< July 26	July 28 >

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.--Mike Selinker 17:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film directors by religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Category:Mormon film directors
• Category:Jewish film directors
• Category:Roman Catholic film directors

Nominator's rationale: This is a case of Overcategorization by religion and/or ethnicity. Most of the directors are completely secular in their film-making, and even if they weren't there is little evidence that THEIR actual religion is manifested in whatever religious iconography there might be in the film. Take Paul Thomas Anderson's (who is lapsed) Magnolia. I don't think Jared Hess's Mormonism had any affect on the making of Napoleon Dynamite. Or the atheist Stanley Kubrick's reincarnation scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey makes him a Hindu. How is his ethnic identity relevant for the intersection. Therefore all of these intersections are equally irrelevant. Upmerge to relevant categories. Bulldog123 23:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete trivial intersection of religion and profession, while an artist's cultural background and personal beliefs may influence his/her art, it is a far cry to suppose that everyone of a particular religion shares the same background and beliefs and that they influence his/her art in the same way or to the same extent: finding Jean Cocteau, Federico Fellini, Buster Keaton, and Mel Gibson in the same category just illustrates the point. Carlossuarez46 00:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Dominictimms 14:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. → AA ^(talk) — 13:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but remove inappropriate articles While the nominator is correct that articles where the religion of the director has no impact on his career, there are directors whose religious beliefs plays a very significant role in their directorial works. Steven Spielberg and Mel Gibson both come to mind as major box office directors who have made big movies focussed in large part on examining parts of their religious beliefs and religious or ethnic heritage. So the intersection is not always random or arbitrary, and therefore the category should be kept as it does possess relevance in group certain biographies. Rather than deleting the category, therefore, the articles which aren't appropriate for inclusion should be removed. Dugwiki 15:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - overcategorization based on religion. The problem with a "keep but restrict" argument is that it requires constant patrolling to make sure that, in the POV opinion of whatever editor happens to want to add or remove an article, the director in question does or doesn't have a sufficient body of work with a message that is sufficiently related to that director's own religion. Functionally restrictions of this sort are inherently unworkable. Otto4711 18:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is the "keep but restrict" comment doesn't just apply to this category. That comment is the standard procedure for all categories. You're not supposed to categorize articles by things which aren't mentioned in the article, for example. I'm simply restating the normal rule that articles which aren't appropriate for inclusion in a given category should be removed. And, as per WP:OCAT, the exception for not categorizing occupations by religion is when there are good examples of the religion and the occupation having a direct link. In this case there are directors whose religion and occupation are directly linked, and therefore the category is a legitimate exception to the general rule about avoiding religion/occupation intersections. It's not simply a random intersection. Dugwiki 19:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a random intersection for the vast majority of examples. For every one film director whose body of work reflects his or her religious beliefs there are dozens for whom it has no impact whatsoever. What we'd want here is not "directors by religion" but "directors who made films based in their religion." Otto4711 19:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I could accept a new category like the one you're describing. It would accomplish the desired sorting goal without including the directors whose religion isn't related to their craft. If something like that is created to replace this I'd support it. Dugwiki 20:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Otto. There is no chance that Dugwiki's restriction proposal would work on a consistent basis. Postlebury 10:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom AdamSmithee 11:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OCAT, Tewfik^Talk 20:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - The rationale for deleting these cats is based on the simplistic notion that if a director's religious orientation doesn't manifest cinematically in an overt or at least obvious way, then it's inconsequential or has no influence. Unless Bulldog123 or Otto (or anybody else) can cite scholarly sources to back up that assertion, it's nothing more than their personal POV, and clearly qualifies as Original Research.

The very diversity of these filmmakers is, in fact, what makes these categories both interesting and useful to readers of Wikipedia. Mere categorization does not equate to the sort of simplistic labeling that Bulldog suggests. The implicit concern in these noms is that our readers are a bunch of simpletons who are going to be mislead into believing that all of the individuals in these categories must be, in essence, religious clones of one another. I find that a highly dubious assertion, and I also think it betrays a certain contempt for the intelligence of our readers. They should be permitted to make use of categories like these to conduct their own research into such questions and to draw their own conclusions. Cgingold 13:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD:G7. Tewfik^Talk 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fauna of Solomon Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant (existing cat is correct Fauna of the Solomon Islands, covered by existing cats, created in error by me. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but you can do a creators speedy self-delete for this. Johnbod 22:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy - as per the speedy-listed parallel cat for flora. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per CSD:G7; I WP:BOLDly tagged with ((db-author)) - is there a problem with this kind of activism? Tewfik^Talk 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People Killed by Lord Voldemort (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category:Harry Potter characters already contains many subcategories. It is overcategorization to further categorize characters by their killer. musicpvm 19:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per July 23rd (and many previous) discussions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per both. Johnbod 22:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per both, and no people were killed by Lord Voldemort, some fictional characters were killed. Can we keep reality real and fiction fiction? Carlossuarez46 01:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Overcategorization, not of real-world importance. 17Drew 01:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Overcategorization and per previous consensus on similar CfDs. --Farix (Talk) 22:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OCAT, Tewfik^Talk 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Empty for more than 4 days. Andrew c ^[talk] 14:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Basketball (soccer) video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: AFAIK no such sport exists, and if it does, the category needs clarification. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Interesting idea though. Johnbod 22:04, 27 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. the wub "?!" 16:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Dragon: Jake Long (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for a TV series. Not needed for what will soon be a single subcat and a single article. Otto4711 18:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete OCAT, Tewfik^Talk 20:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 16:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Dragon: Jake Long episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - all of the episode articles have been merged and redirected to a single list article, which doesn't require this category. Otto4711 18:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Seeing as this cat is basically empty, doesn't this qualify for a speedy deletion? CaveatLector^Talk 05:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice against recreation if someone were to make proper (detailed and referenced) articles about individual episodes. There's no reason to have the category until that happens, but there's no particular reason that shouldn't happen. Xtifr _tälk 22:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OCAT for now, Tewfik^Talk 20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Phil of the Future episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - all the episodes have been merged and redirected to a single list article, which doesn't require this category. Otto4711 18:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Now that the individual episode articles are gone, there's no need for the category. 17Drew 23:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete empty cat, Tewfik^Talk 20:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete w/o prejudice, as with the Jake Long episodes cat above. Xtifr _tälk 12:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename, and the related categories as well.--cjllw ʘ TALK 13:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Runestones, Sweden to Category:Runestones in Sweden

