< March 7	March 9 >

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:20 to 1 to Category:20 to 1 episodes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:20 to 1 to Category:20 to 1 episodes

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This category is specifically for episodes of the series 20 to 1. Per the convention for similar categories in Category:Episodes by television series, recommend renaming this to Category:20 to 1 episodes. Dugwiki 23:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Jwillbur 00:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Canley 02:32, 11 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.

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< 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Let's see... POV, non-verifiable, already covered by other cats. Dismas

Keep. It's generally well-known (or easily apparent/verifyable) if a porn star has real or fake boobs. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Objectively define "busty". Dismas|^(talk) 23:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be subjective if the category was renamed 'Female porn stars with larger than D sized natural breasts. Although, the subjectivity of this category doesn't appear to be a problem as there is already a category on Wikipedia for 'big-bust models and performers'. Also, you can tell from the titles of the films the actress has appeared in whether or not they are in the big-bust genre. Epbr123 12:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are no other categories which cover naturally busty pornstars, only busty porn stars. It is verifiable: there is already a category for 'big-bust models and actresses' and the articles on each porn star state whether or not they have natural busts. The category for 'big-bust models and actresses' defines busty as having a cup size of DD or more. Epbr123 23:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Female porn stars with natural breasts. This sounds more like what the category is for. Vegaswikian 00:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree the category may need renaming but I feel there should be a category separating natural big-bust pornstars from big-bust pornstars with implants. Maybe rename to Category:Female porn stars with large natural breasts Epbr123 00:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no possible way to define "busty" objectively. There is no possible way to define "large" objectively were the cat to be renamed as Epbr123 suggests. The category for big bust models is as I understand it (or at least is supposed to be) for those porn stars who are marketed specifically as big-bust models. And, while admittedly breasts are not my forté, I see no more reason for this category (or its suggested rename to "natural breasts") than I would for Category:Male porn stars with naturally large penises or Category:Uncircumcized porn stars or Category:Porn stars who use Viagra. Otto4711 00:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, "busty" can be defined by bust size. If you actually looked at the category for big bust models, you will see it is for models with bra sizes of DD or over. Porn involving large naturally breasted models is one of the main genres of porn and therefore there should be a seperate category for these models. Epbr123 02:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is DD or larger the definition of "busty"? Why not D or larger, or DDD or larger, or some other size? Where is the objective definition of "busty" meaning "DD or larger"? Bareback is a major genre of porn but I see no need for Category:Bareback porn performers either. I do not see the burning need to categorize porn stars by every possible kink, fetish or permutation. What's next? Category:Porn stars with naturally tight vaginas? Category:Porn stars with tribal tattoos? Category:Porn stars who gang bang? Otto4711 03:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The consensus among many independent web sites is that a DD cup size and larger qualifies as large. 'Porn involving bareback' and 'porn involving tight vaginas' are not main genres. Epbr123 03:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to recognize bareback porn as a genre smacks of systemic bias. "Consensus among independent websites" does not strike me as constituting an objective definition. Otto4711 04:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Porn without the use of a condom' is not considered a major genre. How about calling the category 'Female porn stars with larger than D sized bras'. Is that objective enough? Epbr123 04:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who specifically doesn't consider bareback not to be a major genre? I get dozens of solicitations a month for bareback videos and websites. As far as your suggestion goes, sorry, I still oppose it. I see no need to categorize anyone by how large their breasts are, or how large any other part of their anatomy is. I wouldn't for example categorize people by the size of their feet despite the number of foot fetishists out there. Otto4711 04:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you mean gay barebacking. There already is a category for large breasted models. This debate is about whether to distinguish between naturally busty models and models with implants. Epbr123 04:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subjective, unnecessary category. Doczilla 09:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, it is not subjective if you define busty as having a bust size of DD or more. There is already a category for big-bust models and performers which uses this definition. It is necessary to distinguish big-bust pornstars with implants from those without. Epbr123 11:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Requires subjective judgement. Choice of size DD or whatever is subjective and arbitary. CalJW 12:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Rename category 'Natural big-bust models and performers'. If this is not acceptable on the grounds of subjectivity, then the category 'big-bust models and performers' should also be deleted. Epbr123 12:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not opining one way or the other, but isn't this rather hard to verify for the general case? Doesn't it also tend to change over the course of a star's career? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The category will be for porn stars who currently have natural busts. It is easy to verify whether a porn star has had implants or not as most of the Wikipedia articles on each porn star state this. Epbr123 16:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then make it a Delete. Very few of those statements are backed with sources, Wikipedia is not a reliable source without that. The category includes Trinity Loren, who, frankly ... not likely. :-P. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just reseached Trinity Loren and I can find no evidence of her receiving breast implants. Her Wikipedia article appears to be correct, disproving your point. Epbr123 01:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absurd categorization. Subjective definition. Suggestions to go with DD instead are completely arbitrary. There's no possibility of objective definition here without original research. Thus the category is insalvagable from all sides. — coel acan — 02:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not subjective. It's not performers who have a big bust, it's performers in the big-bust genre, which is fairly distinctive. This is just prejudice against categories involving pornography. Epbr123 09:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not on my part. Look at my contributions and you'll see that I at least have no problem with porn articles. Dismas|^(talk) 11:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not on my part either. Please assume good faith, Epbr123. — coel acan — 01:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename: Get rid of the "busty" part and just have Category:Porn stars with natural breasts or alternatively, start making categories by breast size by size, e.g. Category:Porn stars with natural DDD breasts as a sub-category of Category:Women with natural DDD breasts of a sub-category of Category:Women with DDD breasts as a sub-category of Category:Women by breast size...or not. --SeizureDog 14:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As Wikipedia doesn't have a problem with the Category:big-bust models and performers, to be consistent its should also not have a problem if this category was renamed Category:Natural big-bust models and performers. Epbr123 14:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As has been noted, that category is supposed to be for models who are marketed as big-bust performers. There should be no size restriction on that category either and anyone in it should have sources proving that she is marketed as a "big-bust" performer. Otto4711 16:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to include in this category as well only models who are marketed as big-bust performers. It can usually be shown by the the videos or magazines the model has appeared in whether they are marketed as big-bust performers. For example, if they've appeared in 'Score' magazine or been in a video called 'Big Naturals'. Epbr123 16:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is insulting to categorise women in such a ridiculous way. Dahliarose 17:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it would be insulting if women in general were categorised by breast size but unfortunately it's part of porn star's jobs to be refered to like this. Epbr123 17:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Category:Big-bust models and performers with natural breasts, as an objectively defined subcategory to Category:Big-bust models and performers. I'm not expert but the distinction seems notable for that genre. –Pomte 04:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Epbr123 12:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because, quite apart from "busty" being subjective, this is a negative categorisation. It's like Category:People with natural noses or Category:People who do not wear glasses. I would have less problem with Category:Porn stars with surgically enlarged breasts, but I wouldn't vote to keep that, either! --RobertG ♬ talk 16:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the category was renamed Category:Big-bust models and performers with natural breasts it would not be subjective as it would be for models of the big-bust genre. As I explained earlier, it is simple to ascertain whether a model belongs to this genre. Big-bust models with natural breasts are more sought after than those with implants so this negative categorisation is justified. Epbr123 20:47, 13 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.

