< July 19	July 21 >

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:X-Men locations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to both parent cats as per this precedent. J Greb 18:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per precedent, Tewfik^Talk 06:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge & delete per precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:X-Men objects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to both parent cats as per this precedent. J Greb 18:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per precedent, Tewfik^Talk 06:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge & delete per precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete Unneded as material is fully interconnected through Alternate versions of Batman. At best upmerge some of the articles to Category:Batman. J Greb 18:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Wryspy 00:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and upmerge where appropriate, Tewfik^Talk 06:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 19:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gotham City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Batman as this is an unneeded setting for fiction cat. J Greb 18:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This one isn't tied to a character, it's tied to the universe. All those articles need a home, and spreading them out among the broader Batman category seems like diffusion for diffusion's sake. I would be OK with renaming to Gotham City locations.--Mike Selinker 19:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Same as with Metropolis below, it would be better to upmerge these articles to Category:DC Comics locations, where a few already sit, as well as to Batman, weeding what doesn't fit in each. - J Greb 05:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This could be useful for gathering together locations within the fictional city, much like categories on real cities. Dr. Submillimeter 08:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, as much as this smacks of crufty overcategorisation, the existence of Category:DC Comics towns and cities and Notable areas, landmarks, institutions and businesses of Gotham City means we should preserve the hierarchy, although reluctantly. Tewfik^Talk 06:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 19:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Metropolis (comics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Superman as this is an unneeded setting for fiction cat. J Greb 18:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This one isn't tied to a character, it's tied to the universe. All those articles need a home, and spreading them out among the broader Superman category seems like diffusion for diffusion's sake. I would be OK with renaming to Metropolis locations.--Mike Selinker 19:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Realistically, it would be better to upmerge these articles to Category:DC Comics locations, where a few already sit, as well as to Superman. And as DDG points out, 6 articles makes for a very slim cat. That being said, at least 2 of the articles are hard to justify in either "Metropolis" or "Metropolis locations" -- "LexCorp" is a company, not a location, as is "S.T.A.R. Labs". S.T.A.R. also is a fixture in most DCU cities, not just Metropolis. - J Greb 05:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question There are only 5 articles--why would this make a subcat necessary?DGG (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This could be useful for gathering together locations within the fictional city, much like categories on real cities. It also has the potential for growth. Dr. Submillimeter 08:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per my comments above, Tewfik^Talk 06:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Robin (comics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Self-titled cat that covers material that is fully interconnected. At best, this could be upmerged into Category:Batman while losing the specific character articles. J Greb 18:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Wryspy 00:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment how are they interconnected? Tewfik^Talk 07:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, we don't need eponymous categories for every fictional person and place in the batman universe any more than we need them in the real universe. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete Self-titled cat that covers material that is fully interconnected. At best, this could be upmerged into Category:Batman while losing the specific character articles. J Greb 18:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Wryspy 00:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment how are they interconnected? Tewfik^Talk 07:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, we don't need eponymous categories for every fictional person and place in the batman universe any more than we need them in the real universe. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dick Tracy films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Unneeded sub cat of Category:Films based on comic strips (all members of the cat also currently resided in the parent, and the parent is not over populated). Serials also interconnected without the cat. J Greb 18:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; we don't need to start splitting these up. Carlossuarez46 22:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete (CSD:G4). Tewfik^Talk 07:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dick Tracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Recreation of article deleted as per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 14#Category:Dick Tracy with no deletion review found. J Greb 18:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Close to Home episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - The category is empty now since all of the episodes (there were only two anyway) were merged to a list of episodes page. That page doesn't belong in this category, therefore it is unneeded now. Phydend 14:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom for now, without prejudice against a recreation if we once again end up with multiple articles on multiple episodes. The show seems to have run for two seasons, so there's plenty of room to have episode articles, and the category would fit the convention for episode categories if the articles existed. And we do normally divide TV series by episode, so there's no reason to think we won't have episode articles on this show in the future. But for now, until someone takes the effort to create separate articles, the category is unnecessary. Xtifr _tälk 02:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I meant to say something along these lines in the nomination. This definitely should be allowed to be recreated if anyone goes on and makes multiple episode articles. Phydend 15:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom with Xtifr's caveat, Tewfik^Talk 07:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn, category has been populated --Kbdank71 19:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Ceremonial counties of England to Category:Counties of England and Category:Local government in England

