< March 22
March 24 >

March 23

Category:The Blackout

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as unrelated subjects with shared names. -- Prove It (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Arrangers for Ella Fitzgerald

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Arrangers for Bing Crosby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Arrangers for Frank Sinatra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Arrangers for Louis Armstrong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Arrangers for Nat "King" Cole (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Arrangers for Sarah Vaughan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Arrangers for Ella Fitzgerald (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge all to Category:Music arrangers as overcategorization by job or project. Prolific arrangers could end up with dozens of categories if this categorization scheme is adopted. Otto4711 23:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Gorsedd

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Gorsedd to Category:Gorseddau
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, "Gorsedd" is singular (see Gorsedd) and category names must be plural. The Wednesday Island 23:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Teletoon shows

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Teletoon shows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - there are three different channels called Teletoon and there is no indication whether the category is intended to be for one of the three or all of them. The show is mostly capturing programs shown in syndication, which is inappropriate categorization. Finally, there are lists either in the channel articles or in separate list articles which given the multiple channels strikes me as a better way to capture the information. Otto4711 22:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional plays

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus (no rename). The debate was about evenly split, and as someone uninvolved, I can't see that it really matters very much one way or the other. Most people (like myself) are not going to understand the distinction between the two choices. I don't see any arguments that show a convincing need to change the category, nor to keep it as is. With the current standard being "Fictional", that seems reason enough to keep it as is. -- Samuel Wantman 08:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fictional plays to Category:Fictitious plays
Propose renaming Category:Fictional films to Category:Fictitious films
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Avoid ambiguity: category is for plays that exist within works of fiction, rather than plays with fictional content. Same reasons for "Fictional films". Croxley 21:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Category:Fictitious films is currently a redirect to Category:Fictional films, so that would only need to be fixed. Croxley 21:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Pages needing expert attention subcategories

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

Category:Looney Tunes people

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Looney Tunes people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - improper categorization by project/studio. Otto4711 21:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Women writers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to keep deleted, so restore (nearly every admin has voted on this, so I'm closing it).--Mike Selinker 15:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Women writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Discussed previously at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 27#Category:Women writers and deleted. New arguments, and some new relevant information, was presented at deletion review, where no clear decision was reached on overturning or endorsing. So this is here for further consideration of the merits. While both discussions should be read to be fully informed, the discussion at deletion review are undoubtedly more extensive.