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) 23:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I re-categorized the members to "Category:Gilliam class attack transports". This one is empty. --Saintrain 22:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jwillbur 00:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so now what? --Saintrain 21:27, 12 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.

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< 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete People are not notable for their membership of student societies, so this is category clutter. CalJW 23:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand (and Skull (and Bone)), see Category:Bonesmen. --Saintrain 21:26, 12 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.

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) 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First, classification of people by the intersections of multiple careers seems to be a form of overcategorization. Politicians could be divided into an endless number of subcategories ("lawyer-politicians", "accountant-politicians", etc). Second, I thought that we had already deleted an "athlete-politicians" category. If this is the case, then this category should be deleted as well. Dr. Submillimeter 20:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CalJW 23:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jwillbur 00:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as irrelevant intersection. Could be listified if anyoneone wants to do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge, I brought the issue up here about how these arcade by year categories are redundant with the Category:Video games by year and Category:Arcade games. We seemed to pretty much agree that arcade games are video games too and that there was no special reason why they should be the only system to be sorted by year. I say delete/merge because most articles already have categories for both the arcade year and video game year, but have these years seperate. So could just delete them all now, with only a slight amount of damage, but some work would have to be done to make sure that the "XXXX video games" category is for the first year, the year the arcade game was released and not the port. Also, some articles might only be in the "XXXX arcade games" category and not "Arcade games" itself. I know I should go around and put this damn notice on all of the categories, but I'm very tired right now and need my 2 hours of sleep before I go to work, so could somebody help me out here?--SeizureDog 20:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems useful to distinguish when a game was released for the arcade and when it got ported to video game consoles. For example, Metro-Cross only hints at this difference in its categories. However, this information probably should be given in the article itself, as the first release year is what is most significant. Also, instead of dumping every single arcade game into Category:Arcade games, categorizing by year is neater. Even if all arcade games are video games, they are special in that they have a huge category, much larger than Category:Pinball games for instance. You could argue the same for other large categories like Category:Super NES games, so I don't know whether the original arcade year is that much more important. –Pomte 03:09, 13 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.

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: keep for now as a useful authoring resource for within (among others) Wikipedia, but note that, as suggested in the debate, listifying this would arguably be an even better resource. >Radiant< 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Authors' works will enter the public domain after a set time period. According to the category, this time period is 70 years after the author last published his or her work and/or after the author's death, but that may be incorrect, as the statement is unreferenced. Anyhow, if this statement is correct, then this effectively functions as a category of all authors who died more than 70 years ago, which will be all-inclusive and uninteresting. I therefore advocate deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 20:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if possible: if it's possible to rework the category to be like Category:Public domain films, then I think it's a good category to have around. However, it might not be as workable. I think knowing what's in the public domain is a very useful thing to know though. Perhaps if we don't want to have all of the dead authors we could rework it to be something like "Living authors whose works are in the public domain". Surely there's at least a few for that.--SeizureDog 20:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I check all of the articles in this category. None of them is a living author who has released material into the public domain. This is merely a category of deceased authors. Dr. Submillimeter 22:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would be pure category clutter on the thousands, if not tens of thousands of articles to which it applies. CalJW 23:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - here is an actual useful category. It is far more likely that a user of the encyclopedia will be able to benefit from knowing that the work of a particular author is freely available in the public domain than it is for them to know who was a left-handed pitcher in 1932, or who was a Dutch acrobat. The mission of this encyclopedia is to bring together all the knowledge of the world, but to the extent that some of that knowledge remains shrouded behind intellectual property laws, we should do everything we can to make clear what remains freely available. I will grant you that the category will be large, but that can be addressed through subcategories and perhaps a narrowing of the definition. After all, everyone who knows anything about copyright knows that William Shakespeare's works are in the public domain, but not everyone knows that Rudyard Kipling's work passed into the public domain two months ago, and surely hardly anyone is aware that Virginia Woolf's works will enter the public domain in 2012. The same could be said of composers, including some great swing and big band leaders of the 1920s and 1930s whose work has recently become (or will soon become) freely available. These things should not be difficult to discern; rather they should be publicized and celebrated - here, at last, an author's work has become free for all to enjoy and own, without having to pay or seek permission from anyone! This category is a small step towards a society where as much information as possible is maintained as freely as possible. bd2412 T 00:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: This category may be useful, but it would have to be disambiguated by country—e.g., "Authors whose works are in the public domain in Foo". The life plus 70 years term is applicable for the United States, but not necessarily everywhere else. The public domain article notes that:
- The United Kingdom has adopted life plus 70 years.
- In Canada and New Zealand, the term is still life plus 50 years.
- Australia passed a 20-year extension to its copyright law in 2004, but delayed its effect until 2005, and the law did NOT revive expired copyrights. Hence, works by authors who died before 1956 are PD in Australia.
- India's term is life plus 60 years.
- Conclusion: A useful category, but not as a single catch-all because of differences between countries. — Dale Arnett 00:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fortunately for us, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works establishes that the author's home country is the country whose law dictates the protectability of works. Therefore, an Indian author whose works have entered the public domain in India are in the public domain throughout the world. That said, I have no problem dividing the category by country. Or, if the concept is listified, making it a category to contain the lists (as there will surely be enough of them to require a category to tie them all together). bd2412 T 05:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Not quite. Convention provides that "term shall not exceed that in the country of the origin of the work" unless the legislature decides otherwise. So the EU is not obliged to honour U.S. Sonny Bono copyright terms, nor is it prohibited from imposing longer terms than other countries. Jheald 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - True, but no country has ever actually done so. bd2412 T 23:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Listify and delete, regionalisation as well as issues with over categorisation. --Peta 00:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an individual author can have works that are both under copyright and in the public domain. Categorizing works by whether or not they are in the public domain may be reasonable but categorizing authors is not. Otto4711 07:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with that approach is that not every "work" has a Wikipedia article. Some notable authors have many, many non-notable works among their catalog, and the only way to identify the public domain status of those works is to categorize the author. This category is intended for authors whose entire catalog is in the public domain. I see how the title would be ambiguous with respect to this, but I'm sure something more precise can be worked out. bd2412 T 23:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete cluttercruft. This category is excessively inclusive. Doczilla 09:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but verify that the authors works are in the PD under the relevant law. This is a useful category. Prodego ^talk 03:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - User bd2412 made the best point - not everyone knows that Rudyard Kipling's work passed into the public domain recently. Epbr123 16:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BD2412. The category is not so all-inclusive as it should not contain any authors in its subcategories Category:Medieval writers and Category:Renaissance authors etc. The suggested list can complement this as well. –Pomte 02:42, 13 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge, and lists are of course welcome. This is a bit of a judgment call but it's also a matter of WP:USEFUL vs. WP:OCAT. Indeed, animals do not mind human borders, so anything found in one country is likely also found in the next country over. >Radiant< 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Fauna of Europe - (This is a repost from 21 Feb 2007, where the previous discussion received no other votes for or against it and so was closed as "no consensus".) The distribution of animals has nothing to do with these political boundaries. Moreover, categorizing animals by country is infeasible, as some animals are found in many countries (see, for example Eurasian lynx). Including a category for each country in which every animal is found would lead to category lists within articles that are too long to read. Therefore I recommend merging these categories to Category:Fauna of Europe. To address questions asked in the previous nomination: Categories for animals endemic to specific regions can be created after this merge if necessary. Lists of fauna by country would be more appropriate instead of categories, and a category may be created to hold all of the lists. (Also note related discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 12, where similar categories for European country categories were merged into Europe categories.) Dr. Submillimeter 17:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to administrator - Category:Fauna of Scotland and Category:Fauna of Spain appear to be comprehensive lists and should be listified. The other categories are incomplete and should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 17:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support—The current system of fauna (and flora) categories for every country is proving unworkable. House Mouse, for instance, should be in all 35 categories above, plus the missing ones (fauna of Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, smaller countries), and if the method of having at least one fauna category for every country is applied consistently, the House Mouse should be in something like 200 categories. I don't think such an enormous blob of categories at the end of an article is useful. Lists, as Dr. Submillimeter suggests, make much more sense. —JerryFriedman 19:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_location as a guideline that these categories violate. —JerryFriedman 21:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Dr. Submillimeter and JerryFriedman. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 00:13Z

