< April 7	April 9 >

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 then delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This type of categorization is not feasible in the long term. Individual songs banned by the BBC have presumably also been banned in many other locations. Complete lists of categories for all the boradcasters who have banned these individual songs will be too long to read or use for navigation. I therefore recommend deletion (although listifying may be appropriate). Dr. Submillimeter 23:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete - "banned" categories often capture items that are "banned" along with items that are just in some way "restricted." Categories don't allow for these distinctions but lists do. Otto4711 00:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The BBC can't "ban" a single, it can only choose not to broadcast it. ReeseM 01:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous "banned" categories deletions. Listify only with reliable, verifiable sources confirming that these were officially banned. Doczilla 02:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete - as stated by Otto4711. Rgds, - Trident13
Listify and delete

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. Vegaswikian 04:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no franchise of Captain America video games. There is one beat em up called "Captain America and the Avengers", and the rest are all Marvel cast games which are already in the parent category. I'm noticing a pattern with all the video games/TV series/films based on DC/Marvel Comics categories.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pointless category. Doczilla 02:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are actually two Captain America video games (the one listed and Doctor Doom's Revenge). -Sean Curtin 05:19, 9 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. Vegaswikian 04:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of category Category:Cult television shows. —Zachary ^talk 23:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Nowadays "Cult" is little more than a marketing term used to sell things to young people who wish to see themselves as outsiders. Ravenhurst 23:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - The term "cult" suffers from subjective interpretation problems and therefore cannot be used for categorization. Dr. Submillimeter 23:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - I'm reasonably sure that we've deleted a cult TV category before but I'm not finding it. Otto4711 00:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When i made the category i had no idea there already was one. it doesn't matter to me which one you delete as long as they are accurate and complete
Delete both per previous "cult" deletions. "Cult" is subjective. Any criteria will be arbitrary. Doczilla 02:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Bluap 02:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both As above, the criteria of being "cult" is too highly subject to editorial opinion. Dugwiki 15:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as subjective POV categorization. Alternatively, remove ALL the current contents, and restrict solely to television productions by the Manson Family and similar. Then delete as empty category. :) Xtifr _tälk 02:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 23:52, 11 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. Vegaswikian 04:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was only one Iron Man TV series, and I think this category has been deleted before. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in the absence of any substantive reason for deletion. "Series" is both singular and plural, and this category is a sensible subdivision of two higher categories. OrchWyn 01:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary category. A single series has no need of a category. Haven't we gone through this one before? Doczilla 02:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Sean Curtin 05:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is other content in Category:Iron Man. Haddiscoe 10:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which belongs either in "List of episodes" categories and in this category's parent.~Zythe^{Talk to me!}

Delete - per similar discussion from February 27. This category is being used for any series in which Iron Man appeared as a character, not for the one series in which he starred. Even if this were specifically for Iron Man (TV series) there is insufficient material to warrant a category. Otto4711 12:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Choalbaton 20:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto. >Radiant< 09:49, 12 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. Vegaswikian 04:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per discussion of November 2nd. -- Prove It ^(talk)

Delete per nom and as a non-defining characteristic. Otto4711 22:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 22:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is particularly unuseful, as the date for Easter moves from year to year. Dr. Submillimeter 23:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but on any given year, Easter has a single date, so the category is easily verifiable, and I don't see how the motion detracts from (or adds to) any potential, theoretical usefulness of the category. (Note: I still argue to delete below, though.) Xtifr _tälk 02:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 02:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Choalbaton 20:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcategorization, non-defining and trivial characteristic, truly pointless. Likewise, a trivial intersection of someone's DoB with an unrelated religious movable feast. Potentially mildly offensive if used on biographies of Muslims, atheists or other non-Christians. Xtifr _tälk 02:59, 10 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. Vegaswikian 04:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Overcategorisation. greenrd 21:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overcategorization, per many performer by performance precedents. Side note: The word "illustrated" shouldn't be capitalized per Wikipedia title style. Doczilla 21:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; overcategorization. Otto4711 22:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Categorizing comic books by their writers/illustrators is infeasible, as some comic books have been written or illustrated by many people. The resulting lists of categories would be difficult to read and use. Dr. Submillimeter 23:09, 8 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. Vegaswikian 04:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Athletes at the 2007 Winter Universiade to Category:Competitors at the 2007 Winter Universiade

Nominator's Rationale: If this should even exist, it should be renamed. Reason: To conform with other Wikipedia categories, like Category:Competitors at the 2006 Winter Olympics etc. On Wikipedia, the word athlete refers to a participant in the sport athletics (track and field). Punkmorten 21:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - strikes me as overcategorization, similar to other performer by event categories we've been deleting. Otto4711 22:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree with Otto. There are many categories for individual editions of sporting festivals, and they should all be deleted. Haddiscoe 22:34, 8 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. Vegaswikian 04:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - eponymous category that is unnecessary for navigation and does not have the volume of material needed to warrant its existence. Otto4711 20:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; the one subcat and one additional article currently in the cat should be linked from the article. --lquilter 20:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Doczilla 21:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All three items in this category should be linked in the main article already, as noted above. Dugwiki 15:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Huge fan, but clearly not a warranted cat per Doczilla et al.--Keefer | Talk 06:03, 10 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. Vegaswikian 04:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another eponymous category with insufficient material to warrant it. The named article and one subcat for albums which is already in the Albums by artist tree. Otto4711 20:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Doczilla 20:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 22:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Keefer | Talk 06:03, 10 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. Vegaswikian 05:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - arbitrary inclusion standard. The comics have nothing in common beyond happening to be named after one of their characters. Otto4711 18:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 20:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is categorization by name, a form of overcategorization. As indicated above, the comic strips that belong in this category will have little in common with each other. Dr. Submillimeter 23:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 11:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 11:02, 11 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. Given the support for some type of upmerge we may see this one again in the future. Vegaswikian 05:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:CFD#Category:Airlines of Kurdistan and WP:CFD#Category:Sport in Kurdistan there really is no reason for this category.

