< August 23	August 25 >

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. As Tefwik notes, this is best dealt with in an article, rather than a category. I appreciate Dionysos's explanation, but unfortunately such an explanation is not apparent from a "category link" at the bottom of an article, so this would have to be explained in article text. >Radiant< 15:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bertolt Brecht collaborators[edit]

Category:Bertolt Brecht collaborators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - the category is sort of a hybrid of eponymous overcategorization and performer by performance. Categorizng people on the basis of other people they've worked with is unworkable. Creative people work with dozens or hundreds of other creative people over the course of a career which could lead to dozens or hundreds of these collaborator categories on a single article. The fact that Person A and Person B both worked with Person C doesn't establish that there's a relationship between A and B. Notable collaborations should be noted in the articles for the collaborators and the resulting work. Otto4711 22:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As with the objections to the other categories used to organize Brecht's work, this objection appears to come from a lack of familiarity with the subject that the category addresses. If you knew the work of Bertolt Brecht, you would know that he is noted in the history of theatre for establishing a uniquely non-individualistic, collective working practice and that he gathered around him a long-standing and consistent group of individuals with whom he collaborated (he is not alone in this - Erwin Piscator did something similar). Current critical discussions of the work, consequently, recognise that whenever one speaks of a 'Brecht' one is actually referring to a collective subject. The introduction to the Bertolt Brecht article gives a very brief outline of this reality. As with your objection to the other grouping, you make a valid point about the non-viability of using categories to trace who has worked with whom. In this case, however, there is a justified reason for such a grouping: I refer you to the footnotes on the relevant section in the introduction to the main article. There are many critical citations I can provide for the meaningfulness of a "Brecht collective" category. DionysosProteus 22:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DionysosProteus. Piccadilly 23:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I do not like the idea of using categories to create a network of collaboration between artists (or scientists, or in any field). The level of collaboration that DionysosProteus has in mind for inclusion in the category will not be shared by other editors. This is much better covered in lists and articles, where the nature of the collaborations can be discussed. ×Meegs 23:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nom. -- Kleinzach 01:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not proposing that the criteria of inclusion in the category be my personal opinion. "The Brecht Collective" is a well-described phenomenon: cf. Carl Zuckmayer: "In the late twenties, when the concept of literary and theatrical 'collectives' became fashionable, especially in Berlin, I once said to him: 'For you the collective is a group of intelligent people who contribute to what one person wants--that is, what you want.' He admitted, with his peculiar sly smile, that I might not be so far wrong as that." That anecdote is picked up from the opening few pages of the Cambridge Guide. That book alone is full of references to the entity "the Brecht collective"; in the introduction to the article on here, I've cited a brief section of Fredric Jameson's discussion of this phenomenon. If you remain unconvinced I could cite you many, many more. The criteria, as I understand it, for inclusion of a fact in the encyclopedia is that it can be verified as such, rather than being a subjective opinion on the part of the editor; this fulfills that criterion. Another criterion, I understand, is 'Can an article conceivably be written on it?' and the answer is an undoubted Yes; many scholarly articles have been written on the subject and they could be summarized here. DionysosProteus 01:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DP. this is the useful way of keeping them together in an understandable format to the non-sepcialists. DGG (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is your opinion that Brecht is a special case, or that we should create similar categories for other playwrights and for professionals in other fields? Such categories would be very large, and many articles wold find themselves in dozens and dozens of categories. ×Meegs 13:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm describing a well-documented phenomenon of Brecht's creative method. As I have mentioned above, there are some theatre artists who have also worked in this manner' Erwin Piscator is one. The vast majority, however, have not. DionysosProteus 14:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete many artists collaborate to add seemingly endless cats to biographical articles is unwarranted and a big mistake. Carlossuarez46 17:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It is not merely that they collaborated, but that they forged a collective mode of production that lasted for their entire careers, in most cases. See "The Brecht collective" in the literature. DionysosProteus 00:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds like there should be an article on the subject, in which this collective can be explained clearly and its membership listed with sourcing for their inclusion, as opposed to the simple alphabetical listing which can never explain why someone is included. Otto4711 13:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Another variation on performer-by-performance.--Mike Selinker 23:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an OCAT, since while I appreciate the relevance of the collaboration, it is better expressed in article-space than in an unworkable categories. Tewfik^Talk 22:24, 29 August 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 below. 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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Meaningless category. Fayenatic (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Piccadilly 23:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It looks like this cat was created with something like Category:Fundamental in mind, but never populated. ×Meegs 23:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Tewfik^Talk 22:25, 29 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 below. 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 merge. Everybody wants them gone, and the delete votes seem to be merge votes in disguise. The "attempt" one will be deleted, as it doesn't accurately match the target category. Please note that I also am merging Category:Fictional man-on-man gang rape victims.--Mike Selinker 14:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge:

