 28 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 00:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion of Category:Films featuring a white protagonist in Africa.

Um, overcategorization anyone? It is well populated, but seeing as we don't even have (nor should we) a Category:Films featuring a white protagonist, this is not a sensible categorization scheme. Lesnail 21:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 21:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pure cruft. Dismas|^(talk) 21:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note previous CFD which closed "no consensus" and the AFD for the lead article, which also closed "no consensus." Otto4711 22:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous CfD (linked above) and the article Films featuring a white protagonist in Africa. I notice several thoughtful editors changed their minds in the course of the last debate. This is a specific phenomenon, itself the subject of a deal of academic study, and the lack of similar categories should not be the issue in this case; nor can it be called pure cruft. Thanks to Otto for the refs to the history. Johnbod 15:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is the second time this article has been nominated, we do not need to go through this merry go round again.deletion log Muntuwandi 22:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Genre categories are one thing, but this category groups disparate films with one plot feature in common. OrchWyn 10:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources and studies win; clearly a meaningful intersection.A Musing 13:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is generally a strange way to categorize movies. (Imagine Category:Films featuring a hispanic protagonist in Vermont.) The article Films featuring a white protagonist in Africa is already better for explaining why this is important pehnomenon, and it even lists notable examples. The category simply confuses people and is not needed. Dr. Submillimeter 23:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Johnbod. As the article Films featuring a white protagonist in Africa makes clear, this is a recognised genre of films (albeit a loose one), and is the subject of serious scholarship. Dr S's analogy of Category:Films featuring a hispanic protagonist in Vermont is a bit of a straw man, because there does not appear to be any significant scholarship on that topic. In response to OrchWyn, the issue here is not one "plot feature", it is the a much more fundamental characteristic of the film's purpose. In response to the nominator, of course we don't have a Category:Films featuring a white protagonist: the concept makes sense only for films set in a predominantly non-white environment, and (per the head article), the genre relies on the contrast between the white protagonist and the "exotic" natives. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Johnbod. Notable phenomenon. / edgarde 22:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article itself serves the purpose of making it's point of white characters in African set movies just fine. Categorizing each and every such movie is overspecialization and unncessary.
Delete overcategorization. Doczilla 18:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favour of the article. POV overcategorisation. Honbicot 11:05, 3 May 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 16:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion of Category:Films set in Africa.

We don't ordinarily categorize films by where they are set. I cannot find any other such categories, nor do see why being set in Africa is especially more notable than being set anywhere else. Lesnail 21:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 21:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dismas|^(talk) 21:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a subcat of Category:Films by location. Pardon me while I place it there now. Otto4711 22:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless the others are all conisedered together apparently we do categorize films by where they are set, contrary to the nomination. Whether that's good or bad ought to be considered at one fell swoop, rather than just picking on one; I suggest withdrawing the nomination and renominating all of them or just letting them be. Carlossuarez46 22:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There aren't any others like this. "Cinema by country" is a totally different thing. OrchWyn 10:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto. "Films set in North America" would obviously be a bit OTT, but this is useful. Johnbod 00:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep there are several categories of film by location, this will help in navigation if anyone is interested Africa related cinema.Muntuwandi 01:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And the goal of this category is??? Cause I frankly don't see it? Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 04:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless all subcats of Category:Films by location are considered together. No case has been made for treating this category as an exception to other subcats of Category:Films by location, and the nomination is clearly made on a mistaken premise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BrownHairedGirl et al. -Sean Curtin 09:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to further discussion to further discussion on Category:Films by location, per Otto4711, Carlossuarez46 and BHG. (Nominator may have been misled by lack of link to appropriate parent category until Otto added it). Bencherlite 14:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I was. Just the same I will nominate all of them later. They still seem rather trivial. Lesnail 15:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete All the other categories in Category:Cinema by location are misplaced, as they are categorized by country of production, not country of setting. OrchWyn 10:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the Cinema by location tree is for production and Film by location is for settings. I'm doing some sorting now. Otto4711 17:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Otto.A Musing 13:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The category seems overly broad. Maybe specifying specific countries when possible would be appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 23:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very many films set in Africa don't specify a country, or invent one, so that's no use. Johnbod 01:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there can be subcategories linking to country specific movies, for example Nollywood. In any case it is still a useful compilation of africa related film whose existence has some use and whose absence leaves an empty void. Muntuwandi 02:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be an appropriate subcategory of Category:Films by location. So unless someone wants to nominate that parent category for deletion (which I'm not sure what the reasoning would be) then this subcategory should stay in place. Dugwiki 17:55, 30 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 Merge to Category:Lists of actors by television series. --Xdamr^talk 16:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Actors by television series to Category:Lists of actors by television series

Nominator's Rationale: Merge - initially was going to say rename but I see the target category already exists. With the listification and deletion of the cast member categories continuing, these two categories are redundant and the lists should go in a "Lists of..." category. Assuming this is approved, at the same time can the existing cast member subcategories be speedily renamed or does there need to be a separate CFR? Otto4711 21:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Now that the casts have been listified, this is the logical next step. Carlossuarez46 22:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Sounds reasonable to me. Dugwiki 17:56, 30 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 Listify & Delete. --Xdamr^talk 16:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion of Category:Black and white films that have been colorized.

