< March 6	March 8 >

March 7

Category:Fictional robots with emotion

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 up-merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional robots with emotion to Category:Fictional robots

Merge - subdividing fictional robots on the basis of whether they exhibit emotions or not is overcategorization. I believe we have deleted categories in the past for "emotionless" characters as POV; this would be something of a flip side to that sort of category. Otto4711 20:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commment I always saw that division as useful as robots in fiction can differ a lot. Are they sentient and near-human or are they painting Skodas? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't going to be a defining characteristic for robots in many fictional settings, in addition to the fact that it's going to be a subjective call in many such cases. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as per nom. -- P199 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it is a useful subcategorization.--Knife Knut 03:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Determining whether a robot has "emotion" may require a subjective judgment. Therefore, this category has POV problems that make it less than useful for organization. Dr. Submillimeter 09:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. "Emotion" is not as clearcut as one might think. In many cases, it would require POV to decide that one expressed emotion but another did not. Doczilla 12:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per qualms with the use of 'emotion'. --Xdamr^talk 12:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, because there is no sign of a NPOV definition of emotion in robots. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge over categorisation and subjective Palendrom 20:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -as per nom...--Cometstyles 15:05, 10 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:SingStar songs

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< 14:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as non defining, see also a related nomination. -- Prove It ^(talk) 19:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -- P199 22:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We also killed the category for Guitar Hero songs as well.--Mike Selinker 00:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Popular games and personally helpful for myself and others interested in these games. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The track list on the game's own article is sufficient. Cosmetor 03:27, 10 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:Members of Triple Nine Society

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 14:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, With only around 800 members total, how many will be wiki notable? As a member of TNS, I do not think that there will be enough articles to justify a category of its own. Avi 18:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The people who would be included in this category are probably notable for something other than their membership in this society. The category therefore says little about the people's accomplishments while adding to category clutter. Dr. Submillimeter 18:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Say what about the [Category:Wikipedians in the Triple Nine Society]? There are many names listed there but what say for those who are not Wikipedians, how then do they show merit? Or are USERS' regualrs insiders given differential treatment? What then why also are MENSA members given stature and TNS not, if only in numbers makes things worthy?--Aeromedia 20:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The existence of a user category does not justify the existence of a mainspace category.--Mike Selinker 23:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So how do you defend [Category:Members of Mensa]? --164.67.221.225 23:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't.--Mike Selinker 00:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Members of Mensa has been nominated for deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 09:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I find all of you to be so simple minded. You have your comfort zone and use the Wikipeida to your style. But others may have another approach. I find these Categories usefull in research. I looked in the Mensa Members and saw Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. I went over and looked at his information and found it impressing. Had not been for the Mensa listing I never in a million years would be reading his name page. The real value of the Categories is for cross referencing. To see the larger picture.I don't care any thing per se about Triple Nine Society or Mensa but when wanting to understand who they might be this category sheds light.--164.67.221.224 19:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The problem is that if we start categorizing people by all of the clubs and associations that they belong to, the category lists within articles on individual people will become very long, and the categories that indicate why these people are really notable will be difficult to find. While some categories may be used to find fun and unusual associations, we also need to take readability and usability into account. Dr. Submillimeter 22:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters by superhuman power