• Category:Fictional demon-on-woman rape victims
• Category:Fictional man-on-boy forcible rape victims
• Category:Fictional man-on-girl forcible rape victims
• Category:Fictional man-on-man rape victims
• Category:Fictional man-on-woman gang rape victims
• Category:Fictional man-on-woman rape attempt victims
• Category:Fictional man-on-woman rape victims
• Category:Fictional monster-on-man rape victims
• Category:Fictional woman-on-man forcible rape victims

all into Category:Fictional rape victims

There are just so many problems with these categories, I don't know where to begin. For one thing, as categories they do not function, too small, specific, inconsistent and weird. Demon-on-woman? Monster-on-man? "Forcible rape" is a tautology. And also, little smidgens of POV thrown in there too. The names are ridiculously long. Were these made as ... jokes? Also, from a practical position, the specifics of the rape in fiction are irrelevant and specifying them is confusing. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all per nom, except for the attempt category, which should be deleted. Breaking down rape victims like this is ridiculous (although "forcible rape" was I assume to distinguish from date rape and/or statutory rape). Categorizing fictional characters on the basis of attempted crimes is pointless. Otto4711 21:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I cannot imagine this level of specificity being useful to anyone. Phil Sandifer 01:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Finally a deletion debate that I share the same feeling...well, mostly...about as Otto. Though I wouldn't delete all of these categories. I feel that Category:Fictional monster-on-man rape victims and Category:Fictional woman-on-man forcible rape victims are unique enough to warrant a category. You just don't see or read about those type of rape incidents as often, unless you are, for whatever reason, searching for that specific topic. And while the Category:Fictional demon-on-woman rape victims is not seen as often as the typical rape victim storyline (man on woman) either, unless you count vampire fictions, it is still sort of common. I came to this deletion of categories debate just moments ago through the Category:Fictional man-on-woman rape victims of the Sami Brady article, and I was slightly perplexed as to why this category existed, and figured that it had to be up for deletion. Well, I see that it sort of is, as it's up for being merged, but the topic of this category is so common, very common, that I am more for deleting it than even merging it. Flyer22 03:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Something so unusual and uncommon shouldn't be mentioned. Anyway, intersections and subsections should only cover notable areas e.g. gay musicians / black musicians. This doesn't even categorise the "victims" in any useful way.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yes, I know that, Zythe. I was more so stating how certain categories, though notable, also sometimes exist as a way to specifically distinguish from a category of a similar topic. The two topics that I pointed out as being more unique, whether notable or not, would make more sense to have their own category than the others, considering that it seems so odd to have a category about fictional man-on-woman rape victims, when a category about fictional rape already exists. The truth is...woman-on-man rape (especially forcible) is definitely uncommon, as I'd bet on that, even with the factor of the date rape drug, which is why I stated that I can see that being distinguished better than most of those other categories you listed in this discussion for debate, even though it's rape as well. Anyway, I do agree with you, for the most part, on this deletion of categories debate. Flyer22 05:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Flyer22. Wryspy 04:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delte/Merge all per Flyer 22. Totally unnecessary sub categorization. Katsuhagi 00:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another point: What counts as an "attempt" is very gray legal area even today, so I'd strongly advise staying away from those shark-infested waters. Likewise the difference between "man" and "boy" and "woman" and "girl" is also gray and best to be avoided. Katsuhagi 23:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. I have doubts about whether the parent should even exist given the legal definition of rape differs from place to place and in some jurisdictions "woman on man" rape is legally impossible and how "demon on woman" rape is defined is something that I wouldn't expect to find in any law book. Carlossuarez46 17:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom - is the naming of "demon-on-woman" but "monster-on-man" meaningful beyond alliteration? Tewfik^Talk 22:29, 29 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 below. 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 keep, and rename as indicated. 'Keep', since the significance of the award, at least in the sciences, is demonstrable (even if not yet cited in the article itself), & its receipt would be a defining career moment. 'Rename', for accuracy. The Physics & Chemistry prizes to be parented to this one, and other symmetrical (re)assignments done as needed. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wolf Prize recipients to Category:Wolf Prize laureates

Nominator's rationale: Rename, upon further consideration, i'm inclined to partially agree with Otto4711 by proposing that all of the constituent 'wolf prizes' be consolidated into a single category as indicated above. emerson7