Kurdistan is a controversial and ill-defined region (no defined borders). It neither has formal/dejure recognition (it isn't recognized as a country) nor has informal/defacto recognition (it doesnt claim to be a country).

Category currently has a handful articles with confusing inclusion criteria.

Christianity in Kurdistan - Has only one article (related to Kurdish people)
Islam in Kurdistan - Has only one article and one subcat (related to Kurdish people)
Jews and Judaism in Kurdistan - Only has 12 articles and a subcat (related to Kurdish people)
- Confusing: living people, structures, and historic figures as far back as 55 CE are categorized together.

If necessary a list can be created and included under the main Category:Kurdistan.

The category should either be merged to something like "Category:Kurdish people and religion" (whatever the consistent convention is - if at all such categorization is done elsewhere) or should be deleted all together.

-- Cat ^chi? 16:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge all subcats to Category:Religion in Kurdistan but keep the latter. While I agree that not being a country makes it somewhat absurd to have a category such as Sport in Kurdistan, religion is much more related to the Kurdish people's society and identity. I believe that this makes the category pertinent. (Note: I'm also ok with a renaming that would move this to a subcategory of Category:Kurdish people but deletion seems unnecessary) Pascal.Tesson 18:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with rename. I just am unaware of "religion by ethnicity" categories. -- Cat ^chi? 18:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I think keeping it as a subcat of the Kurdistan cat is perhaps a more viable option. Pascal.Tesson 18:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I recall, religion is generally categorized by country. "Kurdistan" would follow that pattern - which would not be a good idea. Also mind that Category:Religion in Kurdistan does not have any parent "religion" categories. -- Cat ^chi? 18:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... But am I overinterpreting your comments or do you somewhat agree with me that the basic idea of the category is meaningful? (I mean, religion within the region dominated by the Kurdish people and religion in Kudish society) In that case, I would prefer we just throw it into the category Religion by country, regardless of the fact that Kurdistan is not a country. I know I might be in the minority about that but I believe we're better off assuming that readers are smart enough to realize why we have that exception. Other option is a rename to Category:Religion in the Kurdish society or Category:Religion of the Kurdish people and then throw it in the category by country. That way, people are bound to realize that the category has a name which is completely different than the standard. Pascal.Tesson 23:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat undecided. Why not just tag them with Category:Kurdish people and relevant Category:Religion subcat? The topics seem to concern both Kurdish people and Religion. There aren't that many articles to warrant a category. Also some articles tagged under "Jews and Judaism in Kurdistan" are better of being tagged as "historic"/"people by religion" or whatever. Again I do not object to a "Category:Religion in the Kurdish society" or "Category:Religion of the Kurdish people" -- Cat ^chi? 23:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we're both saying: whatever you prefer is fine by me! I think we'll have to wait for someone more assertive to join the debate... :-) Pascal.Tesson 01:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is religion in Kurdistan, so these categories are needed. Haddiscoe 10:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinions are likely about to be vigorously cross-examined by the nominator, are you sure you're up to it? :) --Domitius 10:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is the third request to delete by CoolCat that I've seen this week, it is ridiculous and an attacking approach. Religion in Kurdistan is unique since it covers such broad ethnical diversion parallel to religion. Kurds, at the other hand, follow nearly every "Middle eastern" religion, Zoroastrinism, Judism, Christianity, Muslim: Shi'a and Sunni and others. Ozgur Gerilla 12:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not everyone may like it, but the term Kurdistan is generally understood. DGG 02:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge and rename to Category:Kurdish people and religion to be subbed under Category:Kurdish people per nom and Pascal.Tesson.. Baristarim 11:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge and rename per Baristarim. Kurdistan is a term with no clear definition of what it really is. I think creating categories like these based only on speculation is not Wikipedic.--Doktor Gonzo 13:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 11#Category:Religion_in_Kurdistan --Diyarbakır 13:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge and rename per Baristarim Must.^T ^C 16:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Haddiscoe.Heja Helweda 23:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Essential categories. AshbyJnr 11:04, 11 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. Vegaswikian 05:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - arbitrary standard for inclusion. The shows have nothing in common other than being named after someone who's in them. Otto4711 17:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete maybe listify (although that's probably a list I'd vote to delete!). As a cat, it only creates clutter without any obvious added value. Pascal.Tesson 18:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 20:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We've had these "eponymous x categories" before and they've properly gone down to deletion. Name of something is not generally a defining feature of that thing. --lquilter 20:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 22:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is categorization by name, a form of overcategorization. As indicated above, the television shows in this category have little in common with each other. For example, The Andy Griffith Show has nothing in common with The Arsenio Hall Show. Dr. Submillimeter 23:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, this is a bad category idea since the relationship between the articles is tenuous. I might be ok with a list, though, provided the list's introduction included some encyclopedic explanation of why eponymous naming of television series is interesting or notable. For example, is it reasonable to say that producers or networks choose eponymous titles when they feel the popularity of the actor in question is significantly greater than the first glance popularity of the concept for the show? Or are eponymuos titles used more as a star-making vehicle to generate additional fan interest in the actor? What shows have started off with non-eponymous titles then changed to something more generic, and vice versa? In other words this might be an interesting article with an associated list, maybe, but I'm not convinced it's a good category. Dugwiki 15:58, 9 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. Vegaswikian 05:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another eponymous band category without the requisite volume of material needed to justify it. The albums and songs subcats are in the "...by artist" category trees and the two articles are interlinked. Otto4711 17:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 20:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seven articles and two subcategories... Grutness...wha? 00:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It had seven articles because the band members were added after the nomination. I created Category:XTC members per the convention of Category:Musicians by band and recategorized the band members, the XTC category is back down to two articles. Otto4711 01:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles and three subcategories - isn't having that many subcategories reason enough to keep it? Grutness...wha? 22:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't enough to keep categories for Alanis Morisette or ZZ Top or The Zutons, all of which were musician categories recently deleted. It hasn't been enough to keep categories for John Wayne, Fred Astaire, Barbra Streisand or a dozen or so other similar categories for actors or actor-musicians. Anyone interested in XTC and its output is likely to go to the article XTC first, and from there can navigate to the linked articles for the members, albums and songs. When the main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub for all the material relating to that article then a category is superfluous. Otto4711 23:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. Grutness...wha? 01:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with Welles, a fan, but it is quite superfluous to have a cat like this, considering article linkages.--Keefer | Talk 06:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as superfluous. >Radiant< 09:50, 12 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. Vegaswikian 05:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - category housed the band's article plus articles for its songs and albums. I created Category:X Marks the Pedwalk albums and Category:X Marks the Pedwalk songs, populated them and located them under the appropriate "...by artist" category trees. All albums and songs are extensively interlinked through the main article and each other. No need for this category. Otto4711 17:08, 8 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. Vegaswikian 05:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - two entries, unlikely to get any larger, articles are interlinked. No need for the category. Otto4711 16:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not likely to grow in the foreseeable future, not needed for navigation. --rimshots^talk 17:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rimshots and Otto. Pascal.Tesson 17:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is an underpopulated category withnot much room for growth, and it's not like all Duffs are related. Doczilla 20:43, 8 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. A few keeps suggested a renamed category that can be created later if really needed or a template. So targeted recreations with a focused, non family, purpose would be OK. Vegaswikian 07:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - As with a number of recent eponymous family category deletions, the members of these categories are better served by being interlinked through the various articles for various category members. In most cases there is very little material in the categories (2-4 members and in one instance a single entry). There is an additional issue with these categories in that a number of them are for people who are not actually related to each other; unsure, given the nature of professional wrestling, whether that's an argument against the categories. A number of the families already have articles about them which can be housed in Category:Professional wrestling families which is not up for deletion. Note that several of the categories currently have decent starts for articles in them (one is actually an article, not a category) and I encourage interested parties to transplant that information to article space. Otto4711 16:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. as cats with little room for growth.[1] Doczilla 20:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. The categories link together a disparate number of articles, and the categories referring to "fictional" families are identified as such. The categories have no less room for growth than any other "family" category, as some of the categorised article subjects span three generations. The categories and an article relating to each family should complement, not supplant, one another. McPhail 22:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Very few families merit categories. Haddiscoe 22:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most, keep a few Oh gosh, here I go again, admitting that I'm a sometimes wrestling fan. A very few of these categories (Von Erich, Hart) are substantial enough to support 15 members or more -- the leaders of these families generally ran training schools, though, so perhaps it would be better to rename those categories somehow -- to X-trained wrestlers". The rest, the ones with only an entry or two, must go. Xoloz 14:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least till a different convention comes up. These groups are much more like teams than, say, the baseball families were. I would rather that there be a convention more like "Red Sox players" that could unite these members, but I don't know enough about wrestling to suggest a working alternative.--Mike Selinker 16:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear as to what sort of convention you might mean. Most of the categories are for actual families, many of whose members never performed together, so I don't understand why they should be treated any differently than other sports-type families have been treated or why interlinking the articles or having an article under the name of the family (real or fictional) doesn't suffice. Otto4711 17:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favour of templates. Wimstead 10:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 11:05, 11 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. Vegaswikian 05:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - as with the various recently completed CFDs for sports broadcasters, hockey players and baseball players, there is no need for these categories. The articles on the family members are interlinked and there is insufficient material to warrant the eponymous family categories. Should articles on the families be written they can be housed at Category:Circus families which is not nominated. Otto4711 16:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 11:04, 11 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. Pretty much the same as last time. I don't see any objections to some type of EU category, just to one that exists to solely list all EU universities. If this is recreated it needs to have a name to better focus on the programs that are unique and not simply on a name that implies it should contain all schools. Vegaswikian 05:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category was originally deleted after a March 26 debate. DRV overturned, with the consent of original closer, given new arguments raised at the DRV. Please review the DRV before commenting here. Procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the benefit of those who haven't looked at the deletion review, here's a quick summary of my thoughts on the original CfD discussion. I believe that a lot of reasons given for deletion were flat-out incorrect and that the arguments made in favor of keeping the category were never adressed. We have a category Category:Education in the European Union and it seems particularly relevant to have the university cat as a subcategory here since the sole involvement of the EU in education is in higher