The deletion review was marred by Canvassing, and all editors are strongly encouraged to make absolutely certain that they do not violate this rule as regards this discussion. This is a technical nomination, I have no opinion on the merits. GRBerry 20:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that there's a pretty solid case that WP:CATGRS allows for this category, per the evidence in the DRV. I have a different concern (which it needn't fall upon you to address, but you're the first keep !voter). It might not be odd to have an article about the history of women in writing; people expect such an article. But it seems to me that while it has historically been an issue, it is not surprising to anyone today that there are female writers. I wonder if this categorization embalms an older way of thinking: there are writers (normative, no adjective) and then there are women writers (exception, needs an adjective). Who's left in category:writers? Men, because men are normative; men are just "writers". Might that (not only POV but inaccurate) message be inferred? Would this disadvantage be worth the advantage of sorting, when, instead of a list, this message is displayed at the bottom of every female writer's article? — coelacan — 01:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coelcan, your point about a "women writers" category making male writers appear normative is a valid concern, but it is a policy issue relating to any of the categories discussed in WP:CATGRS (e.g. LGBT politicians), and should be raised at the guideline level, not wrt to the application of that guideline (otherwise we might as well not have a guideline). Personally, I think that concern is already addressed in WP:CATGRS, which requires that 'a valid occupational subcategory should be structured and filed in such a way as to avoid "ghettoizing" people', by not making the gendered categ the final rung in the category tree. So, for example, "Irish poets" should not be sub-divided by gender, but those poets may also (where appropriate) be categorised under "Women poets" or "Irish women writers". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my take: the "writers" category is a higher level category, and everyone within it needs to be in subcategories (you'll note that there is a relatively short list of writers in it, and those will get cleaned up and classed in subcats). Within those subcats, I'd expect a number of relevant subcats to apply to any writer: if you look at Shakespeare, he is in Category:Authors whose works are in the public domain, Category:English Renaissance dramatists, Category:English dramatists and playwrights, Category:English poets and Category:Sonneteers; if you look at Emily Dickinson, she is in Category:Women writers, Category:American poets, and Category:Massachusetts writers. I think there are questions to think about relating to how best to use the category (should Emily Dickinson be a "Woman poet", in a subcat of women writers?), but that should not detract from recognizing the value of having the category to begin with.A Musing (formerly Sam) 01:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a policy concern, actually. As I said, I think that there's a pretty solid case that WP:CATGRS allows for this category. But that's a guideline, and we are free to ignore it on a case by case basis if consensus favors doing so. And in any case CATGRS allows for this category, it doesn't demand it; it's still up to us to decide how and when to apply it (answer: usually). I'm just saying that there might be reason to ignore it here. CATGRS is almost always useful, in my experience. In this case it might be more detrimental than useful. I'd rather discuss this case as a valid concern than be told to take the issue elsewhere, when I don't have a concern with the guideline, but rather a concern specifically with this category. Now, if you think the concern is already addressed, okay. I don't, but I'm not going to shake it out of you ;-) — coelacan — 16:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coelacan, the reason that I think your concern is a policy one is that I don't see any issue here is that the question of a normatising effect could be applied equally to nearly all categories to which WP:CATGRS applies. It seems to me that this another way of phrasing the "ghettoisation" question, which is specifically covered in WP:CATGRS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read the nomination? This isn't a recreation and it can't be speedy deleted. It was relisted from DRV. — coelacan — 01:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made sure not to argue that everything is fine. But the application of the category would be very strange on articles where and when everything is indeed fine. For example, properly applied, the category would go on Anne Rice's article, which would be, well, strange. There's nothing surprising about a woman in her time and place being a writer. What would actually be surprising, in my opinion, would be to find this category on her page instead of Category:Writers. If it's organization and navigation you want, I wonder why you don't just use the list of women writers? That doesn't have the disadvantage of showing up in strange places. — coelacan — 07:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have looked at the Anne Rice article. Speaking generally, whenever there are categories that represent intersections, these are of two types. One type is the "intersection for breaking up a huge category". The most common of this type is the occupation-by-location intersection, which Category:California writers represents. The other type is the "intersection for remarkability". This is the type that this category purports to be, but it is unremarkable that Anne Rice is both a woman and a writer. For a woman in her time and place, it is as unremarkable as Category:Women would be, and I believe it would be strange and improper to categorize her like this, for the same reason we don't use Category:Actresses, only Category:Actors. — coelacan — 02:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it has already begun to be subcategorized by nationality, are you sure it could not be useful navigationally? Why? — coelacan — 16:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why you assume that that this will just be one huge category? Work has already begun on sub-categorising it, precisely to make it useful for navigation. You might as well object to Category:Politicians because it will be too big ... it would be, if it wasn't sub-catted. It can (and should, IMO) be sub-catted both by nationality and by genre, so that we have (for example) both Australian Women Writers and Women horror writers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC) --16:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one set of subcategories will answer. Why are you subcategorising by nationality rather than by field? All the subcategories should be deleted. Honbicot 19:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honbicot, please re-read my comment. I gave two examples of sub-cats which I would support, not one ... and field is another dimension which would be useful too. And please can you explain how you make the big leap from saying that field is the most appropriate way to sub-categorise to your conclusion that all the subcategories should be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nathanian, I do not follow your argument. Are you saying that categories at Wikipedia should only represent what is remarkable? Also, how can the articles about women writers NOT assist in studying women's role in literature? The subcategories currently being developed (albeit optimistically, but also as a positive result of this discussion) under Women writers separate the writers by nationality, format, and other criteria, which would allow reseachers to easily navigate to articles that can be compared and contrasted. This would inevitably aid in studying women's role in literature, don't you think? --Susiebowers 00:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As has already been pointed out -- and more than once -- while the position of contemporary women writers in the West may be relatively egalitarian, that is not the case globally, and it certainly hasn't been the case historically. And the argument that most articles cannot contain much information is spurious: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such has a mandate to provide basic overviews and perhaps directions for further study. One would not expect it to be a resource for research except of the most rudimentary kind. scribblingwoman (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am restating my reasons for the importance of keeping this category in case not all of the contributors to this discussion have read the previous debates.

