< February 8 February 10 >

February 9

Category:International Competitions

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 12:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:International Competitions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, because:

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:Resurrection Man villains

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) 13:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Resurrection Man villains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, As per precedent, "villain" requires an inherent POV judgment call. J Greb 23:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Since characters battle any number of other characters, a separate "enemies" category could be created for each battle. Someone like Doctor Doom could end up with dozens of categories. Otto4711 00:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Each battle" is a gross exaggeration. If you meant to say "each character", well, we could argue about whether or not Resurrection Man is important enough to deserve a category just for his enemies, but that is not the issue here. The issue is that "villains" is a biased label, and renaming it to "enemies" is a perfectly good solution for that. It even says "enemies" in the actual category. Cosmetor 00:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Each battle" is an exaggeration only in that battling the same "enemy" twice wouldn't lead to a double entry. It has nothing to do with whether or not Resurrection Man is important enough to have a category for his enemies. It has to do with whether the larger issue of whether the entire scheme of categorizing characters by whose "enemy" they are is reasonable. To expand on my Doctor Doom example, Doom has fought, well, pretty much everyone. He could end up categorized as an "enemy" of the X-men and each individual member at the time of the battles, The Avengers and their individual members, Spider-Man, The Red Skull, Galactus, The Beyonder, Hulk, and on and on and on. And each character that he is an "enemy" of is also an "enemy" of his, so each of their articles could end up with his "enemies" tag on it. He's been involved in cross-company titles, so he could end up on a bunch of DC characters' pages, and he on theirs. We could end up with dozens or even hundreds of categories just to tag characters as one anothers' "enemies. Otto4711 00:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It still seems like you're complaining about importance, based on your complaints about creating new categories. If Doctor Doom (for instance) has been an enemy to dozens of other characters, for instance, then dozens of characters fit into his category of "enemies"; we don't simply ignore categories because they would have many pages in them. Cosmetor 02:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Actually that starts to get into a usability problem. In theory (sticking with comic book characters for this) each character would have at least 1 "foe/enemy/adversary" category. But that's only for the one-shot characters. There are a large chunk of characters that would have much more than that. That would push some category sections to the point of uselessness. (IIUC this is the foundation of the "category creep" problem. The very argument that prevents some categories, "Actors by film", and forcing POV criteria on others, "Actors by show" but only for a portion of the actors ever involved.) For the "foe/enemy/adversary" cat system to work, limiters need to be applied. Judgment calls as to who deserves to get a cat and who qualifies for inclusion. — J Greb 04:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Believe me. I'm working on it. I think with the batch nominated in the last day or so it's the last of them. Otto4711 23:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Nightwing villains

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) 13:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Nightwing villains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, As per precedent, "villain" requires an inherent POV judgment call. J Greb 23:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Service company

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 12:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Service company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge to Category:Service companies; misnamed duplication. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

Mortal Kombat character category

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 both into Category:Mortal Kombat characters. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

delete and merge to Category:Mortal Kombat characters. per WP:V, WP:POV and WP:OR.--Ommmin 20:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

Character Combination lists

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. the wub "?!" 13:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Lists of two-character combinations
Category:Lists of three-character combinations
Category:Lists of four-character combinations
Category:Lists of five-character combinations

There has been question lately just how useful categorizing character combinations are. For instance, Rim is classed a 3CC despite the fact that some of its meanings are English (rather than acronyms, etc.) while Bar is classed a normal disambig (despite that some of its meanings are acronyms). This is somewhat inconsistent.

The associated templates are up for discussion as well, though that should not impact whether these categories are kept, as these categories can be kept even if the differently worded template is deprecated/deleted. (See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation_pages)#Let's clarify with the various CC templates once and for all)

Personally, I think that the inconsistency should be dealt with. Either all X-letter disambigs should be added to this list (that is, non-article pages of the appropriate length) to enforce consistency, or the category should be deleted. Either is fine with me.

Also, the few entries in these cats that aren't from the XCC cats (and generally listed under space) should probably be upmerged into Category:Lists of abbreviations. SnowFire 20:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment. In fairness, this is not entirely true, as such a search would miss pages like ABO (disambiguation). SnowFire 00:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Roy, you're right, it's so much easier to write such a program from scratch than to just look up a topic already prepared. Your logic is not only impeccable, it's universally applicable. Indeed, why not delete all of Wikipedia? There is no information here that cannot be found some other way. If anybody truly wanted to learn about a topic, they could do a Google search, read the Encyclopedia Britannica, or go to the library. -- Ben 00:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those are two very different things. Yes, you are right that there is no information in Wikipedia which isn't somewhere else. Or, at least that's the goal, implied by the rules on verifiability. The value added by an encyclopedia is the filtering, summarizing, arranging. These are things which require human intelligence. What's the value add in making a mechanically generated list of every possible N-letter combination? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It would be a trifle more accurate to say "The templates are undergoing discussion of their potential deletion." -- Ben 00:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The proposal isn't to delete the categories in favor of the lists. It's just to delete the categories. The idea that somebody would build lists to replace them was never brought up, and if it were, I would think it absurd. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • One of the common non-Wiki types of FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) files on the Web and Usenet is the "Jargon" file, of which acronyms form a sizable part. People want to know what comments like "HTH" and "TINC" mean. These sets of 3CC, 4CC, etc., are a Wiki way to answer such questions. You and I and others here may not need such explanations; but new Wikipedians and Net-users arrive every day, and at some point will have questions like "This guy referred to "NIT"; is he referring to lice, calling me a nit-picker, or something else?" Soon after that comes "Cool; so what other acronyms are used?" These categories help answer that question. -- Ben 00:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I wanted to know what NIT meant, I would type NIT into the search box. I just can't see anybody then asking, what other acronyms are there?. That's almost like asking, What other words are there? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yet somehow dictionaries still keep getting bought. Likewise, acronym lists show up in Frequently-Asked-Questions files. Perhaps other people haven't stopped wanting to learn such things. Neither have I.
Searching for an acronym may show you hundreds of pages where it is used, among which (eventually) you find one where it is defined. But that may not even be the definition that applies, which is why there are disambiguation pages. So the _CC definition/disambiguation pages (and their categories) speed the process of finding the multiple-meaning acronyms.
Honest to goodness, when did "Well, I don't use it!" (though other people do) become a good reason to delete things from Wikipedia? -- Ben 13:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oh joy: a list of every possible single-letter-double-digit combination, whether or not it's ever been used for anything. But if there are several known uses for such a combination, then there may be a "___ (disambiguation)" page for it, which due to the "(disambiguation)" won't show up on that list, and the combination will remain redlinked there. This does not seem to me to be an effective (let alone efficient) solution. -- Ben 00:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. Fair enough, but this would still be a fairly small category- why not upmerge those pages into Category:Lists of abbreviations? 2CC especially, since there are only 4 entries. 3CC, I suppose I can see having a category for the 15 entries left there. SnowFire 02:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The length of such a list goes up exponentially, with the value of n being the exponent. All possible two-letter combinations: 26^2 = 676. All possible three-letter combinations: 26^3 = 17,576. All possible four-letter combinations: 26^4 = 456,976. By the time you reach n=5, your list is 11,881,376 entries long, most of which are redlinked, an incredible waste of space that readers would have to plow through. (Now try the letter/number combinations, 36^n.) Yet these still won't show pages like ABO (disambiguation), because they don't allow for the "(disambiguation)". -- Ben 01:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Counter-proposal[edit]
One problem with Category:Disambiguation is that it's so darn big. With other big categories, we use subcategories to break them down into more manageable sizes: novelists and poets are grouped by nationality, and each categorized in, for instance, "Russian poets" or "French poets" rather than the overall "Poets" category, so only the un-subcategorizable show up in the top category. Maybe, "to be consistent", the same organizing principle should apply here.