education. Through the Bologna process, the EU has pushed for increased uniformity among EU universities, leading to significant changes in many curriculums. The EU also provides significant research funding for universities and programs such as ERASMUS and SOCRATES. All these issues affect solely universities in the EU which I believe makes the category meaningful for browsing. The nominator's rationale in the first CfD was that The EU is just a regional body, and it does not run the university and college systems of its member states. This, of course, is entirely true yet of little relevance. Canada, the United States and many other federal countries do not run their universities, yet grouping the provincial or state categories makes perfect sense because of the common issues run at a federal level that affect the individual universities. A number of deletion supporters argued that the existence of this category is part of a Europhile conspiracy to overstate the role of the EU [2] [3]. The debate here should not be about the EU's importance in education but on whether this category can prove to be useful for organization and browsing. I should add that the category doesn't create any category clutter since it is solely a supercat for invidual country categories. Pascal.Tesson 16:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I have explained below, it is simply not correct that, "All these issues affect solely universities in the EU". OrchWyn 01:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I see no harm in this category, and it seems to fit well in the EU category structure Bluap 20:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a natural way to organise the articles. The comparison with the U.S. and Canada is severely misguided as a place is either a sovereign state or it isn't, and unlike the U.S. and Canada, the EU isn't a sovereign state. The education category should be renamed to something more restrictive. Haddiscoe 22:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear but that was not my point. I'm perfectly aware that the EU isn't a sovereign state. Yet its impact on universities within the EU is substantial enough to make the category meaningful. I was simply debunking the argument that said "since the EU does not pay the professor's salaries, the cat is irrelevant." Pascal.Tesson 23:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The person who created the category put it in Category:Universities and colleges by country and it has now been restored to that category. It seems quite clear that these EU categories give room for both confusion and misrepresentation. I don't know which applied in this case, but either way the category is a bad idea. Ravenhurst 23:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The EU involvement in the governance, funding, and operations of the colleges and universities of individual member states is less substantial than what is asserted above. Grouping the articles together still implies a false association between the EU and the operations of individual countries' colleges and universities. The comparison to US universities is false, as US universities still need to follow US government rules and regulations, whereas the colleges and universities of EU countries are primarily restricted by their individual countries' rules and regulations. (For example, consider anti-discrimination legislation in the US versus the EU.) Therefore, deletion seems appropriate at this time. Dr. Submillimeter 23:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The EU may aspire to have a role in education comparable to a nation state, but at present it hasn't, so this category combines crystal ball gazing with POV pushing. The latter is confirmed by the fact that the category was in Category:Universities and colleges by country when it was first created, and it was put back there when it was recreated. The EU is not a country. Ravenhurst 23:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know I keep saying the same things but the Bologna process has, for better or worse, forced some of the more substantial reorganizations in programs in recent years. This is not something I'm just inventing out of thin air or out of sheer love of the EU. I know about this whole thing because my European colleagues keep bitching about it... As for the possible confusion with nation states, I really feel that people are giving way too much importance to the existence of a Wikipedia category. The existence of the cat does not make the EU a country. It does not seek to make the EU look like a country. It does not try to compare the role of the EU in education to that of a nation state. It's a category, a way to organize content in a way that might be meaningful to some and which by and large will be used by people who know full well that the EU is not a country and has a limited role in education. The category itself is just a holder of the national subcategories so it's not creating any sort of category clutter. It's a harmless 3kb of pointers that some will find useful for browsing and that some will find pretty useless. The latter are very much encouraged to ignore its existence. Pascal.Tesson 23:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons given by Pascal.Tesson. I just do not understand the delete arguments. The role of the EU in higher education is important and this category is usefull. --Bduke 00:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category suffers from POV problems and is of no use for navigation except for people who do not know which countries are in the EU, who will presumably not be interested in it. There are hundred of categories which exist for large countries, and might exist at EU level, but do not exist at EU level, so there should be clear justification for those that do exist, and the arguments put forward in this case are weak. ReeseM 01:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure I understand what's so POV about it. It has a clear, neutral definition and a clear, unambiguous membership criterion. It is useful for navigation because it's not unreasonable to assume someone would want to browse only the EU country categories (even you admit that much) and this is much easier to do with this category than by picking out the EU countries within Category:Universities and colleges by country which is quite large. I know I'm starting to get on everyone's nerves here, and I apologize if I seem too insistent, but the idea that the existence of a Wikipedia category is a Europhile statement seems completely absurd to me. Pascal.Tesson 01:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a native of Quebec, how much do you know about the way the pro and anti-EU debate is conducted, and the role that propaganda plays in the pro-EU effort? OrchWyn 01:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But why oh why does this debate have to be about EU propaganda? If you believe that it's important to delete this category to counter propaganda efforts of EU supporters then I'm sorry but this discussion should be entirely devoid of political grandstanding. The sole thing that matters is this: "can we reasonably expect users of Wikipedia to find this categorization useful when they browse through the category system?" If you have an answer to this question, positive or negative, then by all means please tell us. But if your wish to see this category disappear is based on your personal dislike of the EU then with all due respect, I'm afraid we don't care. Pascal.Tesson 02:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The argument for retention is based on a fundamental error of fact, as the Bologna process is not restricted to member states of the EU, and indeed several non-EU member states have already signed up to it. OrchWyn 01:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The diploma alignment is just a technical adjustment connected with the free movement of labour policy, and will have only a marginal impact on curricula. The overall structure of higher education in different countries will continue to follow national traditions that vary from one another to a far greater extent than those of U.S. states or Canadian provinces. The connection between these categories is far weaker than the connection between the university categories for English-speaking countries. Greg Grahame 11:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unfit for purpose per OrchWyn - and the thought that this category might be called Category:Universities and colleges in countries involved in the Bologna process confirms how inappropriate it is. Choalbaton 20:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to last three editors. I don't know where anybody read that the Bologna process is my fundamental argument for retention of this category. But I do think that EU universities share an increasing amount of programs, strategies, research funding sources, etc. I don't believe this fact can be disputed although of course, the significance of these is certainly debatable. Pascal.Tesson 02:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They will be connected differently than are the universities of US states, etc, but whether or not one approves entirely of the process, its real and so is the category. DGG 02:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The connection is not only different from that between the universities of US states, but several degrees of magnitude slighter, and as pointed out above, the EU is not the relevant region in any case. Wimstead 10:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This should actually be speedy deleted, as there was no reason to overturn the original result except that one of the participants in the previous discussion did not like it. Wimstead 10:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arbitary grouping based on minor commonalities. Craig.Scott 00:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both discussions. AshbyJnr 11:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above editors. Postlebury 14:01, 13 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 Category:Friends TV show (1994). It contains only one actor, so removing him empties the category. Category:Friends has not been nominated for any change.--Mike Selinker 17:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, duplicate of Category:Friends. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the lone member to Category:Friends. --rimshots^talk 17:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge unnecessary subcat. Pascal.Tesson 17:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Reverse merge.~~ Although "Friends TV show (1994)" is clunky and could be improved, the word "Friends" does not inherently indicate that it's a category about that show. Doczilla 22:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC) Merge/rename per Otto4711 (see below). Doczilla 02:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and rename the result to Category:Friends (TV series) per what appears to be the convention of Category:Categories named after television series with shows with ambiguous names. Otto4711 00:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if my proposal is accepted, the two subcats Category:Friends characters and Category:Friends episodes should also be renamed to add "(TV series)" to their names. Otto4711 00:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Friends, keep category name the same as Friends Merge this into the previously existing duplicate Category:Friends. However, do not just rename the category to "Category:Friends (TV series)" since the associated main article is simply called Friends. Category names should almost always match the names of their associated main article. I would, though, support renaming both the category and the main article to Category:Friends (TV series) and Friends (TV series) respectively. That way they still match and also meet the normal convention for television series naming when there is a disam page involved. Dugwiki 16:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the only article in the category is about an actor and we don't categorise actors by shows they appeared in. Also this is not the place to discuss the renaming of the article Friends. Therefore we shouldn't be discussing renaming the related category unless there is consensus to rename the article. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, one could argue during a discussion about the article that it's not the place to discuss renaming the category, so nothing gets done at all. Doczilla 05:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think it would be more appropriate to discuss renaming the main article first, and if it's renamed then to discuss renaming the category. Having the discussion to rename the article here means that several people will not see the discussion as it's only linked from the category that has been nominated for deletion. Anyway the point is that the category that has been nominated should be deleted and the renaming of the article and other category should be done separately. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 05:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Music by film" strikes me as a poor categorization scheme. The various articles are already appropriately categorized elsewhere. Otto4711 15:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 11:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Choalbaton 20:28, 9 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:University towns in the United States, Rename to Category:University towns in Ohio, or Rename to Category:College towns in Ohio. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is Rename to Category:University towns in Ohio (or, second option, to Category:College towns in Ohio). But I don't think merging is such a great idea as the parent category is becoming large enough to warrant the finer by-state categories. Pascal.Tesson 17:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:University towns in Ohio. I would be OK with renaming to keep the same language as the national category. However, I do think that there are enough entries in the Ohio category to warrant it being a separate entry.--Analogue Kid 20:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Merge -- anything but merge--there are a great number in Ohio, & some other states.(NY, California...) DGG 02:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename everything to Category: College and university towns in Foo in order to be more inclusive and accurate. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is the objective criteria for inclusion? There appears to be none: New York City and Los Angeles both have universities, does this make them college towns? Is there some sort of proportionality needed? Like X gowns/Y towns > Z%. Nearly every town of a (relatively small) certain size in the US has a "college" or "university" even if it's a community college or a for-profit institute, one may be hard-pressed to find large cities (say 100,000 people) without one (which may be more notable than having one). Carlossuarez46 23:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I understand your concern, I think College town is a fairly well-defined concept. Of course, fairly might be a bit less than what we'd like but I'm ok with it in this case. Pascal.Tesson 15:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