1. Discussing women writers because they are women is not the same as discussing them from a feminist perspective (this is why we need to distinguish "feminist writers" from "women writers"). One of the reasons that figures such as Hannah More, Sarah Trimmer and Anna Laetitia Barbauld are just now getting attention is that scholars like Margaret Ezell criticized feminists for only recovering historical women like themselves. There is no way that these women could be classified as "feminist writers," they can only be classified as "women writers."
2. Over 700 instutions around the world (at least) offer degrees in women's studies or gender studies (see [1]), including, for what it's worth, every Ivy League university. There are professors holding chairs in this field all over the country and teaching courses in it. If all of these universities feel that it is useful to have degrees in this subject, wikipedia should reflect that category. Many people who receive degrees in this field study "women writers."
3. Just a quick glance at almost any university's English department will reveal at least one course on literature by women (Michigan, for example, has at least one for undergraduates - they may have more, but it's hard to tell from their catalogue; Columbia has four or five - depending on how you count).
4. The University Press of Kentucky publishes a series entitled "Eighteenth-century Novels by Women."
5. There is a well-respected academic journal called Women's Writing which "publishes articles to serve as a forum for dialogue, discussion, and debate about the work of women writing from the Elizabethan to the Victorian period" according to its mission statement. That is just one of the many journals dedicated to women writers.
6. There are 6335 entries in the MLA database (the major database for literature articles and books assembled by the Modern Language Association, the association of literature professors) listed under the category "women writers." Note, they have the category.
7. The Library of Congress also uses the category "women writers."
8. On the point about it being a huge category, that is a problem, but perhaps someday we will be able to combine categories and search for eighteenth-century writer and woman writer, for example. That is the ideal situation, is it not? We should not restrict our future abilities because of our current technical limitations.
9. Does "women writers" fulfil the requirements for a category according to WP:CATGRS? Yes.
  • I quote from WP:CATGRS: "Categories should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You should be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category should be seen as not valid. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category can be created, but it must be at least possible to create one. Generally, this means that the basic criterion for such a category is whether the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources."
  • Is "women writers" "recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right"? Yes, we have demonstrated that with evidence of degree programs, syllabi, etc.
  • Is it possible to write a head article for "women writers"? Yes. It has already been done. Please note that this is not a requirement for a category to exist according to wikipedia's guidelines.
  • Has "women writers" "already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources"? Yes. Again, major universities, academic presses, the Library of Congress and the major organization of literature professors recognizes it as such.

