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

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ridiculously over-broad Orange Mike 00:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but I agree with the nomitor that there are too many listing in such a broad category. Most, if not all, of the entries need to be sorted into subcats related to the various denomniations. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - of the adult population of the United States, about a third are nominal Christians. A category which encourages the gathering of that information for every American in Wiki - shudder! If people want cats for specific denominations, that's another thing altogether; but this one is totally unworkable. --Orange Mike 00:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC) (Quaker Wikipedian)[reply]

• It wouldnt be so bad when broken down by Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. and it should also be limited to those in which their religion has been a defining part of their biography. For example, Jimmy Carter's faith as been important to how he is viewed by the public, but no one really knows or cares about, say, Stevie Nicks. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd bet my last nickel that there are Stevie Nicks fans who could discourse for hours on her spiritual evolution, whether she ever really worshipped Rhiannon, etc. --Orange Mike 01:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of fairness, I would suggest that you also nominate all of the subcatgories of Category:People by nationality and religion. Why delete only that category on American Christians and leave Category:German Hindus and Category:Brazilian Jews? youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of those categories would be one-ten-thousandth as large. --Orange Mike 01:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Being too large" is not a criteria for deltion, but rather for subcategorization. That being said, Why should every other nationality/religion be categorized excpet for American Christians? youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (for now) - Too broad to serve any useful purpose? I am afraid to ask but do we have Category:American blacks (Category:Black Americans), Category:American caucasians (Category:Causcasian Americans), Category:American gays (Category:Gay Americans), Category:American straights (Category:Straight Americans), Category:American men (Category:Male Americans), Category:American women (Category:Female Americans)? Hmm, that was fun, found one. A container. This could be used as a container, I guess? I will wait a bit before deciding. --Justanother 01:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's impossible to verify a person's religion. For example, an atheist with political ambitions may claim to be (and behave as) a Christian. As OrangeMike mentions, nominal Christians are a majority in the US. There is no Category:Indian Hindus, and for good reason: It's quite a bit redundant. I can see individual denominational categories, but these should be verified with documented memberships at the houses of worship in question. --Son of Somebody 03:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Part of a broader scheme. Haddiscoe 14:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It is so broad, it would be including a majority of Americans throughout all history. If it is kept, make it a container like Category:American women so it only contains more specific categories. TK421 15:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though try to encourage use as a container category. The main reason that the root category seems to be filling up at the moment is that it includes a lot of people whose denomination is unclear, but are identfied as "born-again Christians". If we had ategory:American born-again Christians, the parent category would be much less cluttered. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that's a good idea. Being "born again" has nothing to do with denomination. There are people who consider themselves "born again" among most American Protestant denominations and many Roman Catholics as well. Ken Miller is one such Catholic. "Born again" shouldn't be used here as a substitute or equivalent for denomination; it simply isn't. There would be too much category overlap to be useful, anyway. — coelacan — 19:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and subdivide. AshbyJnr 20:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The importance of religion in defining a person is not reduced either because their country is large or because they follow (a denomination of) the main religion in that country. Wimstead 12:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and subcat as needed. Pastorwayne 18:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Keep --Keefer4 | Talk 11:41, 6 April 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sadistic horror films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This article is described as Horror films based on a character's Sadism. Couldn't, to some degree, all slasher films be described as such? After all, Freddy, Jason and Michael aren't exactly known for being humane. Highly subjective category.CyberGhostface 22:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 23:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - highly subjective --Orange Mike 00:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Orangemike.--Paloma Walker 00:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, i guess I should've made a greater information about creating this cat, it was for the somewhat new popular trend of horror films (such as in the Saw, Hostel, Turistas and similar series where the characters want to torture their victims, rather then slashers who want to just kill 'em off at random with a quick gut n' slash. Does this convince anyone? As for a term itself, the All Movie Guide has been labeling this genre of horror films amongst it's own films as well. Andrzejbanas 00:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it possible you can come up with a more specific category title? The only one I can think of at the moment is "Torture Porn" but that name is very POV and demeaning. I understand the concept of the category (I.E. the Hostel/Saw films) but at the same time, it is subjective as to what is considered 'sadistic horror'. Freddy Krueger, for example, often torments his victims in their dreams before dispatching. And can't forget Pinhead, whose entire modus operandi is sadism. Even Jason has, while not as prolonged as Jigsaw, has been pretty brutal and not just a quick slash and gash.--CyberGhostface 01:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the problem here is that this is a reasonnable attempt at breaking the horror film genre into subgenres. Actually, a category for Torture porn would also be a fairly good (similar) idea. But it's quite tricky to actually corner the genre much less come up with reasonnable sources on which to base that classification. Pascal.Tesson 02:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Maybe it can be moved to "Horror-torture films" or something similar?--CyberGhostface 21:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I'd nominate "Torture horror films" or something, maybe create a page on it as well, but it looks like this cat is going to be delted anyways. :( Andrzejbanas 03:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective cat. Doczilla 06:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 14:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pascal.Tesson. Wimstead 12:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above, the criteria is too vague. All the killers in any slasher movie are by definition sadistic. That being said, I can understand a desire to subdivide horror films by sub-genre. Perhaps a better approach is to work with one of the film projects to come up with a good set of genres that subdivide most or all of the horror genre as a whole. The only problem being that you're likely to have some difficulty assigning films to subgenre categories that don't have some relatively objective inclusion criteria. Dugwiki 19:13, 2 April 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.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nature reserves in Norway to Category:Nature reserves of Norway