The result of the discussion was: I'm going out on a limb here again and make a judgment call. One problem with these cats are the overlaps (e.g. people who can shapeshift into a flying creature, or create illusions of darkness). Another is the ludicrously long names. A third is classification, because not all fictional settings obey "neat" schemes of who-can-do-what. The main problem, however, is that these are apparently created for settings in which these powers are something special, such as the superhero genre. In other settings, some powers are nowhere near special; for instance, all Pini elves are telepathic, and all WOD vampires have superhuman strength. Worse, if we look at Category:Fictional wizards, we'd see that most of those wizards can do just about all of this. The same would apply to fictional witches, genies, deities, and several gadgeteers. So if we were to use this scheme, we'd have to add several dozen long-named categories to the likes of Raistlin, Ridcully, Pug, Haplo, Gandalf, Dworkin, Edward Elric, and Ged. Clearly, that's not helpful. This scheme really Does Not Work. Instead, what would be useful here is articles like flight in fiction, or like list of Marvel characters by superpower. So let's bring on the lists. Listify. And as before, changing a category to a list is not a loss of information. >Radiant< 15:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Listed on deletion review here.--Mike Selinker 16:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - These categories suffer from multiple inherent problems. First of all, these categories are open to severe interpretation problems. For example, see the extended debate on what constitutes the ability to "produce and manipulate radiation" or the debate on what constitutes having the power/ability to fly. Some character's fictional powers may be interpreted in different ways. (Does Cyclops (comics) produce a radiation beam? Does Iceman (comics) "manipulate radiation"? Does Mister Freeze count as being able to "manipulate radiation" or "manipulate cold" because he uses special equipment? Does Iron Man count as "having the power/ability to fly" because he uses armor? The debates on individual characters are endless.) Some of these characteristics are also not notable for entire classes of characters. All Sith, for example, appear to have the ability to "manipulate electricity", "telekinesis", and "telepathy", and all Saiyan appear to have superhuman strength, the ability to fly, the ability to shapeshift, and the ability to produce energy blasts that may or may not count as "radiation". Moreover, some ordinary animal categories are listed in these "superhuman power" categories; Category:Fictional bats, for example, is a subcategory of Category:Fictional characters with the power to fly. Also, characters seem to gain or lose powers over time (see, for example, Spider Woman), which means that the classification is not accurate for the character's entire history. Furthermore, these categories simply fail to work well at categorizing people by superpower. In some cases, the articles seem to be missing categories (such as Superman or Wolverine (comics)), possibly because of issues related to interpretation of these characters' powers. (Why doesn't Superman's "super-breath" count as the ability to "manipulate cold"?) For characters who appear to be appropriately categorized for all of their superpowers, the category clutter is problematic, as can be seen with Swamp Thing. Overall, the system does not work and cannot be fixed, which is why I recommend deleting all of these categories. Dr. Submillimeter 18:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The nom's reasoning mirrors my own, regarding the uselessly vague definition of both the powers of fictional characters and these categories. Additionally, these categories are an essentially in-universe, instead of real-world, way of organizing things. These categories sweep together characters from all sorts of different types of fiction, be it ancient myth, American comic books, television shows of all sorts of origins, movies, games, epic poetry, whatever. Many of these characters have nothing in common except a single trivial aspect. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Unencyclopædic in the extreme. ALso, completely subjective to each fictional uni/multi-verse. -- Avi 18:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep telekinesis, telepathy and precognition as important tropes in fiction. The comic examples should be cross-wiki'd as I find it a useful database.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I will contend that even keeping these categories leads to problems with interpretation. For example, does Spider-Man's "spider-sense" count as precognition? I am sure these categories can be debated endlessly as well. Dr. Submillimeter 19:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, yes it does. And no, the interpretations are mostly clear for those three.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The "common tropes" are mostly notable enough and have enough secondary sourcing that they justify their own articles, which should include examples. It is arguable that such articles would also support list articles expanding the examples. — J Greb 19:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Listify if needed since most of, if not all, the characters have a "Powers" section that can link to lists. The lists would give the option of citing and notating for clarity. Listing would also allow for break down by genre, which for some of these is sorely needed. As noted, the cats become an unwieldy morass on some articles, if no blatantly redundant given the "Powers" section. — J Greb 19:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all as deletion is a solution in search of a problem. Despite the nominator's statements, there does not appear to be mass confusion and anarchy amongst those who maintain the categories as to how to classify various powers. There has been no great rush to place Iceman or anyone else with cold-based powers in the radiation category. There has been no stampede to put characters with light-based powers in the "darkness and shadow" category. And despite the dire prognostication in the current CFD running elsewhere, there has been no swelling of the population of the "vocal persuasion" category with lawyers and politicians. Do characters sometimes end up temporarily miscategorized? Of course. That happens with pretty much every category. That a few characters may end up temporarily in a wrong category is nowhere near sufficient to justify deleting an entire category tree. I found the "characters will be miscatted" argument thoroughly unpersuasive when offered for individual categories and it is no more persuasive now. If the nominator can point to widespread and systemic failure of the category tree, then I will reconsider. Otto4711 19:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Otto4711's assessment about the miscategorization of people is incorrect. See the debate on Category:Fictional characters with the power to generate and manipulate radiation. While Iceman (comics) has not been added to the category, it does sound like someone tried to add characters like the Human Torch. This is part of the problem with all of these categories. Dr. Submillimeter 19:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Dr. S's assessment of the problem is incorrect. There do not appear to have been any attempts to add either Human Torch or Human Torch (android) to the radiation category. Instead they are correctly categorized as fire manipulators. A few characters with heat or X-ray vision were added and removed and there has been no hue, cry or conflict about it. Again, I see no evidence of misuse of the categories that is so widespread as to warrant the mass deletion of the entire category tree.