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to a more conventional form. All the related categories should be renamed in the same way, but I don't have time to list and tag them all just now. Maybe tomorrow. Hawkestone 18:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Abberley2 17:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Soman 11:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename the entire hierarchy, Tewfik^Talk 20:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:The Circle Opens and Category:The Circle of Magic to Category:Emelanese books

Nominator's rationale: Subcategories are a bit small: Emelan is the name of the world where these books take place, so all the books will fit in there, including the non-quartet books SarekOfVulcan 16:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then the subcategories of Category:Tortallan books should be merged down, too. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 18:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge overcategorisation, Tewfik^Talk 20:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Withdrawn, by nominator. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, single-item category, not really needed. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Tobacco is where all this hangs out. Johnbod 16:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - probably created under the assumption that a better version hadn't already been created. Onnaghar (sch-peak) 16:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, Smoking was not in Category:Tobacco, nor was that in Category:Addiction. Hmmmm. Now they are. Johnbod 16:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because smoking had been confined to being a mere dabpage until only about two weeks ago because the tobbaco enthusiasts and the cannabis aficionados couldn't get along in the same article.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This category is seven days old and you're already this eager to delete it? This, along with smoking is an attempt to bring together information about smoking in general, not just tobacco smoking. I've already added a few more articles and one additional category. Peter ^Isotalo 16:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Make that three categories so far. Peter ^Isotalo 16:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now that it's populated, I'm fine with it. I withdraw my nomination. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:35, 27 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 all.--Mike Selinker 17:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Afghanistani artists to Category:Afghan artists
• Category:Afghanistani film directors to Category:Afghan film directors
• Category:Afghanistani writers to Category:Afghan writers
• Category:Afghanistani poets to Category:Afghan poets

Rename all per conventions of Category:Afghan people, and Category:Afghan people by occupation. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• rename all per nom & convention. Johnbod 16:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - per nomination anc conv. Onnaghar (sch-peak) 16:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Definitely. Do the same for Uzbeki and the other relevant -stans if necessary. Bulldog123 03:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all stans where the ethnic group is distinct, but not in places like Pakistan. Tewfik^Talk 06:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, although I agree with changing 'Afghanistani' to 'Afghan', I don't think its good to generalize the namings of all 'x-stan' countries. Substituting Uzbekistani to Uzbek, Tajikistani to Tajik, etc., would mean a difference in meaning (which afghanistani-afghan would not). 'Uzbek' would include ethnic Uzbeks in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, etc.. --Soman 07:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Besides all the dictionaries, government sources and media reports of the world, Chapter 1, Article 4, of the Constitution of Afghanistan clearly states that regardless of what ethnic group they may belong to, the word "Afghan" shall apply to all the citizens of Afghanistan.[1]Mirrori1 01:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Famicom games to Category:Nintendo Entertainment System games

Nominator's rationale: Merge, The Famicom is the Japanese brand name for the Nintendo Entertainment System. The two consoles have no appreciable differences in terms of their hardware or software design. The are the same machine. There is regional lockout, but that is a common feature on many other consoles as well. Additionally, there are no seperate categories for the TurboGrafx-16 and the PC Engine, given that they are the same platform as well. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 14:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep separate There are a few reasons that these should be separate: (1) Some games were only released for the Famicom (not sure offhand if there were any exclusive NES releases; probably the Color Dreams games were?). If we merge then we'll simply be incorrect: "Bird Week" was never a NES game. (2) I disagree that the Famicom and NES have no appreciable differences. A good list is at Nintendo Entertainment System#Regional differences. Because of these differences, some games could never work on one or the other system without a substantial change in hardware or software. (All cartridges, minimally, needed an adapter to work in the other system.) (3) Many games were released for the Japan and US markets with substantial differences (Bionic Commando being a good example) beyond simply translation. (4) If things these are true of TurboGrafx-16 and PC Engine, then I would argue that they should have separate cats too. It's fine to merge two similar articles (eg. Famicom and Nintendo Entertainment System) because we can then explain their differences, but a category does not give us the ability to do so. If we could come up with a name for a parent category (category:NES/Famicom games, category:2A03-based titles) then such a category with two subcats for category:Famicom exclusive games and category:NES exclusive games would also be a fine solution. (PS. I think we've discussed this same merge before?) — brighterorange (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_15#Category:Famicom_games. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong merge as last time, they're the same system! For categorising games as exclusive to the Japanese version of the system, use Category:Famicom-only games or the like instead. Garrett^Talk 02:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge As Garrett says, they're the same machine. Incompatibility between regions because of regional lockout or differing cartridge shapes was and is a feature of pretty much every console. For example the European Mega Drive was also incompatible with the Japanese model because of the shape of the cartridge slot, but there's still only one Category:Sega Mega Drive games, as there should be. I don't see how splitting Famicom and NES is helping anyone. Miremare 21:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. A description that clearly explains the Japanese brand and European brand would help here.--Mike Selinker 17:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current FBI Top Ten Most Wanted Fugitive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These kind of categories require continual maintenance, and are bad for printed, mirrored, or CD distribution.

