< February 12 February 14 >

February 13

[edit]
[edit]
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 most, no consensus on a few. Perhaps if someone feels strongly s/he could renominate the three listed by Wimstead for separate CFDs? --RobertG ♬ talk 16:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:
Nominator's Rationale: Rename all to plural form in keeping with all other such Category:Sports sub-categories that aren't geographical. Nothing whatsoever to do with US vs. UK English, simply consistency. If someone wants to propose renaming all such categories to "sport", that's OK too, as far as I'm concerned - the point is simply that they need to stop being just completely random. Right now we have a de facto convention to use "sports", except in the cases below, where we use "sport". Not ideal, but at least easy to remember. The random naming isn't. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And:

Propose renaming:
Nominator's Rationale: Rename all to singular form in keeping with all other such geography Category:Sports sub- and sub-sub-categories, in which "sport" is (except for these exceptions) used in the singular. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:","

[edit]
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 speedily deleted as WP:CSD G1.

Category:"," (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category makes no sense. Anthony Rupert 23:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Animated films conected to Motion films

[edit]
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. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animated films conected to Motion films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unclear scope, misspelled, and the creator has not responded to my inquiry. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Westminster constituencies in Wales

[edit]
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. No-one who contributed to the debate, except the nominator, was convinced that there is ambiguity between National Assembly for Wales constituencies and Welsh parliamentary constituencies. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, by adding "(Westminster) suffix to distinguish these constituencies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from the Category:National Assembly for Wales constituencies, as has been done with Scottish constituencies (see Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Scotland (Westminster) and Category:Scottish Parliamentary constituencies).
Note to those not from the UK: the Parliament of the United Kingdom meets in the Palace of Westminster, and the term "Westminster" is routinely used to refer to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The National Assembly for Wales is a devolved Assembly with limited powers of government in Wales, a bit like a less powerful of a state legislature in the USA. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the National Assembly of Wales ever becomes a parliament in name (or at least function), I would support a rename. I would also support a rename if it could be shown that anyone is calling the assembly constituencies "parliamentary constituencies." As it is now, however, I must oppose any renaming. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 23:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Xdamrtalk 15:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a really question of referencing. The Welsh Assembly is called the Welsh Assembly, not the Welsh Parliament. The only other body in the UK that exercises jurisdiction over Wales and is known as a Parliament is the Westminster Parliament. As a result, electoral constituencies for the Welsh Assembly are just that, for the Assembly. Parliamentary constituencies in Wales are for the only Welsh 'Parliament', that of the UK. In consequence, so long as the Assembly is known as the Assembly, its electoral divisions are not cannot be called Parliamentary.
I understand your implied point, that there is no set definition of 'Parliament'—however this is not a question of definitions, it is a question of what these institutions are actually called.
Xdamrtalk 19:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that you seem to have missed the point here, and I suggest that you re-read the nomination: this is not a proposal to categorise the NAW constituencies as "Parliamentary". The Welsh Assembly constituencies are named and categorised as such: it would be quite wrong to label them otherwise, because (as you rightly point out), the body is called "The National Assembly for Wales".
The need for differentiation arises because:
  1. the Welsh Assembly can be reasonably be seen as a form of parliament (one with limited powers, but then it's not the only parliament to have had limited powers); whether any of us conclues that we agree with that adjective is not the issue, the issue here is whether the distinction is clear to the reader;
  2. as a result of the ambiguity around the term "parliamentary", a reader may see the title "parliamentary constituency" and assume that it includes the NAW.
I think, though, that your focus on "what these institutions are actually called" might provide a way out. How about naming the Westminster constituency categories as "House of Commons constituencies" or as "United Kingdom Parliament constituencies"? Both of those labels are unambiguous and factually accurate. --00:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
No, no—I understood the nomination. My point is that (my circuitous arguments aside) it is only justified if there is room for confusion. Given that Wales, unlike Scotland, has no other Parliament than that at Westminster the change is unnecessary. The sole point of difference is, that you believe there is scope for confusion and I do not (aside from the completely uninformed reader, who is always susceptible to confusion). For such readers, the differences between constituencies can and should be explained in the articles—they, after all, will be the first port of call.
Xdamrtalk 00:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, the constituencies are not the same: they have the same boundaries, but operate under different electoral arrangements and have a different electoral history. That's why there are now separate articles for the NAW constituencies and the Westminster constituencies; this discussion is about about how the constituencies are categorised, not about whether those articles should exist (that would be an issue for WP:AFD). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Synagogues in La Serena

[edit]
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. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category not used

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rappers From Florida

[edit]
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 into Category:American rappers and Category:Florida musicians. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:American rappers, or at least Rename to Category:Florida rappers, to match Category:Florida musicians. -- Prove It (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Banned books

[edit]
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: salted. >Radiant< 16:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Block, as recreated deleted content. -- Prove It (talk) 15:33, 13 February 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.