Nominator's rationale: Merge - The ceremonial counties category only contains one article. It really is not needed. It would be appropriate to upmerge this into the parent categories as indicated. Dr. Submillimeter 14:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - as per nom. R_O (Talk) 16:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the category could in fact be populated, with the mixture of modern and historic counties that make up this group. Johnbod 16:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and populate. There is a need for this grouping. DGG (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I would withdraw my nomination if the category is populated. Dr. Submillimeter 08:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as I've populated by including a category on the template. Tewfik^Talk 07:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tewfik. And kudos for being WP:Bold. Carlossuarez46 22:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historic houses in Ontario to Category:Houses in Ontario

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The term "historic" has multiple meanings. It could be used to refer to something that is a set age (50, 100, or 200 years old), it could be used to refer to a "notable" location, it could be used to refer to places that no longer exist, or it could be used to refer to places in national historic registers. In this case, "historic" is being used as a synonym for "old" and "notable". How old and notable something has to be to be listed in this category is not objectively defined, as people and references will have differing viewpoints as to what qualifies as "historic". Moreover, any article that meetsWikipedia's notability guidelines already qualifies as "historic", so this qualifier is not needed. (Also, see Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Subjective inclusion criterion.) Because of ambiguity and POV problems with the term "historic", the category should be renamed without the term. Also note that all other categories labeled "historic houses" have been renamed using "houses"; references to those discussions are available if needed. This category should be renamed to match everything else. Dr. Submillimeter 14:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename There has already been a mass renaming to remove "Historic" from house categories. This is just one that slipped through the net. Wimstead 21:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename this straggler per all the arguments at the earlier debate. Xtifr _tälk 11:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per precedent & nom. Carlossuarez46 22:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per precedent, Tewfik^Talk 16:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Thai Mountain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Mountains of Thailand, convention of Category:Mountains by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom Johnbod 14:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - The two categories are redundant. Dr. Submillimeter 14:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, redundant. Carlossuarez46 22:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per convention, Tewfik^Talk 16:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, as recreation of deleted content. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Johnbod 14:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and block - This seems to have been deleted more recently than 13 Nov 2006. As the recreation of deleted content, it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 14:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is currently on it's fourth incarnation. ... -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and block recreation. Wryspy 00:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete and salt, Tewfik^Talk 16:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States aerospace engineers to Category:American aerospace engineers

Nominator's rationale: Rename, in line with all similar categories and normal usage. Abberley2 13:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - This would follow the convention at Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter 14:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per convention. Dominictimms 22:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per convention, Tewfik^Talk 16:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus on Category:Eagle Scouts. Category:Distinguished Eagle Scouts has been relisted on July 23 --Kbdank71 18:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eagle Scouts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Distinguished Eagle Scouts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Listify/Delete - Most of these people, including Bill Amend, Neil Armstrong, Tom Foley, Robert McNamara, and John Tesh, are generally not known for their achievements as children but instead are known for their achievements as adults. Therefore, these categories do not describe a defining characteristic of these individuals from the perspective of the general public. Moreover, these categories contribute to category clutter problems in individual articles, as they make the category links at the bottom of articles difficult to read and use for navigation (see Neil Armstrong, for example). These categories therefore should be listified and deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 13:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Abberley2 13:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteNeutral These persons are included in the featured list List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America). --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also need to delete Category:Fictional Eagle Scouts, these entries are already listed in Scouting in popular culture. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We delete a cat, then make it list because user A wants things that way, then user B tries to kill the list because he doesn't like lists. So we all waste our time going in circles.Rlevse 15:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep until someone can adequately explain why all those "year of birth/death" cats are more significant than this. Let's make lists of every year for birth and death of everyone with an article on wiki.Rlevse 20:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user forget to disclose his interest in the outcome of the discussion. He describes himself as the "lead coordinator" of the scouting project. Abberley2 01:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The year of birth and death categories exist for mainly for legal reasons in connection with the policy on avoiding libel, so they are completely irrelevant as a defence of these categories. As for lists of births and deaths, see every article for a year or a date. Wimstead 21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need to explain "legal reasons", I'm not buying it.Rlevse 01:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - People who are alive could sue Wikimedia for libel. People who are dead cannot. Does that explain the legal reason for