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, should follow standard. Berland 20:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose According to Category:Nature reserves it is following the standard. You should pose an umbrella nomination with proper rational. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per convention and as a matter of logic. Apart from those countries which lay claim to part of Antarctica, I can't see how a country can have nature reserves outside its own territory, and since those claims are in a suspended state, no country can claim to have an Antarctic nature reserve. If (as it appears) this is a category of reserves within the boundaries of a nation-state, "in" seems like a much better word than "of". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the rename would make it inconsistent with most others in Category:Nature reserves. And also, perhaps Category:Nature reserves of Costa Rica needs to be nominated for renaming to Category:Nature reserves in Costa Rica, since it is the only other "of" left in Category:Nature reserves (other than Azerbaijan and South Africa, which are using very different terms, but should also probably be changed to "in"). --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:24, 31 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.

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

The result of the debate was keep. The category will not be tagged with ((listify)) but there seems to be support for the idea of some form of list as a complement or eventual replacement. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female video game characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This seems to be overcategorization. Aren't half of all video game characters female? Besides, we don't have a Category:Male video game characters or Category:Female people, do we? I don't think a category would be very useful for organization purposes since it isn't a defining characteristic (see Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality and Wikipedia:Overcategorization). Axem Titanium 19:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 19:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I seriously doubt that 1/2 of all video game characters are female. But why not gather them up for those that are interested? For a video game character, it is a defining characteristic, IMO. Just so long as there is just one category, please. As in, I hope there is not Category:Female computer game characters, Category:Female arcade game characters, etc. --Justanother 20:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-No, I'd find it very hard to believe that half of videogame characters are female. I can actually see a great deal of value in this category. Bladestorm 20:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a quick scan of Category:Video game characters and its subcats suggests that female characters are very much in the minority. This category does appear to be underpopulated, but it also appears to meet WP:CATGRS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - In general sorting by gender situations, I often suggest writing an article on the topic instead of using a category to collect related articles. This category says nothing about the phenomenon of women appearing in video games; all it indicates is that women do appear in such games. An article would be able to explain why this is an important topic and could cite specific examples that are of greater interest. (Also, about half of my sims are female. :) )Dr. Submillimeter 07:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:CATGRS! It does not require that a head article has been written, merely that a substantive head article can be written. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - My point is not that the category cannot exist because it does not have a corresponding head article. My point is that an article could accomplish much more than this category. Dr. Submillimeter 17:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• An article would accomplish much and would complement this well, but there's no reason to turn a topical article into a hybrid article/list, so it's best to keep this category as is. It would best complement such an article in its current form. — coelacan — 17:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agree with above that an article on this topic is a good idea. The absence of one shouldn't be automatic grounds for the category's deletion, however. The nom's point of example, which essentially takes "Female" to the common denominator of "human" goes against plenty of gender category precedents elsewhere, at different levels, varying from world leaders to the variety of sub-cats at Category:Women's sports to Category:Women in comics--Keefer4 | Talk 07:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In this case, and in most cases regarding fictional characters, "female" is the correct categorization, rather than "women". Take for example Ōkami, in which the player's character is the Shinto sun goddess Amaterasu incarnated in the statue of a wolf. Among wolf, statue, goddess, and sun, none are "women", but she is female. This is one example, but it's generally problematic to assume that female characters in fiction are women. — coelacan — 18:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, actually my point wasn't about the categorization style, it was more about comparing the existing cats against the nominator's examples at the top. But that is interesting to know, and essential to consider when categorizing this type of thing. Thx.--Keefer4 | Talk 03:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Overcategorization. Garion96 (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet [WP:CATGRS]]. AshbyJnr 20:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Garion96 and AshbyJnr, you're welcome to substantiate these assertions. — coelacan — 17:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Wimstead 12:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep My inclination here is to keep the category at least temporarily because it appears that there is the potential for an interesting main article associated with the topic of female character in video games. I bet how women are or aren't portrayed in video games versus real life women and their portrayal in other art media would be a good topic, and that topic would be well served by this category for readers to use for reference. And in regards to gender specific subcategories we do allow for an exception when there is a significant difference between how men and women are portrayed within the category.