Listify if you must. I don't see any way this is not just fancruft. Lesnail 20:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 21:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - colorization was and is controversial amongst film scholars, filmmakers and segments of movie viewers. It is a fairly important aspect of many of the films that were colorized. Categorization seems reasonable. Otto4711 17:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is a controversy and the list is about a fact, not an opinion, which could help verify any disputes or claims being made about a film, noting that film journalism and research are two fields which would benefit from it. Anon166 19:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A broadcaster would also benefit from this list, since it is often not apparent if there is an original version. Anon166 19:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Yeah. Like you said, "list" -- not category. Doczilla 05:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inforation that should be listified so it can be properly sourced. Otherwise, every B&W film will get lumped into this category whether it belongs or not. You know The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind will get slapped into this one even though neither belongs. Movies that never got colorized will be put in here too. Doczilla 05:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anon166 is suggesting that a wikipedia category should be regarded as an authoritive source for research? I think not. Orc*hWyn 10:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia is authoritative on anything, but I am suggesting that you are still lacking a reason to delete unless you delete all of wikipedia. I don't see a difference in listifying it, because it's a factual category regardless and all films worthy of colorizing should have pages anyway. Anon166 23:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Otto; note that "controversial" as he sues it means discussed and studied; if Wikipedia is to be useful to specialists and those with more detailed interests in subjects, we've got to keep categories like this. Doczilla's argument that something could end up in here that doesn't belong is unconvincing, as it is true of an enormous number of categories; there is not, like some of the "anti" categories, a difficult to verify judgment call as to whether something has been colorized - it is a simple fact. A Musing 13:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify - This was a common phenomena at one point, so it is not a defining characteristic for black and white films. Placing the articles in a list would also allow for discussing the significance of the phenomenon. Dr. Submillimeter 15:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify - these films are often from different era's and cover different subjects, so they only have colouristaion in common. A great subject for a list. Rgds, --Trident13 22:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify this is notable and controversial 70.55.201.213 03:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete, I don't believe this is a defining characteristic of these films, but at the same time, the topic itself is clearly notable (and noted). A list is by far the best approach here. Xtifr _tälk 13:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as one of four subcategories of Category:Black and white films. There is a separate category to differentiate between black and white films with color segments (or vice-versa), so there shouldn't be any cause for confusion. If this category goes, then so should all of the categories on black and white films. All or none. (Ibaranoff24 17:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Listify & delete as suggested above. More comprehensive that way. >Radiant< 10:33, 4 May 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 procedural close - nomination overtaken by decision by in earlier CfD on same category to delete. Bencherlite 17:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting too big and pointlessJay B. 20:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has beaten you to it: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 23#Category:Userboxes made with userboxcreator, where discussion has yet to close. Suggest withdraw. Bencherlite 20:13, 27 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recreation of a category previously CfDed. The result of that was to listify and delete. The list was created and the cat deleted. This may qualify for a "Speedy".. J Greb 18:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly long and excessive name, and downright ridiculous at that. It would serve much more use in an article rather than a category, with a different given title of course. ~I'm anonymous
Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material, and tagged as such. For reference, the previous discussion was here Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 7#Category:Fictional characters by superhuman power, the oh-so-similarly-named Category:Fictional characters with the power to create illusions was item 16 on the menu, and the list is here. Bencherlite 21:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Bencherlite. Carlossuarez46 22:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete If it were named "Fictional characters who can create illusions" it would be a different story. --Piemanmoo 04:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete For reasons above.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 04:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete stupid recreation. Doczilla 22:16, 28 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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:Buddhism in Sri Lanka. --Xdamr^talk 23:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sri Lankan Buddhism to Category:Buddhism in Sri Lanka

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to bring in line with other Category:Buddhism by country members. – Riana _ऋ 16:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom for consistency --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 21:15, 27 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 Keep. --Xdamr^talk 23:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is redundant, there is only one language native to Iceland, or indeed spoken there on a regular basis. Max Naylor 15:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subcategory of Category:Languages of Europe It looks like Category:Languages of Europe is specifically subdivided into languages by nation. Therefore this category would be a necessary subcategory of that scheme, which means that it should be kept even if it only has a single article. Dugwiki 15:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dugwiki. Categories that are part of a "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", such as Category:Languages of Europe, are exceptions to the principle that categories with few members should be avoided - see WP:OVERCAT#Small with no potential for growth. Bencherlite 15:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dugwiki. English is spoken on a regular basis in Iceland. Haddiscoe 21:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and use Category:Icelandic language in the European category; we make too much of a fetish of consistency in naming categories. Plus trying to recreate it for consistency later will give AfD regulars something to do. Johnbod 00:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination is flawed, since this covers both the Icelandic language and Icelandic Sign Language. I note that the category isn't tagged for detetion, either. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Grutness and consistency. Lesnail 14:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category implies native languages spoken by different people, and is misleading. Anon166 19:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dugwiki. OrchWyn 10:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add Old Norse language as well. There. Now we have two.A Musing 13:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See the categorization of French language. Categorization of languages by country is not feasible for a few widely-used languages (French, Spanish, and English). This is a categorization problem that will eventually need to be dealt with here. However, I do not see the deletion of this category by itself as solving any problems. Dr. Submillimeter 23:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about Arabic? Honbicot 11:06, 3 May 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 Merge to Category:High schools in Japan. --Xdamr^talk 23:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:High schools in Japan, or at least Rename to Category:High schools in Saga Prefecture. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:High schools in Japan. There aren't enough Japanese high school articles to justify this sort of subcatgorization. Lesnail 15:14, 2 May 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 23:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Contains only Bishop Seabury Academy, and an image. I don't think the category is needed. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Dismas|^(talk) 13:49, 27 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 23:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is just cruft. There are only two items related to the category, the book and the film. Sorry, and a TV series. Both articles contain links to anyone connected with them. This category is also being used as category cruft for the articles of actors in the film. This sets a dangerous precedent of every book that's been made into a film having their own categories, then the actors in those films having that category in their article, etc. and so on. If this is to be like the many other television series cats, then it should only include those who played a major role in the creation, acted, etc. Dismas