having living/dead categories? Also, one of the primary defining characteristics of people are when they were alive. Robert McNamara, for example, is known for his impact on 20th century politics, but he is not known for being an Eagle Scout. The dates indicate this time period. (Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) Dr. Submillimeter 08:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Before making such statements please check WP:Biographies of living persons which notes circumstances when year of birth would not be noted for some living people. Ephebi 22:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would someone be sued for not having a year of birth/death cat? McNamara should then be in a 20th century politics cat, that would not warrant a year of birth cat. Makes no sense to me. Also, so you're saying only living people should be in the year cats? Then all the ones prior to 1900 should be deleted and all the death year cats should be deleted. The argument is full of holes.Rlevse 10:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-defining. Wimstead 21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am concerned by the first point above by Rlevse. There is one group deleting categories in favor of lists and there is another group deleting lists. They are different. Lists can include a bit more detail, but can contain non-notable people who do not have an article. Categories have entries whose notability hangs on the notability for the article. We should keep both until there is clearer consensus on when we should have a category, when we should have a list and when we should have both. --Bduke 22:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user forgot to disclose his interest in the outcome of this discussion. He is a member of the scouting project. Abberley2 01:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Eagle Scouts, Delete or Listify Category:Distinguished Eagle Scouts. Keep the former because it is something that is earned and has a positive impact on the early careers of those who earn it so it can very well be a defining characteristic. The latter is an award, and while the award may be notable, I'm not convinced that this is a defining characteristic for the individuals.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs)
• Keep Have to go with Bduke and Rlevse on this one. Wiki can't have it both ways, as much as wiki may want to schizo. Let's have lists or cats, we can't expect users to fight off both deletionists. Wiki needs to make up its mind, users can not be switching their info back and forth all the time. Talk about self-defeating.Sumoeagle179 01:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user forgot to declare that he is an eagle scout. Abberley2 01:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and that's an excellent point I had not yet been able to codify in my mind-until Wikipedia itself decides what its preferred method of grouping similarities together, keep is the safe and sane option. Chris 08:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user forgot to declare that he is an eagle scout. Abberley2 01:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Given that the List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) has never been nominated for deletion, I find the commentary that the category should be kept in case the list is deleted to be somewhat paranoid. This is really the type of information that is better in a list, as described in my nomination. Moreover, while list deletion/category deletion paradox is a problem, I am not aware of a move to delete lists for membership in various organizations. Therefore, I really think that the list would easily survive deletion. (I would vote to keep the list myself. It also looks much better than the category.) Dr. Submillimeter 10:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Re Dr S "It also looks much better than the category."??? There's not much to the way a category looks, it's done automatically. Very weak argument for deleting a cat.Sumoeagle179 10:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - See WP:CLS. "Lists can be annotated with context." "Lists can be referenced to justify the inclusion of articles." The referenced list already provides a lot of additional information on these people, and it could be edited to include information on these people's specific Scouting groups and the years during which they were active. The category is only a redundant navigational aid with questionable usefulness (since it contributes to category clutter in articles on individual people). Dr. Submillimeter 12:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Background Dr S. and the others don't quite have the full story here that some folks keep alluding to. WikiProject Scouting went through this back in January when the category for recipients of the Silver Buffalo Award went through CfD. The result was to delete the cat and make a list. I finally got around to creating Recipients of the Silver Buffalo Award this week and it immediately got hit for being a laundry list and for notability- there is still a RfC on the talk page (it was never formally opened though, go figure). Yesterday, one of the Scouting templates was replaced by a bot without us being notified- this resulted in hundreds images being placed in wrong categories and it took us all day to fix the worst part of it. And, it seems like every time we create a new Scouting article, someone starts trying to coatrack it. So, if it seems like the Scouting folks are bit paranoid and over-protective, there might be some justification. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Opinions

1. Let's set all of that aside. Overall, the category is not that important. Editors add the category to articles without any citation; we do not patrol the category but we do monitor the list and are quick to remove entries made without a cite. So, we actually have more people in the category than on the list. We have a featured list that has a huge number of properly referenced Eagle Scouts- it is better than any other list available, even the official BSA lists. The same list indicates Distinguished Eagle Scouts and we have a different list of fictional Eagle Scouts. Each article has (or should have) text that indicates Eagle Scout. In my opinion, the categories are redundant.
2. On the other hand, I really don't understand the concept of "category clutter". Is there a policy, guideline, comment, essay or project page on this? Is the problem that there are too many entries, or that the category box gets to big? I have the feeling you keep fighting the same battle here when folks don't understand what is going on.