• Rename as nom, and use as parent category for the categories for the recipients of the specific prizes. --Bduke 22:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete as overcategorization by award in the absence of sourcing that the prizes are as prestigious as claimed, otherwise rename per nom. Otto4711 23:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per Bduke. Piccadilly 23:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as suggested by Bduke. They are not quite as well known, but the y are important--as the names of the recipients laureates indicates.DGG (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per emerson, though putting some sourcing in the category page might be a good idea. Tewfik^Talk 22:44, 29 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 below. 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 keep, and rename to Category:Wolf Prize in Physics laureates, following result of Chemistry prize below. 'Keep', since the significance of the award, at least in the sciences, is demonstrable (even if not yet cited in the article itself), & its receipt would be a defining career moment. 'Rename', for accuracy. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wolf Prize in Physics recipients (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Found this one while looking at the chemistry one below. The two should probably have the same result. The article Wolf Prize claims that this is seen as the second most prestigious physics award after the Nobel Prize but offers no sourcing to back up the claim. A complete list exists at List of Wolf Prize in Physics laureates and there's also a navtemplate. Not sure this isn't overcategorization by award. If it's not then it should be renamed to Category:Wolf Prize in Physics laureates. Otto4711 21:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename per nom. I think these Prizes are sufficiently important for the recipients to be categorized. They are as important as the article states but of course that does need sourcing. --Bduke 22:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per Bduke. Piccadilly 23:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename As more people are awarded these prizes, the usefulness of separate categories by subject increases. DGG (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yet another prize cat for bios - we have the list; the cat is superfluous and ought to be deleted. Carlossuarez46 17:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per emerson7, Tewfik^Talk 07:35, 30 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 below. 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 keep, and rename as indicated. 'Keep', since the significance of the award, at least in the sciences, is demonstrable (even if not yet cited in the article itself), & its receipt would be a defining career moment. 'Rename', for accuracy. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wolf Prize in Chemistry recipients to Category:Wolf Prize in Chemistry laureates

Nominator's rationale: Rename, correct nomenclature. emerson7

• Weak delete - as overcategorization by award. The article Wolf Prize claims this is the second-most prestigious award in the field after the Nobel but offers no source to back that up. There is a complete List of Wolf Prize in Chemistry laureates and also a navtemplate. If not deleted then rename per nom. Otto4711 21:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per nom. I think these Prizes are sufficiently important for the recipients to be categorized. They are as important as the article states but of course that does need sourcing. --Bduke 22:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bduke. Piccadilly 23:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename As more people are awarded these prizes, the usefulness of separate categories by subject increases. DGG (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename I created this category. I work on articles related to the Wolf Prize. This prize is a very important prize. Wolf Prize is perhaps the second most important prize after the Nobel Prize. RS2007 08:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There need to be reliable sources in the articles that attest to the notability of the awards. Otto4711 15:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the same reasons I stated in the related category above. Carlossuarez46 17:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per emerson7, Tewfik^Talk 07:36, 30 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy rename, capit. >Radiant< 15:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Amusement Park Images to Category:Amusement park images

Nominator's rationale: Rename, It should be lowercase. Esprit15d 18:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

creator's response! I agree, I hit the save button and then saw the error. Thanks--Tinned Elk 19:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Images of amusement parks. I thought the consensus was to start the category with images. Vegaswikian 22:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There does not appear to be an obvious consensus in category:Images by subject, but if there is...--Tinned Elk 02:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been the consensus on renames here in the past year or so. Often if there is a consensus that develops, someone does not always follow up by trying to get other categories renamed. Vegaswikian 05:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Images of amusement parks per Vegas, Tewfik^Talk 07:48, 30 August 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 below. 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.--Mike Selinker 14:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:University of Florida Gators Golfers to Category:Florida Gators men's golfers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Everyone currently in the category is male, and the change will match up with existing subcategories in Category:College golfers and Category:University of Florida athletics. Dale Arnett 18:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support to fit the existing hierarchy, at least until someone can explain to me what would happen if there were now a female golfer. Tewfik^Talk 07:50, 30 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 below. 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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with multiple forms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Ambiguous title, non-encyclopedic criteria, darn right weird to boot. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this for fictional shapeshifters? Then merge to Category:Fictional shapeshifters. Otherwise delete. Otto4711 18:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's for fictional bureaucrats. Postdlf 19:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete category whose name just doesn't make any sense. Reading its description doesn't help. Wryspy 04:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Tewfik^Talk 07:50, 30 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 below. 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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Light Rail in Minnesota to Category:Light rail in Minnesota