Comment - That's because some of us are waiting to see how the original CfD on Radiation turns out. CovenantD 07:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, agree with Dr. Submillimeter. -- P199 22:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments given claim that these categories are being widely misused. Not only is this generally untrue, but even if it were it would be an argument for WP:SOFIXIT, not deletion. Of the fictional characters by nature categories most of these are by far the least troublesome. --tjstrf talk 22:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. This categorization system is the result of a long and useful debate, and I see no reason to overturn that result so soon after its conclusion.--Mike Selinker 00:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on most. Weak delete on Category:Fictional characters with the power to duplicate themselves and Category:Fictional characters with the power to warp reality (erratic entry conditions); (standard) Delete on Category:Fictional characters with the power to poison, Category:Fictional characters with the power of night vision, and Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate superpowers (Poison and Night Vision invite non-powery entries, and "manipulate superpowers" is too general and unspecific judging by some entries). I'm slightly puzzled by the complaint that these categories are "in-universe, instead of real-world, way of organizing things"- the same is true of such things like Category:Romance novels. Why is this bad? It doesn't necessarily mean that the articles are all in-universe, which is what WP:FICT covers. Just like someone might be interested in other action movies, this allows them to find other characters with weird ability X. Also, if all Sith have power X, why not put Category:Sith as a subcategory and be done with it? Seems to solve the problem. SnowFire 03:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and a second Keep telekinesis, telepathy and precognition, for reasons cited above. Also these painstaking categorizations represent a large number of man-hours of work. --Knife Knut 03:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep ALL!!! Incredibly useful and convenient for individuals doing research on superhero's and their abilities, not to mention the relevance and cultural importance of comics! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep ALL!!!This upsets me so much! This was the whole reason I started to come to Wikipedia. I loved that I had an outlet to share my knowledge of characters in various mediums. My heart went out to the "under populated" categories and made sure they were supplied with characters. I made sure to check various other sources to make sure that the data was accurate such as the Official Marvel Handbook and the DC Comics Encyclopedia. How can you say this is trivial? What makes Fictional Occupations and Fictional Magic Users more important then superpowers? Who is to say Fictional Alcoholics is not a little iffy? There are other websites that can confirm what superpowers people have. What is the point of having such a fruitful section of fictional characters if you’re going to abandon sections dedicated to what makes them special? Please give this another chance!User:Avatar7306:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)))[reply]
Delete appears to be overcategorization Ulysses Zagreb 09:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. These categories have way too many problems with them. Many are subjective or poorly defined. So many of these are terribly named. We ALL have the power to "manipulate sound". These are not defining traits when the characters in question have multiple powers. Superman would need more than two dozen categories to cover all variations on his powers. He could lose almost any one of his powers (and, at time, has) and he'd still be Superman. Also, several of these qualify for speedy deletion as deliberation recreations. (e.g., [1]). Doczilla 17:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is a complete nonsense argument. Implicit in these categories is that the power must be of a superhuman level. This "we can all do such-and-such" argument has been advanced over and over again as a reason to delete and it's bullshit every time. It's a phony worry over something that hasn't happened. There has been no mad rush to add non-superpowered characters to any of these categories despite the hand-wringing that lawyers and politicians will end up in the "vocal persuasion" category or that cunning bedlinen sets will be categorized as manipulating light by reflecting it. None. None at all. Given that the people who actually maintain the categories are not so rock-stupid as to start adding non-powered characters to superpowers categories, I find it disingenuous at best and bordering on a bad faith argument at worst for this to be repeatedly advanced as a reason for deletion. As for any of these being recreated categories, I think given the discussion at the previous CFD for the radiation category and its having been superceded by this discussion, it's more than reasonable to set aside re-creation concerns for the purposes of this new CFD. Otto4711 19:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is something that rings hollow about this. Essentially you are telling someone who has raised a valid point for clarification that they are either stupid or being deliberately stupid. There are categories listed here that are poorly worded, and I'm fairly certain that most of the supporters of them would yell "WP:POINT!" at this point if someone started applying those cats as currently worded and defined. Instead of assuming that everyone will read the cats as you, or the original editor and arguing "leave it alone", suggest a fix for the issue. — J Greb 20:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, I'm not telling someone who's raised a valid point that they're stupid. I'm telling someone who's raised an invalid point that the point is invalid and that continually raising it in the face of absolutely no evidence that the categories are in any way being misused is tiresome. I see no need to suggest a "fix" for the "problem" because no one has demonstrated that there actually is a problem. Otto4711 01:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a nonsense argument. Is the one winged woman from the Authority able to manipulate sound because she stuns enemies with a sonic boom from high-speed flight? How about the Hulk stunning and deafening people by clapping his hands?