3. On the gripping hand, we do appreciate the courteous notice on the project page on this issue.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - I did not know that Recipients of the Silver Buffalo Award was being treated with hostility. That information certainly should exist on Wikipedia, and the list is the best way to format the information. That also explains WikiProject Scouting's paranoid attitudes towards the deletion of this category. As for examples of category clutter, please go review the mass of categories in the articles on Winston Churchill, Ortolan Bunting, Lester B. Pearson, Lesser Flamingo, or French language. In most web browsers, that list of categories looks like a giant mass of links that is difficult to read. By its sheer size, it discourages readers from using the category system, thus defeating the purpose of the system. Also, having so many links makes the category system difficult to use. Try to category link the link to birds of Thailand in the article on the Ortolan Bunting or the category link for the alumni of Lester B. Pearson's college. Spamming articles with categories just makes the category system more difficult to use. Many individual WikiProjects complain about deletion nominations here because they do not see this overarching organizational problem. I at least appreciate the fact that Gadget850 ( Ed) is taking the time to understand. Dr. Submillimeter 13:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a completely un-necessary breach of WP:CIVIL to describe the attitude of the project, or any individual editor, as "paranoid". (see below) Anyone who spends any time at all here and at AfD can see the "double whammy" list/category effect regularly in use, not to mention the systematic avoidance of any effort to notify interested editors of often very ill-informed debates concerning their articles. Johnbod 14:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! I used "paranoid" first, so direct this one at me, after you read through my background comments above. Paranoia is not always bad- it has kept me alive in some situations. I do think we all, on all sides here, need to avoid knee-jerk reactions and think each issue through on its own merits. As I noted, Dr S. has alerted us on *all* of the CfDs that affect us. Please- let us practice what we preach and be kind and courteous. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I had forgotten your "first use" when I read the Dr's subsequent diff, so over-reacted, although I still think " " would have been ideal round "paranoid". I have struck through above. Apologies all round. Johnbod 18:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a few articles have "category clutter" has nothing to do with this cat. They should be handled on their own, you used this argument yourself earlier. The cats are not hard to use re Churchill, there's just more of them to read through and using cats makes it very easy to find related articles. If all lots of cats are deleted, we'll just end up with lots of lists in the see also section, so we're back to the cat vs list battle. Like I said earlier, the list and cat people need to get together and make up their mind once and for all and stop wasting our time on battles like this one. And yes, I do appreciate Dr S for taking the time to notify us, few do that. This is why I have watch set on every single Scouting category.Rlevse 16:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This category does affect category clutter issues. Look at, for example, Neil Armstrong, which has 25 categories and which once had more. I guess I would recommend just placing links to scouting in the texts of these people's biographies. For example, the article on Bill Amend incorporated the information on the Eagle Scouts into the text of his article in a place where people would look for this type of thing. Dr. Submillimeter 16:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: Being an Eagle Scout is a notable achievement and personally, I find the category interesting/encyclopedic to be able to browse which notable people has also the distinction of being an Eagle scout. A category is simpler to maintain than a list; and, it avoids the not uncommon disputes over who is notable enough to be included on the list. — ERcheck (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to have to refute your last statement. Categories, like the See also and External links, are very subject to drive-by edits (the editor never participated in the article before or after.) Case in point: Clive Cussler had the ES category for a long time with no article text and no reference. He was added to the list and quickly removed since there was not reference. He stayed in the category for quite a while before I removed him. Only recently did I find a reference and added text and the reference to his article and the list. As far as disputes, the talk page has a clear inclusion policy- anyone with an article and an Eagle Scout reference goes on the list, the main dispute is when one or both are missing. Other inclusion disputes regard censorship issues not related to this issue. There are currently 241 Eagle Scouts on the list; there are 142 Eagle Scouts + 114 DESA = 256 persons in the categories (some may be duplicates if they are mistakenly placed in both categories as Neil Armstrong was.) --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - In case size issues come up, please look at List of NGC objects (1-999). That list, while fairly long, is well organized. The list (which will exist anyway) is already in a good table format, and it can always be split into multiple subpages if appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 20:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-defining category clutter. Dominictimms 22:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Categories cut both ways - while some may think that the ES award is not defining for some individuals (POV?), from the perspective of the Scouting movement its by-products are defining for it. Ephebi 22:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • POV is irrelevant on this page. On Wikipedia pages people discuss what should be done to improve Wikipedia. POV applies to articles, and should not be used as a slur here. This page is all about user opinions, it has no other purpose than to allow them to be expressed freely for the end of building a better Wikipedia. Alex Middleton 11:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The selection of categories on any article should be designed to serve the needs of the general reader, not those of people with a special interest, whether that interest is scouting or anything else. Alex Middleton 11:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If such is the case, then 80% of categories on wiki should be deleted.Rlevse 10:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep an important defining category. --Jdurbach 21:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user did not declare his interest in the category, ie that he is a scout. Abberley2 01:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. I will be nominating Category:Distinguished Eagle Scouts on its own since it appears to have been lost in this discussion. The logic for and against are not going to be the same. Vegaswikian 19:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per earlier comments of Vegaswikian (above). Regardless of one's personal opinion of Eagle Scouts, or of the significance of having earned that designation, the fact is that it is widely considered to be a notable achievement, something which is frequently and commonly made note of, even (or especially) in "garden variety" news stories. Cgingold 12:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete this is little different and certainly weaker basis of categorization than Category:Masons which was deleted; Masons usually involves activities in adulthood