< August 12	August 14 >

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 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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black Winter Olympics medalists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Patronising and divisive. Alex Middleton 23:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Wryspy 02:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & ample precedent, see WP:OCAT. Carlossuarez46 05:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. SilkTork 09:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Dominictimms 21:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ample precedent, Tewfik^Talk 08:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Neier 02:27, 20 August 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 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 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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:All pages needing completion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Since when was Wikipedia working towards a deadline? 82.16.7.63 20:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wikipedia is a constantly growing encyclopedia. What is the definition of "completion"? The way I see it, no article is ever truly complete, so every single article would belong in the category. --musicpvm 05:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• WOW! Only one article needing completion, folks, we're almost done!. No, just a badly named cat, *delete of course. Carlossuarez46 05:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename as "Wikipedia". SilkTork 09:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There's no need to nominate this separately; when ((finish)) is deleted (it currently has an overwhelming consensus for deletion, see here), this will go as well. Melsaran 14:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No page is ever finished. Dominictimms 21:32, 14 August 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 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 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 debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Greek shooters to Category:Greek sport shooters

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with every other subcategory of Category:Sport shooters by nationality. -- Jao 15:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 05:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Melsaran 14:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Greg Grahame 01:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per convention, Tewfik^Talk 08:53, 17 August 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 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 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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Motion Picture Director/Writer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Film directors and Category:Screenwriters. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. or simply delete. This is overcategorization and happens to be incorrectly capitalized. Category has only one member article, which appears to have been written by the subject of the article (autobiography) and lacks notability. Wryspy 18:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wryspy. Single item in category which appears to be autobiography. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; no need to merge this. Masaruemoto 02:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wryspy. Carlossuarez46 05:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I added Category:Film directors and Category:Screenwriters to Terence H. Winkless (the only article in the category) and removed this category, so it is now empty. No need for a CFD nomination. Melsaran 14:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wryspry, Tewfik^Talk 08:54, 17 August 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 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 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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star Trek soundtracks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - created following the deletion of Category:Star Trek music. With the exception of the theme song itself, the entire category consists of people who have composed music for Star Trek. This is improper performer by performance overcategorization. The theme song article can sit under the main category and there is no need for this one. Otto4711 12:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Star Trek is an extremely diverse and multi-faceted work, spanning decades, and numerous works of film, books, and television. There are categories for books, games, and other items related to Star Trek, including fictitious items like equipments and official ranks. to delete the category for a real work of art like soundtracks seems a bit excessive, and does not to me seem to help Wikipedia at all. There are numerous people seeking information about the range of Star trek music over decades. this category is a good start. --Steve, Sm8900 13:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, this category doesn't contain articles about the Star Trek soundtracks. It contains articles about the composers which per strong consensus is overcategorization. Otto4711 14:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be over-categorization, in my opinion, if we were dealing with a work of music which one did not need to find over the decades. No one is claiming that this should be the main categorization for these composers. However, this is one of the only ways to trace Star Trek music over the decades, and it is worthwhile to have some useful means to do so. That's my opinion on this.

By the way, there is one article on Star Trek music, on the Star Trek theme, in this category. More may be added, if this category remains available. --Steve, Sm8900 14:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It sounds like wht you want is an article on music written for Star Trek over the years. An article on this topic would be the best resource for people interested in the topic, not a category of composers. There is no reason why the composers can't be in a list instead of a category, the way production staff, Enterprise cast members, Next Gen cast members, TOS writers and script writers are. Consensus is loud and clear on categorizing people by the projects they work on and no reson has been offered here for deviating from that consensus. Otto4711 16:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I second Steve, Sm8900. Either keep it or rename it Star Trek Composers. There needs to be a way to connect all these composers in a category, and they should not be just lumped into the broader Star Trek category. Awbeal 16:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even the category description says it's for "any individuals, items, or information pertaining to music or sound effects for any Star Trek series, movies, or other works." That is clearly categorization of a performer/composer by performance, as described in WP:OCAT. At the very least the category should at best be only for articles about actual soundtracks, of which there are no such articles included, but even that is questionable. Dugwiki 15:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the benefit of deleting this category? Exactly who does that help? Conversely, there are many who might benefit from retaining this category.