So my advice is to temporarilly keep the category and allow for the creation by interested editors above on an associated main article discussing gender differences in video gaming. Then if necessary revisit this cfd discussion in a few months once (or if) that article is written and see what the editors think. Dugwiki 19:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per guidelines on categorizing gender. Prominent female video game characters are not uncommon, especially in games in genres like fighting where the female characters tend to make up about a third or more of the cast. -Sean Curtin 05:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting that fighting games, which always portray women as sexy and underclothed, would have more female playable characters than other genres. And the fighting game spin-off, Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball, probably featured female playable characters exclusively because the male characters from the Dead or Alive series just aren't any good at volleyball. — coelacan — 17:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Prominent female playable characters are not uncommon in 2007, but they were in 1997, and they basically did not exist in 1987 (females were almost exclusively NPCs then, with the only exception I can think of being Samus Aran). It was even a deliberate surprise orchestrated by the developers, when a player finished Metroid and Samus took off her helmet, before which it was assumed she was male. Samus was then sexualized and portrayed in a bikini, if the player had achieved the fastest victory. The mere existence of female playable characters was surprising then, and it is still surprising today to see a non-sexualized female character. Where are the female characters wearing baggy, comfortable clothing? What is relevant and has been studied are the developers' portrayals of women and players' perceptions of female characters. This is discussed in the media, and by scholars. See this abstract, and the references section of this student essay, which would guide you to many more scholarly studies. Female characters are portrayed very differently than male characters, which makes this a useful categorization scheme for navigation, and the topic is studied extensively. There's really no question that it meets WP:CATGRS. — coelacan — 17:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and Delete. Coelacan has a good point, and that is precisely why we need an article on the history of female characters in computer gaming, rather than a cat that contains all that happen to be female. >Radiant< 11:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Radiant. I have a good point that the category fulfills WP:CATGRS, so we should delete the category in spite of CATGRS. I never thought you would out-Orwell me. =P — coelacan — 19:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but listfy to a temporary page first that can be used to create tables within the List of video games with female protagonists and List of video games with female antagonists articles. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Any particular reason for deletion? — coelacan — 19:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would keep an article for playable characters to match the article that you describe, but delete for this category which I believe also contains non-playable characters. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The portrayals of playable characters are hardly the only important portrayals. NPCs like Princess Zelda are just as important to the study of the portrayal of females in games. There's no reason why the category should be limited to playable characters. And again, you're not saying why it should be an article instead of a category, rather than an article and a category. The category is a useful way to link the topic up from various article pages. — coelacan — 21:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Seems to be a manageable number of associated (and potentially associated) characters/articles, considering the male-character-dominated world of video games. Relatedly, this male character domination does make, IMHO, the category reasonably notable and encyclopedic. —Catdude 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although they are not as rare as they used to be, female characters are still underrepresented and have a strong effect on girls who play games. For me growing(at least), winning Metroid and finding out that Samus was a woman was wonderful. I've spoken to several women who had similar experiences with it, and it helped keep us interested in gaming as girls. It's worthwhile to both have an article on the subject as well as keep this category. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 02:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. -- Lancini87 03:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per relevance. Ex-Nintendo Employee 04:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify regardless of delete or keep result. It will be informative to list female characters by year of introduction, with regards to Coelacan's comments above. I'll be happy to help with this. Marasmusine 16:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As one of the users in favor of retention has admitted, the justification for this category is obselete. Wilchett 02:10, 11 April 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aircraft manufactured by the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Aircraft manufactured by the Soviet Union and Russia already exists. Cmapm 19:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as empty, orphaned duplicate. Speedy if it meets criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ditto on speedy. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom. --MChew 01:42, 31 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DC comics time travelers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - See the nomination for Category:Fictional time travelers below. This is such a common comic book gimmick that it is not a defining characteristic for comic book characters. I am sure that about half of all DC Comics characters qualify for this category, even though I have never read the comic books myself. (Superman flew around the Earth really fast to go backwards in time in the movie. I am sure he qualifies as a time traveller.) Therefore, I advocate deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 17:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as for the same reasons listed for the parent cat. - J Greb 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because most DC Comics characters have traveled through time before. Doczilla 19:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they have travelled through time, how can we be sure that they did so before? ;-) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 31 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1988-1992 House Music & Culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, awful title for a category and effectively duplicates Category:House music groups and other similar categories. Recury 16:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This strangely-titled category effectively duplicates part of Category:House music groups. Dr. Submillimeter 16:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Merge Seems duplicative. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:04, 30 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Maritime Junior A Hockey League venues. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, small but valid enough. Recury 16:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - haven't we been deleting venue categories for sporting events, on the theory that any arena could potentially be a venue? Otto4711 16:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No? Recury 18:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - The rename is needed for clarity. The guideline at WP:OCAT states that categories that specify the regular use of facilities are acceptable. This category meets that criterion (unless you would also like to try nominating Category:National Hockey League venues for deletion). Dr. Submillimeter 16:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (Rename if kept) - I'm not sure what the right way is to subdivide Sports venues, but it isn't by which leagues have/are using them. ~ BigrTex 18:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, would seem to fall under WP:OCAT, per what Otto said. >Radiant< 11:07, 5 April 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.