Superpowers in American comics are fluidly defined and not rigorously arbitrated. Characters lose and gain powers all the time, may use existing powers in novel ways, or may have rarely-used powers. We need real-world, unambigious categorization, not this awful, vague, useless tree of fancruft. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're gonna call it cruft, now I'm convinced! Otto4711 01:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have glossed over the "These are vaguely defined categories whose subjects drift in and out of inclusion based on the whim of the writer" part of my argument. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I have to spell it out...I disagree with your assertion that these are vaguely defined categories whose subjects drift in and out of inclusion based on the whim of the writer. Otto4711 01:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide you with one example that should prove the point - Superman. When he first appeared, he couldn't fly. For a while in the 90s, he had electricity-like energy powers. In between, he's had everything from Super-kisses to Super-intuition to Super-hypnotism. There are dozens if not hundreds of characters who have had different powers over the years. CovenantD 03:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, if anyone creates Category:Fictional characters with the power of super-kissing I'll nominate it for deletion myself. Otto4711 03:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have an infuriating ability to seize on minor points while missing the important ones. This category scheme is unworkable partially because characters often are defined by the presence of certain powers, but later lose them. Superman, for example, had electrical powers for several years, and had super-leaping instead of flight for decades. Should we categorize characters based on all the powers they've ever had, only the current ones, or based on some ill-defined "dominant" version of the character? Which powers are too minor to categorize? All of these questions are unanswered, have never been answered, and cannot usefully be answered. This categorization tree is hopelessly doomed to vague definition because of this, and it's not the only problem with it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could apply that logic to absolutely any category imaginable. Say a cartoon character is a policemen in one episode of one cartoon; does he count as a "fictional policeman"? What if he's a policeman for several episodes in a row, and then loses his job; what then? What about if he's a policeman for an entire season, then quits and becomes a private detective; is he a "fictional policeman" or a "fictional detective"? There can always be an argument over whether or not any trait of a fictional character has been focused on enough to warrant inclusion in a category. My general policy is that fiction is static, and sequels don't override the events of the original; for example, my last example would fit into both categories, since he has been a policeman and detective at different times. Cosmetor 16:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason not to categorize things by in-universe classifications and all the more reason to use real-world classifications only. I don't much like "fictional characters by profession," either, for much the same reason. If we categorized Mickey Mouse by every profession he's held in a story, that article would have a tangle of useless categories. In fact, look how awful Mario's article has gotten. We have an opportunity to reverse this mistake, at least in part. Let's seize it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I'd like to add is keep strength, speed and flight categories as they are incredibly important in subcategorising a hell of a lot of "superhero" characters and have survived countless CfDs independently.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - One of the frequent reasons why people vote in favor of keeping individual "superpower" categories is because the hierarchy exists. However, these people have also indicated that it is worth reviewing the entire hierarchy to decide whether or not it is a viable classification system. Hence, one of the reasons why I made this nomination is to get around the "it is part of a hierarchy of categories" argument and address whether we even want to classify fictional characters by superpower anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 19:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This category is valid and useful and most problems with teh sub categories could easily be thwarted with a tighter definition of what belongs there. For ease I might suggest we Listify the subcategories but Ithis information deserves to be kept. Palendrom 20:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete all. Useless long-named categories. Madhava 1947 (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of them had shorter names until a decision was made to extend them. For example, fictional pyrokineticists to fictional characters with the power to manipulate fire. -- Noneofyourbusiness 22:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all. Apart from them being useful for research on fictional characters, it's even a major theme in most American comics as well as other fantasy and science fiction genres, especially in terms of character development and plot. DivineLady 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an argument to listify. It's not a sufficient reason to categorize. Doczilla 16:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all. This is a very helpful and very useful, as well as informative, series of lists which should be saved. Besides being