Category:Banned albums

[edit]
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: salted. >Radiant< 16:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, categories like these work better as referenced lists. We want to know banned by who, and why? -- Prove It (talk) 15:28, 13 February 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.

Category:Fauna of Europe by region

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fauna of Europe by region to Category:Fauna of Europe by country
Nominator's Rationale: They are quite obviously not listed by region (Mediterranea, Baltic, Alps etc.). Circeus 15:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)))}[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States presidential candidates from Massachusetts

[edit]
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) 14:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States presidential candidates from Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, not pertinent intersection by location: Why Massachusetts? Circeus 13:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Williams people

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Williams people to Category:Williams Formula One people. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Williams people to Category:Williams Formula One team
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - It is impossible to guess what or who Williams is supposed to be without looking at several articles in this category. The rename will make the category's purpose much clearer. Dr. Submillimeter 13:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Founding Fathers of the United States

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Founding Fathers of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cantabrian mythology

[edit]
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) 21:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is this Cantabrian -- · Ravenloft · (Talk) 10:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was a rhetorical question. My point is that "Cantabrian" is so ambiguous that the current name is next to useless. Grutness...wha? 05:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought it was a rhetorical one but... heh, you never know. -- · Ravenloft · (Talk) 12:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional Kazakhstani people

[edit]
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) 11:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Kazakhstani people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Category made solely for Borat. Unlikely others will be added. Ocatecir 09:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly keep if anyone can demonstrate that this will ever be used for non-Borat stuff in the not-too-distant future, otherwise Delete. AnonMoos 13:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations to Category:ASEAN
Nominator's Rationale: Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 05:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
acronyms are also used for NATO, CARICOM.--23prootie 02:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Not a well known acronym. It most certainly does NOT qualify for speedy rename. -- Prove It (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And where's that, if you ask in Kuala Lumpur or in Singapore, most would probably know what it means. Since it's an Asia-centered category, I believe Asians have a bigger say.-- 23prootie 00:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: − Asiocentricism is exactly why I opposed it. If you asked 100 Malaysians about the "CFL", I imagine none of them would know what it is. However, in Canada, we know this is the "Canadian Football League". The Wikipedia article is named "Canadian Football League" and if we left the article named "CFL", Malaysians (and millions of others) would not immediately know what this article was about. Same applies to ASEAN. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Um. the Wikipedia article is Association of Southeast Asian Nations, so if don't know what ASEAN is you could always check it there.---23prootie 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Your comment doesn't really connect with the discussion, this discussion is about a category not an article.--23prootie 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Canadian Football League is relatively short.--23prootie 20:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abreviations and/or acronyms are used for international organizations such as Category:NATO, Category:CARICOM, Category:APEC, Category:CIS, Category:OECD, Category:Comecon, and etc., etc., etc.. If you want to use the long form then you should also change all of these.--23prootie 00:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If you search Google, you will get 16,300,000 results for ASEAN, so if that's not well known enough, well...--23prootie 00:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sports events of the ASEAN

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Sports events of the ASEAN to Category:Sports events of ASEAN. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sports events of the ASEAN to Category:Sports events of ASEAN
Nominator's Rationale: Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 05:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:For trade blocs you do, see above. or do you have double standards.--23prootie 00:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:White Rappers

[edit]
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: taken with a grain of WP:SALT. >Radiant< 16:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:White Rappers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was going to ask for speedy renaming to Category:White rappers but then it occurred to me that the term "white rapper", while meaningful to some extent is a tad suspect. Frankly, besides the capitalization issue, I'm not sure how I stand on this one but I'm sure others will be more opinionated. Pascal.Tesson 05:26, 13 February 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.