Rather than eliminate the 2CC, 3CC, etc., special-categories, perhaps we should subdivide the disambig category, to get that top category tag off most of the entries:

Pages to disambig words that also serve as acronyms should have both the "single-word" tag and the appropriate "acronym"-or-subsubcategory tag, so they show up in both lists. Add other subcategories as needed to keep the top category to a reasonable size. Only those disambig pages outside all the subcategories would still have the "Category:Disambiguation" tag and show up individually in that top category. Sound feasible? -- Ben 15:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As this involves a reconsideration of the whole overall category, I've brought it up at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation. While there, I noticed no mention of this CfD, which proposes a major elimination of subcategories. Doesn't that rather blindside people there? -- Ben 19:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Over there, someone asked, essentially, why have subcategories? I'll repeat my answer here. Consider Category:Novelists -- which has several subcategories, like Category:Novelists by nationality -- which in turn has subsubcategories, like Category:American novelists and Category:Russian novelists -- which in turn have most of the individual articles on novelists. Only those few novelists who can't readily be so grouped (because their nationality is unknown or unclear, e.g. due to emigration during their writing careers) end up in the overall Category:Novelists. You can find all the "novelist" pages by looking at the top category page and also following the subcategories downward. This hierarchy groups and subgroups related-topic pages. As a result, someone familiar with one nation's novelists, or who has a book on the topic, can pick that subcategory to work through, not have to pick that little subset one-by-one out of a huge crowd. That's a big reason for having subcategories. Likewise, someone with a background or book on biographies, or geography, or perhaps a huge list of acronyms and abbreviations, can pick that subcategory to work through. But if the proposal to eliminate the subsubcategories (at CfD and TfD) goes through, and Category:Disambiguation becomes more of a "flat file", any such editor will have to plow through bigger lists, and more pages unrelated to what he wants to edit, which means we're throwing one more obstacle in his way. We shouldn't do that. -- Ben 20:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Put another way: on your personal computer, do you keep all your files, of every type and topic, in one "flat" list, or do you organize them hierarchically, in folders and sub-folders and maybe even sub-sub-folders, so you can deal with just the set of files you want to deal with? Same principle. -- Ben 20:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay. I can kind of see where someone who wanted to deal with things related to the disambiguation of various acronyms could want the pages to be included in categories, so that they could find all the disambiguation pages that included acronyms. Just for reference's sake, I'm posting the clarifications I added of this proposal over at the TfD.
  1. All disambiguation pages were marked with the ((disambig)) tag.
  2. Categories for the appropriate disambiguation taking place on the pages were then added.
  3. As many categories that apply to the page could be added.
No. 1 is important because there are a plethora of disambiguation pages that cover multiple topics, as we have all seen. No. 3 is important because then we can cover all the different uses of the entires on the pages. -- Natalya 21:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Dab pages are not articles, because they do not have subjects. They inherently defy the system of article categories. The "n-CC" system strikes me as an ill-conceived attempt to extract meaning where there really is none. The only categories that might apply to dabs would fall under Category:Wikipedia maintenance or Category:Wikipedia administration, such as "long dabs", "short dabs", or (famously) "dabs needing cleanup". --Smack (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Dab pages are not articles, because they do not have subjects"??? Of course they have subjects: they list (and, where available, link to articles on) all the separate subjects that may be referred to by the dab page's title -- all the people named X, places named Y, or other things named Z. To distinguish the different people so that readers can choose the article they want, Muhammad Ali (disambiguation) has to give some biographical data on each person -- dates, nationality, occupation -- which took research. That's an article in itself. Likewise, Norse has to teach you enough about the various languages and other things or peoples called "Norse" that you already know something about them by the time you select a link for further study, just so you can pick the right link. Again, that took research, even if from the linked articles themselves. So let's say your field is some European nation's history. You know the same family names keep popping up over and over again, because they're nobility, or have some tradition of craftwork, or keep producing writers. You might want to go through groups of biographical pages associated with that nation -- perhaps Category:Serbian writers, Category:Serbian poets, etc., to collect the sundry people named "Petrović" (the family name) and "Petrović-Njegoš" (the House name) for one disambig page, then on to "Popović", etc. But what such disambiguation pages already exist? You might find some of the disambig creation has already been done for you. You might find that these pages don't always cover all the people they should, and you can add more individuals to them. At least, you might do that if the dab pages are arranged in subgroups. If you have to go through the whole list of all disambigs to find just the human-name articles, what a long slow job that's going to be; never mind, go do something easier. -- Ben 23:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Lists of sovereign states of 21st century

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 per nom. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Lists of sovereign states of 20th century[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Lists of sovereign states of 21st century to Category:Lists of sovereign states in the 21st century
Propose renaming Category:Lists of sovereign states of 20th century to Category:Lists of sovereign states in the 20th century
Nominator's Rationale: Rename for style. Cloachland 20:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wouldn't there be a better way to point out "sovereign states" by year in a more effective way? --Cat out 20:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