College town says a college town is "dominated by its university population"; with that criteria few if any of the current articles categorized under University towns in the United States would fit, for example: is Palo Alto, California "dominated by its university population" when mention of Stanford University isn't made until the 3rd paragraph of the article but its high tech industry including Hewlett-Packard is mentioned in the opening paragraph? Although Boston's article mentions education in the 1st paragraph, I doubt seriously that the financial, governmental, and industrial center of Massachusetts can fairly be said to be "dominated" by its university population. But all is not lost, College town has a nice list of what some editors consider to be college towns (which are all unsourced but when they are would be a fine keeper in contrast to this rather arbitrary category). Carlossuarez46 16:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are so many colleges and universities around now that this concept doesn't mean much any more. Postlebury 14:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subjective inclusion criterion. It is not objectively definable which towns are "dominated" by the presence of a college. >Radiant< 14:54, 16 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. Vegaswikian 05:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per strong consensus and precedent against categorizing films by actors. Otto4711 15:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, We already decided against Films by actor. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~keep~~ delete although I most certainly believe that categorizing films by actors is a bad idea, I believe this might be a reasonable exception. In many ways, Elvis films are almost a genre in themselves. Pascal.Tesson 17:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you were to assume that "Elvis films" is a genre, there is still the issue that all of these films' links can be navigated from Elvis' main article via List of Elvis Presley films. So it's not at all clear that this category provides any additional functionality to the reader. Dugwiki 16:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, all right... Maybe I just have a soft spot for Elvis films... Pascal.Tesson 17:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous films by actor decision and extensive precedent. Doczilla 20:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If any exceptions are made everyone will want one for their favourite star. Haddiscoe 22:37, 8 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. Vegaswikian 05:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per strong consensus and precedent against categorizing films by actors. Otto4711 15:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, We already decided against Films by actor. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CfD#Category:Films by actor and WP:DNWAUC -- Cat ^chi? 18:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 20:40, 8 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: rename.--Mike Selinker 16:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Malice Mizer songs, convention of Category:Songs by artist, and discussion of June 9th -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was listify and delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and Delete - nominated once previously, closed with no consensus. In reviewing the arguments it appears that the delete contingent had the better argument. Yes, this is a very important guest appearance, but it is still a guest appearance and there is strong consensus against categorizing people by their guest appearances. We have deleted innumerable categories for film and television casts on this basis and there does not appear to be any justification for making an exception for the Peel Sessions. A list article would allow much greater flexibility in organization, allowing for articles arranged chronologically for example to assist interested parties in tracking trends in music through Peel's selection of guests. Or they could be arranged by genre, or cross-referenced by any number of factors that are much more useful than a simple alphabetical listing. Otto4711 14:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The previous closure looks wrong, it should have been delete. This is not a defining characteristic, for all the attempts to claim that it is. Haddiscoe 22:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is the categorization by guest appearance, which is generally inappropriate. In the previous discussion, it was asserted that appearance on the Peel Sessions was exceptional in that this demonstrated that the performers had achieved notability. However, in a selection of an unbiased subsample of articles in the category, I showed that the Peel Sessions were not even mentioned in a significant fraction of the articles, and it appeared to not be career-defining for over half of the music groups and individuals. Therefore, the category is no more special than any other guest performance category. It should still be deleted. (Note that I nearly challenged the decision to close the discussion as "no consensus".) Dr. Submillimeter 23:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just for clarity, I also support listifying. (Listing by year would probably be appropriate.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ReeseM 01:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if appearing on this show played a major role in launching some careers, it was a minor incident for most of these artists. Piccadilly 11:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. I think it may be a defining characteristic for some of the members, but definitely not all, and trying to restrict the category to cases where it can be shown to be a defining characteristic would certainly be futile, so a list is almost certainly the best bet. Xtifr _tälk 03:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. per above.--Keefer | Talk 06:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as per any categorisation by performance category. Wimstead 10:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The Peel Sessions were recordings of both up and coming and established artists for use on John Peel's show. The recordings were not aired in their entirety, only selected tracks, so it is unfair that the term 'Peel Session' is being equated with 'Guest Appearance'. Many of the recordings have been released in album format by the BBC. 'The Peel Sessions' was in effect the personal record label of John Peel.--Nic Brown 11:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete As a performer-by-performance category. AshbyJnr 07:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - These are not performances. These are studio multitrack recordings. --Nic Brown 00:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In reply to Nic Brown's argument, if the albums have articles, that would justify the creation of category:Peel Sessions albums, but it does not justify this category. Honbicot 20:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The problem is, the peel sessions a very unique project, and I strongly feel that this information is of note to anybody interested in independant music. For 686 artists (although the true total is probably closer to 2000) to give up their time and rights to re-record their music so John Peel could play it royalty free on his radio show is testament to the importance of Peel to British (and American) music. To delete this because you haven't heard of Peel is just not good enough. This category is as deserving of a place in Wikipedia, and is as notable as Category:Artists_by_record_label, Category:Retired_National_Lacrosse_League_players, or Category:Lingerie_Football_League_players. Keep it, listify it, but under no circumstances delete it. --Nic Brown 00:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: There is no "Goatboy" listed. They recorded a session in 2003.