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Women to Seek U.S. Presidency from a Major Party to Category:Female United States presidential candidates. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as gendered, or at least suggest a less awkward name if you want to keep it. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep and Rename to Category:Female United States presidential candidates per parent Category:United States presidential candidates; there are separate sub-cats for those who win the nomination, and for now there are not enough female contenders to justify separating out the major party candidates. (If and when there are, I suggest categorising them separately as Republican and Democrat.)
  I do wish that CfD nominations would not simply cite "gendered" as grounds for deletion: WP:CATGRS does not simply deprecate all gendered categories, it sets a few tests for them to meet, and one of them is rarity. The example cited is directly relevant to this nomination: "a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest." There has never been a female president or vice-president of the United States, and the only woman to win the vice-presidential nomination of either party was Geraldine Ferraro, back in 1984; no woman has ever been nominated for the US presidency. What's going on here, that so many gendered categories are nominated without reference to the relevant guideline? I want to assume good faith, but I think that an explanation would be helpful in sustaining that assumption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as gender category. Haddiscoe 19:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what about the guidelines? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • With your proposed rename, it doesn't meet the guidelines, as it incorporates women whose tally of votes was unremarkable. Anyway, the guidelines is incompatible with the policy of neutrality, so as far as I am concerned it is void. Haddiscoe 14:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's take those points one-by-one:
        1. If the women concerned are unremarkable, they should not have articles on wikipedia. If they have articles, then they are already in Category:United States presidential candidates, which is also overwhelmingly male. If you are arguing that all minority candidates are non-notable, that's a separate discussion; but since we have plenty of articles on minority candidates, the women meet WP:CATGRS by being in a minority of Category:United States presidential candidates.
        2. Wikipedia's neutrality policy is based on "representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". I'm not aware of any significant published views arguing that Hilary Clinton or Geraldine Ferraro are not female, so there is no failure here to represent different views.
        3. The only way that I can see in which this category could be argued to be non-neutral is that there is no equivalent male-only category. But there plenty of other cases in wikipedia where we sub-categorise articles by a minority attribute if that is relevant. Your objection appears to be basically that you don't believe gender is relevant: so presumably you believe that it's pure coincidence that the vast majority of American presidential candidates are drawn from one gender and not the other.
        4. If you believe that a guideline is void, argue for its removal. However, wikipedia works by consensus, so unless and until there is a consensus to void the guideline it stands, whether or not you dislike it. If individual editors are free to just reject guidelines outright because they don't like them, we might as well not have them ... but that's a policy issue (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which describes guidelines as "actionable" and permits "the occasional exception", but not outright rejection). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename as per BrownHairedGirl --Orange Mike 00:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep but rename. Current titles seems to be predicting the future! Pascal.Tesson 02:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Keep and rename per points above. Also, Category:Female heads of state exist, this isn't far removed.--Keefer4 | Talk 02:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Female United States presidential candidates - This is one of the few gender-based occupation categories where gender is useful (mainly because gender still plays an important role in the public's perceptions of political candidates). The category should be kept, but a more sensible name is needed. Dr. Submillimeter 07:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Female United States presidential candidates. I would add more, but BrownHairedGirl's reply to Haddiscoe covers everything. — coelacan — 19:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or at least leave at current name, which has an importance standard. Guidelines are just guidelines, and can be overruled as User_talk:BrownHairedGirl admits. Some of User_talk:BrownHairedGirl's points are absurd, eg (1) would be equally valid for every biographical category that could exist. AshbyJnr 21:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Women being a tiny minority is not a universal case; the basic biographical categories (by year of birth etc) are roughly evenly split in most populations, and while wikipedia is probably more male-fucused, there are many occupations when men are in a minority (e.g. Category:Nurses); and the other test of whether a gendered category should exist is whether there can be a substantive head article, which there clearly can in this case. You misunderstand my point about guidelines, and really should read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines; it permits "the occasional exception", which is not the same as ignoring them. Why should this category be one of those "occasional exceptions"? BTW, all the notability guidelines which are so widely used in CFD are just guidelines, as are WP:CAT and WP:OCAT. If CfD discussions were to treat guidelines as purely a personal choice, then WP:CAT and WP:OCAT would also be optional. Do you really think that's a good idea? Because we can't have it both ways. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BrownHairedGirl's point (1) was only a direct response to the claim that "it incorporates women whose tally of votes was unremarkable". It specifically relates to this discussion and would not automatically apply everywhere. Besides that, a very minor objection, you've made no argument as to why the guideline should not apply in this case. I often argue against specific implementations of this guideline, and I'll tell you right now, "it's just a guideline" does not automatically translate to "so we should ignore it". You have to make that specific case. — coelacan — 18:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, your desire to implement an "importance standard", as you call it, is not a method we use on Wikipedia. The current name has serious WP:PEACOCK problems, as do all "important" or "notable" titles (most of which have already been de-peacocked). — coelacan — 18:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV-pushing category. Wimstead 12:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where exactly is the POV in noting that people of one gender are a rarity in presidential candidacies? There are plenty of POVs on the merits of this situation, but are you seriously arguing that it is POV to observe that women are in a tiny minority here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how to say this without coming off as a dick, but there's no merit to your assertion, Wimstead, and unless you substantiate your claim, it will have to be ignored. — coelacan — 18:22, 3 April 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.