I also want to defend scribblingwoman. In no way did she spam others or cause a disruption to the deletion review because of the views she solicited. In fact, if I had known that the category was being considered for deletion earlier, I would certainly have entered the debate, but I did not know. scribblingwoman contacted those of us who know something about this field and whose pages were affected by the change. This was entirely proper. In fact, one user mentioned during the deletion review that the second debate was significantly more informed than the first and another mentioned that it should become standard practice to inform people whose pages are affected. The raised level of the debate and the suggestion for an improvement in policy is entirely due to scribblingwoman's efforts. The debate was therefore not marred by canvassing as has been suggested. Awadewit 03:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this category meets all three of these criteria, or is borderline. If a category is borderline, and there are users who want to keep it, I think it should be kept unless some harm can be demonstrated. I'd like to see some discussion about how to handle these borderline situations. I see this CFD as two sets of people reading the same guidelines and coming up with different conclusions. That implies that we haven't made the distinctions clear. Perhaps the best way to handle borderline cases is with lists, which seems to be win/win. The information is preserved, and the category is removed. Everybody gets what they need. -- Samuel Wantman 09:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: ResseM, the field of literary studies provides a model for categorization of writers, by historical period/nationality or region/genre. True, this means that many writers would need more than one category, but so what? As I said earlier, one could be interested in, say, a 20thc Ugandan woman playwright because of an interest in African literature, drama, contemporary literature, AND/OR women writers. All paths should be there, in my opinion. Re. the previous discussion of this category: that was not, in fact, the first discussion on the subject. There was at least one earlier one and the result of that one was "no consensus." scribblingwoman (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you are slightly misinformed. Scholars who study women writers do not only study women's fiction. Two of the examples that I listed in my posting, for example, Sarah Trimmer and Hannah More, primarily wrote in didactic genres; they wanted to write instructive texts for children and the poor and texts that criticized the morality of their times (there are many of these today as well). Trimmer, for example, helped shape the definition of children's literature through her periodical The Guardian of Education. Furthermore, within literary studies, scholars tend not to separate "high" literature from "low" literature in the way you are suggesting (that is a remnant of an older way of thinking derived from Matthew Arnold and others; it was ousted in the 1980s in what is sometimes referred to as the "canon wars"). The fact is that many bestselling novels, which you might consider "popular drivel," have had a profound influence on society. One of the most famous examples is perhaps Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin. Awadewit 17:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Popular drivel", as you put it, is also worthy of study: I have lost count of the number of academics I met who have studied Mills & Boon-type novels and the writers thereof. Personally, I quite agree that it's drivel, but its sheer popularity makes it very notable as a genre; producing drivel is not a disqualification for a wikipedia article (mercifully, or else we'd have to delete zilions of articles on politicians of all hues!). Of course writers of populist romantic fiction don't often belong in the same category as Jane Austen, but sub-categorisation solves that problem, by placing them in adjacent but separate parts of the category tree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I disagree about Anne Rice. She writes eroticized gothic thrillers, and as such she is the contemporary representative of a long-standing female tradition in popular literature, a direct descendent of all those nameless writers of gothic potboilers published by Minerva Press in the 18thc. But that aside, I want to say that I appreciate the thought you put into your decision. I'm sorry we weren't able to make a case that convinced you, but respect the care with which you approached the whole discussion. scribblingwoman (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken about Anne Rice. However, there are plenty of other women in modern times and Western countries that my argument would accurately apply to, such as J. K. Rowling. And thanks for taking the time to explain your reasoning in more detail over on your talk page. — coelacan — 04:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, J.K. Rowling? Welfare mum who makes good writing children's literature, another long-standing staple of women's writing? scribblingwoman (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's stretching. Lots of people come out of poverty by writing; that single mothers are disproportionally poor is incidental to her writing. I can keep doing this off the top of my head until I hit someone indisputable, though. Temple Grandin. — coelacan — 05:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But she is not categorized as a writer, but as a biologist. Yes, she writes, but if we followed that logic to its most extreme conclusion we would have to include any woman who did any sort of writing at all. I think editors would be selective; the category would surely not get used for women who write, say, scientific papers. "Women writers" doesn't mean "all women who write anything at all," but "women whose writing is of interest, as writing."
(my point about J.K. Rowling was that there are interesting elements of her biography that are surely inflected by gender, and that she is writing in a mode long practiced by women: writing for young people. Meaning, one could in theory approach her as a "woman writer" if one was so minded.)
Anyway, I'm not trying to hound you. But the conversation is interesting. scribblingwoman (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to echo scribblingwoman's thanks to coelacan for being so thoughtful about this, whilst still disagreeing with your conclusion (I wish that more of the delete votes had been even a fraction as thoughtful). However, your example Temple Grandin is an interesting one: she seems to me to fall into two different sub-classes of non-fiction writer, viz. a scientific class and a personal/experiential class (which may include biography/autobiography, travel writing etc). The extent to which gender is relevant in science writing is perhaps a different subject, but I would have no hesitation in wanting to see Temple Grandin in a sub-category of women writers. She has written about her own experiences of life (and particularly about her own efforts to rethink her circumstances), and although I have not read her book it seems that me that is something where being a woman is a significant issue.
And that in many ways reinforces the point that we should not be too presumptive about how a category like this might be used; there are any reasons why people may be interested in Grandin and her work, and being a woman writer seems to be one of her defining attributes, just being a scientific writer and austistic writer may be other reasons why people would seek her out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you still make compelling arguments. I'm afraid I have not the coffee to keep up with you. =) — coelacan — 20:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: French Wikipedia has the category: "femme de lettres." I am not adept enough at languages to check other wikis, but arguably the French literary tradition, along with the German, has had, historically, the most cross-fertilization with the English of all foreign language traditions.— scribblingwoman 13:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Looney Tunes directors