Category:Organizations involving ASEAN

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Organizations involving ASEAN to Category:Organizations revolving around ASEAN
Nominator's Rationale: Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 05:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:You can't use Southeast Asia because it is too broad and most, if not all, the articles listed there deal specifically with ASEAN.--23prootie 02:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Secretary Generals of the ASEAN

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Secretary Generals of the ASEAN to Category:Secretaries General of ASEAN. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Secretary Generals of the ASEAN to Category:Secretaries General of ASEAN
Nominator's Rationale: Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 05:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:You can't use Southeast Asia because it is too broad and most, if not all, the articles listed there deal specifically with ASEAN.--23prootie 02:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Heritage Parks of ASEAN

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ASEAN Heritage Sites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 05:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Notable British railway junctions

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Notable British railway junctions to Category:British railway junctions
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, , Per WP:NCCAT; presumably only the "notable" ones are in Wikipedia.. After Midnight 0001 04:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Notable people of World War 2

[edit]
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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Notable people of World War 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Likely created by someone who was not aware of Category:People of World War II. Also, the only article in this category is also in a sub-child of the existing category. After Midnight 0001 04:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bluap 04:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Birds of Africa

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into Category:Birds of Africa, see Red-billed Firefinch, Green-winged Pytilia for examples, see also related discussion. -- Prove It (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create new subcategories for distinct biogeographical regions of Africa. I propose the following:
    • Category:Birds of the Sahel and Sudan
    • Category:Birds of the southern Arabian woodlands
    • Category:Birds of Africa's forest zone
    • Category:Birds of the East African grasslands and savannas
    • Category:Birds of eastern Africa's highlands
    • Category:Birds of southern Africa's woodlands, savannas, and grasslands
    • Category:Birds of southern Africa's deserts
    • Category:Birds of Africa's Cape floristic region
    • Category:Birds of Madagascar and the Indian Ocean islands
These regions are based on the article Afrotropic. Maybe a more uniform format would be Category:Birds of Africa (the Sahel and Sudan), Category:Birds of Africa (southern Arabian woodlands), etc. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support Twas Now's idea of making new subcategories. However, this would mean i have to redo the whole categorization which i have had spent almost one whole morning. Haha. Luffy487 08:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Different countries in Africa have their own lists of species of birds, which may or may not be found in another countries. It is for the benefit of the community to categorize different species of birds according to their countries instead of lumping them into one big Africa continent. As regarding to examples which ProveIt has illustrated, these two species are the common species of estrildid finch found in almost all parts of Africa but not all. There are rare species of estrildid finch which could only be found in a few countries in Africa. See Anambra Waxbill, Cinderella Waxbill, Shelley's Crimson-wing, Black-lored Waxbill, [[Green Avadavat]] for examples. Luffy487 07:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Category:Birds of Africa - The political boundaries of Africa have no relevance to the distributions of animals, making this categorization irrelevant. Furthermore, since animals are found in multiple countries, these types of categories lead to category clutter. Subdivision by ecoregion would be nice if the birds were strictly constrained to the ecoregions and if the ecoregions were actual regions designated in peer-reviewed scientific journals. However, the regions proposed by Twas Now are unreferenced. Moreover, Twas Now does not suggest how to subdivide countries into the ecoregions. Given these shortcoming of the alternate proposal, I recommend merging into Category:Birds of Africa. Dr. Submillimeter 10:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commment - Upon further review, I wonder if the ecoregions proposed by Twas Now are even useful. Some of these birds (e.g. Red-billed Firefinch, Green-winged Pytilia) have ranges that include approximately half of Africa. They would still fall within most of the ecoregions suggested above. Dr. Submillimeter 12:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment − What about a Mediterranean / Sub-Saharan type of split? Surely there are few birds that span the Saharan desert to both the north and south. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - It is true that political boundaries of Africa do not affect the distributions of the animals. However, biogeographical regions of Africa do influence them. Different biogeographical regions of Africa have its own specific climate, temperature, habitat and ecosystem, which will in turn restrict those species. As these are the only regions where they are able to adapt to, able to find its food source, protection from predator, and etc. Thus please do not lump them into one big Africa continent which may confuse the community as they will believe this species can be found in any location in Africa.
        • There are cases that birds, which originated from Africa, are introduced to US and UK. See: Orange-cheeked Waxbill, for examples. And they manage to survive. I may not be a professional, but I do know that so long as there is food source, shelter for protection from predator, balanced ecosystem, animals could adapt to any regions on the Earth.