Nominator's rationale: Rename, fixed capitalization –Dream out loud (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom; gotta keep these capitalization freaks in line –SESmith 06:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per convention, Tewfik^Talk 07:51, 30 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 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, per consensus below plus concerns over "influenced by" categories to be speculative. >Radiant< 15:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Influenced by the Work of Bertolt Brecht (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Artists can be influenced by any number of people or things and categorizing people on the basis of who or what influenced them is not workable. Otto4711 17:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. That is no doubt an accurate observation. However, this category is used to categorize theatre practioners who have been identified as 'Brechtian' and 'post-Brechtian' in the critical literature, so it is a specific and technical designation. I can provide you with an extensive bibliography if you wish, but the relevant articles in the Brecht page list provide an appropriate starting-point. DionysosProteus 18:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If "Brechtian" and "post-Brechtian" are recognized literary genres then Brechtian and post-Brechtian authors should be in a category to reflect it. "Influenced by Brecht" is sloppy and imprecise naming. Otto4711 21:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to understand the function of these terms in current critical discourse, I suggest you read some (an informed position is the most useful in these circumstances). The distinction between Brechtian and post-Brechtian is fluid in critical writings about the practitioners in question; there is agreement on the overriding significance of their relationship to Brecht, but disagreement about how to label that. They are certainly not 'literary genres'. If you have a suggestion for renaming the category, that is fine, but splitting it into those two is not in agreement with current critical usage. DionysosProteus 21:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, so an informed position is the most useful, yet the informed position of scholars is that they have trouble making the distinction between Brechtian and post-Brechtian? Interesting, yet largely irrelevant to the point that categorizing people on the basis of who or what influenced them is an unworkable scheme. Otto4711 21:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be having difficulty following the argument. Those working in a Brechtian vein are recognised within theatre criticism as constituting a specific and distinct trend in modern theatrical practice. The precise way that trend is described varies from critic to critic, and some make an even finer distinction between Brechtian and post-Brechtian, without, however, invalidating the main grouping. The Wikipedia category reflects that grouping. There is a consensus about the grouping, but disagreement about what to call it. To reiterate: this is a categorization that reflects current critical practice. The informed position of which I spoke was one I anticipated for you, once you had familiarized yourself with the debates. Without that familiarity, you are ill-equipped to appreciate why it is a meaningful categorization. I agree that, as a broad principle, using categories to trace influence is not viable; however, this category is much more specific and technical, and reflects a well-established grouping in the analysis of contemporary theatre. DionysosProteus 22:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I am understanding the argument just fine, despite your condescending, pissy and know-it-all attitude. What you're not seeming to get as you strive to keep all of these fanboy categories going is that however super-wonderful Brecht may have been, a category scheme seeking to capture people based on what has influenced them simply is not practical. Let's take Tony Kushner as an example. Leaving aside the fact that his article does not support the notion that he was "influenced" by Brecht (it merely mentions that he translated "Mother Courage") the introduction to the editions of the two halves of Angels in America list dozens of people who influenced him in the creation of the plays (Brecht, oddly, not among them). He was also influenced by Larry Kramer, ACT UP, the AIDS epidemic in general and his mother. Should we slap Category:Influenced by their mother on his article? Otto4711 21:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, you speak from an ignorant position, which prompts my attitude. If you knew what you were talking about you'd know that Kushner has said that Brecht is his major influence. His work is characterized within academic discussions of contemporary theatre as 'Brechtian' and 'epic'. It is, to say it wearily once more, a specific and technical designation. If you did the reading, you'd understand. I can and have offered guidance for clarification on this issue, but you seem not to wish to take me up on that offer. The bibliography on the Brecht page is detailed. They are not fanboy categories, they are based on objectively-citable academic usage. As I have explained in great detail now, it is not a mere 'influence' category. That the article on wikipedia and the introduction to Angels in America do not contain the information we are discussing does not, it should not escape your attention, mean that it does not exist; to argue as much is patently absurd. I have already pointed you towards the sources. My know-it-all attitude comes from having substantial expertise in the subject area; I was taught at PhD level by one of Brecht's directors from the Berliner Ensemble who also, incidently, taught Kushner and has collaborated with him since, so I know from first-hand experience how central the relationship is, quite apart from the substantial list of citations I keep waving under your nose. I am more than happy to enter into a discussion about the state of contemporary scholarship, but ill-informed petulance is a waste of both our time. Read the articles and if you wish to persist in your complaint, we can talk. DionysosProteus 22:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And again, the point is not whether Brecht did or didn't influence anyone. The point is the long-term impracticality of categorizing people on the basis of their influences, because of the likelihood of the large number of such categories that would end up on any given article and the clutter and hindrance to navigation such a scheme would cause. Otto4711 23:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DionysosProteus, but rename to a name consistent with the style guidelines. Piccadilly 23:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any ideas? ×Meegs 22:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sets with such subjective criteria need to be covered in lists and articles so that the presence of each entry can be explained and put into context. While the category, as populated by DionysosProteus, is quite small now, it could grow to nearly any size based on others editors' and other theater critics' opinion of Brecht's influence. Also, the possibility of similar cats dedicated to Plato, Sun Tzu, and the Ramones is frightening. If Brecht's influence defined a broadly accepted genre, it would be a different story. ×Meegs 22:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the absurd suggestion that just because you couldn't find it in the intro to one of his plays that Kushner didn't belong to this category of theatre practitioners; as far as Angels in America goes, it would be like someone writing a version of Hamlet and having to explain that they were working in a Shakespearean vein. As I have tried to explain above, I understand the concerns about categorizing on the basis of 'influence'; I created the category to grasp a specific and technical grouping that is widely-recognised in the academic community; what some call 'Brechtian' and others 'post-Brechtian'. That the category's name is vague or confusing is a reasonable objection; however there is nothing 'subjective' about the membership, which is why I keep referring to sources. Meegs, your observation about the unbounded potential of the designation conflates two distinct issues: the subjective determination of membership by a wikipedia editor is a genuine problem and should, as with all other facts entered, be proven by reference to published sources; the subjective nature of any theatre critic's opinion, on the other hand, is a given of all aesthetic commentary; if we were to refuse this, we'd be unable to use any categories for artistic works--modernist, postmodernist, surrealist, expressionist, naturalist, etc. This comes from the nature of aesthetics; it is not a scientific discipline. The criteria of publication, however, and the ability therefore for any user of this to be able to go and take a look at a commentary for themselves, is the best we can hope for. I am sensitive to your concerns, but I struggle to generate a suitable alternative title. The problem is that, as you indicate, we are not talking about a literary genre, but rather a distinct mode of theatre-making, which includes dramatists, directors and devisers. The epithet 'Epic' could serve the purpose, avoiding the eponymous concern, but 'practitioner' seems a little clumsy. As I said in my very first posts, I am open to the idea of renaming if the present designation causes problems for the wikipedia structure at large; however, Otto you wanted to argue with me over the existence of the grouping, when you are not familiar with this subject area; I explain it and you offered what seemed like sarcastic and petulant retorts mocking the critics and exposing your own ignorance. DionysosProteus 01:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per nom. Brecht has been over categorized-- Kleinzach 01:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Brecht is a