Delete - the articles are sufficiently interlinked and there is no need for the category. Since we don't categorize people by project the category will not be needed for actors or creators. Otto4711 14:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, this category appears to be used mainly to house actors, and thus the bulk of it isn't necessary since the cast list within the associate article is sufficient for navigation. Similarly the novel, film, series and soundtrack links are all interlinked in the various articles, making the category not necessary for those either. Dugwiki 15:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - bunk category. ~I'm anonymous
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 21:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per fancruft. — Dale Arnett 23:52, 28 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 Keep. --Xdamr^talk 16:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most countries don't have a "flora" category, which is because plants and trees don't obey human-created borders; any plant found in one country likely also grows in the next country over. That is why they're usually grouped by continent or geographical region instead. These categories are either near-empty, or essentially overlapping with the continent or region cat. >Radiant< 09:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Contrary to what the nomination says, there are 75 country sub-categories of Category:Flora by country, and 51 pages in the South African category, and many hundreds more could be found that only grow in South Africa. There are in fact no alternative regional categories for Africa - there are only Category:Flora of Africa and the countries. No doubt it would be better if there were Categories for Tropical African, Mahgreb, Southern African etc flora, but there aren't. Other continents seem to be the same. The only "geographical region" sub-cat I could find is Category:Flora of the Chihuahuan Desert. Lumping whole continents together as opposed to countries may not make much difference for North America/USA, but this is about the only place where this is the case. Another extraordinarily misleading nom, I'm afraid to say. Johnbod 13:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are in fact several hundred countries in the world, far more than 75. Africa, for instance, has 56 countries, four of which have a "Flora" category. >Radiant< 14:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The UN has 192 members, a tad short of "several hundred". Both the Madagascar and South African categories are actually or potentially very distinct, and could be the base for good regional categories, if anyone ever got round to doing them. I don't see how stripping back to the whole continent is an advance. Johnbod 14:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice by the way we have 50 sub-cats for Category:Flora of the United States by state - no AfD nominations for them! Johnbod 00:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the one for Maryland is extremely lame. There are four articles on the unique flora of Soldier's Delight, and two articles on plants that grow up and down the whole East Coast. Oh, and two articles on individual trees. Mangoe 03:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Category:Fauna of the United States by state was deleted a few months ago. Categorization of flora by state is excessive, especially since some plants may be found in many states. Dr. Submillimeter 15:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Categorizing flora and fauna by political area may be nonideal, but until someone invents and institutes a better geographical categorization scheme, I very loathe to get rid of these categories. They may not be perfect, but they are decidedly better than nothing. Lesnail 20:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lesnail. This may not be the ideal subdivision of Category:Flora of Africa, but its better than no subdivision. Some regional categorisation might be more appropriate than by-country, but until that's in place these ones are better than nothing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Endemic flora of X" - Some species of plants may be found across entire continents (such as all of Africa), while others are endemic to specific countries (such as South Africa). To specify the ones that are found in specific countries, I suggest using "endemic" to indicate this. Also note that categorizing widespread plants and animals by every country in which they are found is not a good option; see Zebra Waxbill for an example. Dr. Submillimeter 15:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice from endemic that the proposed deletion includes under SA the ecoregion in the world with the highest proportion of endemic plants - Fynbos in SA. Johnbod 03:52, 1 May 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 16:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overly narrow, unlikely to grow. Suggest upmerging to "lists of fictional characters". >Radiant< 09:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, DO NOT MERGE A more suitable title for the cat. would be Category:List of characters in horror fiction. A category redirect seems admissible also. ~I'm anonymous
Merge to both Category:Lists of fictional characters and Category:Horror. -Sean Curtin 09:07, 28 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 16:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This cat is for "films with both black and white and color segments". That is hardly a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 09:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivia. Doczilla 13:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Rubbish. ~I'm anonymous
Delete please. This is not significant. Lesnail 20:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify - this is interesting at some level; the use in the Wizard of Oz is much commented on and studied; the use of the mix in other films often is often referential, indicating a dream sequence or a time sequence. We don't need to muck up the categories on this, but let's not lose the information that all these films use the technique.A Musing 13:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining characteristic. I have no objection to making a list, but I'd like to see that list include some evidence that this has been studied outside of Wikipedia; otherwise it's just original research. Xtifr _tälk 13:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Keep as one of four subcategories of Category:Black and white films. If this category goes, then so should all of the categories on black and white films. All or none. (Ibaranoff24 17:41, 3 May 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 Listify & Delete. --Xdamr^talk 16:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a defining characteristic, not a meaningful grouping. The devil is a character archetype that appears in a wide number of otherwise-unrelated films, in a wide number of roles and functions. >Radiant< 09:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-defining, excessively broad, and sometimes subjective category. Doczilla 13:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - crufty category and leans towards nonsensical. ~I'm anonymous
Delete per nom; not opposed to a list. Carlossuarez46 22:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and as performer-by performance (OK, last bit may not be strictly accurate). Satan's acting career has been far too prolific (and often too trivial) to make a category useful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Merge into Satan in popular culture The devil's a pretty interesting character, and much studied and interpretted. There are many academic works on different renderings and characterizations of the devil (indeed, the academic analysis of the differences in Faustian devils alone is pretty interesting). Let's not lose the info.A Musing 13:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC) --I've added the Merge as discussed below.[reply]
Listify agree with A Musing. The devil has a notable archetype in Western culture for hundreds and hundreds of years. I believe there is interest and notability to a list that contains the information this cat contains.-Andrew c 22:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete, I agree with nom that this is not a defining characteristic, but also with A Musing that this is a notable and widely studied part of folklore. A list is very much the best way to address such cases. Xtifr _tälk 13:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See List of works which retell or strongly allude to the Faust tale, which I'd suggest a list should not be limited to films featuring the devil, but include all works, and that the Faust list either be referenced in that list or merged into it. Now, off to add to the Faust list.A Musing 13:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment Okay, most of this information is already in Satan in popular culture, which includes a list of films. I think this info should be added there, to the extent it is not, and the rest of the category deleted. Note that there is also a Satan in literature, so the devil is getting his due here. A Musing 15:14, 2 May 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 00:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the purpose of Category:LGBT-related films, but this cat is for films that are not LGBT-related, but nevertheless happen to contain a character that is homosexual. Incidentally that includes nearly all contemporary soap/drama/social comedy films. This is not a defining characteristic, and trivia. >Radiant< 09:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:LGBT-related films. This category was created by moving artiles out of the "related" category. Otto4711 14:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not merge I would recommend deleting this category and not upmerging. The reason is that, per its description, Category:LGBT-related films is supposed to specifically be for films that somehow deal with LGBT issues or prominently feature LGBT characters. Merging in the films that simply happen to have an LGBT character but that don't otherwise qualify would just dilute the proposed utility of the parent category. Thus keep the parent category as is, delete this subcategory and simply remove the category tag from all the affected articles (none of the articles should end up orphaned in the process). Dugwiki 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not defining. We might as well have Category:Films with lawyers or Category:Films with shootings. Oh the clutter that could be created if we categorised each film by every feature in it! Haddiscoe 21:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify, then delete the data is useful for research purposes. Carlossuarez46 22:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether you listify or not is your own choice. I think this is more equivalent to having say Category:Films with deaf characters or Category:Films with monk characters, but we don't have those things either. "LGBT-related films" is enough.--T. Anthony 01:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is such a common occurence that it is not a defining characteristic. Dr. Submillimeter 23:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but no not listify (non notable, doesn't comment upon anything) or merge (too disruptive).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - every soap/film writer is adding a whitty gay character to their film, and this would soon end up listing every film. I agree with the logic on no up merge as well. Rgds, --Trident13 23:56, 2 May 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 Keep. --Xdamr^talk 16:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is ill-defined. It is intended for films that include a mathematician, or mathematical content. It contains a few biographical films on mathematicians (which belong elsewhere) and a smattering of unrelated films that happen to have a mathematician character even if that isn't actually all that important to the plot. Unclear inclusion criterion, not a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 09:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the films in the category are about mathematics or feature mathematics as a primary plot element. -Sean Curtin 09:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but find a better name. Johnbod 15:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this category is that any of the films about mathematicians (i.e. A Beautiful Mind, Good Will Hunting) belong in the list of films about mathematicians and therefore their inclusion in this category is superfluous. If I ignore them, the current contents of the category reduce to Cube (film), Cube 2: Hypercube, Donald in Mathmagic Land, The Dot and the Line, and, possibly, Sphadikam. The first two are films whose primary plot element is mathematical but are about something else entirely. The third is legitimately mathematical. The fourth is sort of hokey and is mathematical only in its use of two geometrical concepts as a sort of facade (the description makes it out to have somewhat less mathematics than even Cube (film)). The fifth features a "high school math teacher" and, it would seem, is otherwise not about math. I wouldn't include this in the category, but I can't think of a reasonable name that would indicate an inclusion criteria excluding Sphadikam but including Proof, or excluding The Dot and the Line and including Cube (film). And if one wants to argue that even Cube (film) should be excluded, one would have to address the issue of why it fails to have "enough" mathematics. Very few movies, other than things like Donald in Mathmagic Land or Outside In], are specifically about math, yet there are many that some people think are mathematical, despite being essentially about something else. I would disagree, however, that the inclusion criteria are pathologically unclear: implicitly, the category invites the inclusion of films with significant mathematical plot elements, or significant mathematician characters; movies lacking these are unlikely to strike anyone as mathematical. I've already opined that the first kind of movie belongs in the list of films about mathematicians, so perhaps we should put them there and rename the category to Category:Films with mathematical plots.
Weak keep Some people like navigating templates; some like navigating cats. I see no reason not to indulge both. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:13, 4 May 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 16:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playing games is not a defining characteristic. Many fictional characters play some kind of game in their off-time, and generally are not famous or notable for their game-playing. >Radiant< 09:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-defining, inadequately defined, and trivial. Doczilla 13:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Dismas|^(talk) 13:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subcategory of Category:Gamers The problem here is that this has a parent category, Category:Gamers, which houses people and characters who are "gamers". Now you might be able to go for deletion of that parent category along similar lines to the above arguments, but as long as Category:Gamers is around we need a subcategory in it to seperate the fictional characters from the actual people. So keep, for now, but you might want to consider doing an umbrella nomination for Category:Gamers and some or all of its subcategories. Dugwiki 15:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the category for real-life gamers is now up for deletion. Otto4711 13:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dugwiki. A Musing 13:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is the categorization of characters by their hobby. Bart Simpson and Meatwad, for example, are both in this category. I suggest deletion. (Category:Fictional professional gamers might be more useful.) Dr. Submillimeter 23:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in the vast majority of instances that a fictional character plays video games is not a defining or even an important characteristic. In the alternative, rename to Category:Fictional professional gamers or (to match the non-fictional counterpart) Category:Fictional electronic sports players (even though that's a faintly ridiculous name as well). I'm putting the Gamers category up for deletion as non-defining as well. Otto4711 02:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dugwiki. Furthermore, this can easily be fictional characters that identify themselves within terms of gaming culture. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That, however, is not objectively definable, and original research. >Radiant< 10:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dread Lord Cyberskull --Piemanmoo 22:13, 1 May 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 00:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This category was created (in a highly objectionable manner) as a DUPLICATE to Category:Anti-Judaism by User:Hmains, using a BOT, WHILE the vote at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 23#Category:Anti-Judaism is still under discussion. See User talk:Hmains#Duplicate category?. (His "excuse"? See User talk:IZAK#Anti Judaism: "...I do not think the anti-Judaism category should be deleted..." Very funny! So why doesn't he vote instead of creating duplicate categs using bots yet?!) Either way, this category must go because it is a duplicate of Category:Anti-Judaism and serves no purpose, and in any case, the latter's fate will be determined by the pending vote. NOTE: User:Hmains did the same thing with Category:Anti-Buddhism creating [1] a duplicate called Category:Buddhism-related controversies while the vote at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 23#Category:Anti-Buddhism is till ongoing. His changes to preserve Category:Anti-Hinduism by moving them (while a vote is in progress) to Category:Hinduism-related controversies are a little trickier, see Contributions/Hmains), but also run counter to the rule that categories are not be emptied or tampered with during a vote, IZAK 07:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IZAK 07:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One should not preempt an existing cfd. --Soman 09:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Bad-faith ~~nomination~~ category. Tarc 13:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you meant to say "Bad faith category"... nomination in this context would refer to the nominator. :P .V. _[_Talk|Email] 14:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Er, yea. Thanks. :) Tarc 16:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Bad faith category. Obviously an attempt to circumvent deletion of anti-Judaism. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 14:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Duplicate category, as above. Dugwiki 15:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, this is preferable to Category:Anti-Judaism as it has a broader and more neutral name. But still might become a POV magnet. Delete - I just noticed Category:Jews and Judaism-related controversies, so there's no need for this one. —Ashley Y 01:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this POV cat. per IZAK. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tarc. Lesnail 14:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no detectable POV in the name itself. Anon166 19:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it was created in reaction to a Cfd it is "out of order". Nevertheless it may be recreated depending on how the Cfd of Category:Anti-Judaism goes. Jon513 19:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in to Category:Jews and Judaism-related controversies. --Wassermann 21:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasserman: You have failed to understand the situation here. What User:Hmains did here was to take Category:Anti-Judaism, while a vote is still in progress over its fate, and create an exact mirror-duplicate of it. However, the subject of Anti-Judaism is vastly different to the articles and subject matter within Category:Jews and Judaism-related controversies which contains articles and categories about disputed and schisms within Judaism and about the Jews internally. because it does not contain subjects like Antisemitism and other forms of Jew hatred. So to merge them without serious thought about a good name for any categeory first would be a disaster and create total confusion. You need to move very carefully here and not fall into the careless trap that User:Hmains created by his reckless, sloppy, and very un-Wikipedian actions. IZAK 11:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Baid faith category.A Musing 13:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, created out of order during ongoing discussion of other category. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:25, 1 May 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 00:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ill-defined, though presumably is intended for indigenous or even tribal peoples; if so, it seems to be a rather arbitrary categorisation. Very hard to see what the membership criteria ought to be. Has but a single entry.cjllw ʘ TALK 07:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Colonial definition of ethnic groups. Certainly not neutral. Peter ^Isotalo 09:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Peter Isotalo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete native of where? --Soman 09:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category is too broad and non-definable, extremly open to POV.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 15:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks to be largely duplicative of the Cuisine by nationality tree. Otto4711 18:39, 27 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 23:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no need for the category. The meagre number of articles can be and are easily interlinked. Otto4711 06:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, unnecessary eponymous category. The main article is sufficient for navigation of the links. Dugwiki 15:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. ~I'm anonymous

