< February 25	February 27 >

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 09:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, This category is inappropriate. It only contained two pages, Nathan Petrelli and Simone Deveaux, from the TV series Heroes. In addition, the category's creator is User:Srstorey who has been blanking and vandalizing pages over the past few days. fmmarianicolon

• Speedy delete as a joke and also per insanely huge POV category precedent.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete this joke category. Everyone has cheated at something. You'd have to list every person fictional or real, living or dead. Doczilla 08:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete overly broad POV cat. And if it's only listing Heroes characters then it's got a very skewed focus. — J Greb 10:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This has severe POV problems. Dr. Submillimeter 10:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seemingly bad-faith creation, hopelessly broad, appallingly POV. --Xdamr^talk 17:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Useless and is a complete joke Af648 07:47, 4 March 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.

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 08:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, This category is inappropriate. It only contained one page, Micah Sanders, from the TV series Heroes. In addition, the category's creator is User:Srstorey who has been blanking and vandalizing pages over the past few days. - fmmarianicolon

• Speedy delete as a joke and also per insanely huge POV category precedent.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete POV category. Doczilla 08:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete overly broad POV cat. And if it's only listing Heroes characters then it's got a very skewed focus. — J Greb 10:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This has severe POV problems. Dr. Submillimeter 10:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as bad-faith, POV creation. --Xdamr^talk 17:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on grounds of making me LOL. Or maybe delete... Lugnuts 20:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete another complete joke, but funny Af648 07:49, 4 March 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.

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 08:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, This category is inappropriate. It only contained two pages, Nathan Petrelli and Simone Deveaux, from the TV series Heroes. In addition, the category's creator is User:Srstorey who has been blanking and vandalizing pages over the past few days. - fmmarianicolon

• Speedy delete as a joke and also per insanely huge POV category precedent.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete inappropriate, offensively titled, and unnecessary category. Doczilla 08:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete overly broad POV cat. And if it's only listing Heroes characters then it's got a very skewed focus. — J Greb 10:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This has severe POV problems. Dr. Submillimeter 10:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as bad-faith, POV creation. --Xdamr^talk 17:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete useless and offensive Af648 07:50, 4 March 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.

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 Tim! 17:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hip hop record labels by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete Overcategorization. Lugnuts 18:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- this user has attempted to remove articles from this category[1], contrary to CFD policies which prohibit doing that:

Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision. (From one of the leading paragraphs of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.

Comment Merely tidying up a poor article. Lugnuts 12:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- I don't think it's overcategorization to want to distinguish between American hip hop labels, and Mexican hip hop labels for example. There is surely precedent for more specific categories throughout Wikipedia.--Urthogie 22:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, but we already have the "high level" cats of Country and Genre. Before you know it, there will be categories with just single entries. Why stop at French hip hop labels? What about French independent hip hop labels? Or Defunct French independent hip hop labels? Or defunct French independent hip hop labels founded in 1994? etc. It's not like there are 1000's of hip hop labels on Wikipedia at the moment anyway. Greek folk labels, prehaps? Chinese death metal labels? Brazilian classical music labels? Lugnuts 20:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The extent of categorization depends on what would benefit people browsing the categories and editing the pages. French hip hop labels is a useful category for both browsers and editors. Noone, however, is interested in editing only 1994 French independent hip hop labels, and noone is browsing for something this specific. It's not at all overestimation to assume that people would want to know about French hip hop labels.--Urthogie 23:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A usrful part of the Category:Record labels by country. Review nominator's edit history and restore deleted articles. AshbyJnr 19:17, 2 March 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.

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 08:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NCAA Men's Basketball Final Four Venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - Categorization of arenas by specific events does not work in general. Any large-capacity arena will host multiple events (other high-profile arena sports, concerts, wrestling and boxing events, etc.) over time. Therefore, the fact that a specific arena hosted a specific event means little. However, categorizing articles like this leads to category clutter, as can be seen at Madison Square Garden. Therefore, I advocate deletion of this category. (Also note that several similar categories (for the NBA All-Star Game and for WrestleMania) have been deleted in the past. Dr. Submillimeter 17:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wimstead 19:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or at least rename to Category:NCAA Men's Basketball Final Four venues. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As we can see below, there is something of a consensus against 'arena by event' categorisation. There may be some circumstances where it is appropriate, but this does not seem to be one of them. --Xdamr^talk 17:48, 27 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.