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_5#Category:Current_NHL_Head_Coaches
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_22#Category:Current_albums
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_16#Category:Current_singles
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_6#Category:Current_Seven_Network_shows
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_23#Category:Current_ESPN_personalities
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_6#Category:Current_British_MPs
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_4#Category:Current_female_heads_of_state
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_27#Category:Current_Serie_A_players
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_28#Category:Current_Top_40
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_26#Category:Current_racehorses
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_26#Category:Current_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_26#Category:Current_California_State_Senators
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_26#Category:Current_Members_of_the_United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Armed_Services

Merge into Category:FBI Top Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, or at least Rename to Category:Current FBI Top Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom There is a list, with mugshots, at the main article, although one captured on May 12 has not been replaced yet, I notice. Johnbod 14:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Hmm. Isn't the same thing true of category:Living people? Perhaps category:FBI top ten most wanted fugitives and category:Former FBI top ten most wanted fugitives would suffice. — brighterorange (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Living people exists as a special exception ... note the unique and unprecedented result of the January 19th discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom - Onnaghar (sch-peak) 16:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom - "current" categories should not be used (outside of electrical or water flow). Carlossuarez46 01:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you oppose my Category:Raisin and current puddings?  :) Merge per nom and the extensive list of precedents. Xtifr _tälk 01:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hadn't thought of that one, in the US if we're talking about the small berry-like fruit, it would be spelled currant, but to change a British spelling would be strictly no-no, :-) Carlossuarez46 17:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's "currant" pudding in the UK too. Johnbod 17:06, 29 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 merge into Category:Novels by Diane Duane, with the Young Wizards novels also going into Category:Young Wizards --Kbdank71 19:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fantasy novels by Diane Duane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Science fiction novels by Diane Duane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Too-specific: Category:Novels by Diane Duane should work fine. SarekOfVulcan 13:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: These categories have been emptied by the nominator just before the nomination was made Johnbod edits just now15:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have been re-populated. --Kbdank71 15:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and downmerge main cat to Category:Young Wizards. The nom cats are both empty, but the main "novels by" cat is duplicated at Category:Young Wizards, which seems a valid member of cats for childrens and fantasy series. Young Wizards should be made the sub-cat, and those novels (which may be all of them) removed from the main cat. Johnbod 14:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  They were not empty yesterday. SarekOfVulcan did that, then turned around and slapped CfD on them. Also, downmerge is not applicable, as her Star Trek novels (and others which do not yet have articles) do not fit there. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Down merge is appropiate for the Young Wizards series, which is most of them. Those not duplicated in the YW cat should be left in the main Novels cat. Johnbod 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - But certainly keep Category:Novels by Diane Duane which is more than adequate as is. It is odd that these nominated categories are empty though. Has someone just emptied them? :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I checked a couple of novels & it seems not. The novels cat would be fine if it did not duplicate entirely the Young Wizards cat, which it is not connected to. We shouldn't have two near-identical cats that can easily be tied together. Johnbod 14:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment, I have no problem making Category:Young Wizards take the place of the fantasy subcat if someone can confirm that all her fantasy novels are indeed part of this series. Note, however, that this poses a problem if she writes a non-YW fantasy novel. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No, only the duplicated ones should be down-merged. There are 2 (at least) Star Trek novels which should stay in the main cat. I would not oppose a different sub-cat for these in the future if there are enough articles, but this does not seem to be the case yet. Johnbod 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This would leave us with Category:Science fiction novels by author → Category:Novels by Diane Duane → Category:Young Wizards—which is illogical, and no aid to navigation. There are potentially over a dozen articles for the scifi subcat. Retaining subcats may leave us with an underpopulated category, but having sensibly navigable categories is worth it, IMO. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  But the YWs are also in two series categories, and I think you have to draw the line somewhere. Johnbod 18:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, they were just emptied by SarekOfVulcan. Emptying a cat while a CfD is going on is poor form, IMO, because if the cat is retained then one has to go back and recat everything. That on top of that fact that it prompts exactly these "it's empty, go ahead and delete" comments in CfD! ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Very true. Furthermore, he/she just removed "by DD" to leave them in the main Fantasy/sci-fi novels category, which is not even reducing the number of categories involved. Johnbod 15:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Johnbod 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I notice SarekOfVulcan is on Editor Review here btw, and also that Kdbank71 is kindly repopulating the cats. Johnbod 15:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it doesn't make any sense (to me) to have mixed fantasy-and-scifi novels in Category:Fantasy novels by author and Category:Science fiction novels by author. Diane Duane has written about a dozen of each (AFAIK) which is enough to justify distinct categories. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My apologies for the recat -- I should have let it run its course. If this had been an AfD, I would have known not to do that... And Diane has definitely written non-Young Wizards fantasy -- it just hasn't been WPed yet. Further justification for original nom -- Orson Scott Card has written both, but only has Category:Novels by Orson Scott Card, which appears in the "Science fiction novels by author" category.--SarekOfVulcan 16:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Then I think OSC's category ought to be subcatted, given the number of articles there. Having a sci-fi category contain non-sci-fi just doesn't make sense to me. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Novels by Diane Duane, and make it a subcategory of both category:Fantasy novels by author and category:Science fiction novels by author. Similar action can also be taken on the C.J. Cherryh, Kathy Tyers and Isaac Asimov categories. It's OK if a category feeds both, as long as the author frequently writes both; see category:Novels by Jack Vance, for example.--Mike Selinker 06:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment another case that highlights the tensions inherent in maintaining hierarchy categories... Tewfik^Talk 07:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Andrew c ^[talk] 14:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters who met untimely deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_9#Category:Deceased_fictional_characters
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_25#Category:Deceased_X-Men
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_6#Category:Deceased_fictional_characters
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_18#Category:Dead_fictional_characters
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_6#Category:Deceased_Fictional_Characters
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_13#Category:Deceased_TV_Series_Characters
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 20#Category:Fictional murder victims
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_23#Category:Deceased_Harry_Potter_characters

