< July 7	July 9 >

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 02:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per many previous discussions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category is being used to list sport announcers by network. This is a variation on "performer by performance" categories, a form of overcategorization. This is not feasible in the long term, as these announcers work on many shows across many different networks. If categories were created for every sport/network combination, the categories would be difficult to read and use within the articles on the individual announcers. Dr. Submillimeter 08:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent. Otto4711 18:01, 14 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 15:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Napoleonic video games to Category:Napoleonic Wars video games

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The video games are about the Napoleonic Wars, not Napoleon. The new name would indicate that more clearly. Dr. Submillimeter 21:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:00, 15 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 to Category:Napoleonic Wars films --Kbdank71 15:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Napoleonic Wars war films to Category:War films about the Napoleonic Wars

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The current category title seems awkwardly written. The new version would be longer but not awkward. Dr. Submillimeter 21:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - in this form. Out of keeping with the parent Category:War films. Counter propose Category:Napoleonic Wars films (also in keeping with Category:Napoleonic war books proposed rename to Category:Napoleonic Wars books). :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Category:Napoleonic Wars films would probably be better than the status quo, although it still seems a little awkward. Dr. Submillimeter 09:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to counter-proposal to avoid being out of line with the rest of the parent whilst getting rid of "Wars war" duplication. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:03, 15 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. Andrew c ^[talk] 04:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant, as Category:Films directed by Roger Corman already exists. Ibaranoff24 19:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicated content Lugnuts 19:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge just in case anything's not in the correct cat. Otto4711 21:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
repurose for films produced by Roger Corman. 70.51.11.252 03:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Otto. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Wryspy 04:48, 11 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 03:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. After removing the improperly categorized performers, the show's article is all that's left. This category is not needed. Nominated once previously and kept on unfathomably shaky grounds. Otto4711 17:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Resolute 04:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:OC. Wryspy 04:49, 11 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. Andrew c ^[talk] 04:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Virginia Military Institute alumni, convention of Category:Alumni by university or college in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it's o.k. by me. my search did not turn up the alumni category. I just figured if there had been such an animal then George Marshall would surely have been in such a category. So what is the conventional prevailing category for schools such as USMA academy (west point), Harvard, etc.? Is it graduate or alumni? let's go with the most common and do a merge. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 18:28, 8 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 15:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lieutenant Governors of the colonial Province of Quebec to Category:Lieutenant Governors of the Province of Quebec (1763-1791)