Transport

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: keep. Since they're really just linking to subcategories that use transport anyway it's really no big deal.--Wizardman 22:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Transportation --> Category:Transport
Category:International transportation --> Category:International transport
Category:Transportation lists --> Category:Transport lists
Category:Transportation accident lists --> Category:Transport accident lists
Category:Transportation disasters --> Category:Transport disasters
Category:Transportation disasters by country --> Category:Transport disasters by country
Category:Transportation by country --> Category:Transport by country
Category:Transportation engineering --> Category:Transport engineering
Category:Transportation in fiction --> Category:Transport in fiction
Category:Funeral transportation --> Category:Funeral transport
Category:History of transportation --> Category:History of transport
Category:Transportation magazines --> Category:Transport magazines
Category:Transportation occupations --> Category:Transport occupations
Category:Transportation operations --> Category:Transport operations
Category:Transportation planning --> Category:Transport planning
Category:Transportation portals --> Category:Transport portals
Category:Vertical transportation devices --> Category:Vertical transport devices
Category:Transportation by continent --> Category:Transport by continent
Xdamrtalk 00:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but you would agree, I think, that these countries are far more linguistically influenced by the US than the UK. To counterbalance I could point you to most of Africa, Europe, India and Pakistan, Oceania, etc, etc. It is established on WP that we ought not to impose one variety of English over another, and that national topics should largely be covered in the appropriate variety of English—the preponderance of US editors aside.
Xdamrtalk 15:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Northern Irish paramilitaries

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. the wub "?!" 13:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Northern Irish paramilitaries to Category:Northern Irish terrorists
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Recently renamed as NI paramilitaries in contrast to the established consensus for this category type, having survived four CfD nominations in the past, to be named as Fooian terrorists. Renaming to Fooian terrorists is consistent with all its sister categories:

There is no reason that this particular category should be treated any differently. Additionally, the category is sub-ordinate to the categories Category:British terrorists and Category:Terrorism in Northern Ireland. Mal 19:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. The problem with that is that this category is being treated differently with respect to all its sister categories. If you feel these categories are in error, the proper procedure would be to nominate the whole group. Renaming this cat has caused an inconsistency. Please read the nomination reasons more carefully. I should note that the category group has been nominated for the very reason yuo give four times, and survived each one. Consensus appears to be against the Wiki Guidelines in this instance. --Mal 12:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Please read the reasons for nomination carefully and reconsider. --Mal 12:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quick response because I haven't time to write a long one right now. Mal, you were right pointing me to the nomination rationale, thank You, I understand now. However, I still feel that something's not right here. Terrorist is a strong word, on the other hand its meaning got diluted in the last years somewhat, and it's very convenient to use it sometimes. I'd say I'm still against this category naming convention. Not all people who fight for a purpose are terrorists. If this discussion is still here tomorrow evening then I'll be glad to elaborate, but right now I simply haven't got the time, sorry. Cheers. --Ouro (blah blah) 21:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment To my mind 'freedom fighter' sounds even worse—it sounds more like a ringing endorsement, lauding their noble quest for freedom, than a descriptive term (not your intent, I'm sure).
This is always going to be a tricky area. 'Terrorist' has been misused to a great extent and as such has rather lost its objectivity. Having said that, looking at the Terrorism article, the UN seem to have derived a decent definition of 'terrorism', so it only seems to be a matter of perception that it is non-neutral. The alternatives, such as 'militant' or 'paramilitary' sound mealy mouthed. Perhaps we should set these terms aside? Try and describe the group(s) rather than apply a tainted label?
What is the defining characteristic of a 'terrorist' group? To my mind it is the use of coercion. Can we do something with this word (or an alternative adjective)? How does it sound to describe them as 'Northern Irish coercive groups' (and members thereof)?
Xdamrtalk 15:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reponse. Thank you for your objective approach Xdamr. I'm not sure that "coercive" would be quite right, though it might be worth considering some kind of alternative. However, this nomination still isn't to debate the Political Correctness of the word terrorists - the purpose is: should this category be treated any differently than the other categories that already exist, but haven't been renamed. It is, in my opinion, weasely to change them one at a time rather than to nominate the whole group. Also, it leaves an inconsistency in Wikipedia.
As an aside, the top-level category includes a definition of terrorism. My opinion is that the word terrorism is fine - it describes exactly what the word was presumably created to describe. --Mal 16:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Xdamrtalk 23:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Masonic scholars

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.--Wizardman 22:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Masonic scholars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category is very small and ambiguous. It is supposed to be for Masons who were scholars of Masonry, but of the eight that were there, one was neither a Mason nor a scholar of Masonry, and two were Masons but not scholars of Masonry. Of the remaining correct entries, only Mackey is famous for only Masonic writings (Pike is debatable). Hall and Waite are better known as occult writers, and Chornenky is a vanity article. Therefore, the category is superfluous. MSJapan 18:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Recipients of the Félix Houphouët-Boigny Peace Prize

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 (it's already listified). --RobertG ♬ talk 13:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Félix Houphouët-Boigny Peace Prize (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:Anna Nicole Smith

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 10:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Anna Nicole Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't know that we need a whole category on her. By this logic we could have a category for every person in Wikipedia, as they all are related to other notable subjects.Iosef U T C 17:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, Category:Paris Hilton is also up for possible deletion along the same lines as this one. Dugwiki 23:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Aviation lists

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 to Category:Aviation-related lists. (Apparently the merge has been done already, so as I post this the categories are identical twins.) --RobertG ♬ talk 11:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Aviation lists to Category:Aviation-related lists
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:Articles that could be expanded from the Catholic Encyclopedia

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--Wizardman 23:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Articles that could be expanded from the Catholic Encyclopedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The history of this category is linked to Template:Catholic-expand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and its cousin Template:HistSource (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). These templates, and by extension this category, are a Bad Thing, encouraging editors to use obsolete and/or POV public-domain sources rather than modern reliable sources. The existence of this category gives an air of false authority of to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913 vintage). Further arguments can be found at the WP:TFD and WP:DRV debates, including: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 2, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 30, and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

Country-related

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: oppose--Wizardman 23:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename all of these to match the standard (i.e. "<countryname> <people>"). >Radiant< 15:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Alien species