Delete, we don't categorize fictional characters on life or death, see also previous discussions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, plus "untimely" is extra-specially vague. Johnbod 13:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, this is a remake of Fictional deceased characters etc. Which have already been deleted. Really only characters who are already dead and remain dead throughout a piece of fiction should be in this kind of category.--NeilEvans 13:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also note that Kkbhe (talk · contribs) first created "Deceased TV Series Characters", then created "Fictional murder victims" immediately after that was deleted, and has now created this one. I'm finding it hard to assume good faith here, however, it should be noted that no warning was ever left on that user's talk page regarding the CfDs for these cats. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete please, please, please delete Bulldog123 23:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 20:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt - per all above comments and previous discussion. Save us all another round of CFD when this gets recreated and salt it now. Otto4711 04:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt - even if this wasn't horribly POV, which it clearly is, it would encompass way too many characters. I say once we delete and salt it, we pee on the salt. --Piemanmoo 07:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ample precedent, Tewfik^Talk 07:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:People who killed their children. Andrew c ^[talk] 14:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Parents who murdered their children to Category:Parents who committed filicide

Nominator's rationale: Rename, The category would be better served if it could include people like Andrea Yates who, though guilty of filicide are technically not guilty of murder. Nosleep1234 09:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, I believe most people would be looking for the broader category, even though "murder" is a legal term with a specific definition that excludes the given example. However, "filicide" is an obscure (though precise) term; I'd suggest Category:People who killed their children instead. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, but I like ChristTrekker's suggestion better than the nom's.--SarekOfVulcan 18:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People who killed their children. Presumably, nobody will imagine that this includes parents who accidentally killed their children (perhaps by running over them with a car, for instance -- though I suppose that could be handled in a subcat, if necessary!). Cgingold 11:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People who killed their children. This seems to be the best fit. Jmm6f488 18:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above, though I can see the [ridiculous] challenge to categorising it under Category:Murderers arising at some point, since as the nominator mentions, people like Andrea Yates are not murderers in the technical sense that the rest of the categories use. Tewfik^Talk 07:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm fine with the alternate proposed rename. This is the first CFD I've ever done, so I'm a little ignorant as to how this all works. It seems there's a consensus, so how does the rename happen? Nosleep1234 13:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll explain the closure briefly. An admin will come along and close the discussion posting the result at the top. Then either the admin will change the category by hand or using automation, or the category will be listed for a bot to tackle and within a day or so the rename will be complete.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge/rename per nom. Andrew c ^[talk] 13:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Rifle shooters, 300 m events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Rifle shooters, 50 and 10 m events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Pistol shooters, 50 and 10 m events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Pistol shooters, 25 m events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Running Target shooters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Proposals: I propose merging the first two into Category:ISSF rifle shooters, merging the third and fourth into Category:ISSF pistol shooters, and renaming the last one to Category:Running target shooters.

Nominator's rationale: As I've stated at Category talk:Sport shooters, I think the overlap between the rifle categories and the overlap between the pistol categories are too large. The proposed way, we catch the most real distinction between ISSF shooters, namely that between rifle and pistol (very few shoot both). The ISSF in Category:ISSF pistol shooters is needed to distinguish it from Category:IPSC shooters, and I think pre-emptively using it for the rifle category as well is in order. As for the last category, it's simply capitalization. While I do think that the actual event names, 50 m Running Target and 10 m Running Target, should be treated as proper nouns, "running target shooters" is more general and should not be capitalized. Oh, and I should probably mention that all this mess was caused by myself, a long way back, so apologies for that. -- Jao 09:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do like the man says He's got the gun. Johnbod 02:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do like the man says per John? Tewfik^Talk 07:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all as amended below, but with no prejudice against bringing individual ones back to CfD. the wub "?!" 20:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer settings to category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer locations
• category:Places in the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs to category:Edgar Rice Burroughs locations
• category:Doctor Who places to category:Doctor Who locations
• category:Dragonlance locales to category:Dragonlance locations
• category:The Elder Scrolls regions to category:The Elder Scrolls locations
• category:Places in the Firebird book series to category:Firebird book series locations (superseded by creator's action below)
• category:Forgotten Realms places to category:Forgotten Realms locations
• category:The Four Lands to category:Shannara locations (and include Hall of Kings and Paranor)
• category:Greyhawk places to category:Greyhawk locations
• category:Harry Potter places to category:Harry Potter locations
• category:Locations in the Honorverse to category:Honorverse locations
• category:Places in the works of Robert E. Howard to category:Robert E. Howard locations
• category:Middle-earth places to category:Middle-earth locations
• category:Places of Morrowind to category:The Elder Scrolls locations
• category:Realms of Mortal Kombat to category:Mortal Kombat realms (and make a subcategory of category:Mortal Kombat locations, moving Nexus (Mortal Kombat) to that)
• category:Narnia places to category:The Chronicles of Narnia locations
• category:Geography of Oz to category:The Wizard of Oz locations
• category:Pokémon places to category:Pokémon locations
• category:Fictional locations in The Railway Series to category:The Railway Series locations
• category:Fictional locations in Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends to category:Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends locations
• category:Locations in The Three Worlds to category:The Three Worlds locations
• category:Places on Santhenar to category:The Three Worlds locations
• category:Warhammer Fantasy lands and territories to category:Warhammer Fantasy locations
• category:Wheel of Time places to category:Wheel of Time locations
• category:Realms in the Worm Ouroboros to category:The Worm Ouroboros locations
• category:Places in The Legend of Zelda series to category: The Legend of Zelda locations