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 00:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As with many other eponymous categories, the material in the category does not warrant it. Otto4711 06:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The category has only been in existence for 2 weeks. Constable's work is mostly very specific to particular places and several places are mainly notable as subjects of his paintings, for example Flatford Mill which Otto attempted to remove from the category with the edit summary "insufficient relation to the category for inclusion"! "Flatford Mill"+"John Constable" gets 10,900 ghits. He has also weakened the category before making this nomination by removing about half the previous members with the same edit summary.Johnbod 13:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I removed Flatford Mill because, according to the article, its connection to Constable is that he painted it and his dad owned it. To me, that doesn't seem like a strong enough connection to include it in the category (note for example Sunflower is not categorized under Van Gogh even though he painted them). That an artist painted a picture of a thing is not a good reason to categorize the thing under the artist, and even were those articles restored this category would still be unnecessary. Otto4711 16:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also according to the article, he painted it several times, and in fact it is the title of one of his most iconic paintings Flatford MillTate Britain, and in the title and/or the subject of several others of his largest paintings (Flatford Mill from a lock on the Stour[2] and Flatford Mill from the lock (A water mill) (private collection), The lock (Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid, plus others in Philadelphia, London etc. This is hardly the same as a species of flower. Johnbod 16:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to add some of that information to the mill's article, which currently states regarding Constable's connection It is noted as the location for works by John Constable, whose father owned the mill. Regardless, it still doesn't make the category necessary. Otto4711 16:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any building in the world that has a stronger connection to an artist than Flatford Mill has to Constable? Haddiscoe 21:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Constable's notability doesn't change the fact that this is overcategorization per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. All the categorized articles mention Constable, so they're linked together, rendering this category useless anyway. Doczilla 13:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Constable is an important artist, this encyclopedia might benefit and be stronger in the long run with a few important categories like this one. Modernist 15:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The artist's importance and notability are irrelevant to whether or not he needs to have his own eponymous category. The basic question is whether the artist's main article serves as a sufficient navigational hub to article links related to the person. In this case the answer is "yes"; anyone interested in reading about articles related to this artist can easily find those links in the main article. Thus the eponymous category isn't needed and should be deleted. Dugwiki 15:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Actually I don't agree with your argument in its entirety. An important artist like John Constable, is a hub of a different sort. His varied output, invents, redirects and establishes new currents in European painting. His oeuvre is a kind of turning point that ultimately leads to Corot, Boudin and finally to Impressionism. The category for this artist enables editors to isolate and define those milestones. Modernist 16:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with only 4 articles, the main bio could link to them all; I'd really hate to see geographic locations be categorized, as here, in eponymous categories for anybody who painted, wrote about, visited, or what-have-you them. Carlossuarez46 22:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It had several more until Otto deleted them. It is only 2 weeks old. Johnbod 02:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Johnbod. Tim! 09:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod. Let's give these more than two weeks; the subject can handle a category and the fact that someone's working on it is critical. Can the one's deleted get restored?A Musing 13:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The category collecting articles on the artist's works is useful. However, Category:John Constable itself is confusing, as it includes John Constable, an article on a house in which Constable lived, an article on an area where Constable lived, and an article on a place where Constable painted one of his works. Links in the text are more appropriate for connecting these articles than the category. Note that one of the locations (River Stour, Suffolk) mentions a few people in creative professions; categorizing this under Category:John Constable seems inappropriate. Moreover, note that eponymous categories should only be used for multi-part biographies (see Wikipedia:Overcategorization and the example given there, Category:Jan Smuts). Category:John Constable does not do that. Overall, this category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 23:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per Johnbod and A Musing. Dr S makes a persuasive case, but Constable's unusually strong association with particular places which might otherwise be unremarkable makes this a useful exception to the rule (just as, for example, Haworth and Thornton merit categorisation under the Brontes and Drumcliffe and Innisfree are defined by their association with W. B. Yeats). Also, I strongly dislike a nomination being accompanied by depopulation by the nominator, so I would like to give this category more time. --10:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record - the category was not depopulated with the intention of nominating it for deletion. It was nominated after the depopulation of tangentially related articles suggested that what remained did not warrant a category. Otto4711 13:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that what you regard as "tangentially related" is very much a personal view, apparently uninformed by any knowledge of the subject area, as demonstrated in several other discussions. Johnbod 21:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that if the people who write the articles can't be bothered to include in them the reason why they are so strongly related to Constable, I don't see how that's any fault of mine. Going through the articles that I removed:

Salisbury Cathedral - already categorized under Category:John Constable paintings, asserts connection to Constable by saying The cathedral is the subject of famous paintings by John Constable.
Old Sarum - has an image of Constable's painting, no other mention of Constable
Weymouth Bay - mentions that Constable painted it and has an image of the painting
River Stour, Suffolk - Says The Stour valley has been portrayed as a working river by John Constable with an external link to "Constable country"
Osmington Mills - The village and the local area was painted by the leading English landscape artist John Constable
Osmington - mentions that Constable honeymooned there and painted it
Flatford Mill - the slight initial mention of Constable is noted above
Dedham Vale - John Constable painted a famous oil painting named Dedham Vale in 1802. and the article is already in the Constable paintings category

So yeah, coming across this set of articles with their passing references to an artist, I removed them because the articles do not establish that the subjects are so strongly linked to Constable as to warrant categorization under his name. A location or a building should not be categorized under every artist who paints it. A location should not be categorized under every person who honeymoons there. If you think that these locations are so vitally important to Constable that the category lives or dies on them, then take it upon yourself to put actual substantive sourced information in the various articles to establish the connections beyond a single throwaway line, and maybe you could take a pass on the veiled accusations of bad-faith editing on my part. Now, with all possible respect, if this hasn't put a fucking stake through the heart of this nonsense, then take it up on my talk page. I'm sick of it being a distraction to this nomination. Otto4711 05:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given for the nomination, in its entirety, was "As with many other eponymous categories, the material in the category does not warrant it". The fact that you had removed 2/3 of the articles is therefore highly relevant, and editors have given the small number of remaining articles as a reason for deletion. I agree the (often very short) articles don't yet do a good job of explaining their connection to Constable, but potentially they could & I'm not going to spend time improving them in the middle of a deletion debate. After that I won't be able find them of course. Johnbod 01:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you'll be able to find them. All you have to do is click WHat links here on Constable's page. Because all of the articles are linked to Constable, which is how things with a tangential relationship like "he painted them" should be connected, as opposed to a category. Otto4711 13:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unconvinced by the value of this category. His paintings are already linked in a singular sub-category, and he didn't lead a varied personal life or meander around various locations; and hence the article acts as a better hub for this information. I am concerned that Otto choose to remove eight articles from the category before nomination - probably would have added to the case for deletion - but it would not have changed my decsion had he not done so. Rgds, --Trident13 22:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Based on the list of articles that were removed by Otto4711, I would have to agree that this category is inappropriate. To some degree the category has effectively functioned as a Category:Places painted by John Constable. This type of categorization is already discouraged; similar categories (such as the category for places that were used for filming Harry Potter) have already been deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 13:17, 1 May 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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:Louisiana Tech Bulldogs basketball coaches. --Xdamr^talk 16:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Louisiana Tech Bulldogs men's basketball coaches to Category:Louisiana Tech Bulldogs basketball coaches

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. This school has a completely different nickname for its women's teams, namely Lady Techsters (see Category:Louisiana Tech Lady Techsters basketball and its subcats). Also, the change will match the existing men's-specific categories of Louisiana Tech Bulldogs basketball and Louisiana Tech Bulldogs basketball players. Note that the de facto standard given in the Oral Roberts nomination below does not apply when a school has different nicknames for its men's and women's athletic programs. Dale Arnett 06:14, 27 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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:Oral Roberts Golden Eagles men's basketball coaches. --Xdamr^talk 16:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Oral Roberts men's basketball coaches to Category:Oral Roberts Golden Eagles men's basketball coaches

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. The de facto standard for categories of this class is "Foo Nickname men's basketball coaches". Dale Arnett 06:07, 27 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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:Antennas (radio). --Xdamr^talk 16:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Radio frequency antennas to Category:Antennas