while scouting in the US seems to be limited to under 18's. It may be an achievement, but it's not defining. None of these people is famous for being an Eagle Scout. I note that the equivalent Category:Queen's Scouts doesn't exist. What's next Category:National Merit Scholars so that those who got good grades in high school in the US can be categorized by that achievement, or Category:Blue ribbon winners at county fairs so that the quilters, bakers, gardeners, and breeders of fat poultry get their due. Carlossuarez46 22:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Rather than indulging in reductio ad absurdum, wouldn't it be more to the point for you to propose deleting all of the categories for minor military commendations, which are certainly far less notable than achieving the status of Eagle Scout? Cgingold 11:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is only a notable achievement in the lives of people who achieve little as adults. Wikipedia should rarely be concerned with what the prominent subjects of article did in childhood. Baridiah 01:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to closing administrator Users who are scouts are over represented in this discussion compared to the number of them in the community as a whole. Unless this is taken into account at closure, the decision may not reflect the will of the community as a whole. Abberley2 01:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just for the record: My support for retaining this category does not stem from any personal connection -- quite the contrary. I support keeping it in spite of my own somewhat jaundiced views on the subject. Cgingold 11:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing administrator on the absurdity of Abberley's comment Please note that it is almost always the case that the people who are interested in a CfD topic are over-represented in a discussion relative to the whole of Wikipedia. Actions taken in CfD generally are based only on those users who actually care enough to comment. Admins are not expected to be mind-readers who can divine what the other 99.999% of Wikipedians might think, but have chosen not to say. --NThurston 12:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and leave it to individual article editors to police. A few Comments. 1. only .1% of scouts become Eagle Scouts. It is a notable achievement. 2. "X does not exist" is not and never has been a reason for deletion. 3. Neither has "I don't think it matters". 4. Suggesting that members of a certain wikiproject, or members or a certain organization somehow have a vested interest in this topic and that their votes should therefore be viewed with discretion (gee, people who might be experts or know something about a certain topic should count for LESS than the masses?) is a blatant violation of WP:ASG and is rather uncivil as well. If the articles in question can document that there men are Eagle Scouts, then they should be in this category. CaveatLector^Talk 04:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a breach WP:ASG in the slightest. Your assumption that I did not assume good faith is nothing but a guess about what I was thinking and it is an incorrect guess. I am not assuming bad faith, I am assuming a well-intentioned lack of objectivity. What is blatant is that Wikipedia needs a policy along the lines of Wikipedia:Don't let the project be distorted by over-representation of the priorities and opinions of special interest groups. I consider it to be entirely proper to try to implement that concept. Abberley2 13:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what's the difference in project people trying to preserve their work and a bunch of category deletionists coming together to undo it?Rlevse 16:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what's the difference in project people trying to preserve their work and a bunch of category deletionists coming together to undo it? So you succeed, then we'll have to fend of the list deltionists; it's not worth the effort so let's just DELETE ALL LISTS AND CATEGORIES and be done with it.Rlevse 16:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nearly two million people got this award. It is far less notable than a category for people who got high marks in high school. It just isn't a useful way to group articles about prominent people, as it is far too much of a co-incidence that any two individuals happen to have it, and it is most likely to appear on articles that already suffer from category clutter. Postlebury 12:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are NO WHERE NEAR twomillion articles on wiki on people who are Eagles, only a few hundred and there are people cats far bigger than that. Not a valid comparison.Rlevse 16:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As non-defining biographical trivia. We've deleted more important comparable categories, such as those for Freemasons and honor societies. The year of birth and year of death categories are unique, and therefore of no value as a precedent for anything. However the related scheme of categories for missing biographical details (Category:Place of birth missing and the like) has been moved to the talk pages, showing that this sort of biographical trivia is not seen as appropriate for categories on main pages. Nathanian 13:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Statements like "trivia" and "didn't do anything notable as adults" (paraphrased) show just how little some of you know about his topic. It is not trivial, it's significant achievement and the DISTINGUISHED EAGLE SCOUT AWARD is for what they did AS ADULTS.Rlevse 16:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete as while the points made about more trivial military decorations and other categorisation not directly related to the person's notability, the existence of a featured list makes it easier to apply the policy here, even if the application is a bit skewed. Tewfik^Talk 16:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentThat's weak, if a list exists the cat can go away? Cats have value outside of lists, which several people here seem to fail to realize. Their big advantage is dynamic quick and easy browsing and searching.Rlevse 10:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep To satisfy Abberly - a) I am an Eagle Scout, b) member of WikiProject Scouting, c) currently on an editing break, d) a relatively frequent visitor of CFD, e) have done a lot of work cleaning up cats (and not just Scouting). This being said up front, I check my biases at the door as a good Wikipedian should and conclude that if you are going to have useful categories at all, then this is a reasonable and useful way to employ them. We have to keep in mind that every user will use information in their own way and for their own needs. While it can be said that some user may find this unhelpful, I believe that many users will find it helpful. And, yes, both of these categories do meet notability. --NThurston 12:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --evrik ^(talk) 13:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disclosure: To satisfy Abberley2's recurring comments, would everyone please identify themselves as a member of WikiProject Scouting, the Category Clutter Cabal or other third party?