merely informative these lists also allow people searching for information on a particular character to find and use that information much faster. They are useful, informative, and very well thought out.18-Till-I-Die 20:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all It would be hard to overstate how useful, relevant, and in fact essential these categories are. Their deletion would be a severe loss. The point about comic book superheroes whose powers change refers only to a small amount of characters, as many articles in these categories aren't about comic book superheroes at all. The occassional category which is less than useful can and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and this is a very small minority. If it came to it I would be sanguine with listification as an alternative to mass deletion, but it shouldn't come to that. -- Noneofyourbusiness 22:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all There is no good reason to delete any of these. The original nominator's reasons seem to be that he expects people to be disruptive for the sake of being disruptive (for example, the idea that someone would categorize a character with the ability to manipulate wind simply because the character breathes is even more absurd than the action itself). There might be categories which are poorly-defined, and there might be characters who are difficult to categorize, but those are both case-by-case situations. It's best to assume that Wikipedia editors are not stupid; that's one of the site's founding principles. As for his point that certain categories apply to entire classes of people, that's the reason we put categories (like "Jedi") in other categories (like "Fictional characters with telekinesis"); it's not really a problem at all, it's a standard and very important practice. Cosmetor 03:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep all pending guidelines as to what constitutes to inclusion in a category; these are evidently needed given what debates have arisen. --JB Adder | Talk 13:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion criteria seem pretty clear, simple, and self-explanatory as it is. "This category includes characters with a superhuman power of such-and-such". Making them more clear by making them more detailed and wordy is certainly doable, if people think it necessary, but there is a fair amount of detail present, such as characters who can manipulate light including those with umbrakinetic powers and so on. -- Noneofyourbusiness 14:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep Them All! I can't believe it, how is it possible to put super heroes or super villains in category by power without these gategories? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlazikenMaster (talk • contribs) UTC 14:53, 11 March 2007
- Strong Keep These are categories used by the Comics Project on a regular basis, navigating trough the entries without them would be a nightmare. --Basique 17:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If these are all used by the Comics Wikiproject, could I suggest that if "power to manipulate other superpowers" is kept, that category sees major cleanup? A cursory glance revealed lots of entries that are rather a stretch, and I'm not sure what exactly this category means is clearly defined. SnowFire 23:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some of these characters aren't part of comics. For example some pokémon species. TheBlazikenMaster 08:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all; I'm opposed to a blanket deletion. --Pentasyllabic 00:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all; I can see the need for fine tuning but completely erasing them I see as a waste. I've found these categories extremely helpful and don't like the blanket decision being proposed here. Katsuhagi 01:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some, keep others, close this discussion as trainwreck without prejudice to renominate individual categories listed. There are some really badly-thought-out categories there, and some perfectly reasonable ones, I'm particularly dubious about most (but not all) of the "manipulate" categories, as those are extremely vague. I'll give an unequivocal thumbs down to "warp reality"—I'm not even sure that's English. Still, many of these seem quite reasonable, Xtifr _tälk 11:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename "manipulate radiation" to "manipulate ionizing radiation", radiation is too broad. no comment on any of the others, though I may comment when they come up for individual noms. --Random832 14:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - After this debate closes (at which point it will either be "no consensus" or "keep"), we should probably discuss Category:Fictional characters with the power to generate and manipulate radiation further. The phrase "ionizing radiation" is actually very vague and also does not describe these characters' powers. (Many elements may be photoionized by ultraviolet light, whereas some of these characters clearly generate higher-energy photons.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all with no prejudice towards or against future nominations of individually problematic or poorly named categories. Although some characters' powers may change over time, which superpowers a character has are key character points for superheroic characters, and the category scheme is fundamentally sound. There's nothing wrong with having an occasional debate over whether so-and-so should be included in a given category. If "he didn't always have the power of x" is a major concern, a conversation can be held over whether the category should be applied to characters who always have the power of x, characters who currently have the power of x, or characters who are generally portrayed as having the power of x. (The latter seems most sensible to me, but I think it's a matter that should be decided by a consensus of the editors who use these categories.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All--Releeshan 01:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Entropy in thermodynamics