You're correct in your description of the current scope, but I said this is a categorization, not the main one, for any of those composers. --Steve, Sm8900 15:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify and delete, for same reasons as actors, writers etc. Keep the information by creating a new List of Star Trek composers and music; this might later be fleshed out into an article. If it would be right to make a connection visible in the articles on the composers, Sm8900, you might consider adding a new template. - Fayenatic london (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did copy and paste the contents to this article: User:Sm8900/Trek_composers. However, I do still feel that we should keep this category. --Steve, Sm8900 17:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete what is essentially a recreation of the Star Trek music category. Wryspy 18:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jus so you know, the Star trek music category no longer exists. --Steve, Sm8900 19:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why Wryspy said "recreation". Categories should not be recreated without strict justification. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: obsession about the minute details of Star Trek belongs on StarTrekipedia. This violates our basic guidelines. All the information can be found through links at the relevant articles. Obvious overcategorization, non-defining characteristic. I have no objection to listification, but for most of these individuals, to define them by their connection to Star Trek is simply ridiculous. We've seen what happens in the past when we allow this sort of categorization by tenuous connection, and the result is not pretty; that's why we have overcategorization guidelines. Xtifr _tälk 20:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete per Fayenatic. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OCAT performer by performance, though it should be speedy if indeed recreated material. I don't think a list of 5-6 people fits with content-space policies, and so there is no need to go that route. Tewfik^Talk 08:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete away; article now created. Fayenatic london (talk) 10:53, 18 August 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 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 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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Administrative Reforms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete This is not a global category about administrative reforms (and isn't that too vague to be useful anyway?). It was created to hold two articles about the Indian state of Kerala, which have been relocated to Category:Government of Kerala. Talalpa 12:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Empty category which has an overly broad title for an overly narrow focus, per Talalpa. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the now empty cat, which is out of line with the hierarchy's convention. Tewfik^Talk 09:00, 17 August 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 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 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 debate was no consensus, but rename per Dominictimms to add "the" --Kbdank71 16:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Martial arts of Malay archipelago to Category:Malay martial arts

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I'm offering this category for renaming as well (see also the listing below). However there is some doubt as the appropriate name, given that the Malay ethnic group, Malaysia and the Malay archipelago cover very different regions. I don't know which it is appropriate to use in the martial arts field. Talalpa 11:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the Malay achipelago is usually a reference to parts of Indonesia. Indonesians usually don't self-identify as Malay regardless of what some ethnologists want to say. Carlossuarez46 05:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what should be done? The next item down is about the Indonesian category. Are both needed? If they are, how should the scope of this one be defined? Dominictimms 21:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A quick look at a few of the articles shows that these include martial arts from all over East and South East Asia and the Philippines. To the extent that origins can be placed in one country, the articles should be moved to its category. If a mixed martial art then either put a new cat for the mix, or categorize it where its popularity started (some of these articles are more essays than not) or just leave no cat for its "origins" - many things a sui generis and we just have to live with it. Carlossuarez46 01:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So does that mean you want to delete it? Tewfik^Talk 09:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename one way or another, as the current name is ungrammatical. At the very least it should be renamed to Category:Martial arts of the Malay archipelago. Dominictimms 21:33, 14 August 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 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 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 debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Martial arts of Indonesia to Category:Indonesian martial arts

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to the form used for similar categories. Talalpa 11:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for consistency. Carlossuarez46 05:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC
• Rename for technical reasons, though I'm still unsure as to what the overall hierarchy should look like. Tewfik^Talk 09:07, 17 August 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 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 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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional stabbing victims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete, another overly broad category which can basically include anyone who's been involved in a knife fight or suffered a flesh would from a knife or other sharp implement. The seems to run in the same line as the "Fictional murder victims", "Deceased fictional characters", etc. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 10:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - potentially enormous category offering little or nothing in the way of meaningful grouping. Otto4711 12:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Otto4711 Paul730 17:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Every superhero has gotten stabbed at least once, rendering the category non-defining for them, and this is only one example of what's wrong with this category. Wryspy 18:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Huntster above.--NeilEvans 21:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as way, way, waaay overcategorization. I'd suggest a snowball if this discussion keeps going down the obvious consensus road. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 21:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone above. Over-categorization isn't too helpful. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OCAT to the max, it's getting cold is it WP:SNOWing yet? Carlossuarez46 05:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this can include thousands and thousands of fictional characters, and serves little or no purpose. Who would visit this category just to see which fictional characters have once been stabbed? It's also quite difficult to maintain. Melsaran 14:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - pile on Tewfik^Talk 09:11, 17 August 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 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 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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Small without potential for growth; deviantART is one of the few art websites considered notable/verifiable enough to justify its own article, but certainly nowhere near large nor notable enough to justify its own category. --Stratadrake 03:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: the guideline. Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth. actually specifies no more than "two or three members", while this already has four. Further (and far more significant in my opinion), this category has extremely limited potential for growth, but that's not the same as no potential for growth. The site is growing, gaining new members, getting better known, and I know from my own involvement with the Open source software community that people from DeviantART have gotten involved with some open source software projects (like the very popular Battle for Wesnoth). While none of that has reached the point where it could be considered notable, I certainly feel it has potential. But I freely admit that this is a really borderline case. Xtifr _tälk 11:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Delete now that Otto has pointed out the most of the articles have only a tenuous connection to the subject at best, which actually gives it more potential for shrinkage than growth. :) Xtifr _tälk 14:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - four is not a magic number of articles to preserve a category and even if it were, Hollywood Palladium doesn't belong categorized here anyway because its only apparent connection to DeviantART is that DeviantART held an event there two years ago. Absent that article there are only three. I don't see any pressing need to categorize Flash games by the website on which they originally appeared. Otto4711 12:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the articles in this category actually have very little to do with deviantART, e.g. Hollywood Palladium is in the category just because it did once host a "deviantART summit". This has very little potential for expansion. Melsaran 14:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per OCAT & nom, Tewfik^Talk 09:12, 17 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.