  • WikiProject Scouting, Military history WikiProject --Gadget850 ( Ed) (about)
• Comment Abberley2's recurring comments are meant to attack the credibility of the users who have an interest in the topic, no one should be made to identify themselves. The comments should be able to speak for themselves. --evrik ^(talk) 13:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this exact issue came up in January on the CfD for Category:Silver Buffalo awardees, it must be important. If this issue is related to the CfD, it needs to be dealt with. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment ABBERLY -- What's YOUR INTEREST, ID YOURSELF?Rlevse 17:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Megaverse to Category:Megaverse (Palladium Books)

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The current category name is ambiguous. The article on megaverse is actually a disambiguation page that explains that the term could refer to a common comic book term for the collection of multiple universes, although it actually refers to a collection of universes in role-playing games produced by Palladium Books. This category is used for the latter version. I suggest adding the extra parenthetical phrase "(Palladium Books)" to this category's title to avoid problems in the future (similar to what is done for Category:Yes (band) albums, Category:Queen (band), etc.). Dr. Submillimeter 13:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Johnbod 14:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Good catch. I probably would have never noticed this one if nom hadn't spotted it. Xtifr _tälk 02:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH, Metro to Category:Huntington-Ashland metropolitan area

Nominator's rationale: This would bring the new, much-needed category in line with what seems to be the naming trend in the subcats of the parent cat Category:Metropolitan areas of the United States. I would be open to other names, too, like Category:Tri State (KY-OH-WV) or something of the sort. youngamerican (wtf?) 13:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. The current name will by unintelligible to most non-Americans. Abberley2 13:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Johnbod 14:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, and Abberley2. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom The Punk 05:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename indeed. In addition to the excellent points raise by nom, there's also the possibility that this category will be mistaken for something to do with rapid transit (see the redirect metro). Xtifr _tälk 02:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Megacorps to Category:Fictional businesses

Nominator's rationale: Merge - According to the unreferenced article on megacorporations, this term "refers to a corporation that is a massive conglomerate, holding monopolistic or near-monopolistic control over multiple markets". The "monopolistic or near-monopolistic" description seems too allow for subjective interpretation, and the requirement of controlling "multiple" markets seems ill-defined. (How many markets need to be controlled for a corporation to qualify as a "megacorporation"?) Since the category seems a little vague and since the inclusion criteria are unreferenced, I recommend deleting this category. Dr. Submillimeter 13:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: is this a proposal for merger or deletion? Note that the lead article only says that it's doubtful that any real-world businesses would qualify. In any case, I'd probably support either one, but I'd like to be a little more clear first. I'm also a little dubious about passing judgment on the category purely on the basis of statements at an unreferenced Wikipedia article. Maybe a little real-world investigation of the term and its use would be in order? Xtifr _tälk 02:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A Google search on "megacorp" turned up this business and this organization, among other links. It seems that the most common usage outside of Wikipedia is by real businesses with the name "Megacorp" (although the businesses do not appear to have anything else in common). This category clearly is not related to other uses of the term. Regardless, the category still seems like original research. Dr. Submillimeter 08:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, that seems clear, thanks. Merge (or should that be delete?) per nom. Too subjective for proper categorization. Xtifr _tälk 03:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom, Tewfik^Talk 16:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Biological reproduction to Category:Reproduction

Nominator's rationale: Rename, I think this category needs to have its content moved to category:reproduction..biological reproduction seems to be an original research stuff..the most common use is reproduction and the most common thought that comes to mind when mentioning reproduction is the biological one..not the reproduction of videos for instance. Alnokta 13:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - as per nom. Absolutely zilch on the Category:Reproduction page now, and it is more gerenal title which means more inclusion which (although not necessarily) means better. R_O (Talk) 16:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose biological reporduction makes it clear that this is a biolgy category, and not some other form of reproduction. "reproduction" could mean xerography, forging, photography, reproduction collectors items, etc. 70.55.85.148 12:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article biological reproduction was renamed recently, so it would be consistent to rename the category as well.
  • Comment Category:Reproduction (biology) or Category:Biological reproduction are clear. We don't always name the category like the article, since categories need to be clearer or would this become a cleanup problem. 70.55.91.131 08:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we can use Category:Reproduction (biology) or Category:Biological reproduction if we are talking about something beside the obvious..--reproduction--.. needless to say biological or biology..if there is a category named reproduction, then reproduction the biological process should be inside it..not original research stuff like biological reproduction..--Alnokta 11:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom - lets keep the category name in line with its entry. Tewfik^Talk 16:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cryptic animals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - The category invites almost every known animal species to be included. There is also no general category 'cryptic organisms', as plants for example may be mimetic. But if kept it should only be for articles on the concept, not specific organisms, so I would advise moving to Category:Crypsis if there are enough articles to warrant it (not sure that there are at the moment, though it future there should be). Richard001 00:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Oppose "Crypsis" may possibly be the correct term, but it is too, well, cryptic. Johnbod 11:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The definition of crypsis in the (unreferenced) article indicates that this category could be applied to any organism that has adapted "to avoid observation". So many organisms have evolved so many ways of avoiding observation (including, according to crypsis, "camouflage, nocturnality, subterranean lifestyle, transparency, or mimicry") that this is not a defining characteristic. Even the earthworm is in this category, presumably because it lives underground (where it is "hidden"). Given the enromous breadth of the category and the somewhat loose interpretation of "crypsis", this should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 12:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per above & nom. R_O (Talk) 16:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I thought this category had to do with Cryptozoology, not crypsis... (Category:Cryptids) 132.205.44.5 21:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wryspy 00:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, but with the closer's recommendation to create a fictional subcategory.