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 02:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Entropy in thermodynamics to Category:Thermodynamic entropy

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, More accurate: category is for articles about entropy, not articles about the place of entropy in thermodynamics. Jheald 15:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation I created this category this morning, by splitting old Category:Entropy into Category:Entropy in thermodynamics and Category:Entropy and information, for articles relating to thermodynamic entropy and information entropy respectively. But as I was populating the category, it seemed to me that Category:Thermodynamic entropy would have been a slightly better name. -- Jheald 15:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I would suggest dividing them into Category:Information entropy and Category:Thermodynamic entropy. --Sadi Carnot 00:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Is there going to be a Category:Mathematical entropy for dynamical systems? My gut instinct is that its a mistake to try to split up this category in this way; this is not how WP uses categories. Instead, you should have created a chemistry-related category to put the chemistry articles, instead of incorrectly categorizing things as "information entropy" or "quantum entropy" when clearly these are all the same concept, and just use a different notation. You do understand this, right? linas 05:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just sort of teed off because I've spent the last several years writing articles like wandering set and Lax pair and measure-preserving dynamical system so that I can get a better understanding myself of thermodynamics, and then someone comes along and clearly shows no understanding at all of what entropy is or how its studied... WP needs a better way of keeping this sort of stuff under control, and preventing non-experts from making messes such as this. linas 06:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Linas, I have worked with entropy in physics, chemistry, machine learning, and nonlinear time-series contexts. I think I have a reasonable idea of what entropy is, and how thermodynamic entropy relates to information entropy. See for example Information_entropy#Relationship_to_thermodynamic_entropy which I hope you would agree is a reasonable summary. My own views indeed would be close to the E.T. Jaynes camp, Maximum entropy thermodynamics which regards thermodynamic entropy as simply an application of information theoretical entropy. (Even if some chemists appear to persistently disagree, and decry the mention of any connection between the two).