Nominator's rationale: Rename to the above or to Category:Governors of the Province of Quebec (1763-1791). I think this was created out of confusion as today there is only a Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec not a Governor. However I believe that there were Governors for the Province of Quebec (1763-1791) as well as Lieutenant Governors. I am not sure whether we should have a separate category for the Lieutenant Governors (I have just made a page for one Hector Theophilus de Cramahé- I don't know if there are others who have articles) or whether we should just rename the Category to Governors and include any Lieutenant Governors as well as Governors? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:12, 8 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 15:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Fred Astaire songs, convention of Category: Songs by artist. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Not seeing the point in creating a "songs introduced by" categorization scheme. Otto4711 17:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom Johnbod 18:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument presented below for Songs introduced by Frank Sinatra Dermot 20:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See my comment on the similar Sinatra category below. -- BRG 19:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as below. ×Meegs 22:45, 12 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. Andrew c ^[talk] 04:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, An awkward and badly named category that doesn't seem to really fit anywhere. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There might have been a common thread that they were all built during the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars, but there isn't. Jamie Mercer 16:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This category uses arbitrary inclusion criteria (why the late 18th and early 19th centuries?) and therefore should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:British military construction projects of the Napoleonic wars, and remove the Canadian canal. They are then a coherent category. Johnbod 17:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am not certain that some of these articles should be described as originating from the 18th-19th century or that they should be described as "military construction projects". Bere Island, for example, describes a whole island with only some 19th century fortifications, Dover Castle was only expanded partly during the Napoleonic Wars, and Martello tower describes a type of fortification built throughout the 19th century. Also, a better-planned category for English forts in the Napoleonic area (Category:Napoleonic forts in England) already exists and does a better job of organizing the material than the nominated category. It would probably be better just to delete the nominated category. Dr. Submillimeter 21:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wimstead 14:57, 9 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 15:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Frank Sinatra songs, convention of Category:Songs by artist. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you provide a link where it says this is the convention? Gareth E Kegg 14:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See: Songs by artist. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. --ST47Talk 15:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category is logically a subcategory both of Category:Songs by artist and/or of Category:Frank Sinatra. Serves to distinguish those songs the artist was first to perform out of the universe of artist's recorded discography. Dermot 16:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's a subcategory of Category:Frank Sinatra songs. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, thanks. Which begs the question, if the subcategory fulfills a useful function, why merge? Dermot 16:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the big issues of categorization is knowing when to stop, and to some degree, that is a matter of taste. It seems to me that we don't really need two categories for Frank Sinatra songs. If you are a huge fan, you could create dozens of year categories, or divide them by genre, or film, or songwriter. However, I think for most people, a single cat will suffice. I don't really have strong feelings about it, and I really don't mind if others disagree. My point is, what's useful and what isn't is somewhat of a matter of taste. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be a matter of taste. Rather, it should depend on whether the introduction of such subcategory will significantly enhance the parent category. Artists such as Bing Crosby, Fred Astaire and Frank Sinatra, had songs specially composed for them by the leading composers of their day (Gershwin, Berlin, Porter etc.), songs which are now regarded as cultural treasures. The ability to characterize leading exponents of the Great American Songbook on the basis of notable songs written specially for them by notable composers, is highly relevant to students of the genre and is of cultural significance. This is the main point - the ability to explore how the leading composers interacted with the leading singers of the era - this is what the "songs introduced by" category is designed to achieve. What's more, it provides a fairly natural means by which the vast discographies of these individuals (eventually the song by artist categories for the singers mentioned is likely to be populated by many hundreds of songs - when editors get around to it). My argument is on the basis of relevance and pragmatism, subcategories in this area are inevitable so by planning ahead, the parent category/Songs by artist will be better organized and navigable. Dermot 20:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Not seeing the point in creating a "songs introduced by" categorization scheme. Otto4711 17:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As per rationale given by Dermot Gareth E Kegg 23:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom; terrible precedent, serious overcategorization, and Dermot's ILIKEIT hyperbole is not at all persuasive. The Great American Songbook is an ill-defined and highly subjective grouping. And why should we have special categories for students of this "genre" and not for other popular genres such as jazz, rock, or hip-hop? (Many of which are also viewed as cultural treasures.) Yes, artists with long careers may well have (or have had) many songs in their repertoire, but I don't see that as a problem. It's highly questionable whether dividing a moderately large category by inobvious criteria actually adds any navigability—certainly I would have no clue whether any random Sinatra song is located in this or the parent category. Categories shouldn't require pre-knowledge of their contents to be useful! And if we are going to subdivide song-by-artist, it should be under a more generally applicable schema, since large repertoires