Support with amendment - Merge all except the following to Category:Fauna of Europe:

England, Scotland, Wales, United Kingdom. Merge those four (along with an Ireland one if such exists) into Category:Fauna of the British Isles, and make this a subcategory of the Europe one
Iceland - this can be kept as a subcategory

In those cases, it does make sense to have separate categories, since they are geographical isolates and as such do not automatically have the same cross-section of fauna to the rest of the continent. A case could be made for Scandinavia in the same way, but it is a weaker claim. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have investigated this, and the fauna of the United Kingdom is not all that different from the fauna of Continental Europe. In other words, the United Kingdom contains few endemic species. Having a separate category for U.K. fauna therefore is not useful. The same can also be said for Iceland. If the majority decide to keep these categories, however, then the word "endemic" should be used in the categories' names. Dr. Submillimeter 10:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Grutness's amendment, with one exception: Category:Fauna of the Alps should also be kept. The Alps are not a country, but a region with a distinctive climate and fauna, so the arguments by the nominator for its deletion do not apply. -- Avenue 00:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The Alps are not as well defined a geographical region as you think. The animals in the Alps are also found in other mountainous regions in Europe (such as in the Balkans). If this category is kept, then the word "endemic" should be added to the category name to indicate that the animals are found only in the Alps. Dr. Submillimeter 10:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support with reservation. Grutness's amendment is fine and perhaps should be examined to see of other geographically distinct parts of Europe can support such categories. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment should 'Fauna of Scandinavia' (also not a country) also be kept? Should there be categories by actual region, such as the sub-artic, central plain, southern mountains or whatever the fauna regions might actually be? Hmains 02:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Scandinavia has almost no endemic fauna. If the category is kept, then the word "endemic" should be added to the article title. Dr. Submillimeter 10:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep However, this is how the animals and plants are sorted and how texts are written by them. In addition Europe has geographical boundaries tied to topology (mountain ranges, rivers) and these are often floral and faunal boundaries, also. I have floras of Russia, floras of Sweden, of France, of Turkey. I can't categorize plants from these books according to their categorization in the sources I have available to me, in the manner it is handled by scientists because Wikipedia has decided it should be all European floras, even when the floras of Finland are vastly different from those of Spain? But they should all be European floras? How do I use my books, then? What if it doesn't tell me if it is a sub-arctic or southern mountains faunal component, but only that it is a French one? KP Botany 04:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is a WP:POINT argument. Most editors can figure out that France and Sweden are part of Europe, even if the references do not explicitly say so. Note that Category:Fauna of Turkey and Category:Fauna of Russia are not in this nomination because they straddle two continents. We can decide what to do with those categories later. Dr. Submillimeter 10:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not a WP:POINT argument, because KP Botany is not disrupting Wikipedia. That's not a fair assenssment, considering what the guideline actually says. It's a fair observation on KP Botany's part. — coel acan — 02:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—I think KP Botany's point is a good reason not to keep Category:Fauna of the Alps. And I don't think anyone is proposing that Wikipedia shouldn't have a French flora. But if people want to enter that information, I think it should be a list, not a category, so we don't have big hunks of categories at the end of, say, Dandelion or Tribulus terrestris. (I notice that, like a lot of plant articles, those don't have geographical categories. Does anyone miss them?) —JerryFriedman 19:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For any category that is kept by consensus, I suggest adding the word "endemic" to indicate that the animals are found exclusively within those regions. However, few animals are endemic to the specific regions mentioned above (Scandinavia, the Alps, the British Isles, and Iceland). Dr. Submillimeter 10:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some but redefine. Fauna of the UK (for example) should be limited to fauna which are distinctive to the UK, excluding any and all which are generic to the wider containing categories. A note should be added to the category description page/s to this effect. Jheald 23:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Could you be more specific as to what you want to kept? Also, please read my comment above: if any categories are kept, then the word "endemic" should be added to indicate that the fauna are found exclusively within the location. Otherwise, people will just use the category for any animal found in the country/region, as has happened in the past. Do you agree with this? Dr. Submillimeter 00:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd agree in substance with limiting it to endemic fauna; but if possible I would suggest to avaid the word "endemic" itself, because I think it is too specialist a word for casual readers, who are more likely to misunderstand it as relating to the sense of "endemic infection". Isn't specifying the proper use clearly enough on the category home page sufficient? Jheald 21:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Specifying the categories' "proper use" is not sufficient. Based on previous debates and the way the categories are used now, I know that some people want to use the categories to list all the locations where an animal can be found (seeEurasian lynx or raccoon dog, for example), or they want to use the categories to list every animal found in individual regions/countries (see Category:Fauna of Scotland). Either the categories need to be removed to avoid the insane categorization or the word "endemic" is needed in the category titles to force people to use the categories only for endemic animals. The status quo will not work, and a text description added to the category will not work. Dr. Submillimeter 09:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. Too many of the animals end up in too many of these categories, but there's good reason for this information to be organized by country or at least by region and biome, as KP Botany makes clear. — coel acan — 02:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Only two categories (Category:Fauna of Scotland and Category:Fauna of Spain) appear to contain anything resembling complete lists. I have already recommended listifying those two categories. Listifying the other categories with their current contents is not useful, although I would not oppose the creation of list articles. Dr. Submillimeter 09:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose. Fauna of Estonia is a fundamentally useful and interesting category to people who are interested in the fauna of Estonia. This holds for all categories. Having useful categories trumps having a long list of categories at the bottom of cosmopolitan species article. Hesperian 04:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Question Endemic might be worthwhile to consider. Again, it should be discussed with the groups that categorize and write the article about the plants and animals. However, I have a question. What is the purpose of a category? How does that differ from the purpose of a list? Aren't they two different things? If they are, can one simply be changed for the other? As for Flora of the Alps, it is the one that makes most sense to keep, as flora and fauna of aline regions are often zoned by altitude and slope aspect. Of all the ones on the list, it is one of the ones that makes the most sense. The flora folks, at least, have had this converstion over and over again with no consensus. The problem generally arising that there are difficulties in the way Wikipedia is produced that make it an unrealistically specialized piece of information to find the precise range of a plant, and for plants that are endemic to larger geographic ranges, this may only be listed in very specialized literature. So, the plant should be uncategorized as to geography? Geography is a fairly basic categorization on Wikipedia. Is there some reason for this? Fashion is categorized, people are categorized, businesses are categorized by geography? Should all geographic categories be done away with? Truly cosmopolitan species can be handled differently is another way to consider dealing with this issue, having it list Europe, instead of each country, if indeed the plant is native to all of Europe. Europe is not the best example for making this point, though, because Europe has real geographical boundaries that often coincide with species and evolutionary boundaries. KP Botany 04:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not exactly a nomination to remove categorization by geography for plants and animals. This is merely an effort to do away with categorization by nation or by an arbitrary geopolitical boundary (such as the Baltic states). In most cases (as for people, businesses, etc), categorization by nation does make sense, as the subjects' characteristics are defined by the nation (e.g. people are defined as the citizens of a nation, businesses fall within the jurisdiction of a specific nation and must follow specific laws, etc). In the case of plants and animals, however, these political boundaries have little to do with the subject matter. The distribution of the raccoon dog, for example, is not limited to specific political boundaries but instead to the available habitat. This is why I suggest merging the above categories into Category:Fauna of Europe and not dividing by nation. If, however, animals can be identified as belonging only to specific locations, then categorization by those specific locations using the word "endemic" makes sense (as is the case for Category:Endemic fauna of Hawaii). Dr. Submillimeter 08:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The problem is the example you chose, European faunal groupings. As I keep repeating, many European political boundaries are, indeed, topological boundaries, which, in many cases, translate into species boundaries. If you had chosen African faunal assemblies as the example of a geopolitical area where "political boundaries have little to do with" faunal boundaries, I might see your arguments. Although I might now argue that it's done for other faunal boundaries, such as European ones, so it might as well be done for the African ones. By the way, raccoon dogs are not limited by "available habitat" but rather by suitable niche. The nuisance distribution of the raccoon dog is an important ecological question today in some countries because of this, its ability to fill far more niches in a non-native ecosystem than it would in its own resident ecosystem, due to subprime ecosystems in its introduced range. For example, because of problems with it in Poland, it is almost certain that there is a Polish Wikipedia article on the jenot (its Polish common name). This is why it is included in the Category: Fauna of Poland. The prime resource for California native plants, the Jepson Manual includes weeds and escapees from horticulture in its pages, in essence, this is the Flora of California. This is how floras and faunas are done. The Flora of California does not include only endemic species. It notes which species in its pages are endemic and to which regions, it notes which are natives to California, it notes which are introduced and technically their mode of introduction. The fauna of Poland includes species which breed in its geopolitical boundaries. They will write articles that relate to political issues of this nuisance. A discussion of the raccoon dog on Wikipedia should include information about pest control aspects of the species. It IS part of the fauna of Poland, wherein researchers study the animal in relation to the laws of Poland, Poland's biodiversity, and its pest value within Poland. I think the raccoon dog is a good example, as it helped me see more clearly why this should be kept. KP Botany 19:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The comments on the raccoon dog in Poland add further support to using lists instead of categories. A category can only list related articles. An article could also explain the measures that the Polish government has taken to alter or preserve its biodiversity. (I also find it confusing that KP Botany describes political boundaries as being related to topology in Europe and then chooses Poland, which lies in a plain, as an example on why to keep political divisions.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response I meant topography, but topology will do as you used it as I did. Topography does not mean the absence of relief. It is not the opposite of plain. Poland, according to Wikipedia, "consists almost entirely of the North European Plain," a major geomorphological province of Europe, and geomorphology is the study of landforms. A geographical area can be defined by flatlands as being bounded by highlands, the two can be one and the same even. However, as Wikipedia defines Poland as "almost entirely" a distinctive topographical unit, there is no confusion. The confusion is in your usage of topology to, apparently mean differential relief or some such. KP Botany 00:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - I thought the purpose of the category system was bottom-up browsing in the sense that you find one organism in your state/province/territory/country and then browse the category to see what other organisms also reside/grow in your range. Seems very useful to the average Wikipedia user. If merged up, how will users that are interested in just the fauna (or plants) of Estonia find a clear representation of those organisms that have articles on Wikipedia without mucking up the list with other European species that aren't in Estonia? Fauna and flora may be pointless by political boundary, but I think that's how average user's define their world. As for the overcategorization, organisms that have cosmopolitan distribution could be merged up to the parent categories to avoid long lists of categories, but I don't find it necessary. --Rkitko ^(talk) 20:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—The user interested in the fauna of Estonia should be able to go to List of fauna of Estonia. If someone wants to make such a list with redlinks, then users will know it's complete; with the category method, users don't know whether a species not in the category isn't found in Estonia or just hasn't had the category added to its article. Alternatively, the list could be built up gradually, as in the category method, with a caveat at the list that it's incomplete. (Here I differ with Dr. Submillimeter; I think the partially filled "Fauna of country" categories should be listified as the beginnings of work in progess.)