large subject; second only in the field of theatre to Shakespeare, who has far more categories at present. That is not to mention his fiction and poetry. There are, at present, four main categories: dramatic works, theories & techniques, brecht collective (people), and the tradition he founded (people). Since the dramas number above fifty, they are organized into generic subcategories. That is a reasonable degree of organization and far lower and smaller than Shakespeare. As with the collaborators category, one of the criteria is 'Can an article conceivably be written on it?' and the answer is Yes. Entire books take this trend in modern theatre as their subject. It is not a personal assessment by me. DionysosProteus 02:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong, thorough delete, we don't do "influenced by" categories, no matter how much certain overly-obsessed fans may whine. Too many people have been influenced by too many others. As Isaac Newton is reputed to have said, "I stand on the shoulders of giants". DionysosProteus's all-or-nothing claims that "if we were to refuse this, we'd be unable to use any categories for artistic works" is obvious poppycock, and has undermined any sympathy I might hold for his position. Being "second only in the field of theatre to Shakespeare" is, well, first, it's arguable, and second, it's somewhat like being the second most powerful software company after Microsoft—even if it's true, it's misleading simply because of the huge discrepancy between first and second place. Anyway, we don't have Category:Influenced by the Work of William Shakespeare, so the point is irrelevant. If a better name were found, this might well be a valid topic for a list, but as a category, it is inherently non-defining, and should be deleted. DP's main problem seems to be an inability to grasp the purpose and role of categories within Wikipedia. DP's enthusiasm for his topic is refreshing to see, and is sure to be a great benefit to Wikipedia, but he needs to pay more attention to the overall organization of the encyclopedia instead of insisting on forging his own inconsistent, confusing paths. Xtifr _tälk 07:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I was responding to Meegs concerns about the subjectivity of definition; that a play or playwright is assigned to a modernist or postmodernist category by a critic is a subjective assessment on their part. By definition, it cannot be objective, as the defining criteria of the categories are subjective. This is true of many aesthetic categories. What is "poppycock" about that? I'm claiming that the Brechtian, 'epic' or whatever, label is as objective as 'modernist', 'expressionist', 'surrealist' and all the rest. I don't require your sympathy, but rather your understanding that we are not discussing my personal preferences in any way - I know the field and speak from professional expertise. I refer to Brecht as the second most important dramatist in the field, at the very least, on the basis of the most-performed playwright on the planet lists, which tend to be Shakespeare, Brecht, Ibsen, Chekhov, with BB & Ib vying with one another. As I have repeatedly explained, it is not an 'influenced by' category in the sense that you are claiming for it. Shakespeare did not found a tradition thanks to the interregnum and the closing of the theatres. On the other hand, Ibsen, for example did found a tradition, and we call it psychological realism. Playwrights are assigned to that category (though as with this one, there is disagreement about what to call it; membership, on the otherhand, is uncontentious). It is not inherently non-defining, it is clearly outlined in the literature, which is what I'm proposing be used for membership criteria. I have familiarized myself with the guidance on categories in wikipedia. What I also have is knowledge about this particular subject and a familiarity with the critical literature that categorises it. In what way, specifically, are the categories I have used inconsistent? DionysosProteus 15:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Otto & others. It doesn't help that, for example, Caryl Churchill(correction - see below, and below that) doesn't mention BB at all (also a problem with the collaborators category above). Johnbod 22:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Erm, Caryl Churchill does mention BB, in the second sentence. I can provide plenty of citations to substantiate her designation as an 'epic' playwright, but facts, as defined by wikipedia, don't appear to carry much weight here. Why is that? Without citable sources, this entire endeavour becomes little more than a glorified blog. I am the only one in each of these discussions offering facts as wikipedia understands the term. Otto offered the absence of evidence in a particular source (a preface to a play) as evidence?!? That is the only evidence to be marshaled by anyone objecting to what I have to say. If you have evidence that the evidence I offer you is mistaken, present it. DionysosProteus 23:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, missed it - sorry about that - I see you have added this recently. But looking at the rest of the category, she, McGrath & (by implication) Heiner Müller are the only ones ones that seem to mention influence from BB - although a translation (Tony Kushner) & a production (Littlewood) are mentioned. If you have citations you should certainly add them, as all these articles are reference-free zones. But it's all still too vague - we don't have Category:Composers influenced by Wagner or Category:Artists influenced by Caravaggio although the literature on these is immense. Johnbod 23:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, I understand about the title problem. The lack of sources in the individuals is a problem, yes. The vast majority of theatre and drama pages are of a low, low standard. There are some rare exceptions--Shakespeare pages, Beckett. But look at such basic categories as Realism, Theatrical style, Theatre language, the random thrift-store of Theatre itself, Poetics (Aristotle), Play... you get the idea. I've started with Brecht as an assessment of where activity is least likely to occur from others and so be most needed. The 'epic' in twentieth-century drama and theatre and performance (plays, directors/devisers, actors [i.e. Fo]) is as established a grouping as 'surrealism' or 'expressionism' or 'postmodernism'. Actually, more specific than that last one. Kushner is as much an epic playwright as Cezanne is a post-impressionist painter. I've fleshed out a category structure to prepare for more detailed work. Take for example a source like this one: Reinelt (from USA amazon); although it talks in terms of "influence", what she's actually doing is identifying dramaturgical technique - its dramatic 'style' (hence "British Epic Theater"), not 'inspired by', in the way, for example that Wedekind, Büchner or Valentin influenced Brecht himself re: influences cited here. DionysosProteus 04:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this is way too subjective for categorisation to be meaningful. Half the time "influence" theories are the work of later critics and not acknowledged by artists themselves: this makes categorisation along such lines very dubious. Moreschi ^Talk 11:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• That the artists do not alway concur does not mean that the categorization is not a useful nor indeed pervasive way of describing the art works; the criteria of verifiability applies. Which is not to say that these artists don't, because they do-- Boal's book Theatre of the Oppressed, Fo's Tricks of the Trade, Müller's Germania', etc. all describe themselves in these terms. DionysosProteus 15:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Overcategorisation. Too vague (plus categories can't be referenced properly). Would set a bad precedent. --Folantin 16:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & OCAT; this would be a horrible precedent and nearly all artists, writers, actors are influenced by something or someone and to categorize everything would be immense category clutter. Carlossuarez46 17:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I understand that the initially given title may be confusing, but these objections are missing the point of the category, regardless of its name; an early part of this discussion said something along the lines of "if it were a literary genre rather than mere influence that'd be different"; I said that it certainly was not a literary genre. I think there has been some misunderstanding as to why that is so. It is not that the articles do not share properties in common in the same way that literary genres do, because they do; it is not a "literary genre" for the same reasons that "Surrealism", "Expressionism", "Post-Impressionism", "Symbolism" etc. are not literary genres (in their broadest senses). They describe movements, not genres. In addition they describe works of theatre, drama, and performance, not literature. It is analagous to literary genre, not identical with it. The category Category:Theatre of the absurd provides an apposite comparison (not created by me, I hasten to point out). Dramatists, plays, directors, all part of the same movement. Outside of the performing arts, Category:Literary movements collects literature in a similar way, as does Category:Modern art. DionysosProteus 16:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's unworkable to have categories of people influenced by various sources. I might buy "Brechtians" if "Brechtianism" was a well known genre, but it's not, so I don't.--Mike Selinker 23:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Otto, Meegs, etc. Unless we can verifiably define this as a genre I see no railing on an otherwise slippery-slope to OCAT. Tewfik^Talk 07:54, 30 August 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 below. 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. Kbdank71 16:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chinese erhu players to Category:Erhu players