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Natives of Rio Grande do Sul to Category:People from Rio Grande do Sul. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Natives of Rio Grande do Sul to Category:People from Rio Grande do Sul

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Change to conventional style. VSerrata 13:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and per convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 01:29, 3 April 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.

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Natives of Sao Paulo state to Category:People from São Paulo state, redirect Category:People from Sao Paulo state to Category:People from São Paulo state. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Natives of Sao Paulo state to Category:People from Sao Paulo state

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Change to conventional style. VSerrata 13:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and per convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People from São Paulo state to match São Paulo (state) article and Portuguese spelling. Keep nominated category and "People from Sao Paulo state" as category redirects. — Dale Arnett 18:21, 2 April 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.

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Raleigh musical groups into Category:North Carolina musical groups. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:North Carolina musical groups, convention of Category:American musical groups by state. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and per convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 30 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.

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Saga, Japan into Category:Saga Prefecture. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Saga Prefecture, convention of Category:Prefectures of Japan. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Merge per nom and per convention. --MChew 01:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Merge. I noticed it awhile ago. Redundant. BilabialBoxing 16:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Merge per nom and convention. Neier 05:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - all members are already in Category:Saga Prefecture or its subcats, so, no merger is required. Neier 05:53, 1 April 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional time travelers - For the same reasons as interdimensional travelers, below. (Noting that Philip J. Fry is a member. Being cryofrozen or in suspended animation means travelling through time? KHA-A-A-N! : ) - jc37 13:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 13:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Fry is indeed a time traveler, see Roswell That Ends Well. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - So many science fiction / comic book characters are time travelers that this is not a defining characteristic of the characters. Most of the X-Men have probably been time travelers at one time or another (if they are not already from the future). Even Squidward Tentacles is listed as a time traveler! Dr. Submillimeter 16:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Definitely a case of being to vague to be useful. There are cases where this is a primary schitck for a character (The Doctor, Kang, and Professor Zoom jump to mind) but both the cat title and criteria need to be very, very tightly worded for that to work. I almost think a list would work better. — J Greb 18:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overly broad category. Cases like suspended animation invoke POV. Every superhero has traveled through time at least once. Doczilla 19:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Besides there are no real ones....Carlossuarez46 23:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a list? If not, listify with the deletion - it is notable information as it's so frequently used in science fiction/fantasy, as you said.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:19, 4 April 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional interdimensional travelers - Is it because they walked through an ancient mystic portal? utilised a tardis? shifted between planes of existence? Went through a wormhole? Entered DC Comic's Anti-matter universe? This category could potentially include every character in science fiction and fantasy, without ever describing the means of the travel and transport. And for many characters, the fact that they have travelled in such a way is not an inherent trait of their character (Jean-Luc Picard, for example). - jc37 13:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as nominator - Listify if you must, but I think deletion is better in this case. - jc37 13:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I think I previously nominated this, but the nomination reached no consensus or keep. Again, this happens so often in science fiction and comic books that it is not a defining characteristic. Again, most of the X-Men (probably most of the Avengers, too) would probably fall in this category. Dr. Submillimeter 16:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Definitely a case of being to vague to be useful. There are cases where this is a primary schitck for a character (Aahz and Skeeve of Asprin's Myth... series jump to mind) but both the cat title and criteria need to be very, very tightly worded for that to work. I almost think a list would work better. — J Greb 18:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete phenomenally broad category. Doczilla 19:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete phenomenally bad category. Carlossuarez46 23:41, 30 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.