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, There aren't any other types of antennas (except on insects, which have antennae, a subject which certainly would not have its own category anyhow). radiojon 05:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Antennas (radio) to match main article The nomination is flawed in that it is asking to rename a category to be the same as an already existing category (note that Category:Antennas already exists and is in fact a parent category for this one). However I did notice that the category name doesn't match the associated main article. I'd recommend renaming this category to Category:Antennas (radio) to match its main article (categories should normally match the spelling of their associated main article). Dugwiki 15:58, 27 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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: delete. This category has substantial overlap with List of notable glider pilots, which self-admittedly contains mostly people who are famous in other fields, and also happen to like gliding. It's good to categorize people by profession, not so by hobby. >Radiant< 10:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the category is capturing anyone who happened to pilot a glider. Piloting a glider is not a defining characteristic. Otto4711 05:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are categories for aviators. This is just a sub-set. JMcC 13:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks like this is actually a good category. It serves two purposes. First, it allows you to seperate out biographies in Category:Gliding from other gliding-related articles. And second it seperates out glider pilots from other types of aviators in Category:Aviators. I do understand Otto's point that flying a glider isn't always a notable feature of specific pilots, but so long as the articles included specifically and notably mention the person being a glider pilot this shouldn't be a problem. So prune out articles that don't actually talk about the pilot flying a glider and leave the rest. Dugwiki 16:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being an aviator is a defining characteristic. 132.205.44.134 17:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There may be categories for aviators, per above. However, this is getting into minutia, quite frankly. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 04:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is the categorization of people by their hobby (which is not notable enough for categorization), not their profession (which is notable enough for categorization). Hence, this category is not comperable to Category:Aviators, which mainly contains articles on professional pilots. Since people are generally not categorized by hobby and since categorizing by hobby can lead to category clutter problems, I recommend deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 23:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some hobbies are defining characteristics. Aviators can become members of the Civilian Air Patrol for instance. Amateur astronomers discover asteroids. Ham radio operators are frequently cited in news for their efforts. 70.55.201.213 03:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Category:Amateur astronomers contains people who are primarily notable for their achievements in astronomy (such as Terence Dickinson, William D. Ferris, Casimir Marie Gaudibert, and Jack B. Newton, which I chose at random) although some people (Stephen J. Edberg, Brian May, and Michael D. Reynolds) should probably be listed as professionals. (Yes, I would list Brian May as a professional astronomer. He has an office at Imperial College London.) In contrast, Category:Glider pilots contains people who are notable for other achievements (such as Kalpana Chawla, Matthew Fox (actor), Richie McCaw, and Peter Scott, which I chose at random). Hence, Category:Glider pilots is not as useful as Category:Amateur astronomers. However, maybe a category for professional glider pilots or test glider pilots would be appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 09:43, 4 May 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. I'm afraid that I find the procedural arguments advanced unconvincing. --Xdamr^talk 16:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was nominated for deletion previously and closed as no consensus. Perhaps enough time has passed that a re-nomination will not be seen as "disruption." As with any number of other similar categories, there is no need for this category. The main article Aly & AJ serves as an appropriate navigational hub. The two sub-cats are appropriately housed in other category trees. A number of the categorized articles are for films in which Aly and AJ have appeared, which per strong consensus should not be so categorized. The volume of material here is nowhere near sufficient to warrant the category. The category should be deleted. Otto4711 04:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unnecessary eponymous category. The albums and songs subcats of artists don't require eponymous categories by themselves, and the discography article already is included in Category:Discographies. Band members are found in the main article as well. So basically none of this information requires its own eponymous category. Dugwiki 16:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the original nomination the arguments to delete were weak (one contributor to the discussion didn't even bother to provide any rationale) and no new arguments have been presented. If we are to believe Dugwikis's argument, readers having read the articles in the albums or songs categorties are more likely to want to browse to other discographies rather than to other articles about this band. This seems highly improbable. Tim! 09:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you follow the link to the old CFD and look at the CFDs for the 14 other similar categories that were put up at the same time, for John Wayne, Rudolph Valentino, Barbra Streisand, William Shatner, Olsen twins, Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn, Mel Gibson, Hilary Duff, Steve Coogan, Sacha Baron Cohen, Ingrid Bergman, Fred Astaire, and Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, you'll see that the arguments advanced here are pretty much the same as the arguments advanced and accepted for all of those and the arguments accepted in countless other CFDs for categories named for people. When you closed the CFD, you miscounted the 3-2 majority in favor of deletion as 2-2 (as you acknowledge here in speedily closing my good faith renomination of the category) and closed it "no consensus." Otto4711 15:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely false Otto, as you know as you put it on WP:DRV and the no consensus result was endorsed because CFD is not a vote. You call it 3-2, I don't because one of the commenters gave no reasoning at all. Tim! 16:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You claim it's false, I claim this is another of your administrative errors. Otto4711 16:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As usual you have reverted to trolling, so I shall ignore any further comments from you in relation to this nomination. Tim! 16:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't an accusation of trolling a failure to assume good faith? I would expect better from an administrator. Otto4711 18:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not long enough since the last closing. Sorry, Otto, but I don't think a month is long enough to not be disruptive. Let's leave it alone for a while. A Musing 13:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, there is no policy or guideline which states ANY concrete length of time from a "no consensus" closing to a re-nomination and it's been close to seven weeks since the last CFD closed, not a month. Second, the closing admin of the first nomination has registered an opinion and he does not apparently consider this renomination to be disruptive. Finally, assume for a moment that the previous nomination did not exist. If this were the first time this category had ever been nominated, would you think that it should be deleted or kept? If the only reason you want it kept is because of the supposed "disruption," is that really reason enough to have the category sitting around for however many weeks or months until you decide that it's not "disruption" any longer? Otto4711 16:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of this being a revisit, I'd have no opinion and skip this one by - to be clear, the reason for my keep is that I think it is too soon. Put me in the camp of people who would like to see a policy or guideline, and figure we ought to hold off on serial nominations just in the name of civility. Someone created the category, and I'd like to leave some time between deletions to let them work on the category and articles in good faith before revisiting. It can really take the wind out of editors' sails to find they spend all their time on these procedural things rather than editing. And life is long - the idea of reviewing the same categories over and over again ad infinitum just doesn't sound like a good way to write an encyclopedia.A Musing 17:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that this category is kept, please tell me exactly how many days need to go by between nominations before you would personally believe that it's not "disruptive." Because some seven weeks have now passed since the previous CFD closed and it's not like there's been some rush to populate the category beyond what was already there. And again, just to be clear for the closing admin, is it reasonable to say that in the absence of this alleged "disruption" issue you would have no opinion and thus no objection to the deletion of this category? Otto4711 15:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, most of this has already been answered above, and as to how long before being disruptive - that's for a separate discussion. But if you're going to put everyone who weighs in with a view on this on the spot, let me ask you: how many times do you plan on nominating categories again when you don't like the results the first time? Especially where there is no new information or anything different about the nomination?A Musing 19:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about whether or not I "like" the result of the previous CFD. It has everything to do with what I believe is an obvious error on the part of an administrator. Does the administrator really believe that the community as a whole feels so differently about this category (the only one of the lot that particular admin closed, BTW) than it did for the other categories mentioned above? Does the community really feel that a category for a pair of tweeny-bop stars is really more significant than categories for cultural icons like Marylin Monroe or John Wayne? Or maybe, just maybe, should the closing admin have put aside whatever issue he may have had and closed the CFD in line with pretty much every other similar CFD over the last several months? As for how many times I might re-nominate a category, I have no answer to that question. If it closes "no consensus" and some amount of time has passed, I see nothing wrong with re-nominating it to allow the community to more fully discuss it and perhaps come to a consensus.