But the point of Wikipedia categories is to group articles which are close in subject. There is a clear split to be made, betweeen articles on entropy which can make sense outside a thermodynamic context; and articles on entropy which only relate to a thermodynamic context. Generally, when browsing the categories people will either be looking for one or the other. It is a distraction and a confusion for people looking for articles related to entropy in the context of signal processing to lump those in together with say the Sackur-Tetrode equation. If you look at at what falls into each category, they really do fall into two distinct sets of articles. Creating the spearate sub-categories makes it much easier to see how complete these categories are. And it's helpful, to give a first compass-indication on what each article might be about.

So even though we actually probably agree with each other on the close connections between "entropy and information" and "entropy in thermodynamics", and maybe the category description pages should acknowledge this connection more, perhaps with a reference to the Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory article, nevertheless IMO it is still extremely useful and informative to make the concentration of the articles into two distinct sub-categories, rather than muddling them all together. Jheald 08:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

WRT dynamical systems entropies. The K-S entropies clearly come into the category "articles on entropy which can make sense outside a thermodynamic context". If I'm estimating the K-S entropies of a logistic map, or a Lorenz attractor, then I'm calculating how a family of general measures of diversity (the Renyi entropies) of the possible histories of the trajectory increase with time. That's a general mathmeatical property of a general dynamical system. Yes, for a specific model, and for the specific α->1 entropy, that might have a thermodynamic application. But in general, for a general chaotic system, it probably won't. So it is appropriately placed in Category:Entropy and information. Jheald 08:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I don't agree. Entropy in information is the stuff that engineering students study when they have to design satellite systems or cell telephone towers or HD-DVD recording systems with low bit-error-rates and channnel codings and what-not. Its rather absurd to argue that the mathematical definitions of entropy, such as those commonly used in dynamical systems and topology, belong to the same batch of articles that the engineering definitions belong to. If you're going to claim that the chemistry articles don't belong, then the math articles don't belong either, and deserve thier own special category. linas 01:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The maths articles are absolutely about the same sorts of entropy as the other articles in category:entropy and information. Specifically they relate to the rate at which dynamical systems generate information -- Shannon information, in the case of the original Kolmogorov-Sinai information ("measure-theoretic entropy"); or more generally Renyi information, as the original K-S entropy is usually generalised into a whole spectrum of K-S entropies. The "topological entropy" is just the α->0 limiting member of that spectrum. Shannon entropy and Renyi entropy are (rightly) in category:entropy and information; so should be K-S entropy, and its special case the so-called topological entropy. Jheald 21:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this category. Using thermodynamics you cannot calculate the entropy, only derive a few relations between a postulated entropy function and other thermodynamical quantities. "Entropy in statistical physics" would thus be more appropriate for most physics articles that discuss entropy. But I think that this name is too long for such a category. If you mention "entropy" then most people who know what it means will think of entropy as discussed in the physics articles, and not in the more abstract sense as discussed in articles on probability theory etc.

So, I suggest that all the physics articles that discuss entropy in the conventional sense, be categorized in the main entropy category and that the Maths and Statistics articles that discuss the Max-Ent method, Fisher entropy, Shannon theory and what have you more, be classified in specialized categories. Count Iblis 02:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Using thermodynamics you cannot calculate the entropy" ???? I take it you have never taken a course on statistical thermodynamics, or even a basic course on solid-state physics, or you would have to calculate at the very least the heat capacity of the Einstein model of a solid, and its enhancement the Debye model? Nor ever used it to calculate the elastic properties of polymers (see eg loop entropy)? Calculating entropy and related quantities from formulas like the Gibbs entropy and the von Neumann entropy is an absolutely everyday occurrence, fundamental for understanding phase transitions, and a whole host of physical properties.

"most people who know what it means will think of entropy as discussed in the physics articles". I wonder if that is actually true or not. There are a lot of people who work with information who constantly use Shannon entropy, and never have to think of thermodynamic entropy at all - people working in data compression, signal processing, electrical engineering, statistical modelling, machine learning... I wonder if there may not actually be more of them than of people working with thermodynamic entropy.

There would certainly be little sense in making the entropy in data compression a sub-category of thermodynamic entropy. But there are enough people that think like you, that thermodynamic entropy is "the" entropy, that that is why I originally thought to call the category "entropy in thermodynamics", rather than "thermodynamic entropy". I'm still myself not 100% sure as to which of those two namings is better. But both are more accurate than the category the overarching name "entropy", and then only putting thermodynamics articles there. No: the split into two sub-categories makes sense, and so does coming up with the right identifying names for those categories. Jheald 21:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "Thermodynamic Entropy" is an appropriate name. How about a category called "entropy" and then subcategories for thermodynamic entropy, information entropy, etc, etc. There could be some articles that were only in the "entropy" category, which would be more or less elaborate disambiguation pages, with explanations of the similarities in all forms of entropy. Then leave it to the subcategories to explore the separate instances. PAR 02:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is, pretty much, what I put in place last week. Jheald 07:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this one. Can agree that this one is too long, and belongs in either seperate categories, or otherwise renamed per nom. Alex43223^{T | C | E} 00:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note from an admin. I'm leaning to a close as rename based on the comments above. While there is some support for a deletion, I'm not sure that there is consensus for that despite the votes. If renamed, then anyone can nominate for deletion and we can have a discussion on the merits of that rather then in this highly technical discussion on what this category is about. And yes, I still have one of my thermodynamics class textbooks. Vegaswikian 20:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Elite Beat Agents songs