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 listify and delete Category:Fictional doppelgängers, no consensus on Category:Fictional clones. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional doppelgängers - This "evil twin" category simply needs to be listified. It's just not clear in every case who the "good twin" is. This is a prime example of where a List is better than a Category (per WP:CLS). - jc37 13:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Added Category:Fictional clones to the nom, see comments below. - jc37 09:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify and then Delete - as nominator. - jc37 13:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify & Delete especially since the term is used to identify "twins" and "analogues". Listing will allow separation of the two types, and the potential to cite how analogues are identified. - J Greb 18:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete per above. Doczilla 19:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even sure that these ought to be listified. Carlossuarez46 23:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This category contains such articles as robotic versions of other characters (Mechagodzilla), alternate-reality versions of characters (Ice-Man (comics)), clones (Evil Jimmy), characters that impersonate other characters (Batman Jones), and other characters who do not really fit into any of the above descriptions (Venom (comics)). Grouping them all together is inappropriate; the characters are only vaguely related. Some of them do not really function as doppelgangers, either. Note that Category:Fictional clones exists for categorizing the clones and that other categories for more specific types of characters could be created. Dr. Submillimeter 07:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Honestly, If we end up listifying this one, I think "clones" should go the same route, and possibly merged with this list (doppelgangers, evil twins, analogues, and clones). Adding a tag to Clones, since the nom has just begun : ) - jc37 09:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarification of vote: Delete Category:Fictional doppelgängers, Keep Category:Fictional clones - My note above addresses the doppelgangers category. Unlike doppelgangers, clones are clearly defined by objective criteria. The clones category should be kept. (I would have preferred to see Category:Fictional clones in a separate nomination.) Dr. Submillimeter 17:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep fictional doppelgangers and tighten the definition. Keep fictional clones. Both are defining characteristics. Otto4711 22:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doppelgangers, keep clones. The former is a matter of debate for many cases; the latter is not. -Sean Curtin 05:10, 3 April 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional symbionts - Same reasons as Category:Fictional cursed characters, below. (Noting that Spider-Man is included, for example.) - jc37 13:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 13:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with reservations though... If the cat could be structured to eliminate the inclusion of articles for the hosts, this would be a valid cat. ie Venom symbiont: in, Spider-Man, Brock, etc: out. There are enough featured symbionts/parasites in fiction for the linkage to work. — J Greb 18:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 19:43, 30 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional possessed - Same reasons as Category:Fictional cursed characters, below. - jc37 13:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 13:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vague enough to become useless. - J Greb 18:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vague category per nom. Doczilla 19:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and possession is 9/10ths of the law.... Carlossuarez46 23:42, 30 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional cursed characters - While I think I know what the introduction is talking about, I think the category is too vague in its inclusion criteria. For example, the frog who turned into a prince when kissed "was" cursed, but no longer is. But thanks to "literary present tense", he'll always be cursed on Wikipedia : ) - In addition, there simply are innumerable examples of "cursed" characters, as a standard literary plot device. - jc37 13:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 13:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The definition of "cursed" is vague and could have many interpretations (from being unlucky to being the host of a demon). Dr. Submillimeter 16:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Let's place a curse on this vague category. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - DON'T PUT A CURSE ON THIS CATEGORY! It could potentially come back from deletion as an undead category.  :) 20:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Vague enough to become useless. - J Greb 17:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vague, broad, subjective category. Doczilla 19:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Carlossuarez46 23:42, 30 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.

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:New Hampshire parks into Category:Parks in New Hampshire. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Parks in New Hampshire

Nominator's Rationale: Category:New Hampshire parks already exists. --Ken Gallager 13:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep / Reverse Merge, by convention of Category:Parks in the United States -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Parks in New Hampshire - This is the naming convention used for other categories on U.S. state parks. Dr. Submillimeter 16:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse Merge Category:New Hampshire parks to Category:Parks in New Hampshire per convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse Merge Category:New Hampshire parks to Category:Parks in New Hampshire per convention. Haddiscoe 19:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse Merge idem. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse Merge is best for consistency. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• reverse merge for consistency with all other similar categories. Hmains 04:58, 1 April 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.

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Cornish organisations to Category:Organisations based in Cornwall. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cornish organisations to Category:Organisations based in Cornwall

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, in line with the usual style for categories of organisations by place. Organisations are categorised by HQ location, and not by every place where they happen to operate. Hawkestone 10:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Xdamr^talk 12:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wimstead 12:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Rgds, - Trident13 17:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Oppose/Keep-->Create separate Cat.'Rename (On reflection, one can just be created in the future, but I'll keep my ramble on the record...) - There are many Cornish organizations based outside of Cornwall and around the world. Examples include Pacific Northwest Cornish Society, The Cornish Society of Greater Milwaukee. Quick google of 'Cornish Society' reveals this. How many of them are/will be articles is of course questionable. Nevertheless I feel the creation of a separate category would solve any future issues about re-introducing the cat.--Keefer4 | Talk 05:04, 2 April 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.

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: withdraw, suggest further discussion on standard. >Radiant< 09:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per standard, to "Streets and squares in <foo>". The entire category tree Category:Streets and squares by city works like that, but for these three cities that has been split into a "street" part and a "square" part, which isn't particularly useful. >Radiant< 09:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Boston, Mexico City, Rome, and Vancouver also have subdivided to separate streets and squares. Other cities, like Moscow and Paris have different subcats of "Category:Streets and squares in foo." Many others don't subdivide "Category:Streets and squares," but instead don't use it at all: Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Chicago, Dallas, Frankfurt, Gatineau, Hiroshima, Hobart, Hong Kong, Kolkata, Liverpool, Los Angeles, Melbourne, Minneapolis, Montreal, Mumbai, Ottawa, Philadelphia, San Francisco, St. John’s, Windsor, Ontario, Sydney, Toronto, Washington, D.C. No such standard exists, there is no breach of Wikipedia convention, consensus decision, guideline. These subcategories are perfectly consistent with the category scheme and naming conventions, and subcategories generally help, rather than hinder, navigation. Bobanny 00:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Merging these is not necessarily conducive to easier navigation, and in fact the terms are far from synonymous. Theoretically one could merge right up to one category for the encyclopedia using this logic.--Keefer4 | Talk 01:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Keefer4. "Streets and squares" is the parent category, and these cities conform to that convention, but the subcats seem useful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per all above Johnbod 11:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose — no need to merge. This also allows separate hierarchies to exist for just streets or just squares. A square in London probably has more in common with a square in Berlin than a street in Oxford. --Stemonitis 08:23, 2 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.