Nominator's rationale: There is no reason to subdivide erhu players by country when there is no main Category:Erhu players. LeSnail 14:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Object to rename. Just create an "Erhu players" category. Problem solved, and you didn't have to go through this process. That way we can add non-Chinese players in the "Erhu players" category and leave the Chinese ones in the existing cat. Please make sure you format the tag on the page properly; it contains a redlink right now, thanks. Badagnani 16:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I have fixed the link, though of course it is still a redlink, since Category:Erhu players doesn't exist. I still don't see why it makes sense to subdivide erhu players by nationality. LeSnail 14:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - We divide all instruments by nationality. See Category:Cellists by nationality for an example. I'd say most erhu players would be Chinese or Taiwanese, with the remaining few being from "all other nations." Badagnani 16:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Not all instumentalist categories are divided nationally (thank God) - see Category:Sarod players, Appalachian dulcimer players & many others. With only 8 division is premature. Johnbod 22:39, 26 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 void. There's no rush here. Let's determine the fate of the articles over at the AfD discussion first. Once we know how many articles we're dealing with, we can discuss whether the category is appropriate. ×Meegs 15:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SK Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Populated by articles created by SPA/COI account, most of which are nominated for deletion/merger to the parent article. Dbromage [Talk] 12:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. One part of a broader spam campaign by SPA/COI accounts promoting SK Group on Wikipedia.--Hu12 12:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - useless, spammy category. MER-C 12:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The articles are not spam. The SK Group is a $75.8 billion entity ranked 98th on the Fortune Global 500, making it larger than many American companies with bucketfuls of articles. There is every reason to create separate articles when the companies are individually notable in their sectors, as it facilitates accurate categorisation. The fact that one person has had to create all these articles is a manifestation of systemic bias, ie the sorry under-representation of subjects from non-English speaking countries such as Korea, even when they are more important than many English-speaking world topics with massive coverage. Postlebury 12:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above and discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Golfcam 14:39, 24 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 below. 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 merge. Kbdank71 14:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:California Constitutionalists Category:Florida constitutionalists Category:Illinois constitutionalists Category:Kentucky Constitutionalists Category:Maryland constitutionalists Category:Missouri constitutionalists Category:Montana constitutionalists Category:Nebraska constitutionalists