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 to Category:Invasive species. the wub "?!" 13:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge into Category:Invasive species, appears to be a duplicate. -- Prove It (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Oklahoma Sooners starting quarterbacks

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 (didn't merge per Nmajdan). --RobertG ♬ talk 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge into Category:Oklahoma Sooners football players, somehow I don't think team / position cats are a good idea. -- Prove It (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Peel Regional Roads

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. the wub "?!" 13:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge into Category:Roads in Peel Region, see January 6th discussion. This is a repost of deleted content. -- Prove It (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Erdős number 1

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. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Erdős number 2[edit]
Category:Erdős number 3[edit]
Category:Erdős number 4[edit]
Category:Erdős number 5[edit]
Category:Erdős number 6[edit]
Category:Erdős number 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Erdős number 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Erdős number 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Erdős number 4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Erdős number 5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Erdős number 6 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Arbitrary inclusion criterion --Cat out 12:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We're in a bout of "category cleaning" time. Lots of established categories are being deleted too. Maybe it's the weather or a few new members.--T. Anthony 17:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • comment: The earlier discussion made the strong point that Erdos numbers are (a) commonly seen in math (and CS) circles; and (b) useful for showing connectivity. I think both those propositions are unquestionably true, and no one is questioning, say, having Erdos #s in math-bio-boxes or in the text of the article or having an article dedicated to explaining the phenomena. I'm not sure about argument (b). The information that is captured -- relational data -- is important, but I'm not sure it's well-represented by a particular category. For instance, categories for children of X, parents of X, first-degree cousins of X, and so forth, wouldn't really be a good way to handle something useful, even if X were a really notable person (Genghis Khan, Jesus Christ, ancestral person X). Other instances of "relational" categories have also been going down -- relationship to employer, wife of, etc. ... The argument that it's common seen & used in math is more appealing to me. Even if it's not independently useful, the fact that it is an expected & identifying (and defining?) fact about mathematicians suggests it ought to be here. Culturally-specific references shouldn't be excluded from categories just because they're not completely generalist. --lquilter 18:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. For mathematicians, at least, larger numbers may be verified easily enough using the online Erdős number calculator at MathSciNet. One needs a subscription for access, so ease of verification is about the same as that for papers in most scientific journals: you probably can't do it from home but you can if you walk into a public university's library. —David Eppstein 21:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:People related to the Cato Institute

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 10:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:People related to the Cato Institute (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.

Rhetoricians

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. the wub "?!" 13:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Rhetoricians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Ancient Greek rhetoricians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Ancient Roman rhetoricians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:British rhetoricians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Dutch rhetoricians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:English rhetoricians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Italian rhetoricians (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:Murderers

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. Vegaswikian 23:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Murderers to Category:to be determined by consensus
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - This category is a potential nightmare. I'm frankly stunned that it has persisted as long as it has. Among the many problems with the category: living people who have not been convicted of murder are listed which seems to be in violation of WP:BLP; "murder" has a specific legal definition, which varies from one jurisdiction to another, so a category designed to capture people who have caused the death of another person that uses the word "murder" is extremely problematic. The category description indicates that it is for people who have "allegedly commited murder" which, good god, what kind of POV does that open the catehory to if someone decides that anyone who's had an abortion has committed murder. The only rename I can think of is something like Category:Convicted murderers. Otto4711 11:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I therefore propose that all articles be removed from this category and be placed in an appropriate subcategory. Since the legal definition of murder varies between jurisdictions, subcategories should be established for each jurisdiction, along the lines of Category:People convicted of murder in Australia. Further categories for related legal states should be established (Category:People on trial for murder, Category:People charged with murder, Category:People declared unfit to stand trial and so on), which should be similarly contain no articles but be divided by jurisdiction.
In time, the same process should be applied to all categories in Category:Criminals. --bainer (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Current governments in Kurdistan

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) 12:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Current governments in Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth
We do not categorise governments based on geographic regions but by country. Kurdistan is a mere geographic region according to the Wikipedia article. There is only one government inside the category (Iraqi Kurdistan) and it does not appear there will be more in a reasonable amount of time. Category feels redundant and can be just as easily be categorized under Category:Government of Iraq (which it is already). --Cat out 10:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Murderers of children

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. Vegaswikian 23:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Murderers of children into Category:Murderers
Because that category has subdivisions that help keep it from being overly large and unmanageable.--Mike Selinker 19:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Child murderers" is ambiguous; it could describe murderers who are children, as well as murderers of children. If this category is kept, do not rename to Child murderers. --lquilter 22:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Players who scored in an FA Cup Final

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 both. It's listified at FA Cup Final. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:FA Cup Final goalscorers[edit]

Category:Players who scored in an FA Cup Final (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:FA Cup Final goalscorers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category is redundant, already have established category Category:FA Cup Final goalscorers, which has a shorter and better name, in my opinion. Qwghlm 10:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Professional wrestling venues

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 11:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Professional wrestling venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:WrestleMania venues (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:Murdered people with disabilities

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: there was a suggestion that an encyclopaedia article on the subject would be a much better approach. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Murdered people with disabilities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the intersection of "murdered" and "disabled" is not significant enough to warrant its own category. Otto4711 09:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Television program cancellations by year

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. the wub "?!" 00:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Television program cancellations by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - there is an extensive system of sub-cats under this parent cat. I'd rather not within this nom do the work of listing every single one of those cats but if i have to I can if it's needed for this nom to go forward. Categorizing TV shows based on the year they went off the air strikes me as completely bizarre. There is no relationship between most if not all of the series so categorized. Otto4711 08:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Well no, it's not a question of whether I like it or not. It's a question of that I don't see the point of it. Now that the point has been explained, I still don't see that the categories are necessary. Otto4711 23:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, just as a hypothetical use for these categories for television series, it would be interesting for example to compare all the series that were cancelled in a particular year and try and identify possible trends. For example, it would be interesting to see if many series in a particular genre, such as game shows or sci-fi series, were cancelled in the same year, as it would indicate a possible shift in network thinking or fan preference. Knowing all the shows that ended in a particular year could be a good jumping off point for researching how and why shows get cancelled and analyzing possible cyclical trends in programming. Dugwiki 23:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Settlements in Kurdistan

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. The empty categories were deleted when this nomination was closed. After reading this, I wonder if a new nomination to rename and merge all of these to Category:Cities in Kurdish areas would be able to reach consensus. Vegaswikian 23:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Cities in Kurdistan[edit]
Category:Cities in Turkish Kurdistan[edit]
Category:Villages in Kurdistan[edit]
Category:Villages in Turkish Kurdistan[edit]
Category:Settlements in Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (3 articles 3 sub categories)

For a similar reasons and logic as WP:Cfd/Log/2007 Feb 2 nom...