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 Speedy delete, CSD G7, author request. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Created category in error, spelling error. Meant to be "Brazzaville albums", which I have since created.Ataricodfish 14:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per creator's request. Otto4711 14:28, 8 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. Vegaswikian 05:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another eponymous category in which the main article and navtemplate serve as better navigational hubs. The subcats are all appropriately set in their respective "...by artist" trees and the articles are extensively interlinked. Otto4711 14:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people even though all things Yankovic are inherently great. Doczilla 20:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wimstead 10:56, 10 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. Vegaswikian 05:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as with many other eponymous categories, there is insufficient material to warrant it. The subcats are appropriately housed in their respective "...by artist" category structures and the articles in the category are appropriately interlinked with each other. No need for the category for navigational purposes. Otto4711 13:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Doczilla 20:39, 8 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. Marking as no bots for a day to allow anyone to listify before it is deleted which was the result. Vegaswikian 05:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete - The categorization is relatively trivial and adds a bit of clutter to the songs so categorized, but the larger problem is that the word "banned" is not accurate. The category seeks to capture any video which had any play restrictions placed on it by MTV, from time restrictions to outright refusal to air. For instance, the video for Cher's If I Could Turn Back Time was not banned; it was restricted to rotation after 9:00 PM. A category is ill-equipped to capture those subtleties while a list article would allow for fuller explanations and attribution. Otto4711 13:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could be regarded as a case of WP:OC#Subjective_inclusion_criterion, since, as the nominator says, the word "banned" is being used as a blanket term for numerous different situations. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the arguments behind the many previous "banned" category deletions. Doczilla 20:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This system of categorization of banned items is not feasible in the long term. This category is almost specific enough to avoid some of the problems with a "banned music videos" category, although it is still being used imprecisely. However, some of the videos that fall into this category may have also been banned in many other locations. The resulting category lists could be very long. Dr. Submillimeter 23:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MTV can't "ban" a video, it can only choose not to play it. ReeseM 01:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete, per nom. Otto4711's logic makes perfect sense.--Phil500 (Talk / Contribs) 04:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Largely unesseccary. And I don't think they 'banned' the videos, merely chose not to play them on their channels or restricted them to watershed.Nukleoptra 14:41, 10 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. Vegaswikian 05:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seeks to capture home video releases by year in the US, which is US-centric. The category itself is redundant to the Category:Years in home video category structure. No need for this category. Otto4711 13:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the cat's intro line, I have no idea what purpose this is supposed to serve. Will just create category clutter as far as I can see. Pascal.Tesson 17:15, 8 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. Vegaswikian 05:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing in the category but subcats for albums and videos which are already better categorized as part of their respective "...by artist" category trees. No need for this category. Otto4711 13:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OC#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Doczilla 20:38, 8 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. >Radiant< 13:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another eponymous category for which the main article and navtemplate serve as a better navigational hub. There is insufficient material to warrant the category and all the material is easily interlinked. Otto4711 13:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Doczilla 20:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a useful navigation hub for the band, and it contains articles on the subject itself. Dr. Submillimeter 23:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. The new category's categories will also have to change.--Mike Selinker 17:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tata Young to Category:Tata Young albums