Category:New Jersey Constitutionalists Category:Oregon Constitutionalists Category:Pennsylvania constitutionalists Category:South Carolina Constitutionalists Category:South Dakota constitutionalists Category:Texas Constitutionalists Category:Virginia constitutionalists

Suggest merging to Category:Members of the Constitution Party (United States)

Nominator's rationale: The Constitution Party is a small third party in the United States. Most of these categories have only one member, so one category for all Constitution Party members is more than enough. Besides, the descriptor "Constitutionalist" is confusing: Does it mean anyone who supports a national constitution, or just members of that particular party? szyslak 08:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I wouldn't object to retaining the Cali cat, since it has 5 member articles (of course, it would need to be properly renamed). But the rest are totally unnecessary by any rational standard. Cgingold 13:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Either they all merge, or all stay. As is, the parent cat denotes persons significant within the national party. Merging some but not others clouds that distinction—it would effectively be saying that some state-level officer in KY (for example) was nationally prominent yet the equivalent CA state officer was not. Removing all subcats would just remove that distinction. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Postdlf 19:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - "Constitutionalist" is the commonly-accepted self-designation for members of the party. (Note this was previously addressed regarding the parent cat in favor of the wordier, albeit less ambiguous, form.) ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retain for less future maintenance. Within recent history several state parties have disaffiliated from the national. Removing one subcat from the parent to reflect that is easy; moving it's X members individually into a new (state party) category is more work. I can certainly see the justification for this nom by WP's policies against overly-small cats, but I just see it leading to more work later as the party ages/grows and more articles are added here. For the reason given in my comment above, all members should be state-cat'd, or none. If this someday reaches 100 or 200 people, an effort to thoroughly subcat everyone as necessary would be tedious. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• In between "The Constitution Party is a small third party in the United States." False. It is the largest in voter registration. "Besides, the descriptor "Constitutionalist" is confusing: Does it mean anyone who supports a national constitution, or just members of that particular party?" The capital C indicates the party, not the philosophy. I propose deleting the Category:Members of the Constitution Party (United States) as a category for individuals (it seems pointless to designate a category of people who have run for national office or held positions in the party) in favor of a category called Category:Constitutionalists that the state categories would be included in. Tim Long 21:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See CfD for reference on naming. (Note the corresponding Libertarian cat was subsequently renamed as well.) Cat:MofCP(US) is primarily a holding category for state subcats, but it is also useful to highlight nationally prominent members. (People who drill through cats as a navigation aid, like myself, appreciate this. It is not pointless.) If something like it has to exist to cat the state cats, I don't see what the objection is to having it perform an additional duty. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:03, 27 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 below. 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. Kbdank71 14:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mexican embassies to Category:Diplomatic missions of Mexico