We do not categorize settlements by geographic region (Kurdistan is a mere geographic region according to the Wikipedia article). York is not categorized to be in Europe even though it clearly is. The current pattern also follows the Category:Settlements in the United States, Category:Cities by country, Category:Towns by country, Category:Villages by country format which is exclusively used for countries.

The categories were very recently created without a proper discussion.

See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)

--Cat out 08:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to add... as a geographic region Kurdistan lacks defined borders and sometimes it's very existence is disputed. --Cat out 08:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here are few maps I have found on the net drawing borders of [proposed] Kurdistan borders
I believe the categories...
  • ...fail to follow our existing Wikipedia categorization scheme as I explained earlier. No other categorization remotely similar exists.
  • ...do not and cannot have a reliable inclusion criteria as no agreement on borders exist as demonstrated on the randomly linked maps. A Google search can display a greater variety.
  • ...advocates Kurdish nationalism. A clear WP:NOT IMHO. I would like to make one thing clear. If there was a Kurdistan claiming to be independent, I would have no problem with these categories.
--Cat out 18:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Xdamrtalk 01:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is already a cat at "Kurdish inhabited regions" that makes sense. That's the point.. Baristarim 13:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm gonna have to agree with Doc, on this one. Rename to Category:Cities in Kurdish areas (etc) -- it's clear that several people consider these categories very useful, and likewise clear that there is something special about this region that we may as well take note of. At the same time, however, Kurdistan is not currently a country or a solidly defined territory, and the current category scheme seems to me to imply that it is, or that we think it should be. Our goal is to neutrally present the available information we can verify -- I'm hoping we can find reliable sources about what is or isn't a Kurdish area. Some of these categories, such as Category:History of Kurdistan and Category:Former states in Kurdistan, might rightly refer more to historic events, and could probably be exempted from the rename. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Roman Catholic Church by country

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 11:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename all to Roman Catholic Church in Foo, convention of Category:Roman Catholic Church by country. -- Prove It (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Former countries in North America

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. There are other article renames discussed as well as the creation of a new category. Those changes can be made outside of this CfD and I'll leave it to the proposers to make those changes. Vegaswikian 23:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former countries in North America to Category:Former political entities in North America
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. This category is a misnomer. Very few of the entries in this category were ever "countries"; the vast majority were mostly colonies or other similar dependent territories. It had appeared that the simpler task would have been to have edited the various articles to remove them from the category, but many of the articles here appear because of a number of esoteric templates. To remove many of these entries would require much more template editing than article editing, but the simplest thing to do is to apply a much more appropriate name. Agent 86 04:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Playboy Cyber Club

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: merge to Category:Playboy--Wizardman 23:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Playboy Cyber Club into Category:Playboy
  • Not that I disagree with your conclusion, obviously, but it's based on a false premise. Playboy Cyber Club does exist. Otto4711 22:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Carpenters (Carpenters album)

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 14:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, a recreation, in category form, of the Carpenters article. -- Prove It (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Mario antagonists