are hardly limited to this era or this style of performer. (The Radiators (US), a rock band of modest notability, has a documented repertoire of over 1300 songs, including over 300 originals, mostly written by the insanely prolific Ed Volker. Yet a "songs introduced by" category would be almost completely redundant with a "songs written by" category.) If the goal is really to "explore how the leading composers interacted with the leading singers of the era", that is better done by a list, which will not hinder navigation the way this category, IMO, does. Xtifr _tälk 06:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point about subcategories messing up navigability is a good one. I can see that a list, linked to the Category page, would be a more satisfactory solution all around. Dermot 14:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting question. There are dozens (hundreds, actually) of songs that Sinatra sang, many of which are considered "his" songs, but many of which are often thought of as "somebody else's" songs. I think there needs to be some serious discussion as to how to categorize these. (One problem is that so many Wikipedians are unaware of earlier musical practices and think of today's practice of people writing songs which they sing, and do not understand that it hasn't always been that way.) I think that lists are the best way of showing the complete set of songs recorded by a singer, but I would certainly approve of a "songs introduced by" category for major artists like Sinatra. And yet there is not always a total overlap even between "songs introduced by" someone and "songs associated with" him -- look at "Prisoner of Love" which was introduced by Russ Columbo but is at least as significantly associated with Perry Como. I'm not certain how best to handle these cases. -- BRG 19:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There have been numerous cfd discussions about "cover songs" (here, here, here, here, and others, I'm sure) in which there's been consensus that songs should not be segregated into separate categories based on whether other artists performed or recorded them previously (or, in this case, since). I did not participate in any of those discussions, but I agree with their principle completely. ×Meegs 22:44, 12 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, precedent. --Kbdank71 03:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Category not needed for the material. Otto4711 13:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the root category for Cold Case. We do the same thing elsewhere, if a subject has multiple subcategories, we put them all in a supercategory along with the main article. --ST47Talk 15:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close to 100 similar categories for TV shows with this level of material have been deleted as unnecessary. Otto4711 15:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ST47, as there are multiple subcategories. Jamie Mercer 16:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you offer some reason as to why this particular category should be treated differentlty from all of the other similar, now-deleted, categories? Otto4711 17:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the wrong precedent has been set with those. On an earlier CFD for these type of cats, you said something about like they clutter Wikipedia, absorbing time and effort for maintainance. What do you mean by that? Surely everything "absorbs time and effort for maintainance" on WP? Lugnuts 19:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everything on Wikipedia absorbs maintenance time, which is why it's a good idea to avoid creating categories that serve little or no function beyond acting as magnets for misuse. As noted in WP:OC, categories named for people frequently attract inappropriate articles becuase of the interaction between notable people. The same thing happens with categories named for TV shows, especially in light of the consensus against performer by performance categories. Categories named for TV shows frequently end up with articles for people who appeared in them, because people place them there in lieu of the "(TV show) actors/directors/writers" categories we've gotten rid of. If the material in the category is navigable throught the articles themselves and/or a template and the category has to be watched to keep improperly categorized articles out of it, it's best not to have the unnecessary category so that the time that would have been spent on cleanup can be used on something else. Otto4711 20:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eponymous television categories aren't needed solely for episodes and characters. Those are subcategorized under other corresponding schemes, and the main article for the show serves as the navigational hub to peruse those articles. Dugwiki 19:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 23:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. To not follow precedent would require a strong case. I don't see that established in the discussion above. Why do we need root categories for these based on the series name? Vegaswikian 00:30, 13 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, precedent. --Kbdank71 03:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Eponymous cat not needed for this material. Otto4711 13:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the root category for Drawn Together. We do the same thing elsewhere, if a subject has multiple subcategories, we put them all in a supercategory along with the main article. --ST47Talk 15:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as I can tell, the guideline against eponymous overcategorization applies to people, not series.Raymondluxuryacht 15:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have deleted close to 100 TV series categories with this level of material as unnecessary. If your only objection is that the words "TV series" don't appear in the guideline, then the dozens upon dozens of similar deleted categories still establishes the precedent. Otto4711 15:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ST47Talk. Jamie Mercer 16:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eponymous television categories aren't needed solely for episodes and characters. Those are handled by other corresponding schemes, and the main article for the show serves as the central navigational hub to find those articles. Also, as Otto properly points out, we've been routinely deleting categories almost identical to this for probably three or four or five months. Dugwiki 19:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 23:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. To not follow precedent would require a strong case. I don't see that established in the discussion above. Why do we need root categories for these based on the series name? Vegaswikian 00:31, 13 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, precedent. --Kbdank71 03:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:The Surreal Life to Category:The Surreal Life participants