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 Block, as recreated content. Prove It ^(talk) 21:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WrestleMania venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Speedy delete and salt - Any facility that can host a professional wrestling company can host many other events as well (concerts, soprts events, circus performances, etc). Therefore, hosting WrestleMania is not a defining characteristic of a specific venue. Moreover, such categorization for specific venues is infeasible, as large venues (such as Madison Square Gardens) will host many famous events over time. The reason why this is a speedy delete is because this is the recreation of deleted content. I nominated this for deletion on 9 Feb 2007. The discussion was closed on 19 Feb 2007 with everyone voting to delete. The category was recreated on 25 Feb 2007. Clearly, the category needs to be blocked from recreation. Dr. Submillimeter 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above, recreated deleted category. I also agree with the above line of reasoning for why it was deleted. This might be ok as a list within the Wrestlemania article, or as a linked subarticle list, but it's a bad category. Dugwiki 17:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wimstead 19:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete / Block as recreated content. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:10, 26 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.

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 Tim! 18:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:Tokyo Metro Line 13 to Category:Tokyo Metro Fukutoshin Line
• Category:Stations of Tokyo Metro Line 13 to Category:Stations of Tokyo Metro Fukutoshin Line

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The name of the proposed subway line, and the article title, has changed from Line 13 to Fukutoshin Line. Ytny (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - "Line 13" was just the provisional name until Fukutoshin was decided upon. Neier 00:27, 27 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.

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. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Central Pennsylvania music groups to Category:Pennsylvania musical groups

Category:Northeast Pennsylvania music groups to Category:Pennsylvania musical groups

Category:Northwest Pennsylvania music groups to Category:Pennsylvania musical groups

• Merge, avoiding categories by north/east/west/south parts of states, and they only have a few articles each anyway. --Vossanova ^o< 16:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge State division is probably ok, but dividing by general region probably isn't necessary unless there are a really large number of articles in that particular state. Dugwiki 18:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. ReeseM 12:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. North/south/east/west/etc are really too vague to use as sub-divisions anyway. --Xdamr^talk 17:51, 27 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.

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 08:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eponymous albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This is categorization by name, a form of overcategorization. Usually, articles categorized by name have little else in common. In this specific case, it is unclear whether these articles on various albums ranging from Faith (Faith Hill album) to Iron Maiden (album)) have anything else in common other than their name. This category should be deleted. (Also note the debate on Category:Eponymous sophomore albums and Category:Self-titled debut albums further down on this page.) Dr. Submillimeter 11:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - unneed cat. Per Dr. Submillimeter Spearhead 11:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not a meaningful connection. Craig.Scott 13:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 17:53, 27 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.

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 to delete, rename to Beauty pageant winners per standard capitalisation rules Tim! 18:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beauty Pageant Winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Overcategorization/Duplication - This category is already represented by the Catgory Tree which is under Category:Beauty pageant contestants. It appears that some misguided new users just created this and started filling it up with entries already in the other category tree without regard to the fact that they are already in categories such as Category:Miss USA winners, Category:Miss Teen USA winners, Category:Miss America winners, and Category:Miss Universe winners. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please DO NOT DELETE - The new article titled, "Beauty Pageant Winners" should NOT be deleted. Every effort should be made to maintain it. The category functions wholly as an extended article that widens the scope of the pageant industry due to the prerequisite of which entrants must qualify: it represents a canon of individuls who have actually won noteworthy titles. In comparison, the category titled Category:Beauty pageant contestants differs widely: being a pageant contestant allows for any entrant who has ever walked on a pageant stage to qualify, whereas the former lends itslf as a comprehensive list of people who have actually won notable titles. In addition, although wonderfully written, articles such as Category:Miss America winners sharply limit the list to a specific organization. Without the existence of the "Beauty Pageant Winners" category, noteworthy pageant WINNERS would not have a combined category to serve as the canon of noteworthy individuals. I implore you to please make every effort to block its deletion. Open24hrs 12:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding comment was added to another section and moved to this location by After Midnight.[reply]
• Delete - According to the criteria on the webpage, this is a list of "women (and men) have won in local, regional, state, national, and international beauty pageants". This is too broad to be useful for categorization; it effectively replicates Category:Beauty pageant contestants, as most notable contestants must have won some pageants over the course of their careers. For example, most competitors for Miss USA probably won competitions to represent their states in the competition. Therefore, this categorization is not meaningful. Dr. Submillimeter 16:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Beauty pageant winners. It does seem to fill a missing link between "Award winners" and specific contests (Miss America, etc.) CovenantD 16:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment No this is still too broad to be useful. Everyone who competes at Miss USA every year won a Miss USA state title, all these people are already listed in Category:Miss USA delegates. The same is true for Miss America, Miss Teen USA, Miss Universe, Miss World, etc. I think that if you look at the existing category tree is works well as it is. I think that it is too subjective to determine that every winner of every local contest should be dumped into this new category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too broad a category. There are already specific categories such as "Miss America winners", "Miss America delegates", "Miss USA delegates" etc. I see no need for another overarching category. If you can give me specific examples where the current categories do not suffice I may alter my vote. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 00:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This fills the gap between, for example, "Miss America winner" and "Award winners."