--Mike Selinker 02:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete - This is a category for artifical structures in science fiction that are "enormous". The inclusion criteria are subjective, as it is left to individual editors to guess what is "large" enough to be included in this category. It should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article for Megastructure goes some way to define it: "The definition is often informal and varies from source to source, but generally requires at least one dimension to be in the hundreds of kilometers." So any artifical structures in science fiction with one dimension >100km would fit into it. Maybe include the definition into the category intro text too. If the article is subjective, maybe it too needs an AFD, or at least a tidy up. Lugnuts 11:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - First, I saw no explicit references for the definition of the term in megastructure. I therefore marked the passages as needing citations. Second, the definition quoted above already states that the term is "informal and varies from source to source". This already indicates that the term is vaguely defined. Categories need well-defined inclusion criteria, or else they either expand to include so much that they are useless or they suffer from POV problems. I also noted that the definition at megastructure and this category appear to include both fictional and real objects. Grouping such things together is never appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 12:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, and PLEASE don't make this mega-week Johnbod 11:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I originally had no intention of doing so, but this seems like a good idea. (Most of the "Mega" categories are actually well named.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nominator has not made any suggestion as to how else these articles can be categorised. Indeed, it seems that he wouldn't care if they were left uncategorised. I doubt he can come up with anything more appropriate. Abberley2 13:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This category is such a mess that the articles would need to be recategorized on a case-by-case basis. What applies to the Great Wall of China does not apply to Hondo City. I suspect that the articles already have other, more appropriate categories that should be used instead. Dr. Submillimeter 14:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If there's a problem with different kinds (fictional and non-fictional) and different definitions of megastructure, then make a subcategory. If the idea of "megastructure" itself just boils your blood because no authoritative source has created an all-accepted definition, then argue it on the page, not the cat. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - could be subjective to crossfire of opinion of inclusion but the defining structures that are included at present are above one threshold as mentioned by Lugnuts. R_O (Talk) 16:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It should be split into fictional and actual, but the category should be kept. Like supercomputers, the term will be a moving target, but it will be the top percentage of largest structures for the time period. I suggest that this category be kept for actual megastructures, and "Megastructures (fictional)" should be created for the others. — Val42 18:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Fictional versus conceptual. Niven ring and Ringworld also need to be split into a conceptual article and a fiction article. Create subcategories for fictional megastructures and conceptual megastructures. 132.205.44.5 21:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Is there a meaningful objective distinction between the Great Wall of China, the Pyramids of Giza, the Nazca lines, etc. etc. Carlossuarez46 22:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this category needs a better criteria for inclusion, but otherwise it would seem applicable, especially if the oarent term was notably used in reference to the substituents. Tewfik^Talk 17:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• You have got to be kidding me. I refuse to close something this subjective as keep, even with vote counting, and I'm done getting dragged to DRV. Someone else can close it. --Kbdank71 15:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American parkways (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category contains roads in the U.S. that have nothing more in common than having "parkway" in their name. This includes typical suburban arterials, suburban freeways, and intercity freeways, and does not include some roads that pass through parks. The definition of parkway is too broad to use it to define a category. NE2 07:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Given the loose use of the term "parkway", it is not useful to categorize roadyways this way. Dr. Submillimeter 08:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Why are you only proposing this cateogory and not its parent for deletion? Shouldn't the whole thing be wiped based on this deletion rationale? I think they should be either deleted as one or the defintion made clearer and inappropriate articles removed. Richard001 11:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep From the article it seems the parkways are not as distinctive as they once were, but none the less distinctive enough for a category. Johnbod 11:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Abberley2 13:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment & Delete - per nom and as per comment by Richard001 R_O (Talk) 16:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Texas State Highway 99 is also known as Grand Parkway. That's why it's in the category. Ronald Reagan Parkway is in the category because it is Ronald Reagan Parkway. Bluegrass Parkway is in the category because it is a the Bluegrass Parkway. The Arborway wasn't included because it was made in December 2006 and only edited only by one editor. Parkways are distinctive as its own category of road, hence why I believe it should be its own category. --Son 23:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This seems to be the categorization of unrelated subjects with shared names, a form of overcategorization. Do these articles have anything in common other than their name? Dr. Submillimeter 10:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of these are parkways based on the criteria laied out in the parkway article. Clearly those are included correctly and are not categorized based on name. So the category should not be deleted solely by that logic. Maybe some cleanup and an improved introduction is called for. Vegaswikian 20:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - That article may explain the reason why this category appears to be categorizing articles by name. Three different types of roadways may be classified as "parkways". (The Merriam-Webster reference is good, although a civil engineering reference