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - all of the articles are for albums, so the category should be renamed to reflect that and placed in the appropriate Albums by artist category tree. Otto4711 13:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 05:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is insufficient material to warrant an eponymous category. Otto4711 13:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OC#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth. Clearly not likely to grow into a larger category, and the subcats handle all necessary categorisation. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Doczilla 20:37, 8 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. >Radiant< 13:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as with many other eponymous categories, this one is unnecessary for navigation. Eponymous categories should be reserved for those which contain large amounts of material which can not be easily interlinked, which is not the case here. The main article, including the navtemplate, serve as a better navigational hub. Otto4711 13:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Doczilla 20:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Choalbaton 20:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I understand the reasons for nomination and I hate myself for saying this, but the guy unfortuantly is very popular and the bulk of material will only increase within the category (new album due this year). At some point, we will recreate it - and if not a registered editor, then an anon will very soon. Rgds, - Trident13 15:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new album would go into Category:Will Young albums. If the category is deleted and recreated it can be deleted again. Otto4711 21:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the category as I thought it a good place to put the discography and DVD articles, as there was nowhere else to put them relating to Will Young, such as the albums and songs categories. As Otto4711 said, the new album will go into the albums category. I don't like the idea of the discography and DVD articles not being grouped with the other Will Young related articles but as I created it I think it's better if I stay neutral. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep Category as Category:Video game music composers — anthony^[cfc] 00:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Video game music composers to Category:Video game composers