        • Well, now I am suggesting that we categorize them according to its habitats: Category: Subtropical/ tropical lowland moist forest, Category: Subtropical/ tropical lowland moist shrubland, Category: Subtropical/ tropical lowland dry forest, Category: Dry savanna, Category: Subtropical/ tropical montane moist forest, Category: Wetland, Category: Subtropical/ tropical lowland dry grassland and etc. Or maybe we could categorize them according to its altitude? Luffy487 01:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Birds by nature do not pay attention to human country borders, so it is not practical to categorize them by that. We could instead categorize by habitat. >Radiant< 14:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep all It's the way they are used that is a problem, NOT the categories. Heck, we have Category:Flora of the United States by state and Category:Flora of the United States AND a division by region of the latter, and it works just fine! Why couldn't this? Look at Great Appalachian Storm of November 1950 for a great example of such a categorization that is truly difficult to fix.Circeus 15:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is nice to be able to see all the birds of Nigeria, for example on one page somewhere. Whether that's a list or a category isn't so important, but it would be a shame to lose the ability to see information organized that way. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or use new categories. Lumping everything into one category 'Africa' is a joke, and not a funny one. The existance of species that are cosmopolitan is no reason to get rid of categories that are small, you may as well get rid of all categories in the world because the Barn Swallow is found in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia. I'd suggest some categories based on regions (like East Africa, Southern Africa) others based on endemic bird regions (like the Albertine Rift Valley, the Cape Region) and others based on discrete country endemics and island groups (Ethiopea, Seychelles, Comoros). Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - See the discussion on Category:Birds of Sierra Leone at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 12. Someone else found referenced material on scientific ecoregions and ecozones that would be more appropriate for categorization than either the current categorization by country system or a system of categorization by regions made up on Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter 10:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a necessary preparatory step towards creation of a new system as outlined above. Choalbaton 23:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as Wikipedia should not be biased against countries that are less represented in the editor population. There are enough birda to populate the categoreis well, and birdwatchers from these countries or visiting these countries will be interested. GB 06:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This is not really about the preferences of people in Wikipedia. For example, I currently live in Europe, and I have nominated several related categories on European fauna for merging into general "fauna of Europe" parent categories. Dr. Submillimeter 11:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feedback - I wonder why is there two seperated discussions on this topic? See Category:Birds of Sierra Leone at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 12. I would appreciate if someone would merge these two discussions together and speedily end this discussion. I am still in the mid-way of categorizing those articles. Luffy487 09:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - The sources are generally arranged by country, not by biome regions. I have two books on "Birds of Kenya". Bird counts and studies are done within political regions. For example look at this Tanzania Bird Atlas Project. It's a useful and practical way to find birds by area. - Parsa 23:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all for now. I agree that having a bird in 80 different country categories is a really bad thing now, but until we have thought up a workable solution, I don't think we should delete what we have. Bioregions are a seductive idea, but I don't think they will really work, since there is no standard list of bioregions that everyone can agree to. Also it would be quite hard to figure out which of the standard bioregions a bird belongs to if the sources on that bird don't use the same system. My opinion is that we should try for clickable maps linking to the categories of birds by country, and then not have the countries listed in the category section. For instance, you could look at the range map for the Great-crested Wikibird, and note that it lived in Algeria, and click on the Algerian part of the range map, and pull up Category:Birds of Algeria. I really think categorization by country is, while arbitrary, the only viable solution. Bird counts and studies are done within political regions, just as Parsa says because there isn't a better way to do it. At any rate, let's not rush into deleting the information that we have. Lesnail 03:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I disagree that no alternative to categories exists for navigation. Listing the birds in a given country in a list article would be just as useful but would not pose the same navigation problems. Dr. Submillimeter 09:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - So, you are right. We could listify this. But are you suggesting that we get rid of all categories of fauna by geography (except maybe endemic fauna categories)? This might be ok, in fact, but there would be a lot of list to update by hand if, say, one species got split into two. Categories would be much nice for this, if we could work out a system for them. Lesnail 22:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Having accurate and up-to-date lists of birds for each country would be very difficult. Adding a category (or categories) to a new article is much easier and keeps the category lists current. The only negative I see is that some common species might end up with a huge number of country categories. I still think these bird lists by country are useful to the public. - Parsa 00:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All. Why should Africa be any different then the rest of the world. Vegaswikian 06:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Enemies of Batman