would be better.) I would contend that the "roadway in a park" parkways, the "expressway located on a strip of land legally constituting a public park and therefore not open to heavy vehicles" parkways, and the "broad landscaped thoroughfare; especially : one from which trucks and other heavy vehicles are excluded" parkways should not be categorized together (as is the status quo), but that separate categories for each type of parkway would be appropriate. What do other people think? (If this category arrives at a "no consensus" conclusion, I may propose such a split.) Dr. Submillimeter 20:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wonder if there are a sufficient number of parkways in those poposed subcategories to justify a split like that. It is also not clear if roads like Florida State Road 570 really meet the definition of a parkway, from the article text it appears to not be the case. If you do split this up by type, then it would eliminate all of the NYC parkways from here since they are also listed in the NYC subcat that would be good. Once concern, do we need to make the point that some of these roads may have once meet the definition, however upgrades have eliminated the parkway character of many of these roads. Vegaswikian 21:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Parkways have a history in the US - this category is very important in keeping the articles together. master son^{T - C} 23:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I fail to see how this is overcategorisation. Furthermore, parkways have historical nature to them, for example they were the first type of limited-access roads in the New York City area. Even though the definition of "parkway" is a bit broad, I still fail to see a reason for deletion. (→O - RLY?) 18:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above. Feedloadr 16:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and prune as necessary, Tewfik^Talk 17:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:London West End musicals to Category:West End musicals

Nominator's rationale: Rename, "London West End", when referring to theatre, is redundant. "West End" means London theatre. —  MusicMaker5376 00:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - These musicals, such as Les Misérables (musical) and The Lion King (musical), are performed elsewhere as well. Being performed in London is not a defining characteristic. Categories for every location where these musicals are performed could become troublesome, especially for touring shows. The resulting lists of categories in some articles could become too large to read. Furthermore, categorizing these as "London" (or "West End") musicals does not reflect a global viewpoint, as it implies that the musicals were created in London and shown exclusively in London (which is not always the case). I therefore advocate deletion. (My comments also apply to categories for New York musicals or musicals in other locations.) Dr. Submillimeter 08:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and weak rename There are categories for these, Broadway and off-Broadway musicals only, which seems to reflect the way people talk and write about shows. There might be a case for restricting all these to the place of first (proper) production. Johnbod 11:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can you identify a source for reliable definitions for "West End musical" that indicates that it is a class of plays? Also, are these plays really different from "Broadway musicals"? This really looks like it is an attempt to provide a directory of any musical performed in the West End. Maybe a category just for musicals would be better. Dr. Submillimeter 12:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I have asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre as it is not my field. Johnbod 12:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Origination in the West End is a defining characteristic for a musical. Abberley2 13:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can this definition be written into the category with a reference showing that the term is defined this way? Dr. Submillimeter 14:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply This, Category:Broadway musicals, Category:Off-Broadway musicals and the like are all subcats of Category:Musicals. "Broadway musical", "West End musical", "Off-Broadway musical", etc. are all colloquialisms. Are you really asking me to reference the vernacular? —  MusicMaker5376 21:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Yes, I am asking for a reference for these vernacular terms. See Wikipedia:References. (If you provided a reference for the term, I would change my vote.) Dr. Submillimeter 10:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. R_O (Talk) 16:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and Rename as for Dr. Submillimeter's comment: being performed in London is most definitely a defining characteristic. West End theatre is regarded as the "highest" form of theatre (especially musical theatre) in and around the UK. Furthermore, the reason this category exists is to represent a global viewpoint. On the US-Centric Wikipedia, pointing out that many musicals have not only performed, but began on the west end helps to remove the systematically created bias. Most importantly, there are many musicals that are not performed anywhere other than the west end (contrary to your first statement). Where a musical is performed, be it West End, Broadway, Off-Broadway, California, Boston, or many of the other notable localities where musical theatre makes it's home often defines the success of the musical. There is very strong reason for these categories to exists. This nomination was presented merely to remove the extraneous word "London" from it's title (as the words "New York" would be redundant in "New York Broadway" theatre). I strongly urge you to provide yourself with "a source for reliable definitions for "West End musicals". The existence of Categories is to aid the Wikipedia reader in finding information he or she is looking for. Categorizing all the wikipedia articles about musicals into one category would be like categorizing all the articles about films into one category. Instead, films are categorized into genre. Because musicals do not have specific genres, they are instead categorized into the notable localities where they have been performed to create a system of easy, readable, organization. --omtay38 22:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename per nom. We need this subcategory for West End musicals, indicating that the musical has been produced in a major venue in London. This is simply for the convenience of readers and of people working to improve these articles. -- Ssilvers 22:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep only if renamed to restrict to shows originating in the West End - as noted, musicals can and do play at any number of venues and categorizing on the basis of where they've been staged would quickly lead to tremendous category clutter. If not so restricted then delete. The Broadway categories should also be looked at and held to this standard. Otto4711 14:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep But such categories should only exist for Broadway and the West End. There is no reasonable debate about the pre-eminence of those two locations in English-language (and probably global) musical theatre. Postlebury 12:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though referencing and stricter inclusion criteria are necessary, Tewfik^Talk 17:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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