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Saying "music" is redundant. None of the other categories phrase it this way either. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename - The word "music" is needed for clarity. Otherwise, it is unclear as to what the people are composing. The suggested name implies that the people may write the video game software. Dr. Submillimeter 11:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Game programmers seems to be doing a good job in keeping the two concepts separate. Otto4711 01:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose rename - "Music composer" specifies the exact context, as opposed to someone who composes video games. --Scottie_theNerd 12:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be no confusion in the literature of composers of video game music with composers of any other aspect of video games, and tehre appears to be few to no references to anyone who is something other than a composer of music as a "video game composer." Otto4711 01:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose rename - As per the above discussion, "video game composer" has the capacity to imply many different occupations. Since this category is specifically regarding video game music composers (and not just people who compose things related to video games), the "music" moniker should remain. Ex-Nintendo Employee 13:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What other things, when created for video games, are referred to as being "composed"? Otto4711 01:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose rename. They're composing the music, not the games themselves. Doczilla 20:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename and question: Are composers for video game music really typically distinct from composers for other types of media works? I would think there would be a lot of overlap and it might be just better to call them all some more generic variant of "x music composers". --lquilter 20:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Not one of the other subcategories of Category:Composers have "music" in their name. We have Category:Anime composers and Category:Television composersfor example. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When one composes, they are writing music. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and in line with naming convention. The likelihood of confusion as to whether a composer of music for video games should go in the composers category or some other subcat of Category:Video game people is remote. The rename is not ambiguous, as video game designers and programmers and producers have their own categories. Otto4711 18:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above comments. Choalbaton 20:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I'm puzzled by the arguments for opposing. No confusion is possible since composer is perfectly unambiguous. This is why the top category is Category:Composers and not music composers. Pascal.Tesson 02:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Composer" is not unambiguous, one can compose poems for example. There is certainly a possibility that "Video game composer" will be misunderstood. Craig.Scott 00:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: We have Category:Poets for people who write poetry. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Sure, one can compose poems but how does that create ambiguity in Video game composers? Pascal.Tesson 14:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. People who compose music for video games are typically credited as "composers" in the credits of video games. It's an industry standard and even unambiguous to those outside of the industry. --Dariusk 19:08, 11 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. Vegaswikian 05:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category contains only three people, the directors and producers of this series. Per previous decisions, we shouldn't be categorizing producers and directors by their creations. The category should be deleted. Samuel Wantman 06:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom and extensive precedent. Otto4711 12:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vaguely named, underpopulated category per many precedents. Doczilla 20:37, 8 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. Vegaswikian 05:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty cat. All villages in the prefecture have been dissolved recently. There is a new Category:Dissolved municipalities of Hiroshima Prefecture that has already been created to hold all dissolved villages, towns, and cities. Neier 06:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nom. Neier 06:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a redundant and superfluous category. --MChew 15:20, 11 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 Category:Knot types into Category:Knots. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is unclear how this differs from the parent category, Category:Knots. Knot type categories such as Category:Bend knots and Category:Hitch knots are currently subcategories of knots, not of knot types. If knot types were separated out, not much would be left. — Gwalla