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: withdraw, suggest further discussion on standard. >Radiant< 09:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per standard, to "Streets and squares in <foo>". The entire category tree Category:Streets and squares by city works like that, but for these three cities that has been split into a "street" part and a "square" part, which isn't particularly useful. >Radiant< 09:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, especially for London. Category:Squares in London is very well populated, and the London square is a subject in its own right. There are books about it, and there is an "Open Squares Weekend" every year. All the London squares need to be in one category, and Category:Streets in London has begun to be split by borough. Hawkestone 10:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Given we're talking about London here - and there's a fair bit of work still to be done across London - I think there would a danger of creating a category with too many items for it to be useful to those trying to find anything. Presumably that would then create a request in the future for disaggregation. Interestingly, if you put London Streets into the search it produces a list with Streets of London the song very near the top. This page in turn has no reference to a category called Category:Streets in London. Might it be useful to cross-refer at the top of each category to the other? Cosmopolitancats 17:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merger per Hawkestone. London has enough architecturally and culturally notable squares to justify a split category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Streets and squares are not synonymous, and subcategories are a way to make an article's categories more precise and therefore more, not less, useful for navigating Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) for the importance of precise names). All subcats work this way; "per standard" doesn't explain how the opposite is true. Wikipedia is not a Newspeak dictionary, and the category structure will and should grow with subcategories like these. Bobanny 00:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per all reasons stated above.--Keefer4 | Talk 01:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Hawkestone et al Johnbod 11:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose per Hawkestone et al. Rgds, - Trident13 12:04, 1 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.

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:EDA people to Category:Electronic design automation people. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:EDA people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Over categorization; unfamiliar acronym. Delete Peta 09:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Rename to Category:Electronic design automation people. Perfectly appropriate subcategory of Category:Electronic design automation. The other subcategories should have their acronyms expanded as well. Recury 16:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Rename to Category:Electronic design automation people. EDA is a well known acronym within the industry, expansion is a good solution. I work in that industry and enjoyed stumbling on that category. Cxbrx 15:52, 31 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video game flops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not objectively defined. Combination 08:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This categorization is entirely subjective. The category right now seems to just be populated with bad games. --- RockMFR 14:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Flop" is a slangy and vague term, and although this could be renamed using the less tabloid term "commercial failure", that is poorly defined in List_of_commercial_failures_in_video_gaming, which says: For the sake of scope, a commercial failure for a video game hardware platform is generally defined as a system that either fails to become adopted by a significant portion of the gaming market place, or fails to win significant mindshare of the target audience.
  Unfortunately, there is no definition of "significant", and I can't see any way of setting threshold which isn't arbitrary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 23:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:POV. As mentioned above, this is a very subjective term. Unlike, the well referenced List_of_commercial_failures_in_video_gaming, this category has no defined criteria. I am creating a better category, Category:Notable video game failures, that only lists games in the aforementioned article. —Mitaphane _?|! 01:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as subjective. Otto4711 23:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not well-defined or NPOV and should be deleted together with Entertainment flops (talk) and its other subcategories listing "flops". – Chip Zero 09:25, 2 April 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Berlin metro stations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. This creates an extra (unecessary) level of hierarchy between Category:Transport in Berlin and both Category:Berlin S-Bahn stations and Category:Berlin U-Bahn stations. It only exists for those two subcategories, and it is highly unlikely there will be more systems with metro stations to include later. 'S-Bahn stations' was already in 'Transport in Berlin,' so it seemed even more redundant to me. Keatinga 06:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and upmerge the two subcats as suggested by Keatinga. Pascal.Tesson 02:47, 31 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MySpace people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - with the exception of a couple of MySpace execs, the categroy is for people who are otherwise not notable except for having myspace accounts. The executives can be housed in the appropriate executive categories. If the people with myspace accounts are somehow actually notable then they can be put in the internet celebrity category. Otto4711 06:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. When half the world is on its way to having MySpace accounts, this is not defining at all. Doczilla 08:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. These days, people are notable for not having a myspace presence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & per BrownHairedGirl. Carlossuarez46 23:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete (per nom) --Orange Mike 00:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obviously useless as non-defining. Pascal.Tesson 02:48, 31 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Krusty Krab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - a category for a fictional restaurant. The main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub for the fictional restaurant so there is no need for a category. Otto4711 05:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I do not think we need to categorize fictional characters by fictional employers. Dr. Submillimeter 06:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 08:30, 30 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:US Presidents from Ohio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete: Too limited for a separate category, and already covered by Lists of United States Presidents by place of birth ShelfSkewed talk 04:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Since there is have been fewer US Presidents than there are states, sub-catting them by state is a poor logic for sub-categorising them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Presidents of the United States already have many categories. Categorization by state of origin just adds to the category clutter. Also, this is impractical for some presidents who have lived in multiple locations (e.g. George H. W. Bush from Connecticut/Massachusetts/Maine/Texas). Dr. Submillimeter 06:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As category clutter. Hawkestone 10:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --MChew 01:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 14:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per catcruft. — Dale Arnett 01:31, 3 April 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wise Men (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the lead article The Wise Men serves as an appropriate navigational hub. This is overcategorization. Otto4711 03:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - People should not be categorized by catchphrase like this. I agree that The Wise Men is also sufficient for navigation. Dr. Submillimeter 16:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vaguely titled and sexist category. Doczilla 19:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As mentioned, the main article is the hub and the individual articles will make prominent mention of their membership. I think I see a bit of OR (or at least unsourced) in the article trying to extend the literal meaning of the term from the original six plus of LBJ's era to any analogous position in succeeding years and to the present. If that idea can be sourced then maybe. Otherwise, unneeded. It is also already additionally handled in the Wise Men disamb page. --Justanother 01:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as overcategorisation (the article will suffice as a hub) and because the title is misleading. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My evil twin suggests "delete as oxymoron", but I think that's a nasty thing to say .... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
    • You have an evil twin too? Cool! --Justanother 20:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not even a well known use of the term "wise men" outside of the United States, that I'm aware of. AshbyJnr 21:29, 31 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brown Brothers Harriman partners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - a comprehensive list exists in the article for the company and the individual articles link to the company article. There is no need for this category as a navigational hub. Otto4711 03:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Looks like it could develop into something. 39 current partners, likely many notable. Notable original partners including Prescott Bush. Yes, could be useful. --Justanother 01:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, existing list does a far better job of covering this. >Radiant< 11:09, 5 April 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Horn Book editors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - I merged several stub articles from the category into List of Horn Book Magazine editors and linked it to the main magazine article. The list article and the one substantive article are both categorized under American magazine editors. There is no need for this category. Otto4711 03:31, 30 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.