Category:Nintendo antagonists

Category:Metroid antagonists

Category:Legend of Zelda antagonists

Category:Square Enix antagonists

Category:Final Fantasy antagonists

Category:Mega Man antagonists

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: merge into parent categories.--Mike Selinker 11:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Mario antagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Nintendo antagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Metroid antagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Legend of Zelda antagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Square Enix antagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Final Fantasy antagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Mega Man antagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete preferably speedy - category was one of several created by editor Cosmetor in violation of WP:POINT because s/he is upset with the consensus noted here and here and here and here and here and here and here among other places that words like "hero" and "villain" in category and article titles are undesirable. I would contend that this is a backdoor effort to subvert that consensus. Regardless of the editor's motives, I contend that "antagonist" is no better than "villain" and allowing the categories to stand opens the door back up to recreating all the deleted "villain" categories under a slightly different name but with all the attendant problems. We have already deleted Fictional antagonists for this reason. Otto4711 01:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Which is pretty much exactly why the consensus to delete these categories formed. To drag out the same examples again, Iago (Aladdin) was a "villain" or "antagonist" in the first film but then became a "hero" or "protagonist" in the subsequent TV series and sequel film. It is ridiculous to categorize him as both a "hero" and a "villain" or as both a "protagonist" and an "antagonist." Other examples: Magneto, Emma Frost and Jean Grey, a few among the many, many characters who have switched from being "heroes"/"protagonists" to "villains/antagonists" in their histories. It's ridiculous to categorize them in diametrically opposing categories. Namor switched back and forth almost from one issue to the next; is he a hero, a villain, a protagonist, an antagonist, all of the above? Should he have two or four different categories when one ("character") will suffice? What about Galactus who operates on a level of morality and ethics far beyond human comprehension, yet who as written is a fundamental necessity of the universe? Is he a hero? A villain? An antagonist? A protagonist? All of the above? None of the above? Who decides? You? Me? Otto4711 02:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And to comment on your additional comment, whether or not a character is a king, a pirate or a scientist is a matter of objective fact. Either someone is a king or he isn't. Deciding that someone is a "villain" or an "antagonist" requires that one draws a conclusion that can be avoided by simply categorizing them as "characters." Otto4711 02:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Fiction is static. Donkey Kong Country 2 will always have pirates in it, even though he's not a pirate anymore in other games, with emphasis on "other". It is not in any way ridiculous to categorize a fictional character based on every state that he or she has been in, because that would be the most accurate thing to do. For instance, say that Billy Jones has a job as a police officer at the beginning of his game, then gets fired and becomes a private detective; that would mean he counts as both a "police officer" and a "private detective". Cosmetor 03:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Occupations can be objectively defined. "Antagonist" can't be. Otto4711 03:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Antagonist" is not objectively defined because it depends on the comparison of the character in question to another character. Banshee and Black Tom Cassidy are mutually antagonistic; should they both be categorized as antagonists? The player characters of these video games are antagonistic toward the so-called "villains" so by your logic they should both be in the antagonists category. And speaking of video games, what about multi-player games where the player characters oppose each other. That makes them both "antagonists" by your definition. It's absurd. Otto4711 03:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • An antagonist is defined as someone who opposes the "protagonist", which in a video game would be the playable character. The category's definition is objective. As for multiplayer games, that's another "case-by-case" thing. Also, stop bringing up comic books; this debate is specific to video games, where the "protagonist" is clearly defined. Cosmetor 04:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The debate is not specific to video games because the category that would be the parent to this category, Fictional antagonists, has been deleted. Allowing these categories allows for creation of comic book antagonists, film antagonists, XYZ antagonists and so on so it is relevant to address the larger ramifications of the categories. Otto4711 04:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We are, in fact, only talking about video games at the moment, where we can objectively identify a protagonist and thus objectively identify an antagonist. It's simply true that the category is objective. If there are other cases where it would not be objective, those are different. Cosmetor 04:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And in those cases where two playable characters can compete against each other, the antagonist is...? Otto4711 04:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) If an administrator has voiced approval of your actions then that admnistrator needs to familiarize himself with the text of the CfD tag. The tag specifically instructs editors not to empty categories while the CfD is in progress. By doing what you did, assuming these categories don't survive, you've generated extra work for the administrators. Otto4711 04:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Surely in the case of articles which actually have "villain" or "antagonist" in the title this is appropriate, because they certainly do take an antagonistic role in the context of the work discussed (e.g. List of non-Kremling Donkey Kong enemies). I strongly suggest we keep these categories for this purpose. Glancing at the old "Fictional antagonists" discussion you mentioned, the main reason it was deleted appears to have been because it was too broad. "Mega Man Antagonists" is far more specific. RobbieG 07:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the contrary - particularly with non-interactive works like books and films, labelling antagonists is, for the majority of cases, very useful indeed. For example, in the Harry Potter series, many characters exist solely to oppose the protagonists, such as Voldemort and Lucius Malfoy. In fiction with more mature plotlines villains are less easy to pick out, but the same thing can be observed. For example, in Of Mice and Men, Curley plays the role of antagonist. Antagonists don't have to be villains, either. In Macbeth, Macduff is arguably more sympathetic than Macbeth, but Macduff still fulfils the role of an antagonist.
Some video games also allow for this sort of thing. For example, in The Legend of Zelda, it is probably controversial to label races like the Gerudo, who are used as generic villains, as antagonists, because there are also members of the race who do not fulfil the role of antagonist. On the other hand, Ganondorf, Vaati, the Majora's Mask and Zant are unquestionably antagonists in the games they appear in (Super Smash Bros. Melee being non-canonical). Therefore, I see no problem with the existence of the category. RobbieG 14:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why is it not useful? It gives the reader information and helps him find related articles. Cosmetor 18:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Taking a position"? This is an objective definition, not a POV issue. Cosmetor 18:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that it would be a biased POV if we labelled a character as a "villain", but for the reasons I explained above, "antagonist" is an objective label. It describes a particular literary technique. Of course, on it's own, the category "Fictional antagonists" would be far too broad, but in appropriate subcategories, like those discussed here, there shouldn't be a problem. RobbieG 20:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And again, in a multi-player game where the players battle each other, which is the "antagonist"? Otto4711 00:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Well, actually, yes it does, because the existence of a "Mega Man antagonists" category opens the door to an antagonist category for any and every other fictional character, so it's smart to discuss the implications of such a category scheme before widespread implementation. Look at the mess that's been caused by the various "TV show actors" categories and then decide whether talking about this beforehand is a good idea.
  • I'm curious as to why you have not answered when I've asked repeatedly about classifying characters in multi-player games. Otto4711 04:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I emphasize the difference between the inappropriate categories you are speaking of and the ones being discussed here. The latter is entirely objective;you say they "open the doors" for subjective categories, but their objectivity is a significant difference, so they really don't. The standard is that "antagonist" is only usable if it can be objectively defined. Cosmetor 06:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Please don't split up comments by posting new ones in the middle of them. I have relocated the remainder of my comment back with the beginning of it. As for your emphasis on these categories and your reluctance to address the broader implications of them, I don't understand it. And I continue to disagree that "antagonist" can be 100% objectively defined as you insist. Otto4711 06:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Antagonist is a literary term. Look it up. I assume you already know that "protagonist" means the character the work is told from the viewpoint of. Well, the antagonist is the main opponent to the protagonist. Video games are not at all unique in this respect. In Macbeth, Macduff is the antagonist, despite not being all that villainous. Antagonists need not be evil. In fact, they don't need to be sentient - natural disasters can be antagonists in certain situations.
Many video games make the distinction easy to recognise, because you control the protagonist, so the antagonists are the ones opposing you. Video games where you can control either character are less easy to categorise. For example, in Sonic Adventure 2, it would not be objective to class either Sonic or Shadow as an antagonist, but there would be nothing wrong with labelling the Biolizard as an antagonist, because that's all it's there for. For plot reasons, Guardian Units of Nations, from the same game, are also antagonists, even though they are "the good guys," because they oppose the protagonists. There are literary examples that are equally ambiguous - for example, one could argue that in Moby Dick, both Captain Ahab and the whale are arguably antagonists. In the majority of cases however, antagonists are much more straightforward to recognise.
It is true that if somebody decided to view Harry Potter as a villain and Draco Malfoy as a hero, then from that person's viewpoint Harry would be an antagonist. However, as the books are told from Harry's POV, that is clearly not what Rowling intended. In other words, it's an aberrant reading, and therefore not canon. I could watch Lost and be convinced that the island is an alien spaceship, but we wouldn't put an article on the said island in the "fictional alien spacecraft" category, because that's not what the writers intended. Likewise, I could read the Sherlock Holmes books and become convinced that Professor Moriarty is the protagonist and is being victimised by a cocaine-crazed Holmes. I'd be wrong, however, because that's not how Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote it. He wrote the stories with a clearly specified protagonist. Fact. There can be no two POVs about it. RobbieG 12:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • But then you have stories like A Study in Emerald in which Moriarty is the protagonist, which makes Sherlock Holmes the antagonist and thus subject to inclusion in an antagonist category. Or those Next Gen episodes where it can be reasonably argued that Moriarty is the protagonist, which potentially leads to the listing of the crew of the Enterprise-D in the antagonists. And to drag this once again back to video games, what about multi-player games in which two or more playable characters oppose each other? Do they both get listed as "antagonists"? The fact that this level of argument is even happening over the categories in my view serves as support for not having them. Better to just use the completely factual and completely neutral word "characters" and leave it to the articles to set forth the roles the characters play. Otto4711 17:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And one final point, the fact that you acknowledge that there is potential ambiguity in naming the playable characters in multi-player games lends more support to the notion of eliminating these categories. You may not think that Sonic and Shadow should be listed in the antagonist category, but what about the editor who thinks that they should be? Why is your view on it superior to that editor's, or his/hers to yours? Why not, again, avoid the entire issue and simply categorize them as "characters"? Otto4711 17:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First off, in what story are the crew of the Enterprise-D antagonists? I'm not a Star Trek fan, but I thought the story was always told from their point of view, making them protagonists. I'd also say that although anyone who decided that either Sonic or Shadow was an antagonist in Sonic Adventure 2 would be biased, both can be objectively classed as protagonists because they are both playable characters. Of course, Mario is the protagonist of many games, but is also an unplayable antagonist in Donkey Kong Junior, so he'd fit into both categories.