Unlike most other source-specific subcategories of category:Fictional locations, these do not conform to the "(X) locations" format, and they should. (The Railway and Thomas categories have uncomfortable overlap, so maybe there's another solution there.) Please note some significant updates above to match concerns listed below.--Mike Selinker 07:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Category:Firebird book series (and subcat) articles are cat'd by template so naming is kept internally consistent. If this is to be changed (and I tend to agree that it should be, for general consistency) then this case needs to be handled carefully. Flag my talk page if you'd like my attention on this when discussion is complete. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since that category has only one article in it, that category could also could be deleted and the article placed in both Category:Fictional locations and Category:Firebird book series.--Mike Selinker 17:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm, meh. I guess I can see that. A single list article for all the locations may be all that's warranted by WP:NOTE anyway, making a category superfluous. (And I say that as the editor who created the majority of the stuff there.) The series is very character-driven. I'll go ahead and do that now, and someone can delete the cat. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.--Mike Selinker 23:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.--SarekOfVulcan 18:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose some Firebird should be Category:Firebird book series locations, and Robert E. Howard wrote other things than Conan, so this should be called Category:Hyborian locations. 132.205.44.5 19:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True enough, but the category actually only contains things from the Conaniverse. I altered the Firebird one, though I'd probably still delete it.--Mike Selinker 20:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hyborian would include Howard's other works in that universe, such as Kull, and the Age of Conan books now coming out, as the Hyborian Age represents the world the works are set in. 132.205.44.5 21:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, OK. I changed the nomination.--Mike Selinker 21:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Various different suggestions. First, I like most of the changes the nom has suggested, except that the name sounds a bit clunky and not like a refined encyclopedia. Maybe Category:Fictional locations (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) as an example? Also, for some particular categories listed here: Rename the Robert E. Howard category to 'Conan the Barbarian locations '. Delete Category:The Four Lands and category:Realms in the Worm Ouroboros These categories are nearly empty. Also Keep Realms in Mortal Kombat ('Realms' in this case has a subject-specific meaning). It's kind of difficult to apply the 'locations' of 'fictional locations' to all of these articles, because they just don't seem to come off as an encyclopedic tone. For instance, Category:Geography of the Forgotten Realms or Category:Geography of Middle-Earth sounds much better, but this doesn't work for items like Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Thomas the Tank EngineCaveatLector^Talk 05:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Many of these cats are named for their source work of fiction, but others are named for a fictional universe or region (and in some, the distinction is not important). For the second set (including Middle-earth, Narnia, Oz, Morrowind), I think it is best to maintain the "x of y" construction that is deeply established in our corresponding real life categories dedicated to geographic regions such as Category:Categories by continent, Category:Categories by country, and Category:Categories by region. If consistency among Category:Fictional locations is important, then I suggest the renaming them all "x of y". ×Meegs 12:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fair point, Meegs. My suggestion, then, would be to make them all "(X) locations," where X is a real-world fictional source. So we make "Chronicles of Narnia locations" and "Land of Oz locations", and dump Morrowind into "The Elder Scrolls locations" and Santhenar into "The Three Worlds locations", and make the Conan one "Robert E. Howard locations". This might also require revisiting the Middle-earth decision, which you also objected to.--Mike Selinker 13:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion is better, and is something I could go along with, but it's not without problems. "X of Y" has the advantage of being able to handle both cats named for worlds and ones named for source material, as well as avoid some awkwardness. I'm not sure what its downside is. Whatever the cats are called, though, I do agree that at least most of the time the latter system makes for more naturally scoped categories. For example, if we had an article for Dorothy's farmhouse, we surely wouldn't want it categorized apart from the Emerald City.

Oh, and as for that recent M-e discussion, don't worry, the nominator seems to have ignored the result and renamed the categories anyway >:-< ×Meegs 15:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've altered the ones that make sense to alter to "(Real-world source) locations". Oz is a little problematic as you say, so I made it Wizard of Oz locations for now. Feel free to suggest another alternative, and let me know if this changes your opposition.--Mike Selinker 00:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support all – I still think "x of y" gives us more flexibility in scoping these fictional location categories, including the option of the occasional "by world" cat, but Mike's revised nomination will still be a net improvement as a whole. ×Meegs 18:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose most, particularly Category:Realms of Mortal Kombat. As an MK fan, in the games they are called the realms and realms is much better in this case than "locations", and any MK fan would agree. And don't rename until an official consensus is reached...In other cases, "settings" did sound alot better, and look at what you request renaming of before putting it up. (Edgar Rice Burroughs locations doesn't even make sense...)C. Foultz 16:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for MK, I changed it to realms, and suggested making it a subcategory of a new category:Mortal Kombat locations, which would allow Nexus (Mortal Kombat) to be in an accurate category, as it's not a realm.--Mike Selinker 00:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because of the increased risk that the categories would be applied to real places used as film locations. Abberley2 17:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you suggesting changing category:Star Wars locations, category:Star Trek locations, and the dozens of other "(X) locations" categories in category:Fictional locations? This nomination is just designed to bring some consistency to that ubercategory.--Mike Selinker 20:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure, but I suspect that their fear is that categories named for works will attract real places (e.g. Kansas in the Oz category). It's true that cats oriented around a fictional land rather than the source work are completely immune from this, I really do not see this every becoming a problem under either scheme. ×Meegs 19:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, sensible standardization, so said. >Radiant< 15:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename taking Mike's caveat into account, though without prejudice to further discussion, as I'm sure something which seemed to fit will end up not working later on. Tewfik^Talk 07:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Andrew c ^[talk] 13:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sworn virgins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There does not seem to be a significant demand for this higly non-standard category. meco 07:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Possibly a category could be made round this, but this is not it, nor the name for it. Does not include Nun, and was Mary sworn as such? I think not. Johnbod 14:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - empty - too general, vulnerable to vandalism. Onnaghar (sch-peak) 16:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Category for the sake of categories. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment what about second virginity ? It would seem if you swear celibacy you belong in this category. As the Virgin Queen Elizabeth I, became virgin, after already having had sex. It would be better if it was a category for people famous for being virgins or virginal, as a subcategory for people famous for being celibate in some portion of their lives. 132.205.44.5 19:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - pointless category. However the subcategories: Virgin Mary and Vestal Virgins, are worthwhile. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not needed; not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 01:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, see also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_21#Category:Fictional_sworn_virgins. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this inappropriately mixes the distinct concepts vestal virgin and Virgin Mary. Tewfik^Talk 07:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. At least some of the songs listed have been called dancehall songs, and there is no article on "reggae hip hop."--Mike Selinker 15:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Reggae hip hop songs to Category:Dancehall songs