And I'm sorry, but if you're going to hang your sole objection to deleting this category on the supposed "disruption" of the nomination, then it is incumbent upon you to explain what timeframe is not "too soon" to allow the community to consider it again. If you have no thought as to what that timeframe might be, then with all due respect I can't see why that opinion should be given any consideration by the closing admin. Otto4711 19:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not proposing a bureaucratic rule here; where there is new information or arguments, I would not find a nomination disruptive if done a relatively short time after another one, but this is not that case, you have proposed nothing new. And, there have been a number of renominations on this board lately, with points made several times about them being disruptive - you anticipated such a complaint in your own nomination this time. I'd suggest you look to find a way to convince someone there is something new, or respond to questions - if you believe the closing administrator made a mistake, why didn't you bring it to DRV and argue why the closing administrator made a mistake? Why are you doing it here? And what was the closing administrator's mistake?A Musing 20:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did take it to DRV and the close was endorsed on procedural grounds. Since the nomination closed "no consensus" and since this closure was an aberration amongst over a dozen near-identical nominations done the same day and since consensus can change it seemed to me that 6-7 weeks was sufficient time passed to re-nominate. The reason I said that I hoped this wouldn't be seen as disruption was that after the original nom closed no consensus I in good faith re-nominated it right away. The immediate re-nom was closed right away and the closing admin sanctioned me for "disruption" (a sanction that was overturned on appeal). That admin has commented in this nomination and has not declared it to be disruptive. In my opinion, the closing admin's mistake was in not reviewing the original nomination in the light of the many other similar categories nominated and deleted the same day (along with many other similar categories that had also been recently nominated and deleted). The closing admin predicated his "no consensus" closure largely it seems on the fact that one of the people who wanted it deleted didn't give any additional reason for wanting it deleted and in this case I find that reed a bit slender to be leaning upon. Others at DRV didn't see that as an error, which is certainly their perogative, and so after waiting several weeks and seeing that there was no great rush to add articles to this category to necessitate its existence (I don't think any new articles have been added in fact) I renominated it. I agree with you that repeatedly nominating the same articles or categories just because you don't like the outcome is disruptive and I have mixed it up with an editor or two when they've disruptively renominated something. But that's not what's going on here and I don't think it's fair or reasonable to describe this nomination as disruptive. Otto4711 04:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per A Musing Johnbod 03:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I find the argument "keep because it was discussed a month ago" unconvincing and overly bureaucratic. >Radiant< 10:42, 4 May 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 16:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion of Category:Analysis.

This is categorization by name. The articles in this category have next to nothing to do with each other. The main article for the category is a disambiguation page. Lesnail 02:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - overcategorization. Otto4711 15:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Most of the articles seem to be mathmatical or staistical; they should go to the "Mathmatical analysis" sub-cat. Johnbod 17:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do not merge to Mathematical Analysis sub cat as that would be incorrect. The math articles involved are already properly categorized. The only common factor seems to be 'analysis' of some kind or another. Too broad. Hmains 04:53, 4 May 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 16:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as with many other similar categories, after re-categorizing the material on the band members and the albums and songs, we are left with a volume of material insufficient to warrant it. The articles are extensively interlinked and there is a navtemplate further linking the articles. Otto4711 02:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improve and Keep - There are several articles left un-orphaned from this category. Also, the creation of the page "Category:Linkin Park DVDs" takes 3 articles from this category which ought to be here, and that article certainly doesn't warrant its own page. There are several songs and works by the band and related articles that fall into the linkin park category which are not presently here and need to be placed here. --linca^linca 04:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Articles on songs by the band should be placed in Category:Linkin Park songs which is a sub-cat of Category:Songs by artist. It's rather difficult to address the notion of other articles which aren;t presently in the category since as of the nomination they were not in the category. What articles would those be, specifically? Otto4711 04:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Specifically, there's too many to note, but pretty much anything in the template that doesn't have the category noted. At a breath, I'd say: Chester Bennington, Rob Bourdon, Brad Delson, Dave Farrell, Joe Hahn, Mike Shinoda, Kyle Christener, Scott Koziol, Relative Degree, Xero, Tasty Snax, Grey Daze, Machine Shop Recordings, Music for Relief, Morning After, Linkin Park videography, Linkin Park discography among others. Frankly, I don't know why the band members themselves aren't in the category, since they're most accurately described as "being" Linkin Park, categorically speaking. --linca^linca 04:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Members of musical groups are housed under Category:Musicians by band. I created Category:Linkin Park members to house the member articles. As for the other articles you note, with their not being in the category it's difficult to judge whether their inclusion would mandate the category but as a general rule of thumb if the articles that would otherwise be in a category can easily be interlinked then the category is not needed. Additionally, there is a navtemplate that includes a great number of the related articles and, rather than keeping a category, adding any miscellaneous articles to the template may be the better solution. Otto4711 05:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of a category is to indicate anything that fulfils the criteria of being within or of something, and so removing this which is a category is illogical due to the wealth of articles therein, even if the category only housed the 4 subcategories, I still think even that justifies it, since it provides easy navigation instead of having to distinguish or find the articles themselves by browsing the pages, this provides the means to do it in a simpler way. I'm not saying make 10 ways, but only 3: through the pages themselves, through the template and through a centralised category that brings everything in together.

Delete It looks like the main article for the band serves as sufficient navigation for finding the included articles and subcategories. Unnecessary eponymous category. Dugwiki 16:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is illogical to assume that readers having read articles about Linkin Park would rather read articles about albums, members of other bands. Deleting this category would leave the articles and categories therein undercategorised. Tim! 09:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be either misunderstanding or misrepresenting Dugwiki's argument. He is not suggesting that people reading abut Linkin Park would rather then go on to read about albums or members of other bands. He is suggesting that should people reading about Linkin Park wish to read more about other aspects of Linkin Park, they will be able to get to those articles by clicking on the links that are within the various articles on the topic and on the articles included in the navigational template. Otto4711 16:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sleep On It 05:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. LionheartX 07:31, 4 May 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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:Multivariable calculus. --Xdamr^talk 16:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Multivariate calculus to Category:Multivariable calculus.