I'm not saying there aren't characters who can't be categorised either way (in fact, I know there are - Albus Dumbledore, Luna Lovegood, and Minerva McGonagall aren't protagonists in the Harry Potter books, but they don't oppose Harry either). However, when the technique of creating an antagonist is used, I see no reason not to categorise this.
In order to make things slightly simpler, I think we should ignore fan fiction (it's not generally notable). Also, although A Study in Emerald is a notable work which does arguably feature Holmes as an antagonist and Moriarty as protagonist, the characters are not identified as being such. So although "Rache" is an antagonist and the detective from A Study in Emerald is a protagonist, Moriarty is an antagonist, and Holmes a protagonist. Of course, if a work treated explicitly named Holmes and Moriarty as antagonist and protagonist respectively, then they would fit into two categories. What would be wrong with that? RobbieG 18:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What would be wrong with it is that it's absurd to list the same character in contradictory categories. Since as you note there can be disagreement over whether certain playable characters should be classed as antagonists (and there's no indication that your "bias" toward not calling them antagonists is any more valid than the hypothetical other editor's "bias" toward doing so) the best solution remains not to use words that engender any ambiguity. There is no question that a character in a video game is a "character" so that is the most appropriate way to categorize.
  • If you don't care for the Moriarty example in relation to Next Gen, consider instead Data. In one episode Data hijacked the Enterprise. In another multiple holographic Datas menaced Worf and his son. In a two-parter he teamed with his brother Lore and tortured Geordi LaForge. These are the acts of an "antagonist" in that he acted in opposition to the people you identify as protagonists. Should he be in the antagonist category, despite being a major protagonistic category through the remainder of the series? Should Captain Picard be categorized as an antagonist because he was turned into Locutus for two episodes? His "antagonism" led to the events that formed the backstory of DS:9, should he be listed as an "antagonist" of Benjamin Sisko? Should Kirk be listed as an antagonist of the Romulan Commander in Balance of Terror who was by your definition ("the story is told from their point of view") a "protagonist" in that episode if the RC had an article? Why or why not categorize as I've said in these cases, and how are your reasons not indicative of the POV problems inherent in the categories? Why not avoid the whole problem and leave the characters as "characters"? Otto4711 19:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In response to J Greb's comment, a term can have multiple definitions, and the one I am using refers to a specific literary technique. You might just as well argue that the term "mock" cannot be used to describe something as artificial because it also means to jeer, or that the verb "to lie" cannot be used to say someone is on their back because it also means telling untruths. I am using the word "antagonist" in the sense of Wiktionary definition 2, "The main source of conflict in a story." Similarly, Encarta's second definition is "character in conflict with hero: a major character in a book, play, or movie whose values or behavior are in conflict with those of the protagonist or hero," while the American Heritage definition 2 is "The principal character in opposition to the protagonist or hero of a narrative or drama." That is a neutral definition.
In response to Otto4711 - well, you made a lot of points, so I'm going to address each point seperately.
1. "It's absurd to list the same character in contradictory categories." Why is it absurd to class someone as both protagonist and antagonist? If a character appears in more than one work of fiction, they can have more than one role. It makes perfect sense, if you bear in mind that fiction is static, and that the characters are not real people, but merely creations of the writer that exist only for the story. Therefore it isn't a contradiction at all.
2. "There's no indication that your "bias" toward not calling them antagonists is any more valid than the hypothetical other editor's "bias" toward doing so." I hadn't thought of that as a bias, I was thinking that if we can't prove they're antagonists, it's best not to label them as such. It's like if we didn't know for certain that a guy was a terrorist then we shouldn't categorise him as one. If you don't think that can be applied in this situation, then I guess the most neutral alternative would be to class both Sonic and Shadow as antagonists. In fact, given Cosmetor's reasoning that an antagonist in a game is "someone who opposes the main character(s) of a game, which are the playable character(s)," that's probably the best option.
3. From "In one episode Data hijacked the Enterprise..." to "...in that episode if the RC had an article." Here I think we need to do something us Wikipedia editors seem to struggle with, which is to use our common sense. In a long running show like Star Trek, of course the writers are going to try some unusual things. We may have to decide how to deal with these on a case-by-case basis. For example, I don't know anything about Star Trek, but why did Data hijack the Enterprise? Was the show still partly from his POV? Was he himself the antagonist, or was the antagonist some other villain character, like an alien of sorts? Was the antagonist in fact something inanimate or abstract - a computer virus, perhaps, or a mechanical fault? Either way, however, Data, Kirk and Picard are unquestionably protagonists for most of the time. I think whether any of them can be considered an antagonist or not is something for the people at the Star Trek WikiProject to decide.
4. "Why not avoid the whole problem and leave the characters as "characters"?" That wouldn't be very specific, though, would it? We need subcategories to better define characters. We've discussed all sorts of awkward subversions of the traditional rules here, but the fact remains that there are plenty of characters who can be objectively categorised as "antagonists." So, why categorise them? To quote from Wikipedia:Categorization, "Categories (along with other features like cross-references, lists, and infoboxes) help users find information, even if they don't know that it exists or what it's called." Antagonist categories are quite useful if someone is interested in finding out about antagonists in literature. Why not leave the characters as characters? Because they can be more. They can be lawyers, and cleaners, and penguins, and extraterrestrials, and crimelords, and feminists and, yes, protagonists and antagonists. RobbieG 23:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A few things...
  1. You are making an assumption, largely held or not, to apply a literary term to all entertainment. In the scheme of things I'll agree that is a very, very minor thing since other forms narrative entertainment, even video games, can be translated in to book format. I can see how it can be a quibble point for some.
  2. You are walking into a bigger problem when relying on definitions using therms such as "principle character" and "major character", let alone "hero". At this point consensus holds that those terms are inherently POV. While consensus can change, it would have to change for those terms first for a category strongly dependent on them to survive let alone go unchallenged.
  3. Common sense issues are two fold. Especially in light of an aspect of discussion that Wikipedia, IIUC, frowns upon but fundamentally uses: Precedent. Once something is done, no mater how much the concept of "each article/list/category/template must be evaluated on its own merits" is extolled, that act is used as template and reason for like items to be made or deleted. The questions that need to be asked here are "Will editors read this as need instructions not to read the category as 'Video game characters from Series in an antagonistic relationship'?" and "Will this be used to create scores of similar categories and contribute to making the category area of some articles unusable?".
  4. The "'Fictional Profession/Race/Nationality/Activist' equates to ' Series antagonist" is tenuous at best using your preferred definition. The former are extensions of categories used with real people the later is assigning a literary role. Common sense seems to dictate that it is reasonable to treat fictional characters as real people but not the other way round.
— J Greb 00:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 1) It's absurd to categorize the same character in directly opposite categories because it leads to confusion and category clutter.
2) What is the objective standard of proof that a character is an "antagonist"? Your own example demonstrates that there isn't one.
3) Yes, Picard, Kirk and Data do act as protagonists most of the time. Is that then the standard? Whether they act as protagonists "most" of the time? That doesn't seem very objective. I'm also unclear as to why the ST project would be the ones who get to decide.
4) We can classify characters as lawyers, cleaners, penguins or extraterrestrials because these things can be objectively defined. Either a character is a penguin or he isn't. "Crimelord" is a little more complicated and I don't find a current category for them. We do not categorize fictional feminists, in fact we deleted the category last September. "Feminist" has no objective test. Otto4711 00:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm just concerned about creating a comprehensive encyclopaedia. I personally think completeness ought to take precedence over neatness in an encyclopaedia. I also think that, in a work of fiction, we should never treat the characters as real people. To do so often misses the point of the work. I would also like to repeat that there are some characters that cannot be objectively categorised as either, but that shouldn't be a problem, because in that case the characters in question "should not be put into a category." That's not bias, it's a long-standing Wikipedia guideline. If you want to argue like this for an extended period of time, I'm afraid I'm not here for an argument. If Wikipedia ends up unnavigable and a laughing stock because it's terrified of applying the sort of literary categorisation of fictional characters found in virtually all reference works, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I just think it would be preferable if that didn't happen. RobbieG 13:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems like quite an argument over a small issue. Antagonist differentiates more than characters and in most video games it's pretty easy to define. I wouldn't have any trouble keeping the category. Bbagot 23:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. There's plenty of coverage - the protagonist is a character who is the main character, and is often closer to good than bad. An antagonist is a character who works against the protagonist. And in the situation where the protagonist is bad, or less than honorable, that is an anti-hero. Antagonist is objective, because anyone who works against the main character is an antagonist. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Keep Legend of Zelda and Final Fantasy antagonists. No opinion on the others. Antagonist is NOT a POV term, but a well-established and omnipresent device in literarure. Zelda and FF are two trailblazing RPGs that transformed the genre, and are better literary works than many books that are printed today. Xiner (talk, email) 14:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