-->Category:Award winners

---->Category:Beauty pageant winners

------>Category:Miss America winners

------>Category:Miss Universe winners

------>Category:Miss Switzerland winners

etc, etc...

The point I'm trying to make, and I hope the closing admin considers this, is that if this is deleted then there is no category to tie various categories of pageant winners to the larger cat of Award winners. CovenantD 09:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I should point out that because the subcategories already exist, the Category:Beauty pageant winners wouldn't be populated with individual articles but serve as a repository of subcategories. CovenantD 09:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One issue here is that the category was just recently been created and has already been filled with individual articles. While some of the individual articles would get eliminated via the scheme that you are proposing, many would not. Example Danni Boatwright won Miss Kansas USA 1996, so she is in Category:Miss USA delegates, not a "winners" category, and would need to remain. The category as currently criteria'ed is indended for winners at all levels, not just the "major" levels. If you are looking for a category to bridge the gap, I would suggest that this one be killed and then a new one created, with a better criteria than the one which currently exists. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment: This category seems to have been created just to have a place to put the article for Rome Romanne. Please see contribution history here [2] for User:Open24hrs who created this category and populated it and has not edited since. This is after another Rome Romanne editor (User:FrommerFetch) created the article Beauty Pageant Winners, which seems to be a duplicate to this category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the article was changed to be a parent category for categories such as "Miss America winners", "Miss Universe winners" etc I could see it as being quite useful but in its current guise it is not and my vote stays as delete. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 19:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is completely useless and should be deleted, but that's really not directly related to this CfD discussion. Many categories exist for which there is no coresponding article, e.g. Category:Fictional Americans and all it's subcategories. They are still useful and necessary.

Concerns about overpopulation are, I think, unwarranted, if the individual articles are properly categorized. Those who win only local contests won't usually be notable enough for their own article on that basis alone. If there are enough at the state level, they get their own category. How many Miss Kansas USA winners have their own article? I have no idea. But that category would be a subset of Category:Miss USA delegates.

As to the final concern, the motivation behind creating the category, I don't consider that a factor if the category itself has merit. Why punish Wikipedia because one editor has a thing for Rome Romanne?

Having said that, this is my last entry in this CfD. I really have no interest at all in pageants or their winners and this process question has taken up enough of my time. CovenantD 02:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I just wish to clarify my vote. As the category is set up now I would vote to delete it. However if CovenantD's idea is put in motion I would strongly vote to keep it. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 20:59, 3 March 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.

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. Category:Eponymous albums was deleted, so I will upmerge Category:Self-titled debut albums to Category:Debut albums, and Category:Eponymous sophomore albums to Category:Sophomore albums. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Self-titled debut albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Eponymous sophomore albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It appears to me that these categories have trivial intersections. Is there some relation between an album being self-titled and it being an artist's first or second? (If there is, I stand corrected.) I do realize that the parent categories (Category:Eponymous albums, Category:Debut albums, and Category:Sophomore albums) are large, but I don't know if this is a reasonable intersection. Tinlinkin 10:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both - This is categorization by name, a form of overcategorization. Articles generally categorized by name usually have little else in common with each other. In this case, the practice is so common among various pop/rock musicians that it is hard I imagine that this categorization is in any way meaningful. I will nominate Category:Eponymous albums for deletion as well. Dr. Submillimeter 11:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete both - per nom and Dr submillimeter. just category-cruft. Spearhead 11:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds reasonable to delete both. If you do, however, please be sure to reassign articles into their parent categories. -MrFizyx 17:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I was thinking. I was going to add a note to the closing admin to do just that, although it would have been toward the end of the debate. If Category:Eponymous albums ends up being deleted, the job of merging would be easier. I did not nominate to merge, since merging would be to one category, I think, though I may be wrong. Tinlinkin 04:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per nom. --Xdamr^talk 17:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, just make sure they are categorized back into the appropriate categories. (Articles in Category:Self-titled debut albums should be put back into Category:Eponymous albums and Category:Debut albums, if they were removed from them to begin with.) —taestell 18:11, 27 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.