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

The result of the debate was delete. I don't know much about Batman, but the consensus here appears to be that "Enemies of Batman" is no less a matter of interpretation than "Batman villains". --RobertG ♬ talk 09:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Enemies of Batman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Something of a backdoor recreation of the recently deleted "Batman villains" category. Even if this is taken as a new category, I would contend that "enemies" categories are bad precedent. In most cases, supervillains come into conflict with multiple superheroes, which could lead to a proliferation of "Enemies of" categories. The same arguments that have been made against "villain" and "antagonist" categories apply here. Otto4711 03:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. As noted on the cat talk page this is a recreation of the deleted cat Batman villains. Is a "Speedy" appropriate even though the cat name differs? — J Greb 03:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bluap 04:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete recreation. Yes, J Greb, speedy is appropriate when the difference in name is an obvious attempt to circumvent a prior CfD. Doczilla 05:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not an attempt to circumvent or bypass anything. "Enemies" and "villains" are entirely different. Just because one word is subjective doesn't mean anything resembling it is also subjective; "enemies", for instance, is not. Cosmetor 01:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Intentionally or not, it does recreate a previously deleted category. "Enemies" is also subjective - what makes one character an enemy and not another? And how are switching alliances accounted for? Would we have to have "former enemy" and "current enemy" subcategories? That way lies more clutter still. H. Carver 01:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if you can't have Batman villians then you can't have Batman enemies. If you wanted to create such a category you'd first need to reopen the debate on the range of categories and reach a consensus. (Emperor 01:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep − How else will we know who to watch out for? Why, just the other day Doctor Achilles Milo approached me, but I knew to watch out! And it's all thanks to this marvelous category. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC) → (For those lacking a sense of sarcasm, this is actually a vote to delete)[reply]
  • Delete -- substituting a POV and unprofessional word for a subjective word does not address the reasoning behind the deletion of the previous version of this category. The comics project is avoiding mass categorizations of "comics characters by X" anyway.~CS 19:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Off hand most of the names seem to be pretty Batman specific. But if the comics project has made a decision to avoid these classifications, then this category would probably be inappropriate Bbagot 20:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - recreated category (with change of name). Metamagician3000 02:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The name difference is more important than you imply. It completely redefines the category into something with no POV issues. Cosmetor 07:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This looks too much like a recreation of "Batman villians". People in comic books change alliances frequently; categorizing them this way does not work. Dr. Submillimeter 20:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Instead of focusing on what it looks like, focus on the very important difference of "villain" (subjective) and "enemy" (objective). It's not just a name change; it's a significant change in meaning. Also, fiction is static. If a fictional work is written, then it remains written even if a sequel is written in which the circumstances change. For example, say a book is written about a man who is possessed by a demon; at or near the end of the book, the demon is exorcised from him; then, a sequel to the book is written, and he remains unpossessed. Does this man still fit into Category:Fictional possessed? Yes, because the book in which he was possessed has been written. Cosmetor 09:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And thats a third... you going to add another one every other day? Or do you think it's time to start using "Comment"? (smaller point of humor, growing point of disbelief) — J Greb 10:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that vein... Comment/question: Are you on this tact because it's your oppinion that DC Comics are less complex than Marvel comics? Down page you state you're forgoing promoting the term "antagonist" since the material deals with a complex body of fiction. The same holds true here. This body of fiction is also complex and makes "pigeonholing" characters, even by way of literary terms, as a POV exercise. — J Greb 10:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to administrator - Cosmetor has voted three times. Do not count this vote. Dr. Submillimeter 20:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Thunderbolts

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

The result of the debate was delete all.

Category:Thunderbolts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Thunderbolts writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Thunderbolts artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all - "Thunderbolts" per all previous CfDs calling for delete and listify of super-teams; team is already listified. "Artists" and "writers" because comics artists and writers may work on dozens of different titles. Categories for every title is excessive and will lead to unreasonable clutter. Otto4711 02:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Marvel Comics villains

[edit]
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:Marvel Comics villains into Category:Marvel Comics supervillains. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel Comics villains to Category:Marvel Comics supervillains
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
More