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Looney Tunes directors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - an improper categorization of people by project. Otto4711 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:James Bond directors

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:James Bond directors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as an improper categorization by project. Otto4711 20:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Historians of religions

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Historians of religions to Category:Historians of religion
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ski resorts in Australia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ski resorts in Australia to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Australia
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for consistency with other by-country categories, and (hopefully) forthcoming renaming of the parent category. See other ongoing discussions:
2007_March_20#Category:Ski_resorts
2007_March_20#Category:Ski_resorts_in_Canada
2007_March_20#Category:Ski_resorts_in_Scotland
2007_March_19#Category:Ski_resorts_in_Serbia
All of these should be made consistent with the numerous other "Ski areas and resorts of ..." categories. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mountains and hills of Leinster

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mountains and hills of Leinster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Mountains and hills of Connacht (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Mountains and hills of Munster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These categories are redundant given the existing by-county classification (Category:Mountains of Cork, Category:Mountains of Kerry, etc.). Their only useful purpose could be as an intermediate in the hierarchy between Category:Mountains of the Republic of Ireland and the county categories, but there are few enough counties for that not to be necessary. There is no Category:Mountains of Ulster, which might have complicated things by including the mountains and hills of Northern Ireland. A request for comment at Wikiproject British and Irish hills has produced no disagreement so far. Stemonitis 19:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Murdered Iraqi children

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: renominate the entire "murdered children" tree instead. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Murdered Iraqi children (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A singly-occupied category, seemingly created to have further categorization of single article. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Coptic saints

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Coptic saints to Category:Coptic Orthodox saints
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Propose changing name because I had not thought that there was a Coptic Catholic Church, and category was created to specifically list saints of the Coptic Orthodox Church. Coptic Catholic saints will fit in the Category: Catholic saints. John Carter 18:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Extinct Rivers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Extinct Rivers to Category:Former rivers
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Capitalization and correcting name to be in line with similar categories. – Swid (talk | edits) 17:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Narcissism

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Narcissism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose DeleteThis seems a totally superfluous and irrelevant category. Since listing for MFD (my error) an anon AOL user has suddenly started frantically adding some rather bizarre, and often totally irrelevant, articles to this categorySpecial:Contributions/172.191.147.254, but I don't honestly think that makes it any less superfluous and meaningless. Zeraeph 17:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an argument for monitoring the category, not deleting it. If the editor persists and it rises to the level of disruption or vandalism then steps can be taken to prevent it. Otto4711 04:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but that still brings me straight back to my original point, which is, what on earth do we actually need a Category:Narcissism for? --Zeraeph 07:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People claiming to have psychokinetic abilities