Nominator's rationale: Does not follow Miscellaneous "of country" naming conventions. Additionally, Diplomatic missions is a more inclusive name, and it includes embassies, high commissions, consulates, etc. --Russavia 02:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oppose The category is composed of buildings, not missions composed of people. Hmains 03:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment If this is the case, then all of these categories should be renamed to Chanceries of ... because the chancery is the actual building. The embassy describe the diplomatic mission and is just one type, others being consulate-generals, high commissions, trade offices (see Taiwan), etc. Additionally, see where embassy takes you. --Russavia 09:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename since the parent is Category:Diplomatic missions by country. If the parent really needs to be changed to Chanceries of ..., then that is a larger discussion that needs to be started. Vegaswikian 22:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom & Vegaswikian. Carlossuarez46 18:00, 27 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 below. 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. Kbdank71 14:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Embassies of the United States to Category:Diplomatic missions of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Does not follow Miscellaneous "of country" naming conventions. Additionally, Diplomatic missions is a more inclusive name, and it includes embassies, high commissions, consulates, etc. --Russavia 02:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oppose The category is composed of buildings, not missions composed of people. Hmains 03:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment If this is the case, then all of these categories should be renamed to Chanceries of ... because the chancery is the actual building. The embassy describe the diplomatic mission and is just one type, others being consulate-generals, high commissions, trade offices (see Taiwan), etc. Additionally, see where embassy takes you. --Russavia 09:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename since the parent is Category:Diplomatic missions by country. If the parent really needs to be changed to Chanceries of ..., then that is a larger discussion that needs to be started. Vegaswikian 22:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom & Vegaswikian. Carlossuarez46 18:00, 27 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 below. 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. Kbdank71 14:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Embassies and High Commissions of the United Kingdom to Category:Diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Does not follow Miscellaneous "of country" naming conventions. Additionally, Diplomatic missions is a more inclusive name, and it includes embassies, high commissions, consulates, etc. Russavia 02:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)))[reply]

• Rename -- It is a subcat of Category:Diplomatic missions by country. LeSnail 13:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom & LeSnail. Carlossuarez46 18:00, 27 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 below. 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. Kbdank71 14:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:German embassies to Category:Diplomatic missions of Germany

Nominator's rationale: Does not follow Miscellaneous "of country". Additionally, Diplomatic missions is a more inclusive name, and it includes embassies, high commissions, consulates, etc.

• Rename per nom. It is a subcat of Category:Diplomatic missions by country. LeSnail 13:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom & LeSnail. Carlossuarez46 18:00, 27 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 below. 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. Kbdank71 13:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Serbian embassies to Category:Diplomatic missions of Serbia

Nominator's rationale: Does not follow Miscellaneous "of country". Additionally, Diplomatic missions is a more inclusive name, and it includes embassies, high commissions, consulates, etc.

• Rename per nom. It is a subcat of Category:Diplomatic missions by country. LeSnail 13:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom & Lesnail. Carlossuarez46 18:00, 27 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 below. 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. Kbdank71 13:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ukrainian embassies abroad to Category:Diplomatic missions of Ukraine

Nominator's rationale: Does not follow Miscellaneous "of country". Additionally, Diplomatic missions is a more inclusive name, and it includes embassies, high commissions, consulates, etc. Additionally, diplomatic missions need not be foreign (e.g. Swiss diplomatic office to the UN in Geneva. Russavia 02:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. It is a subcat of Category:Diplomatic missions by country. LeSnail 13:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom & LeSnail. Carlossuarez46 18:01, 27 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 below. 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. Kbdank71 13:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Foreign missions of Canada to Category:Diplomatic missions of Canada

Nominator's rationale: Diplomatic missions is a more inclusive name, and it includes embassies, high commissions, consulates, etc. Additionally, diplomatic missions need not be foreign (e.g. Swiss diplomatic office to the UN in Geneva. --Russavia 02:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename per nom. It is a subcat of Category:Diplomatic missions by country. LeSnail 13:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom & LeSnail. Carlossuarez46 18:01, 27 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 below. 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. Kbdank71 13:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Foreign missions of Barbados to Category:Diplomatic missions of Barbados

Nominator's rationale: Diplomatic missions is a more inclusive name, and it includes embassies, high commissions, consulates, etc. Additionally, diplomatic missions need not be foreign (e.g. Swiss diplomatic office to the UN in Geneva. --Russavia 01:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename per nom. It is a subcat of Category:Diplomatic missions by country. LeSnail 13:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom & LeSnail. Carlossuarez46 18:02, 27 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 below. 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 13:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a TV series. Everything is interlinked and categorized. No need for the category. Otto4711 01:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:02, 27 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.