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 Tim! 18:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British electronic sports teams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

One page in cat, propose moving to parent cat. BJ^Talk 09:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge, parent cat hardly needs splitting and this category is likely to remain underpopulated. --ais523 13:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The number of articles in a category is irrelevant to whether or not it should be split. What matters is whether the subcategories facilitate navigation. I have added this category to Category:British sports teams to facilitate navigation. ReeseM 12:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is just as valid as Category:English popes. CalJW 00:18, 28 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.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, empty, nonsense. Prove It ^(talk) 14:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, Patent nonsense. DH85868993 08:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, empty. Craig.Scott 13:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, empty, nonsense. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:46, 26 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.

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, there is also Category:Visual arts which was nominated for deletion here Tim! 18:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brazilian Visual Arts to Category:Brazilian art

• Merge, redundant. The parent category is Category:Arts in Brazil; "art" in Category:Brazilian art clearly means visual. Chick Bowen 04:41, 26 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II.----Mike Selinker 15:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Red Army Operations during World War II to Category:Battles and operations of the Soviet-German War or Category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II

• Rename to match standard naming convention for categories of battles and operations. (An alternate possibility would be Category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II, but it's longer.) All the combat operations on the Eastern Front involved the Red Army, so there's no need to categorize this way; and it's a bad idea, regardless, as having a separate category for each army will substantially increase the number of categories for no real benefit. Kirill Lokshin 01:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I can see how "Red Army Operations" can include the Winter War with Finland and actions against Japan that are not part of the "Soviet-German War." Therefore, I would not support this migration. I don't think I'd have a problem with Kirill Lokshin's suggestion, which would also include operations of other nations involved, such as Italy, Romania, etc. Such articles should have both categories tagged to them. But I'd be curious to hear other opinions. --Petercorless 00:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All those are my suggestions, so which one do you mean here? Category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II? Or something else? Kirill Lokshin 00:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, that seems fair; the other version is fine with me, obviously. Kirill Lokshin 01:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification: Category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II gets my vote, but I still see how someone interested in seeing all Red Army operations might want to see the "Eastern Front" and the "Far East," and the Russo-Finnish wars still treated as separately tagged categories. --Petercorless 01:53, 27 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.

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--Wizardman 06:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-defining, see discussions of Jan 25th, Jan 28th and Jan 29th. Note that most cities change UTC offset twice a year ... I don't think this will really work. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep please see discusion and FAQ at the main category. This is a sub-category of category:Cities in the UTC timezone. It is written within this "main category" that the change of "UTC offset" to "UTC DST offset" is of no real concern for this category; A common mis-conception by certain wikipedians that believe a category should reflect the current UTC. Furthermore UTC-5 actually has a related wikipedia article. --CyclePat 01:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- speedily, as it appears to be a recreation of a previously deleted category with the same problems as the last attempt. older ≠ wiser 01:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last version was for anything in the time zone. This version is limited to cities. So not quite identical but I suspect the result will be the same. Also note there is a problem with using cities in the name, so if anyone is thinking of a keep vote, they will probably need to come up with a better name. Vegaswikian 02:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a defining characteristic. If kept, rename to Category:Locations in the UTC-5 timezone, and do not include cities unless there is no larger geographic entity (e.g. country, state, county) containing them that lies within the timezone. -- Avenue 03:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please take note that the list is auto-generated through the ((Template:Infobox city)). If you wish to make a more general category for locations in UTC perhaps that will be a good main category to hold this category and similar categories which may use other templates such as ((template:Infobox village)) or ((template:Infobox town)). etc... Then again, I am open to the broader term of "locations" but not in the way you are sugesting. City is a pretty clear defining characteristic and knowing that a city belongs in a certain time zone... well I think that's prety much a defining characteristic. For example, everyone in Ottawa know that Vancouver is at approx. 4 hours difference. Do you not think that this is not more of a defining characteristic than this example of a non-defined category... "cities with a McDonalds". Finally, yes! Everyone works differently. If you want to add the macro categories for countries, Continents, etc... then that's great! Such categories can easily be created. The current issue is wheter this category should be kept. --CyclePat 04:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thing you will find that your entire category concept is what the problem is. The template is probably just fine. Putting the articles into a category from the template is where the issue is and will be. Vegaswikian 07:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; i don't see how this is much better than the previous general timezone categories. And it's generally a good idea to discuss new large categorization schemes like this before creating them, to get consensus on how or if to do so, instead of going through multiple iterations of the same type of categories. Mairi 05:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm all for including time zone information for populated locations. It's a very good idea, and I'm glad that someone is working on it. However, I just don't see the need to create a categories for them. The time zone articles all have lists of major population centers anyway. The other major issue I don't see being addressed is that in about three weeks time, most everything in UTC-5 will be 4 hours off from UTC, as the United States moves into daylight saving time. I'm sorry, I just don't think it's going to work. -- Prove It ^(talk) 07:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - This is the recreation of deleted content. It is disruptive to Wikipedia in general, and it is disruptive for work on other category nominations. Dr. Submillimeter 11:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What's wrong with using a map? A map is certainly more trustworthy than a Wikipedia category, and there is even a time zone map in wikipedia. Craig.Scott 13:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'd prefer Wikipedia categories stick to political regions (countries, cities) rather than geographical ones (timezones, latitude/longitude).. and yes, if it was created before, then speedy it. --Vossanova ^o< 16:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the previous comments. mattbr³⁰ 19:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and all related categories and variants as a misuse of the category system. ReeseM 12:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the misuse? --CyclePat 20:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the closing administrator: there is new information that is continuessly and being auto-added within the next 24 hours via wikipedia server update. If no one changes the template:infobox city, which has been a discussion at WP:ANI on how this entire nomination may be unfair because of the removal of material from the category. See Archive 76 "Is this vandalism" --CyclePat 23:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's a very useless category, especially now that I just converted all 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts to the Infobox City template, which automatically puts them all into this cateogory. As other states get their cities and towns converted to the standard Infobox City template, it will be rather pointless to have a category with every single city/town on the east coast in it. --CapitalR 04:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You’re missing something. I find it useful that the cities are classified in such a way. Everyone learns differently. I didn't know that Massachusetts was in time zone UTC-5. Heck and all its cities. There a 4 major categories of learning, mostly based on human characteristics. Unfortunately all I see is one characteristic here. A not so talkative group of conservatives that aren't really talking on a CfD and I forget what the other learning groups are but "everyone learns differently" and everyone perceives things differently. I could tell you many stories about how people throw things away and other people find use for them. Or other similar stories. I can argue that it is important to present material in a different fashion. If this material is redundant in some fashion then I request that we be able to at least be able to utilize its functions at wikiversity (school), for educational purposes. But the fact is, I know you characters. I know that I can't explain it too you because your methods of learning are different then other people. There is nothing wrong with that because everyone learns differently but it's just, when it comes to voting (when we should be discussing) it creates an unfair playground. I will attempt to explain this one more time, guided by wikirules... Wikipedia:Redirect/DeletionReasons states "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways."