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

The result of the debate was keep (and repopulate). Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novels by Clive Cussler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This category is pretty much the same thing and serves the same purpose as 'Books by Clive Cussler' Splamo 01:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and also leave populated until this debate you started is done. Also Novels are not intrinsically Books or vice versa. See debate on I think the 22 March about "Works by Author" :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still should have been left till end of debate. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep and repopulate'. Clive Cussler also publishes non-fiction works on marine archeology , and it is useful to separate two, not least because he such a prolific author. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, distinction between "book" and "novel" is far from clear. >Radiant< 11:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Novel is the content, Book is the medium. Novel is the form of writing, Book if the Physical item. The story can easily be a novel and not be contained in a Book, A Book obviously does not need to contain a Novel. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there are many Books categories which contain novels as a sub-category, e.g. Category:Fantasy books by series and Category:Dune books. As well as non-fiction, short stories and comic books are other examples of books which are not novels. In this case, Clive Cussler's novels and novel series categories need to be moved down from his Books category into his Novels category. - Fayenatic london (talk) 19:17, 5 April 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wrestling Society X championships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WSX has only one championship, and thus this category only has one article. PepsiPlunge 01:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. Also due to the fact that Wrestle Society X seems to have ended, or at least will not be putting out any new episodes. ProtoWolf 20:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as part of the Category:Professional wrestling championships by promotion tree. Otto4711 01:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It doesn't look like WSX is going to last much longer, and even if it does, there'll still only be one article, or maybe two if they decide to make a tag team title for some reason. MarcK 08:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Whether WSX stays or goes there is absolutely no need for a category with only one article within. Suriel1981 16:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but that's simply not correct. There are any number of categories which have a single entry because they are part of a categorization scheme. Otto4711 23:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as part of Category:Professional wrestling championships by promotion As noted by Otto above, the size of a category doesn't matter when it's part of an existing larger structure that subdivides all of some parent category's articles. In this case, the "Championships by promotion" category is completely subdividing Category: Professional wrestling championships and therefore all promotions regardless of size or current activity that have a related championship article in Wikipedia should also have a category under "Championships by promotion". Dugwiki 19:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is only one belt, and it looks like WSX will fold soon anyways. TJ Spyke 00:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as overly small and unlikely to grow (WP:OCAT). >Radiant< 11:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN short-lived promotion, even that article can probably be merged to the main article. Biggspowd 20:48, 6 April 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.