Nominator's rationale: Merge - with the exception of the show itself, all of the articles in the category are for the participants. The show article and the spin-offs and participants subcats don't need an eponymous show category. Otto4711 13:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Categories lack room for growth. People involved are already linked through the show's article. Don't do performer by performance. Wryspy 16:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 23:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the nomination is not in favor of deleting Category:The Surreal Life participants. The problem with deleting the participant category are the same as deleting Category:I'm a Celebrity, Get Me out of Here! nominated yesterday. We treat reality television different from fictional television for purposes of categorizing appearances. Each of the people in the participants category in the absence of the category would be eligible for inclusion in Category:Participants in American reality television series. When we deleted the various cast and crew categories it was in large measure because a prolific actor could end up in dozens of such categories. In this instance, deleting the participants category not only contravenes the usual practice for reality TV it does nothing to reduce the number of categories into which the member articles fit and replaces a specific category with a general one. Otto4711 01:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Surreal Life participants category is still WP:OC as performer by performer. I'm unswayed. Delete both. Wryspy 04:51, 11 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - variations on this category have been deleted a couple of times previously. This is improper performer by performance overcategorization. Models can endorse any number of products during a career. Otto4711 12:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete performer by performance. --ST47Talk 15:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks for the correction. I was just wondering why Category:Sports Illustrated swimsuit models was not nominated for deletion? It's basically the same thing. At least, the Victoria's Secret Angels are endorsers for years for the company. (Number1spygirl 16:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