Look at the discussion. No consensus was reached! What gives you the right to close the discussion now? RobbieG 18:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Lesbianism-related films

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. the wub "?!" 00:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lesbianism-related films to Category:Lesbian-related films
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The current name is very odd, weird, doesn't convey quite what I think is intended. There is no significant difference between Lesbianism and Lesbian as it stands here. Several have agreed in a prior discussion on the LGBT studies project page that the rename is not out of order. Zue 00:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • here is the previous discussion for "Lesbian films" and a parallel discussion for "Bisexual films" that got renamed to "Bisexuality-related films." My feeling was and is that splitting up LGBT films is a form of ghettoization and that it also leads to overcategorization since people tend to add both the "LGBT films" cat and the more segregated sub-cat. Otto4711 02:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • comment - Otto4711 makes a good point regarding overcategorization. (I'm not sure ghettoization is applicable to individual cultures w/in LGBT anyway, but if it is, ghettoization is properly avoided by redundant categorizing.) Elaborating: While there are advantages to distinguishing L, G, B, and T, the fluidity of sexual identity/practice/portrayals on film make it difficult to maintain subcategories of LGBT into the obvious constituent parts. In films, for instance, multiple characters might fit a film reasonably into any or all L/G/B/T subcategories. In other films one could argue over whether it's bi or lesbian; lesbian or trans; gay or bi. It's probably easier to just go with LGBT films; and do lists for more specificity. --lquilter 04:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Otto4711, Ah. Good material - all that. I think the concern of ghettoization is a valid one; however, as the categories expand, it will be useful to have these subcategories per the previous umbrella descriptions given. Personally, if I think about going into the video store and looking for an LGBT movie, I will only want to look for Lesbian ones because that's where my interests are; and while I love the guys, I'm not looking for a movie featuring a male-male relationship, just like I'm not looking for a move featuring a male-female relationship. I just find that so frustrating! Zue 04:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had not considered a list since the category all ready existed, my goal was to simply give it a more logical name and perhaps add more movies to it. I think the distinction remains necessary. The current name, IMveryHO, is foolish and the proposed one only slightly better. I am a fan of the category name "Lesbian films" which gets 2.9 million hits on Google, whereas "Lesbian-related films" only has 1,460 hits, and "Lesbianism-related films" gets 540 hits (the first of which is Wikipedia), I proposed the "Lesbian-related films" category name in deference to previous editors and their opinions. But the list idea is sounding more appealing the more I ponder it... Hmm... Zue 04:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.
More