The main article for this category is Multivariable calculus; Multivariate calculus is a redirect to that. Lesnail 02:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tepid support The article was initially written as "multivariate calculus" in April 2004. It was renamed to "multivariable calculus" in November, 2005. The category was not renamed at that time. Both phrases are used – a Google search shows roughly 80,000 hits on "multivariate", and 270,000 hits on "multivariable", which is a definite predominance of, but not an overwhelming preference for the latter term in popular usage. DavidCBryant 18:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Multivariable is more likely to mean something to a non-specialist. Geometry guy 19:04, 28 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 Merge to Category:Video game musicians. --Xdamr^talk 23:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sonic the Hedgehog Bands to Category:Video game musicians

Merge - performer by performance category. Merge to the general category for musicians who perform for video games. Otto4711 01:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. and WP:OC. Lesnail 01:53, 27 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 16:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Merge :Category:Crows and Ravens to Category:Corvus. These categories are exact duplicates of each other. Category:Corvus is by far the older and better populated version. Lesnail 01:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge to Crows and Ravens - few people are going to know what "Corvus" means. Otto4711 01:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, upmerge to Category:Heraldic birds is the course to go. These two categories (Crows and ravens, and Corvus) are at two completely different ends of the category tree, and have completely different uses.
Furthermore, there are several reasons not to merge to Crows and ravens:
- When I originally created and implemented the Birds by classification classification scheme, I strived to use common names as much as I could, and the result was that several of these categories were later renamed to scientific names.
- "Crows and ravens" is an inaccurate equivalent of "Corvus", because it does not include the Rook (Corvus frugilegus) or the jackdaws (C. monedula and C. dauricus)
- Carelessly merging and keeping all the categorization would make Category:Corvus appear as a child of Category:Heraldic birds
- Carelessly merging and not moving the categories properly (something that is just as likely to happen) would make Category:Corvus vanish from Category:Corvidae
Circeus 01:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Heraldic birds per Circeus, I think. Category:Crows and Ravens has just two articles in it (Crow and, unsurprisingly, Raven), but neither seem to refer to heraldic use (but I'm no heraldry expert). Might as well put them there for now (it's a well-used category) and someone can always look at them later. Merging is unnecessary, as both articles are in Category:Corvus already. However, reverse merging would break the pattern of using scientific names evident at Category:Corvidae, so Category:Corvus needs to stay. Bencherlite 13:13, 1 May 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 00:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV cat. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this might be an oddball point or something considering what I said here--T. Anthony 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious case. --Soman 09:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It seems POV to single this out from Category:Victims of human rights abuses. Greg Grahame 10:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those mention a specific ideology. There isn't even a Category:Victims of Nazism. Granted part of me thinks this is overly PC, but I see some kind of logic in it. The idea being that the ideology doesn't do the killing, instead it's the people who claim to serve that ideology who kill. In the case of Marxist Communism, as opposed to pre-Marxist communism, I kind of doubt that as violence is implied by Marx and killing for his cause occurred within his lifetime. Nevertheless if we start this you may invite "victims of" any ideology someone dislikes. You could even get "Victims of Neoliberalism" or "Victims of Russian Orthodoxy" or who knows what.--T. Anthony 03:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it implies that communism is a disease or some evil institution. Clearly POV. Dismas|^(talk) 16:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or if it must be kept then rename to Category:Victims of human rights abuses in Communist states. Apart from a few stray articles which ought to be recategorised, this is really only a container category for some more specific categories. Its purpose may be POV as the nominator suggests, but also has the function of allowing this categ to be a sub-category of Category:Communism. I can see a case for that linkage, but I dislike the apparent selectivity it causes, because there are no equivalent categories for victims of human rights abuses in fascist states or in military dictatorships etc. So on balance, I prefer deletion.
However, if the categ is to be kept, it ought to be renamed. People are not killed or tortured by "communism" (unless we take the POV position that a particular form of government is inherently a human rights abuse); their attackers are communists or communist states. Category:Victims of human rights abuses in Communist states is the best way I can see of expressing that clarification, but maybe someone can suggest a snappier alternative? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - communism used to beat me up and steal my lunch money. Otto4711 17:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lunch money? Luxury, lad. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about as POV as can be. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 21:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a straightforward and necessary holding device within category:Communism for several categories that should not be controversial. It isn't POV in the slightest. Haddiscoe 21:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply If it's a non-POV holding device, we should therefore create Category:Victims of democracy to accommodate categories such as Category:Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States, Category:Victims of the extraordinary rendition program, Category:Irish victims of human rights abuses and articles such as the Birmingham Six. Or is it only communism that is to be singled out for classification of abuses by ideology? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a spurious comparison. It is debatable that democracy is an ideology, and those people were victims of other things, such as etho-religious conflict in Ireland and Dubya's moral degeneracy. Honbicot 11:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you really saying that the only factor in, for example Category:People executed by the Soviet Union was communism? Russia had a long history of political repression and use of the death penalty, and it's likely that plenty of those executed in the USSR had committed non-political crimes which might well have been similarly punished under the Tsars. I'm not trying to defend the USSR, just to point out that attaching a political label to every action of a state is illogical. What next, putting the Falklands war in a new Category:Wars under conservatism? Putting the Iraqi war dead in a new Category:Victims of neoconservatism? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename per BrownHairedGirl. The current name is absolutely POV. -Sean Curtin 09:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too vague. Anon166 19:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Which of the contents are supposed to have bias problems? None of them do. OrchWyn 10:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly POV. LionheartX 14:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This phrase is so vague that it could refer to anything. Dr. Submillimeter 23:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have liked to see what articles where put in this cat, but I can understanding emptying a newly created cat that is controversial/lack consensus. Because of this, I cannot tell if this category was used in a pejorative manner (which I suspect), but I agree with the above. The phrasing is awkward, we don't have an already established tree with things like Victims of Nazism, which is arguably more notable, plus there are issues with the grammar. Similar to persecution by atheism (a previous AfD which I participated), can an ideology be a perpetrator of victimization? Grammatically, "Victims of Communist regimes" works, but the idea of a victim of a regime is a little confusing, are they casualties of war? political executions? pointless bullying? etc. The category is too vague and unsubstantial and I do not feel it is a useful way to categorize articles. -Andrew c 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Submillimeter Sleep On It 05:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep As the category has been emptied, it is not possible to form a proper opinion. The person who emptied it should be identified and banned from Wikipedia, and then a new discussion should be held. Honbicot 11:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to have been done at last partly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The category was used in a pejorative manner and lack consensus. LionheartX 07:29, 4 May 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 27

Category:Theaters built in the Soviet Union

Category:Rugby league clubs

Category:Roads in Gatineau

Category:Delta Tau Delta brothers

Category:Films featuring a white protagonist in Africa

Category:Films set in Africa

Category:Actors by television series

Category:Black and white films that have been colorized

Category:Userboxes made with userboxcreator

Category:Fictional fictional characters who can create illusions

Category:Sri Lankan Buddhism

Category:Languages of Iceland

Category:High Schools in Saga Prefecture

Category:Bishop Seabury Academy

Category:The Devil Wears Prada

Category:Flora of Morocco, Category:Flora of South Africa and Category:Flora of Zimbabwe

Category:Lists of fictional characters in horror

Category:Color and black and white films

Category:Films featuring the Devil

Category:Films with LGBT characters

Category:Mathematical films

Category:Fictional gamers

Category:Judaism-related controversies

Category:Native cuisine

Category:The Stooges

Category:John Constable

Category:Louisiana Tech Bulldogs men's basketball coaches

Category:Oral Roberts men's basketball coaches

Category:Radio frequency antennas

Category:Glider pilots

Category:Aly & AJ

Category:Analysis

Category:Linkin Park

Category:Multivariate calculus

Category:Sonic the Hedgehog Bands

Category:Crows and Ravens

Category:Victims of communism