For whatever reason, the SI swimsuit models are looked at as a "culturally significant group." Not sure as I agree with that but given that a CFD probably wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing... Otto4711 17:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the SI swimsuit models only appear once on an annual SI swimsuit issue. The issue looks like a regular magazine. How can that be culturally significant? From the guidelines, it's still overcategorization. I find that unfair. - Confused newbie, (Number1spygirl 16:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per June 9th discussion. At one point I think there was a model in 70+ categories. -- Prove It ^(talk)
- Comment I found it ... see Cindy Crawford -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:59, 9 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 03:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper performer by performance categorization. Models can endorse any number of products over the course of a career. Categorizing all of them would lead to a great deal of category clutter. Otto4711 12:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jamie Mercer 16:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:59, 9 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, precedent. --Kbdank71 03:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Category not necessary for this material. Otto4711 12:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that this category may be less necessary for navigation than Category:Dynasty because this one contains less items, etc. but I don't see the harm in keeping it for organizational purposes. In my own navigation of Wikipedia I honestly find categories like this useful to find related articles. It seems to me that something not being "essential" shouldn't be an adequate rationale for deletion; this category is not cumbersome or distruptive, and while it may only be useful to a certain number of editors/readers, I can't see a negative effect. Some of the points made in the Dynasty discussion apply here (for both sides of the argument). TAnthony 14:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the "related articles" in this instance consist of the show's article, an episode list that's linked to the main article and three images that appear in the two articles, I'm not seeing that this particular category offers any navigational utility. Otto4711 15:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article with minimal value. Related articles are already linked together. Many precedents for this deletion. Wryspy 16:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:02, 10 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, precedent. --Kbdank71 03:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Category is not required for this material. Otto4711 12:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cold Case, above. --ST47Talk 15:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete small category lacking room for growth. Don't need the performer by performance part of it. Wryspy 16:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eponymous tv show categories aren't needed solely for characters and episodes, as per many, many previous similar cfds over the last few months. Dugwiki 19:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 00:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. To not follow precedent would require a strong case. I don't see that established in the discussion above. Why do we need root categories for these based on the series name? Vegaswikian 00:32, 13 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 03:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Three entries, one of which is Linux itself. A needlessly specific category of little potential use. Why would someone care if a piece of software doesn't run on other operating systems? ~~Perhaps this should be renamed Category:Linux free software, and, along with Category:Mac OS X-only free software form subcats of a new Category:Free software by operating system?~~ Feezo (Talk) 10:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, forget the merge idea. It still wouldn't be useful. Delete for reasons given. Feezo (Talk) 23:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not defining, with exception of kernel and SW much tied to the system everything could be ported, theoretically. Pavel Vozenilek 17:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: calling the Linux kernel "Linux only" seems redundant, and at least one other member makes no mention of being Linux-only—I suspect that it actually works on any X11-based system. The remaining entry seems to be a Linux kernel feature, not a separate piece of software at all. The category is small, with very little potential for growth, since most software that runs on Linux will also run on other UNIX-like systems (BSD, Solaris, etc.) One could even argue that Linux itself is not Linux-only, since it can run on a virtual host. Even supposedly Linux-only binaries can frequently be run on other systems through compatibility layers as offered by some BSD systems. If kept, this is likely to become populated with X11-specific software (as already seems to be happening), since a lot of casual users are unaware that X11 is available for systems besides Linux (including MacOS and Windows). Xtifr _tälk 22:09, 8 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 02:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as published list, see also AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies (10th Anniversary Edition). -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These films will appear in many other lists as well. Categories for all lists featuring these films would become cluttersome, and it would become difficult to use the category links in individual articles for navigation. Dr. Submillimeter 06:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is already a category for the National Film Registry. Also, in the time that the American Film Institute has put out these lists, how many different films have been on them?
- Comment - The comparison of the National Film Registry to the AFI list is inaccurate. Films in the National Film Registry receive a special status in the Library of Congress, which is a government organization. Films in the registry undergo special preservation work. In contrast, the American Film Institute is just a non-profit organization. Films in the AFI list just appear on one of many television countdown shows describing people's favorite things. Dr. Submillimeter 10:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Overcategorization. Garion96 (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These kind of lists are published all the time, and represent taste at one point in time. Membership is not fundamental to the films, nor a sufficiently reliable method of appraisal to merit this kind of endorsement from wikipedia. Jamie Mercer 16:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we include this, we have to include tons of other polls and lists. The AFI isn't the word of god. Cop 663 17:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The films aren't definitive they way that certain film awards are; at any rate, all of the films are listed in the lists in Category:AFI 100 Years series. -Sean Curtin 01:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Dr. Sub. Carlossuarez46 00:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lists like this should not be converted into cats. --musicpvm 02:03, 10 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 15:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Category:Cities and towns in Achaea or choose one another name. The others should probably follow likewise. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Category:Municipalities in the Achaea prefecture, convention of Category:Municipalities of Greece. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:30, 10 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. Andrew c ^[talk] 04:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Fictional police officers, spoiler. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Aside from the spoiler problem, "corrupt" suffers from POV problems. Dr. Submillimeter 06:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge agree with POV problem, but disagree with spoiler problem; if you cannot suffer a "spoiling" consult a movie review not an encyclopedia that is relating "facts" including the plot twists. Carlossuarez46 00:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for subjective & spoiler "corrupt". Wryspy 04:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spoilers don't matter in an encyclopedia. Baridiah 01:11, 13 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 15:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Mountains of Greece, convention of Category:Mountains by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This category is already in the conventional form. Greece is a mountainous country, so it is appropriate to break the mountains down by region, as is already done for the U.S. UK and probably some others as well. Postlebury 02:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it would be appropriate if Category:Mountains of Greece was more populated. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Mountains of Greece is very well populated. To prevent information being lost ,it would also be necessary to merge into Category:Epirus, but that should also be subdivided. Jamie Mercer 11:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, looking at Epirus, it isn't a modern subdivision, and it isn't even entirely in Greece. It is a historical region. However the point that Category:Mountains of Greece should be subdivided stands. The relevant subdivisions are to be found in Category:Peripheries of Greece. Jamie Mercer 11:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, Greece is considerably smaller than Colorado. Dividing these mountains between 13 peripheries would just result in several tiny categories. I don't see that as helpful, but perhaps it's a matter of taste. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So is the UK by area, but you won't find many unsubdivided UK categories. Greece is more populous than Colorado, and there are far more human connections and cultural references to its mountains than to Colorado's. Anyway, the only issue is how many articles there are. If this category isn't subdivided, and none of the other Greek subcategories of similar size are subdivided, the categories for the peripheries will be in a mess. Perhaps that is what you are overlooking. Every article about a place fits into at least two hierarchies, but you haven't mentioned the other one that is relevant here. Jamie Mercer 16:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now; if there gets to be too many, we can break it up by periphery. Carlossuarez46 00:05, 10 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, empty --Kbdank71 15:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Ben 10 episodes, convention of Category:Television episodes by series. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename per nom and convention. Otto4711 13:25, 8 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, this is obviously just a mistake. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Famines in China--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 01:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename Postlebury 02:38, 8 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.

July 8

Category:The CFL on TSN

Category:Napoleonic video games

Category:Napoleonic Wars war films

Category:Roger Corman films

Category:Jimmy Kimmel Live

Category:Virginia Military Institute graduates

Category:Lieutenant Governors of the colonial Province of Quebec

Category:Songs introduced by Fred Astaire

Category:Late 18th and early 19th Century Military Construction Projects

Category:Songs introduced by Frank Sinatra

Category:Cold Case

Category:Drawn Together

Category:The Surreal Life

Category:Victoria's Secret Angels

Category:CoverGirls

Category:The Colbys

Category:Prisoner

Category:Linux only free software

Category:AFI 100 Years films

Achaea

Category:Fictional corrupt police officers

Category:Mountains of Epirus, Greece

Category:List of Ben 10 episodes

Category:Category:Famines in China