Also, no one has suggested that politically defined regions not be mentioned in articles where they're appropriate. I can see a need to name the countries that the Raccoon Dog is found in, and that can be in the text (under a "Range" heading, not in the lead where the range information is now in that article). Such a text list with links would be shorter and easier to read than a list of categories. It would also be more reliable—at present we don't know whether the Raccoon Dog isn't in Category:Fauna of Denmark because it hasn't been seen there, or because no one's gotten around to adding the category. And it would be more flexible; you could throw in handy words like "northern Estonia" (or whatever) to specify the range better. Then in other articles, where a list of countries is not appropriate (House Mouse), you don't have to have one.

Someone might suggest that animals found in as many countries as the House Mouse shouldn't have geographical categories. But then the categories don't provide complete fauna lists for their countries. So using categories to make flora and fauna lists is inflexible and inconvenient: lists should be in lists, and range descriptions should list countries or not as appropriate. —JerryFriedman 00:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, the only way I can use a list, to make it what you describe is that I build it. Otherwise, it won't exist, if someone else hasn't built the entire red-linked list. I have a flora of Arctic Russia, the first two volumes. Now, I can't write an article about a species from these volumes and categorize the article as part of the Flora of Arctic Russia, instead I have to make a list of a thousand plants. That won't be done. So, you might as well suggest that the categories be dumped and lists not be used. The average article editor may not be up to making linked lists of hundres of species. But a category just requires me to add one short line of text. And, again, I asked how categories and lists are used, but no one arguing for deletion seems to know, or think it is relevant. Isn't it? Are they exactly the same? Isn't categorizing about searching or something? If it is, does a list provided exactly the same thing? Are they equivalents? KP Botany 03:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go see list of blue plaques. This is an incomplete list, and yet it is much better than the category that it replaced. Among other things, it contains references and more ample information than what could be provided in a category. This should demonstrate that a list would be better than a category. Moreover, since some people are able to completely populate some of these categories with all the fauna of a given region (e.g. Category:Fauna of Scotland), it appears just as feasible to create a list.