Delete - redundant. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge (just in case there are articles solely categorized as knot types) Pascal.Tesson 16:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Rename? - The intent of this category is indeed for articles covering a class of knots. The majority of the articles currently listed in the category are of that type. It is useful to have stand-alone articles on knot classes for wikilinking in other articles. I've been working on similar articles for Category:Knot components and the intent of the WP:KNOTS project is to flesh-out these related "class-of-knots" articles as well. Perhaps the name of the category might have been better chosen, but a category for this purpose seems useful to me. As far as renaming ideas "Knot classes" sounds too instructional, perhaps "Classes of knots", "Knot classifications". --Dfred 11:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But if all knot types were separated out into this subcat, what would be left in Category:Knots? — Gwalla | Talk 23:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The underlying issue here may be that the category we're discussing, despite its current name, is being used to identify knot article types rather than knot types. In addition to basic articles on individual knots, there are several other classes of article which will be useful to the wikipedia reader: articles on the main subject of knots (e.g. Knot, History of knots, etc.), general articles on each of the major "knot types", articles about knot components (e.g. Bight (knot)), articles on knots by activity (e.g. Climbing knots, Sailing knots). These are the traditional ways to categorize real-world knots, but despite being well-documented they are basically folk taxonomies and a bit messy in practice. I think each "axis" of categorization will be useful to the Wikipedia reader, but I will be the first to admit WP:KNOTS still has a great deal of work to do in terms of reaching consensus and cleaning up the organization of the articles. An obvious strategy is making better use of navboxes and other forms of article organization in addition to the category tags. This is the first CfD I've participated in, so I'm not completely sure of the ramifications if the category is deleted. If deleting this category now will not preclude the creation of a future category with a similar intent (though not the same name!) then I wouldn't have a problem changing my vote to an upmerge/delete. --Dfred 00:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge/delete per nom. >Radiant< 09:51, 12 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.

April 8

Category:Singles banned by the BBC

Category:Captain America video games

Category:Cult Television Shows

Category:Iron Man television series

Category:People born on Easter

Category:Works Illustrated by Alex Ross

Category:Athletes at the 2007 Winter Universiade

Category:Orson Welles

Category:Linda McCartney

Category:Eponymous comics

Category:Religion in Kurdistan

Category:Eponymous television series

Category:XTC

Category:X Marks the Pedwalk

Category:Duff family

Wrestling families

Circus families

Category:Universities and colleges in the European Union

Category:Friends TV show (1994)

Category:Scarface music

Category:College Towns in Ohio

Category:Elvis Presley films

Category:Bruce Lee films

Category:Malice Mizer singles

Category:Peel Sessions artists

Category:Brassaville albums

Category:"Weird Al" Yankovic

Category:Hitomi Yaida

Category:Videos banned from MTV

Category:United States DVD releases

Category:Yanni

Category:Yes (band)

Category:Tata Young

Category:The Yardbirds

Category:Will Young

Category:Video game music composers

Category:Highlander people

Category:Villages in Hiroshima Prefecture

Category:Knot types