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: I'd say there is consensus for renaming this because the current name is awkward, but no consensus to rename to "purported" since that could be said to imply falsehood. I would suggest renominating with a better new name, if any can be found. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People claiming to have psychokinetic abilities to Category:Purported psychokinetics
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - to match other recently renamed categories on similar topics (purported psychics, purported mediums). Would not be opposed to deletion. Otto4711 15:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering that as well. Is psychokinetic properly used as a noun, and if so is it used to mean a person with the power? --Minderbinder 16:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to "Purported psychokinetic people" if there is a strong objection to using "paychokinetic" as a noun. Otto4711 20:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mountain ranges of Central America and the Caribbean

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus (keep). The problem doesn't seem to be this category as much as the problem of organizing mountains by continents, when it is questionable if islands are part of the continents. Perhaps, the "Mountains by continent" should be renamed to something like "Mountains by global region" so that Islands can be included. It is not unusual (in the U.S.) to separate North American from Central American when talking about continents, and it makes about as much sense as separating Europe from Asia. -- Samuel Wantman 08:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the "mountains by continent" category scheme, except that "Central America + Caribbean" is not a continent. Note that every mountain range in here is also already in a category by country. >Radiant< 14:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Airports in the Middle East and Category:Airports in Central America and the Caribbean

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete, though I'd suggest that the parent categories be renamed from "X by continent" to something like "X by global region", as adding islands to continents is questionable. -- Samuel Wantman 08:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both part of the "airports by continent" categorization schema. Apart from the question if that schema is really all that useful considering we have "airports by country" already, I'm quite sure that "Middle East" and "Central America + Caribbean" aren't continents. We shouldn't start categorizing by semi-arbitrary groupings of countries (e.g. "airports of Western Europe", "airports of the Basque Peninsula" etc). >Radiant< 14:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lists of minor characters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename per nom. -- Samuel Wantman 08:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be "minor fictional characters". >Radiant< 14:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fair enough. I'm not sure how or when that got put in place, but consensus can change and all that. SnowFire 02:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gay porn stars

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: nomination withdrawn, by message on my talk page. Note that because the |new CFD was created before this one was closed, the new CFD was speedily closed as a duplicate.
For the future, folks, if the nominator wants to withdraw a nomination, please be sure to make your intentions clear by putting "nomination withdrawn" clearly in bold at the start of the comment seeking withdrawal, and don't hide the word "withdraw" in the middle of a discursive paragraph.
There appears to be variety of different proposals under consideration here, some of which involve a major change to the category's purpose. I therefore want to suggest to all involved that the name be discussed at Category talk:Gay porn stars, to clarify the options before returning to CFD with a new proposal or set of proposals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Gay porn stars to Category: Male performers in gay porn films * Rename New name avoids the possibility of misinterpreting the category to indicate a performer's sexual orientation and brings the category in line with the renaming of main article page: Male performers in gay porn films—Chidom talk  11:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The List of male performers in gay porn films article name change came about partially as a result of names being added of men who had never been in a gay porn film but had appeared on gay porn websites. The list was/is difficult enough to maintain without broadening its scope and making sourcing additions more difficult. There was also a discussion about including other sexes in the list, which has always been a list of men. Since the category can be (and probably should be) broader than a list, I'm withdrawing this nomination and changing the nomination to "People appearing in gay pornography". That will cover any sex in any form of pornography—film, magazine, website, etc., and removes the necessity to use a further descriptor such as "star", "actor", "model", etc.—some of which are arguably inapplicable (not everyone is a gay porn film can act, for example—nor do they necessarily need to). The new nomination can be found here.—Chidom talk  04:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That complicates things because a lot of the time sexual orientation is never disclosed. If they're actually gay, then Category:Gay people from such and such a place will also be on their article.~ZytheTalk to me! 23:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New Zealand playwrights