As for the issue on categorization: Yes, categories should be about searching for something. However, the categories should be feasible to use the categories from both the category page and the articles' pages. Categorizing by country leads to severe problems when this is taken into consideration. If we list every country, state, province, territory, oblast, department, and region where the Eurasian lynx, the golden jackal, or the raccoon dog are found, the categories will be difficult to read on those articles' pages. Hence, people will stop using the categories, and so people will not use the categories to search for related articles. We cannot provide search terms for everything. We should limit the categories to something more practical. Dr. Submillimeter 09:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you suggesting that all categories be eliminated to be replaced with lists? Is this your goal? This should then be a policy issue, not an individual request to delete each category, even if done in groups. Essentially, you want them done away with because they create large articles? KP Botany 00:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all, including the Alps, Iceland and British Isles. The current system is utterly impractical; we can not have species categorized in tens or hundreds of country categories. The categories are currently underutilized, but as they mature, the problem will become more and more pronounced, harder to ignore, and harder to cleanup. The three regions suggested as exceptions above are the home to many species found elsewhere in the world and are similarly impractical. If those regions are to have cats, they must renamed and reserved for endemic fauna only. Note that by definition, each species can be in at most on "endemic" category. ×Meegs 19:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again! Is there a purpose to categories or lists? If they cannot be distinguished or defined, suggesting the substitution of one for the other is simply making busy work for editors. KP Botany 00:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The general consensus has been to use lists when an equivalent categorization system is impractical simply because articles would contain very large, difficult-to-read category lists. This has been the consensus when dealing with "actor by performance" categories, "award recipient" categories, and "sportperson by all-star/championship game" categories. The merge proposed here would be consistent with previous WP:CFD actions. Dr. Submillimeter 07:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename - Europe is one of the seven continent in the world, covering about 10,400,000 square kilometres. I would suggest to keep those categories or split the Europe up into smaller geographical region or other means. For Example: Northern Europe, Western Europe, Southern Europe or Eastern Europe. Having all those categories combined into one category defeat the purpose of categorizing, because you are categorizing more than a few hundred articles into one category. The purpose of categorizing the articles is to allow other users to have an overview on the articles which may be related to one another. It may be true that having too much categories may make the article messy. However, those categories still have their own usefulness. Luffy487 14:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Fauna of Europe, or suitable sub-category. It is not feasible to add every animal of Europe to all countries in which it can be found. For example, Blue Tit would need to be in pretty much all of the categories above. There is already Category:Birds of Europe and similar categories, to organize the otherwise unwieldy Fauna of Europe. --Rimshots 15:20, 14 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.

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 by ProveIt. CounterFX 02:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one lonely bird in this category, who would probably be happy to be in a category with a few others Inwind 16:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I edited this nomination to what I assume the nominator meant to do. If that's not correct I hope s/he will return and clarify. Otto4711 17:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - category is an appropriate sub-cat of Category:Land Birds of the Lesser Antilles. Only havign one entry is not a reason to disrupt that structure. Otto4711 17:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Birds of the Caribbean - A general movement is underway to upmerge categories for animals where the categories are not indicative of endemic animals (animals with restricted ranges). In the case of this category, the one article (White-crowned Pigeon) is about a bird found throughout the Caribbean. The bird does not need categories indicating every single location in the Caribbean where it is found. Dr. Submillimeter 17:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I have no strong feelings about it either way. I do think that the entire subcategory structure ought to be nominated en masse, if this is part of a move to upmerge all the Caribbean bird subcats. Otto4711 03:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If not merged (no opinion on that) then speedy rename to "birds" (lower case). CalJW 23:24, 8 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.

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: reverse merge. >Radiant< 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:People from San Antonio, or the reverse. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge Category:People from San Antonio into Category:People from San Antonio, Texas. There are a lot of similarly-named places listed at San Antonio (disambiguation), and including "Texas" makes things clearer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge as suggested by BrownHairedGirl in the name of clarity. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 20:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge for clarity. Jwillbur 01:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. By WP:COMMONNAME, if San Antonio most prominently refers to the city in Texas over other cities, then the disambiguation is unnecessary. San Antonio does redirect to San Antonio, Texas, though see Talk:Houston, Texas/Archive 4#Requested move for the discussion, with the result of no consensus. –Pomte 02:34, 13 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Maths and computing colleges in England to Category:Mathematics and Computing Colleges in England

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, To be consistent with the other categories within Category:Specialist schools in England, and with the format used by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) at their Standards website. Scribble Monkey 16:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the initial capitals. I'm not sure about the ampersand in the title. I know the DFES use this format but it does look a little strange in a heading. Could we rename it as Category:Mathematics and Computing Colleges in England instead? There is also a "Mathematics and Computing College" page. If it is decided to use the ampersand then this page would also have to be renamed for consistency. Dahliarose 17:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It takes up a little less space and is consistent with the DfES naming and its sibling category Category:Business & Enterprise Colleges in England, so I would suggest sticking with the ampersand. There is a Mathematics & Computing College pages which currently redirects to Mathematics and Computing College, so that is less of a problem. ~ Scribble Monkey 09:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia manual of style, in the sub-section on headings, recommends "In place of an ampersand (&) use the word and, unless the ampersand is part of a formal name". I'm not sure that these college names count as formal names as such. They are not the same as brand names or company names. The ampersand is used in the official logo presumably for space reasons. The DFES seem to use the ampersand but in the one OFSTED report I looked at the ampersand was not used (their servers are currently down so I can't check any more). From a stylistic and design point of view I think "and" is preferable to "&" for all these colleges. Dahliarose 12:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I will put in a request to rename Category:Business & Enterprise Colleges in England too. ~ Scribble Monkey 13:56, 9 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename, although I'm surprised that this is a proper noun. >Radiant< 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Humanities colleges in England to Category:Humanities Colleges in England

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, To be consistent with the other categories within Category:Specialist schools in England, and with the format used by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) at their Standards website . Scribble Monkey 16:34, 8 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.

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: lack of consensus. >Radiant< 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Montana Grizzlies men's basketball players to Category:Montana Grizzlies basketball players

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. The school's women's basketball team uses the nickname "Lady Griz", although all other women's teams are known as "Grizzlies". Dale Arnett 16:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As you said, all other teams except women's basketball are known as the "Grizzlies". Someone not familiar with the school would not know that women's basketball was an exception, and might reasonably assume that "Montana Grizzlies basketball players" referred to all basketball players, both men and women. I think it should be left at Category:Montana Grizzlies men's basketball players for clarity. Jwillbur 01:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Point taken... but if you follow the logic, then Texas Tech basketball categories should also be renamed. Like Montana, Texas Tech is a school where the women's basketball team uses a different nickname from all other teams, both men's and women's. Men's basketball is at Category:Texas Tech Red Raiders basketball and women's basketball is at Category:Texas Tech Lady Raiders basketball — but all other Texas Tech women's teams are known as "Red Raiders". — Dale Arnett 20:36, 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.

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. This is obviously a well-used category, so a category redirect seems sensible. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Military equipment of Poland, convention of Category:Military equipment by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Jwillbur 01:14, 9 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.