Nominator's rationale: "Reggae hip hop" is not a genre one encounters very often. My guess is that the user who created the category is referring to dancehall, a precursor to hip hop music that is derived from reggae. Ragga songs would also be an appropriate rename (ragga is a subgenre of dancehall that focuses on electronica). I should probably note that although there aren't many songs in the category, that's because it's underpopulated, not because it's a narrow field that should be deleted. 17Drew 03:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there is already a Category:Dancehall, and I'm not sure that the reference is entirely similar, Tewfik^Talk 07:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Parallelism suggests the "porn stars" hierarchy should mirror the "actors" hierarchy, though this will be an outlier until it does so. So the creators of this category may wish to build out the categories for other states if they want to see this category survive a second CfD debate.--Mike Selinker 15:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:California porn stars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overly specialized category. Most (if not all) of the people within this category are also within the parent category Category:American porn stars. Additionally, there are no other state categories of this nature - e.g., Delaware porn stars. Tabercil 03:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Overcategorization. - Crockspot 04:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's parent caregory, Category:American porn stars, is already overpopulated and should be diffused. It is also incorrect what the nominator states that there are no other state categories of this nature, and the enormity of Category:American porn stars suggests that there should in fact be more, not fewer. __meco 07:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no maximum category size, and a parent category should not be subdivided just because it is big if the subcategories are more of an obstacle than an aid to navigation. Everyone should be in a national category, and there U.S. porn industry is basically one industry. Dominictimms 12:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge into Category:California actors This category is not meant to subdivide Category:American porn stars. Rather, it is part of the scheme for Category:California people by occupation which subdivides all people under Category:People from California. So discussion of Category:American porn stars is irrelevant to keeping or deleting the category - the relevant parent category in this case is Category:California people by occupation. Now that being said, in reviewing this I noticed the category should be a subcategory of Category:California actors and I'll make that change momentarilly. Also, depending on your point of view, I could maybe see upmerging this category into Category:California actors if you wanted to lump all the porn stars in with the conventional actors. So I'm ok with either keeping this category or upmerging into Category:California actors. Dugwiki 14:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it does subdivide it, just like any other locality-occupation category subdivides a national category. Abberley2 17:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it doesn't subdivide the national category (or at least it shouldn't). It is part of the subdivision by occupation of Category:People from California within Category:California people by occupation. If you don't feel that Category:People from California should be divided by occupation then you need to deal with that category directly. This is just one occupational subcategory within that scheme. Dugwiki 15:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment we should seriously discuss whether a category can be too overpopulated that we must or should create subcategories and if we do, on what basis should this be done – geographically, temporally, by race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, special feature (whatever seems appropriate to the topic), haphazardly? This comes up repeatedly and we should address it systemically - or at least attempt to and put down some items to consider - rather than ad hoc. Carlossuarez46 01:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think one should ever say one must create sub-cats to break them up, but it is certainly something I am prepared to take into account in considering a category, which clearly is not everyboy's view. In this case I don't think geographical location is a suitable way to divide American actors - I don't suppose it is something you always know, plus no doubt they move around from time to time. But gay porn stars (or whatever) is a suitable way to divide either American or Californian actors - if you don't know they are one, then you don't know much about them. The first criteria should be that the sub-cat is by some quality that the user is very likely to be aware of - eg the recent African-American singers/A-A musicians debate. Johnbod 03:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Division on the basis of what people are likely to be aware of isn't necessarily the best Category:California actors with DUI convictions for example is where certain well-known people could be found, but really isn't useful in an overall NPOV categorization scheme. Perhaps states is less known for actors, but I'm not sure how many people will see the category on the bottom of Tobey Maguire's bio and say: "gee, he's a California actor, I wonder who else is one too" and use the category that way. Probably only a few more than those seeing American actor as his category. Just my $0.02. Carlossuarez46 20:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think geographical location is a suitable way to divide American actors" is the wrong way to think of this. You're not dividing the actors by location - you're dividing the articles about Californians by their occupation. It just so happens that two of the major occupations in California in terms of Wiki articles are actors and porn stars, and that's why those two occupational subcategories for Category:California people by occupation exist. Basically it's just one part of the scheme to sort all Californian articles by their occupation. Dugwiki 16:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Overcategorisation. The American category is all that is required. Abberley2 17:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not subdividing the American category. It is subdiving Category:California people by occupation. If you don't feel that Category:People from California should be sudivided by occupation then you need to bring that issue up with that parent category scheme. This is one subcategory in that scheme for California. Dugwiki 15:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put this another way to help you understand the problem. If this category is removed, then you will have people under Category:People from California who will not be included under Category:California people by occupation. But Category:California people by occupation is supposed to completely subdivide all California people articles. So either this category must be kept to preserve that subdivision's completeness, or the articles need to be upmerged into Category:California actors. I'm ok with either keeping or upmerging to the California actor category as both options preserve the parent scheme. But I would not support simply deleting this category without replacing it with California actors. Dugwiki 15:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dugwiki. The Porn Star category doesn't need it, but the California category does. It is true that most porn stars are from California, but most people from California are not porn stars. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• FYI - cleaning up Category:People from California I noticed in the course of this cfd and looking at the parent categories that People from California needs some cleanup. There are currently a lot of articles about Californians that haven't been properly subcategorized by occupation, and I noticed that the occupational scheme could use a broader category for Californian sportspeople. So I'm in the process of getting those articles cleaned up and moved into the proper subcats. Hopefully it won't take TOO long.... Dugwiki 16:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - overcategorization. The other categories "(occupation) from (state)" should be deleted too. And removing people from the category "People from California" and replacing with "(Occupation) from California" is bad on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. The only subcats of "Person by State" that should replace "Person by State" should be "Person by City/County." Delete all Category:California people by occupation, not just porn stars, and roll back into "American (Occupation)" and "People from California." If the concern is that "People from California" is overpopulated, break it down further by geographical location in California; the defining element of "People from (state)" categories is the location, not occupation.--Nobunaga24 22:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis are you saying that People from California should only be divided by city and county? And you say, without explanation, that Category:California people by occupation is "bad on so many levels" without actually saying why. Note that the description of Category:People from California has read "In order to reduce the number of articles in this category, please use some of the subcategories instead, such as a matching listing by California occupation, California county or city" since 2006. So even the parent category's description is saying that articles should not appear directly there but should be placed into either county/city or occupation or both. And finally note that the normal operating procedure for a subdivision scheme for a large category is to completely subdivide the category so that all articles appear in the sub-scheme. For example individual American articles are not supposed to appear in Category:American people but should instead be included in the various American subcategories (or their subcategories).