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 14:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, use in video games is non defining. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. These songs are already listed on the article's main page. No need for this category, the songs have nothing else in common. -- P199 16:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Main article already lists the songs, so that is the preferable method of navigating these links. Category isn't necessary. Dugwiki 17:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a cat for songs in SingStar, after all. Also, the list of songs doesn't necessarily need to be on the Elite Beat Agents page. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being in a game that compiles a handful of popular songs is not a defining characteristic. Important to the game, yes. Important to the songs, no. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Less Than Perfect

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - contains one subcat for cast members, which will be deleted shortly, so this can be deleted as an empty category. Otto4711 14:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - as per Otto4711...--Cometstyles 15:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lost cast members

The result of the debate was Delete, per decision of January 25th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per tag on the category. I've listified it here: List of Lost cast members. RobJ1981 06:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added here for emptying and deletion. Otto4711 13:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous followers of Sathya Sai Baba

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Famous followers of Sathya Sai Baba to Category:Followers of Sathya Sai Baba

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, To maintain consistency with connected sub-category Category:Critics of Sathya Sai Baba that was created in January 2007 as a result of a previous cfr. Also, entries in this category are not necessarily "famous" so the name is too long. Ekantik ^talk 05:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom - Seems a simple decision to make. By default notability should be established on relevant articles anyway. Smee 03:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Category:World Series championship teams

The result of the debate was delete, including all subcategories. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I am proposing deletion of this category and all subcategories. I have not yet tagged all the subcats, but am placing a ((cfdnotice)) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball. The subcats, which follow the naming pattern Category:1923 New York Yankees World Series Championship Team, seem to each be composed of only the members of each team. This is leading to Overcategorization and results in circumstances such as Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle each having an additional 7 categories applied. I will tag all the subcats in about 24 hours [2], after I make sure that there is not overwhelming support against what I am proposing, in which case, I will probably withdraw this instead of tagging 102 child categories. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion about main category, but delete all the sub-categories. Like the nominator said, players like Babe Ruth would have multiple categories that are un-needed. TJ Spyke 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete main category and all subcategories per nom. BRMo 04:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~& Delete~~ the main category is useful. ~~The subcategories, not so much; delete them.~~ SERSeanCrane 04:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note - The main category will have only one entry remaining in it if the child categories are deleted. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This cat is just a complicated way of listing the rosters of World Series teams. If these lists are notable, they should be on the respective World Series articles (2006 World Series, for instance). If nothing else, it would enable us to list players without articles. If this is kept it should be renamed Category:World Series champion teams, from a grammar standpoint.--Djrobgordon 05:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 07:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - We previously decided not to categorize championship teams in other sports because the categories seemed largely redundant and because the categories contributed to category clutter. For those same reasons, these categories should also be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - clutterful way of documenting information that can be listified in the article for the World Series of each year. Otto4711 13:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and Dr. Submillimeter. Haddiscoe 13:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per discussions of Super Bowl and Stanley Cup championship teams. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom. -- P199 15:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all.--Mike Selinker 15:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. — Dale Arnett 20:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete for the above reasons. However, the information is useful, and if the categories are deleted the information should be standardized and placed on the page for each year's Series.--Kathy A. 22:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand that roster information is useful. I actually think that it will be better if this info is somewhere other than in a category, especially for the older teams where a large number of players are excluded from the current category system because the articles do not exist. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American scholars

The result of the debate was merge Category:American scholars into Category:American academics. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American scholars to Category:American academics

Merge, Seems redundant. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Haddiscoe 13:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WWE Champions

The result of the debate was Delete, Repost of deleted content. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Category was previously delete in late January. Not needed as their is already a category for world champion professional wrestlers. TJ Spyke 00:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as recreation. --Xdamr^talk 02:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]