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 youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely narrow category with no growth. Each of the two articles are already wikilinked to each other. — MrDolomite • Talk 15:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Leaders and members of the regiment could be put in the cat, but I believe that would be overcategorization and better accomplished by mentioning notable members in the regiment's article. Jwillbur 01:19, 9 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.

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. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a single item category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a vandal's hoax. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:09, 13 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to "lists of", and allow for speedy deletion IFF the related articles are deleted per PROD or AFD. >Radiant< 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Daily Show guests to Category:The Daily Show

Merge - I don't see the purpose in maintainign a separate category for lists of guests (and quite frankly don't see the need for maintaining lists of guests but that's another discussion). Leaving this category in existence may lead to people categorizing articles for individuals here. Otto4711 14:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete being a guest on a chat show is not a defining characteristic. --15:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - People make many guest appearances on many shows. Categorizing guest appearances would lead to long, difficult-to-read lists of categories. Such categorization is therefore infeasible. Dr. Submillimeter 17:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Lists of The Daily Show guests - The category does not contain articles on individual guests but instead articles with lists of guests. Categorizing them is an appropriate way to manage articles in Category:The Daily Show, but the category needs to clearly indicate that it is for list articles, not articles on individuals. Dr. Submillimeter 10:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merging per Dr. Submillimeter. Piccadilly 18:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the Dr.'s opinion has changed... — coel acan — 02:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't merge Bad idea to categorize by guest appearances. Imagine how many "guest" appearance category tags A-list actors would have if every talk show had its own guest category. Dugwiki 23:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this category is not for individual guests of the show. It is for lists of the guests by year. I also find such lists to be ridiculous and indiscriminate but they have survived two AFDs so we're stuck with them. As long as we're stuck with them we might as well categorize them in such a way as to discourage people from adding individuals to it. Otto4711 00:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without merging per previous discussions regarding Ed Sullivan guests, etc. Doczilla 09:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Lists of The Daily Show guests. There's nothing wrong with this category like there was with Ed Sullivan guests. This category doesn't go on the pages of people, so it's not category cruft. The only thing it contains are lists, by year, of show guests. A good idea for categorization, but it is improperly named. Merging per nom would be okay too, but I really think it's more valuable to keep this as a subcategory. — coel acan — 02:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Lists of..." as long as we have the articles. Whether we should have these articles is a question for AfD, but as long as we do, the category for the lists should be properly named. Xtifr _tälk 23:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. Having categories of lists is a fine way to avoid overcategorization problems, while accommodating the desire to have this sort of information in Wikipedia. -- SamuelWantman 08:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Lists of The Daily Show guests per above to avoid misunderstanding. –Pomte 03:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per Pomte. --Rimshots 15:29, 14 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.

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. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Pro Bowl venues, see also a related nomination. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since most of the games have been at Aloha Stadium and the game isn't particularly important to begin with, it is not a good way to categorize stadiums. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 20:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Youngamerican. The list of games at Pro Bowl is sufficient to cover this. --Metropolitan90 01:36, 9 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.

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. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - category is being used largely for categorizing the people who appeared in either the US or UK version of the show, making it an improper performer by guest performance category. For the game shows themselves, my feeling is that their inclusion in these series is not so defining or even important as to warrant a category. Otto4711 13:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a combination of things. The contestants should not be categorized this way, as this is a "performer by performance" category. The other game shows (such as The Price is Right) featured in the "marathon" should not be categorized here, as the game shows are not defined by their appearance in this marathon. When all of this is removed, the category would be mostly empty. I therefore recommend deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 17:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Painfully minor blip on the pop culture radar. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 02:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and as there's nothing here of referential value when it's parsed by Dr. Submillimeter's analysis. — coel acan — 02:41, 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Psychics to Category:Purported psychics

Propose renaming Category:Spiritual mediums to Category:Purported spiritual mediums

Propose renaming Category:Remote viewers to Category:Purported remote viewers

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - Current category name makes the unverifiable and POV claim that members of the category are actual psychics. Wikipedia's defitinion of psychic is someone who has paranormal powers, not just someone claiming to have those powers ("As a noun, the word psychic refers to a person with the ability to produce psychic phenomena.") Since nobody has been verifiably proven to have actual psychic powers, we should just stick with attributing claims of those powers in the articles - in the case of a category, something like "Purported psychics" would be more appropriate, although I'm open to other wordings such as "People claiming to be psychics", "Self-described psychics" etc. The other two nominated categories are for the same reason. For reference, two examples of categories that already have more neutral naming are Category:People claiming to have psychokinetic abilities and Category:Purported telepaths. Milo H Minderbinder 13:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I suppose deleting them or renaming them to "Hucksters" or "delusional people" is out of the question, rename per nom. Otto4711 13:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created the cat. I feel that the renaming is a bit of an overkill because nobody in their right mind would seriously think that psychics are anything other than purported. Pascal.Tesson 14:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if only that were the case. At psychic there's currently a controversy over whether the sentence defining the term can make any mention that the topic is disputed/controversial/unproven (doing so has been accused of POV pushing). And at John Edward there was opposition to "John Edwards describes himself as a psychic medium" on POV grounds - it made it sound like he might not actually be a psychic. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I don't think that's true. Craig Karges, for example, is a mentalist who doesn't claim he has any supernatural powers, but he does claim to have a killer intuiton--which might also be bunk, but people in their right mind can believe that's a lot more likely. I like "purported" over "self-described," because it doesn't suggest the person said they had psychic powers, just in case we run into any Salem witch trial victims accused of having psychic powers or something.--Mike Selinker 14:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. I've proposed a rename of the Psychics category before. People may wish to review that discussion on its talk page. --Billpg 20:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Calling them "psychic" clearly pushes POV. "Purported" is a statement of fact, neither supporting nor disputing their status as psychics. Doczilla 09:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. Of the various options, "purported" is the most NPOV on the table. — coel acan — 02:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. - Per Otto4711's aptly put response to nom. Smee 20:29, 13 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.

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. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - category is for people who at some point in their careers played an anchorperson in a sketch comedy or fake news show. In most if not every case this is one performance out of a long series of appearances in sketches. This strikes me as overcategorization. We should not be characterizing actors based on the characters or character types they play. Otto4711 13:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is categorization by role in general terms, which is a form of overcategorization. Dr. Submillimeter 16:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasons when this was brought up for a rename. Vegaswikian 22:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unnecessary category that also happens to be incorrectly capitalized. You might listify, although even a list would be trivia. Doczilla 09:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial categorization. Hardly a good idea to categorize comedians by sketch. — coel acan — 02:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable and growing genre of news/comedy...The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and that's just recently. Alternatively, rename to Category:Fake news anchors. --zenohockey 00:30, 13 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename, per the debate directly below this one. >Radiant< 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Blessed Virgin Mary to Category:Virgin Mary

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Same NPOV reasons as Category:Paintings of the Blessed Virgin Mary. IvoShandor 12:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Mary (mother of Jesus) to match Mary (mother of Jesus), so as to better cover all articles on that person. Mairi 18:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename to Category:Mary (mother of Jesus). --evrik ^(talk) 22:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The category is specifically for the Catholic-Orthodox conception of Mary; the main article is Blessed Virgin Mary, not Mary (mother of Jesus). Make it a subcat of Category:Mary (mother of Jesus) if need be.-choster 06:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per choster. Doczilla 09:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, either Category:Mary (mother of Jesus) or Category:Virgin Mary works to NPOV this somewhat. I understand it's a specific topic with a specific name, but while that can be made clear in the article, it's not so clear in category additions, which just show up as a single phrase carrying POV with no disclaimer. Also, the intro of the Blessed Virgin Mary article makes clear that plain old "Virgin Mary" is also acceptable. — coel acan — 02:30, 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename.

Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Blessed Virgin Mary to Category:Paintings of the Virgin Mary

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This category is ridiculous in name. It would be like having a category called Category:Painting of the Holy Savior Jesus Chirst or Category:Paintings of Muhammed (Peace Be Upon Him). I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of endorsing anyone as "Blessed," this doesn't comply with NPOV. IvoShandor 12:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I can understand that someone, possibly a Catholic, might have created the category with no intention of being non-neutral, and using the "Blessed" as a way of specifying which virgin Mary is being discussed. Personally, I think renaming it Category:Paintings of Mary (mother of Jesus), or something similar might be preferable, to correspond to the name of the page on the same person. Also, it is possible that some people might argue with the potentially POV "Virgin" aspect of the proposed title, as it could be argued that the use of that word in this context is perhaps difficult to support rationally. John Carter 14:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thought about the "virgin" aspect when I nominated it, but wasn't sure.IvoShandor 14:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. As explained in the article on Blessed Virgin Mary, BVM is the Roman Catholic term, so could reasonably be used for Roman Catholic depictions (and I think that calling the term "ridiculous" is unnecessarily offensive to Catholics). However, I haven't checked whether all the paintings here are Catholic, but I notice that the parent cat is Category:Depictions of the Virgin Mary, which is a subcat of Category:Roman Catholic Church art. This is confused: for consistency either both should use Blessed or neither should. It is also mistaken to lump all Depictions of the Virgin Mary in a Catholic category: some sort of split is needed here, and I suggest that a CFD on one cat is inadequate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That would only make sense if Wikipedia were read by only Roman Catholics. There is no other Virgin Mary to confuse her with, I liked Warlord's suggestion above.IvoShandor 15:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessarily offensive. The category name offends me. Does that bother you? Or just the offense Catholics might take?IvoShandor 15:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm a bit puzzled about how calling someone "Blessed" offends you. Personally, I don't buy this whole virgin birth idea, and I don't like the Catholic fetishisation of virginity, but I don't have a problem with the category name reflecting the subject being being painted ... and Catholic artists do call that person the Blessed Virgin Mary. I find it offensive that anti-abortion activists (who are often pro-war and pro death penalty) have the cheek to call themselves pro-life, but wikipedia's practise has been to to use self-identified terminology in these situation, and to categorise them under Category:Pro-life movement.
If we abandon the practice of using the names chosen by the people and organisations involved, we open up some big cans of worms. Do we rename Pope John Paul II to Catholic Pope John Paul II or to Bishop of Rome John Paul II? How about renaming Category:People's Liberation Army to Category:Army of China since 1948? Shouldn't Category:UK Labour Party be renamed Category:UK neo-liberal party called "Labour" and so on?
"Blessed Virgin Mary" is the term used by Catholics, and the only reasons offered here as to why it is inappropriate to apply it to to a sub-category of Category:Roman Catholic Church art amount to some editors having a particular POV about that religion. --18:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Rename. Yes, there is an article of BVM as a catholic doctrine. And yes, I agree that perhaps saying the category name is "ridculus" was a little harsh, but the point was pretty good nonetheless. Sorry, but as a NPOV description of works of art, BVM just won't do ... I would support either "Virgin Mary" or "Mary, mother of Jesus." -- Pastordavid 15:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per comments above. Piccadilly 18:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Paintings of Mary, mother of Jesus", as that seems to be the most NPOV way to refer to her (though I might say "the Virgin Mary" if the subject came up in conversation). And I agree with BrownHairedGirl that this shouldn't be a sub-category of Category:Roman Catholic Church art, as there are also many Orthodox paintings of Mary such as Our Lady of Kazan (currently not in the category under discussion, though it is in Category:Depictions of the Virgin Mary). —JerryFriedman 21:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose either way is fine. Better to just go for consistency. --evrik ^(talk) 22:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Current title is obviously and needlessly POV. CalJW 23:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The category is clearly POV, the idea that the Virgin Mary is "Blessed" is an idea held by Catholics. Nothing against any religion, I just don't think the Wiki should endorse any figure of any religion as "Blessed" or otherwise. It's obvious POV.IvoShandor 04:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To clear up any misunderstanding, I think the category name is ridiculous, not the idea that Roman Catholics officially refer to Mary as the "Blessed Virgin Mary."IvoShandor 04:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't shut up: As far as the concern about cans of worms and so forth, names on Wikipedia should probably generally lean toward more common usage as opposed to whatever the "official" name is. Take Category:United States for example.IvoShandor 04:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The Catholic-Orthodox Blessed Virgin Mary is a distinct concept from Mary (mother of Jesus) just as kanji is distinct from Chinese characters and Jammu and Kashmir is different from Kashmir region. If the concern is about inclusion of depictions of Mary as opposed to the Blessed Virgin Mary, it would make the most sense to make this category a subcategory of Category:Paintings of Mary, mother of Jesus if anything, rather than destroy meaning. -choster 06:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Paintings of the Virgin Mary are not inherently Catholic. Doczilla 09:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename catholic paintings should not be separated from other depictions so the "Blessed" is inappropriate Ulysses Zagreb 09:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Even the intro of the Blessed Virgin Mary article makes clear that "the Virgin Mary" is another title that can be used. This renaming makes it a little more NPOV. Like Pastordavid, I would also support Category:Paintings of Mary, mother of Jesus or Category:Paintings of Mary (mother of Jesus) which corresponds with article titling. — coel acan — 02:26, 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.

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. If anyone really wants to listify it per 132.205.44.134, please apply to me on my talk page and I will give you a list of articles that were in the category. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is another category that lists people's membership in an organization. Aside from membership in this organization, the people here may have little else to do with each other. Moreover, most people are not notable for belonging to Mensa but for other achievements. Therefore, the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 12:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A hard look should be taken at some other members of Category:Members of organizations and Category:Members of private clubs as well. Some should survive (Category:Freemasons, for example, seems quite significant), but others like Category:National Puzzlers' League members look pretty dubious.--Mike Selinker 14:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Some other categories (such as Category:Rotary Club members) have been deleted, and others (such as Category:Freemasons) are nominated for deletion. I will take a look at Category:Members of private clubs. Dr. Submillimeter 16:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just as a follow-up, note that judging by the response so far at its cfd Category:Freemasons appears headed for a deletion. Dugwiki 23:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-defining characteristic; also suppport a purge of other similar cats per Mike Selinker. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Piccadilly 18:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify 132.205.44.134 23:31, 8 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.