So simply saying that "you don't know where to start" isn't going to suffice. You'll have to explain exactly why this entire scheme should be deleted. Dugwiki 23:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, lest I forget, please note that the entire scheme hasn't even been nominated for discussion. So if you really want to discuss deleting the entire scheme that will require an umbrella nomination of the related categories. This thread isn't the place for that. Dugwiki 23:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one more thing. Many occupations are local in nature, and readers examining people in a particular area are likely to want to look at people in specific occupations. For example, if you wanted to read about culture in California, you'd probably want to read in part about Category:California artists and Category:California musicians. Likewise if you're looking into local law or politics you'd look at local lawyers and politicians. So there is a good reason to categorize biographies by occupations for readers looking to read about large geographical areas with lots of people (which California obviously is).

Therefore I see plenty of reason to continue to divide biographies by both region and occupation within California and I don't yet see the "obvious" downsides alluded to. Dugwiki 23:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire scheme hasn't been nominated, but it should be. Incidentally, you added the "In order to reduce the number of articles in this category, please use some of the subcategories instead, such as a matching listing by California occupation, California county or city." I'll agree with the city and county, but not occupation. The categorization schemes of "People from X" are categories based on geography. How would you categorize someone with more than one occupation, or children who don't fall under any other subcat of Category:People from California? Category:Children from California? Category:Unemployed from California? What if we have Category:Pilots from California - we could break that down further to Category:Test pilots from California and Category:Commercial Pilots from California. What about lawyers from California who are also from Los Angeles? Maybe Category:Lawyers from Los Angeles - oh, but wait, they are in Category:People from Los Angeles, so we don't have to add Category:California lawyers because they are already in a subcat - Category:People from Los Angeles - a subcat based on geography. You are arguing that Category:People from California is not narrow enough, that people should be in a further subcat if possible (agreed), but then the criteria you want to use are apples and oranges for further subdividing - "People from city/county" based on geography, and "(Occupation) from California" which has nothing to do with where in California they are from. There are already categories based on occupation, and these are broken down to the national level, and only further for things such as politicians (Category:Mayors of X, Category:Governors of X, etc.), or other occupations that for whatever reason are specific to a locale. Removing people from Category:People from California and replacing with "(Occupation) from California" is bad on so many levels because it is a) narrowing a category of where a person is from by changing parameters from "where they are from" to "what do they do" b) it opens a can of worms of how far do we subcategorize with increasingly trivial criteria Category:Disbarred personal injury lawyers from Bakersfield c) It would require the same subcategorization for the other 50 states also d) One could easily argue, if this stands, that a large category like Category:People from Los Angeles needs to be broken down further also, leading to Category:Farmers from Los Angeles and Category:Sherpa guides from Los Angeles or what have you. I could go on, but I need coffee - still really early here.--Nobunaga24 23:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, much of the above argument is flawed on a couple of points. I'll answer each question in turn.