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy: (Chidom)

Category:New Zealand playwrights to Category:New Zealand dramatists and playwrights Haddiscoe 19:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To 'playwright' as the significantly more common term. The use of the conjunction 'and' implies that they are not one and the same, whereas every dictionary definition I can find defines dramatist as a playwright. If you insist on both, then 'Dramatists or Playwrights' would make more sense. dramatic 09:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the discussion on that is where?...dramatic 09:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Underpopulated Politics categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy: (Chidom)

Category:Underpopulated Politics categories to Category:Underpopulated politics categories Cloachland 14:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Recipients of the US Air Medal

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. -- Samuel Wantman 08:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This had an earlier discussion here, which yielded no consensus. Suggested options include (1) rename to Category:Recipients of the United States Air Medal to avoid abbrev, (2) rename to Category:Recipients of the Air Medal since there aren't any other air medals worldwide, and (3) delete as a low-level and not particularly notable award. >Radiant< 10:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Air Medal is awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity in or with the Armed Forces of the United States, shall have distinguished himself/herself by meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight.

Taking out the qualifier "in aerial flight" and the criteria reads like the criteria for a Meritorious Service Medal. In fact, look at where it is in the order of precedence - Inter-service decorations of the United States military. Having a category for it is little better than having a category for "Recipients of the Army/Air Force/Navy Commendation ribbon." It's not ununsual at all for a pilot to receive a total number of Air Medals in the double digits. David Hackworth received 34, and wasn't even a pilot.--Nobunaga24 11:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Bold and the Beautiful cast members

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Bold and the Beautiful cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This looks like a recreation in some way of a previously listified and deleted performer by performance category. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 09:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Manga locations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Manga locations to Category:Anime and manga locations
Nominator's Rationale: Rename to match parent and sibling categories Category:Fictional elements from anime and manga Category:Anime and manga weapons, and Category:Anime and manga characters --tjstrf talk 09:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Television festival

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Television festival to Category:Television festivals
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, pluralize --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 08:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, if I would have thought this category would be eternally empty, I wouldn't have put it up for a rename. I think it has potential and shouldn't be merged/deleted. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Uncategorized

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (without 'all', per request and standard), and need I point out the oxymoron? >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Uncategorized to Category:All uncategorized pages
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, this category is named too similarly to its parent category, Category:Category needed. I propose that Category:Uncategorized be made into a soft redirect to Category:Category needed, and that the current population of Uncategorized be moved to Category:All uncategorized pages, which would clarify the contents and purpose of this category. Resurgent insurgent 08:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - maybe instead Category:Uncategorized pages? I question the need for the word "all" in the name of the new category. Would support changing the current name, though. John Carter 14:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pagan texts

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pagan texts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, as ill-defined and arbitrary categorisation. Although this cat nowhere defines just what a 'pagan text' is supposed to be, by its use thus far it would seem to embrace any religous or spiritual text outside of the Abrahamic tradition. This would include such an array of unrelated documents and religions that it could hardly be considered useful (if it is not actually a rather arbitrary ethnocentric division). cjllw | TALK 06:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,This category seems completely ethnocentrical. What exactly defines a pagan text? its being non-christian? Then the majority of the worlds religious texts qualify for inclusion in this category. The term "pagan" is normally a value statement meaning "barbaric" and "non christian" - that is not grounds for a category in wikipedia.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Marvel Animation

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Marvel Animation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Marvel Animated Universe

Moved to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy; change of case is non-controversial.

Category:Fantasy worlds

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

The result of the debate was procedural close, discussion moved to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 24#Category:Fantasy worlds. Resurgent insurgent 14:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional settings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)Category:Fantasy worlds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as per discussion for Category:Fictional settings here. The only distinction between these two categories is that one is general-purpose, while the other is limited to fantasy fiction. -Sean Curtin 04:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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