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. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See the talk page for one reader's take on it. Basically, this is a solution in search of a problem. Cause of death is not generally encyclopedic, at least not in the sense that a Wikipedia article would be considered significantly "incomplete" without it. I support most of the other Deaths by cause subcats, because they are relatively encyclopedic; but this one is just WP:CREEP. Quuxplusone 08:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: The cat page itself reads: "For people whose cause of death was never disclosed or remains speculative." This seems to conflict with its current title. It may originally have been intended as a duplicate of Category:Cause of death disputed, but at present it is clearly being used mainly as a dumping ground for uncategorized biographies. However, this is worth mentioning because it means someone should go through before deletion and recategorize articles, such as Mohamed Abdelwahab, that seem to belong in the "Disputed" category.
Delete non-category. Doczilla 12:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-defining category per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we start to categorise articles by what they don't contain there might be no end to the clutter that would be generated. Piccadilly 18:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A category like this is useful if it acts as a placeholder slot for a well established category scheme. For example, Category:Year of death missing makes sense because basically all biographical articles about dead people should include the year of death if possible. So if an article is missing this basic piece of info you can use that "missing" category as the placeholder for the year of death until the information is uncovered. Now all that being said, "cause of death" is actually not frequently included in biographies, certainly not to the extent that the year of death is included. So unless this is part of a broad, general attempt to try and gather cause-of-death info for all the biographies in Wikipedia, I'm not sure this particular category will be very useful. Dugwiki 23:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless. --Peta 02:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It gives the impression that Wikipedia contributors are necrophiliacs.--orlady 19:45, 13 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Naval War College alumni, convention of Category:Alumni by university or college in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 07:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom per naming guidelines for categories. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 20:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the original contributor, I agree, but I modeled it on the use of Naval Academy graduates, which should also be changed to conform to the policy.

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 delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as non defining. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is another category based on something superficial about the band. Dr. Submillimeter 09:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as superficial characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Seriously? What's next Category:Foods that start with the letter Q?IvoShandor 15:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete superficial inclusion criterion. Doczilla 09:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absurd. — coel acan — 02:18, 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.

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 Withdrawn, as moot. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect into Category:Central Intelligence Agency, clearly a redirect is needed. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Quuxplusone 08:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn as moot. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:58, 8 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to conform with standard, per nom. If the resultant combined cat should be renamed, please nominate again. >Radiant< 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Government of Australia, convention of Category:Government by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, but rename category to "Australian Government" - I'm fed up with this nonsense about convention being more important than what is easier to remember and to type. "Australian Government" is the name the Government in Australia uses itself, it's shorter and quicker to type, and it's what most people will go to. Let's leave it as is and stop this. JRG 12:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There should only be one category, not categories to reflect people's personal typing preferences.--Grahamec 03:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying there should be more than one category - I'm saying that the category should reflect what is commonly used. All Australian Government letterheads, advertising and naming refers to it as the "Australian Government", never the "Government of Australia". It should be a simple thing to keep this the same for the sake of those looking for the category. JRG 13:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, there is a commonly applied convention to naming Government by country in a particular way. --Peta 23:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge if Australian Government is indeed the official name. Convention does not necessarily overrule, and this discrepancy will not exactly disrupt the category listing. JRG should propose renaming Government of Australia, as only "Australian Government" is used in article names outside the main article. –Pomte 02:49, 13 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.

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: lack of consensus, but suggest that the parent cat (limited-access roads) may need standardization. >Radiant< 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Roads in Portugal, convention of Category:Roads by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Most roads are not motorways. There are many similar categories for other countries in Category:Limited-access roads by country. Piccadilly 18:30, 8 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as non defining, elected officials in New Jersey who held more than one elective office at one time. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge up to Category:New Jersey politicians, clear overcategorization. — coel acan — 02:14, 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.

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< 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor satirical award; topic is well covered in the article, unnecessary as a category, delete Peta 01:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, not really a notable "award", not a defining characteristic or likely search topic, and I keep thinking it's the TV show. "Amanda Vanstone won Big Brother? Wow!" --Canley 13:14, 14 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.

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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:NFL All-Star Game venues, or Delete as non defining. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-defining. Otto4711 04:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is the type of category for which I want to write a new entry at Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Similar categories (for the NBA All-Star Game, for example) have already been deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 20:34, 8 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge/delete. >Radiant< 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs covered by The Beatles to Category:The Beatles songs

Per this nomination, we deleted all "cover songs" categories. This should go too.--Mike Selinker 00:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and per the fact that there's only one article in it. :) --Quuxplusone 08:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question If cover categories are unwelcome, should covers be included in the category of the performing artist(s), in this case Category:The Beatles songs? I think so, and my vote depends on the answer. Where is the discussion on this? (Sorry; bit of a newbie and don't know where to look!) John Cardinal 14:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, they should. We categorize songs by both their original artists and their cover artists. Elvis Presley, Tina Turner, and others would have very few songs attributed to them if this weren't the case.--Mike Selinker 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen that many songs, that are covers, but became verry successful by that cover version, are attributed fully to that cover band. Which is somewhat unfair. ((E-Kartoffel 15:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)))[reply]
Delete per nom; and comment: I don't believe there is a fairness issue. Songs can be in multiple categories, including the original artist and cover artists. Also, please note that there are now (as I write this) 20 songs in the category and should the decision be "Delete", any affected songs should be edited to include Category:The Beatles songs. John Cardinal 19:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There was just one entry when I nominated the category. OK, I've changed the nomination to a merge instead. Note that there are suddenly many of these categories (Category:Songs covered by Cyndi Lauper, Category:Songs covered by The Troggs, et al.), and should this nomination pass, I will nominate all of these for merging to their "(Artist) songs" categories.--Mike Selinker 04:06, 9 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.

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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Kenyan people, this is a gendered category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom - Jwillbur 01:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Kenyan people as a gendered category. Not much else to say, save that gender categories aren't a useful form of categorization. Picaroon 00:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. There's nothing surprising about the fact that there are women in Kenya. — coel acan — 02:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - About 50% of Kenyans are women.Baka man 04:11, 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.

March 8

Category:20 to 1

Category:Naturally busty porn stars

Category:Gilliam class transports

Category:Sigma Gamma Rho sisters

Category:Cricketer-politicians

Category:Arcade games by year

Category:Authors whose works are in the public domain

Category:Fauna of Europe subcategories

Land Birds of Antigua and Barbuda

Category:People from San Antonio, Texas

Category:Maths and computing colleges in England

Category:Humanities colleges in England

Category:Montana Grizzlies men's basketball players

Category:Polish military equipment

Category:United States 7th Cavalry Regiment

Category:Greene County Cable Television

Category:The Daily Show guests

Category:Pro Bowl Venues

Category:Gameshow Marathon

Category:Psychics

Category:Fake News anchors

Category:Blessed Virgin Mary

Category:Paintings of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Category:Members of Mensa

Category:Cause of death missing

Category:Naval War College graduates

Category:Bands with covered faces

Category:CIA

Category:Australian Government

Category:Motorways in Portugal

Category:Multiple Elected Officeholders in New Jersey

Category:Australian Big Brother Award winners

Category:NFL All-Star Game Venues

Category:Songs covered by The Beatles

Category:Kenyan women