• "How would you categorize someone with more than one occupation, or children who don't fall under any other subcat of Category:People from California?" Very simple. They have more than one occupational subcategory. The great majority of articles have only one broad occupational category, and most of the rest have two. Very, very few articles have more than two high level occupational groupings. Likewise, the categories of Category:Students and Category:Criminals cover almost all the people who don't have conventional occupations described in articles (ie children and people notable for committing crimes). So far in reviewing probably a couple hundred articles within Category:People from California I haven't seen a single Californian article that doesn't fall under either a conventional occupation. And on the very, very off chance no occupation fits, the remaining articles can be placed in a catch-all "California people with no occupation given" to complete the scheme. (But like I said, so far that catch all isn't needed because no articles require it.)
• "What if we have Category:Pilots from California - we could break that down further to Category:Test pilots from California and Category:Commercial Pilots from California." But that's a false assumption. Nobody is advocating breaking down the top level occupational categories further into subcategories. In fact the structure of Category:California people by occupation is meant to be close to the top level of Category:People by occupation. There's probably no need to further break down these top level categories any more than they are, and nobody has suggested it be done. I'm only advocating the break down into the top level occupational groupings, and only for those occupations which actually have articles.
• "What about lawyers from California who are also from Los Angeles? Maybe Category:Lawyers from Los Angeles." Again, nobody is suggesting doing occupational breakdowns for anything other than California. I haven't suggested doing the same thing for any other state or for any other city. The only reason we're doing it for California is because California is already being broken down into subcategories due to its size. That type of breakdown isn't required for all states and cities, so to assume that it is going to be done for every place is a false assumption. We are only talking about doing it for California in this discussion, period.
• "Removing people from Category:People from California and replacing with "(Occupation) from California" ... is a) narrowing a category of where a person is from by changing parameters from "where they are from" to "what do they do" - again, many readers interested in reading about biographies within a state are going to be interested in reading about people of similar occupations. This grouping facilitates that by allowing readers to either search for biographies by county/city under one scheme OR to search by occupation under the other scheme. The two schemes are independent of each other and provide two different options for article searches.
• "b) it opens a can of worms of how far do we subcategorize with increasingly trivial criteria Category:Disbarred personal injury lawyers from Bakersfield" As I clarified above, that's a bogus assumption. Nobody has advocated making the subcategories you described. There's no "slippery slope" here because there's no reason to created that sort of trivial category you're talking about. All that's being done is top level occupational groupings for California, not trivial subgroupings or subgroupings by city and town or even for other states.
• c) It would require the same subcategorization for the other 50 states" Absolutely not true. There is no reason this subcategorization is "required" by any other state if it's done for California. It's quite possible to do this only for California if desired and not for Iowa, for example. Of course, it might be useful to do it for some states, but those would have to be done on their own merits and in their own discussions. Either way, the fact that California does it does not mean that other states must do it to.
• d) One could easily argue, if this stands, that a large category like Category:People from Los Angeles needs to be broken down further also, leading to Category:Farmers from Los Angeles and Category:Sherpa guides from Los Angeles" And again, this is very similar to the other slippery slope arguments that have no merit. Nobody has advocated doing this for Los Angeles, and if they did advocate it it would have to be weighed on its own merits of category size and utility. We are only talking about California here, not Los Angeles or any other city.
• So to sum up, almost all the objections above seem to stem from a fear that doing this for California will require doing this for other states and cities, which isn't true. We are only talking about doing it for California, and if we someone wanted to look at doing it for other places that would have to be examined on its own merits. Likewise the fear that this will lead to trivial subcategorization within occupations is unfounded since nobody has suggested doing that, and it's likely that such subcategorization would usually be upmerged to the parents. The only occupational groupings being used or even considered are a subset of the high level occupational groupings listed under Category:People by occupation.
• Any other questions or objections that I haven't responded to, though, please feel free to reply. Dugwiki 15:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:American porn stars per nom. Prove It ^(talk) 02:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this category is not intended to subdivide Category:American porn stars but is part of Category:California people by occupation. So simply merging as you suggest would leave articles within Category:People from California orphaned out of the scheme of Category:California people by occupation. Therefore in order to avoid orphaning the articles from that scheme either Category:California porn stars should be kept or it should instead be merged into Category:California actors. Either of those two options would prevent articles from being removed from the occupational subgrouping for California. Dugwiki 15:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional request for feedback from Wikipedia:WikiProject California Just as an FYI, much of what I said above is based on my assumption that readers and editors who commonly look at California biographies find the occupational scheme for California useful in conjunction with other schemes. I assumed that mainly because the scheme has been in place for a year or two without negative feedback as far as I know. However, as I'm not part of that project I'd hate to think I'm putting words in their mouth, and it might be possible that they have since decided that they prefer not to use it and instead just want everything lumped under California. So I posted requesting additional feedback from that project, good or bad, regarding Category:California people by occupation and all the comments back and forth above. I'd like to see if their consensus is to keep the occupational subdivision going, or to modify or remove it. If their general consensus appears to be to shift gears and modify or delete that scheme then I'd support that since my support of the scheme is based on the presumption that they're using it and like it. If by chance they don't like it, though, there'd be no reason to keep it around.

And as I mentioned above somewhere (I tend to be wordy), in order to officially modify or delete Category:California people by occupation it will I think require a broader umbrella nomination. My advice is to review the whole thing, good or bad, both here and at WP:California and, if there's a consensus to change it all, then move forward with an official cfd at that point. Or if there's no consensus for change, then keep going as is for the most part. Either way more feedback can only help. Dugwiki 15:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dugwiki, at least pending wider discussion of the whole issue of what to do with very large categories, which has been cropping up regularly. This is probably not the ideal category to create a precedent on, and many above are not discussing the issue in these terms. I don't think that the case for sub-dividing Californian actors by location has been made, nor do I see very large categories as harmless. Johnbod 00:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dungeons & Dragons authors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - as with other "Franchise authors" categories. Variation of performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 01:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional delete some of the articles in this category would need to be recategorized (i.e. Category:Role-playing game designers or Category:Fantasy writers would need to be added).-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done, for this category, and for category:Forgotten Realms writers, category:Greyhawk authors, and category:Dragonlance writers. Everyone is in at least one of these: category:role-playing game designers, category:game artists, or a subcategory of category:fantasy writers. No opinion on the nomination.--Mike Selinker 14:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & Andrew, now conditions met, & thanks to Mike S for the work! Johnbod 00:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hideo Kojima games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Personally, this category is a bit pretentious and unneeded. If people wanted to known about the games Hideo Kojima worked, they could just read his article in Hideo Kojima and follow the links there. I certainly haven't see "Category: Shigeru Miyamoto games" or "Category: Hironobu Sakaguchi games", who are arguably just as well known. Jonny2x4 00:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Crockspot 04:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can't see any other similar categories, but it is not imediately obvious to me why leading game designers, as he appears to be, should not have their work categorised as film directors do. Can any one explain? Johnbod 14:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Biased keep. I don't see any reason either. When it's clear who designed a game, I don't see why the stars of the industry can't be given categories in the way novelists and directors are.--Mike Selinker 15:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Unbiased keep per self & Mike S above. Johnbod 00:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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