Q.: What is the use of having articles that utilize the "infobox city template" to automatically categorize cities within their respective UTC and DST UTC category?

Taken from the FAQ section: Currently the only way to know what articles utilize the infobox city template is to click the what links here. The what links here is a good tool but it is a far cry from the ability of categories. One advantage to categories is the ability to add a table of contents and to easily browse through the large list of cities. To see the full advantages and possibilities of categories please visit WP:Categories. Furthermore, this category can be used to help establish a list of various cities withing different timezones. More importantly it can help identify anomolies. Take for example Carmel, New York which, at one point in time, appeared within this main category. This location was a town at the time and should not have been utilizing the ((template:infobox city)). Respectivelly it should have utilized it's own "infobox town" template. Similarly this category may help identify a list of other villages, towns, territories, Indian reserves, etc. which should utilise their own template. Another example of usefulness is to know exactly which cities that actually need to have a timezone added to their template. If you take a look at the bottom of this category you will see 200+ cities that require maintenance in adding the UTC time. Please add this information if you have the time. (IRONICALLY, someone took this explanation off of the main category, just recently but I put it back).

I don't know about all the other uses but out of the many uses this template is being used as a tool to help add time zones and find "bad cities." This kind of contradicts again any type of deletion process (if you want to call this process that because... AGAIN! I really don't see much discussion happening right now!) What is not useful? What is rather pointless? Oh! Okay you said that you find it pointless to have "a category with every single city/town on the east coast in it." Well actually, I think you may have missed the point. Maybe I failed in my explanation of the category when I indicated that it was for UTC time zones or for "geography by time." What you are suggesting is geography by topographical regions. Which is NOT our case and which, when you look at the cat's you may observe a warning with the FAQ section explaining some of the issues... (For clarity purposes I will add be adding it here)... assumptions may be made by wikipedians. (This can be good and this can be bad) It is important to always remember though that we are dealing with UTC time zones. This may mean, like when you look at WP:CCT map and you see the different regions, that a given UTC time zone part while another one is not necessarily part of the east cost of America. (There can be more than one time zone for the east cost due to political issues!) Whatever you are arguing seems pretty childish because it essentially boils down to asking someone if his wheelchair is useful... I'm the one using it and I say yes! But you say No! ... yes.. no... (I hope you get the point!) If you don't find this explanation useful, well, instead of saying that I find useful, I will be glad to try and explain to you in whatever way it takes to get you to understand. --CyclePat 01:26, 5 March 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.