< May 19	May 21 >

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

The result of the debate was Keep, both by a clear supermajority of participants and per WP:OCAT#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth, which deprecates small categories "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". This category clearly is part of such a scheme: Category:Flags by country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. Only one entry. A•N•N•A hi! 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep That isn't a problem. One article categories are desirable when they are part of a wider system. Haddiscoe 01:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see the desirability of one-article categories. It would do nothing in the slightest to disturb the wider system, and plenty to simplify it, should Flag of Nepal be an article within Category:Flags by country and Category:Nepalese culture. (Likewise Flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Flag of Bulgaria, Flag of Thailand, Flag of Turkmenistan, and Flag of Vietnam, all of whose parent categories could be deleted without loss.) Many categories work that way. Anything else is category clutter and helps ensure that the Wikipedia category system is increasingly Byzantine and unworkable. Should other articles be written on other flags of Nepal, then the category could easily be re-instated. Unfortunately, the bias here is towards creating categories (which is easy) rather than deleting them (which is much harder even than deleting articles). --Jbmurray 21:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of the Category:Flags by country category tree. Otto4711 12:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Otto Johnbod 12:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Johnbod, Otto4711, would you like to respond to my point that deleting this category in no way disturbs what Otto4711 termed the "Category:Flags by country category tree"? --Jbmurray 21:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it clearly would, by putting the articles "below the line", where it is likely to be missed. Categories containing only sub-cats are greatly preferable in these situations. Johnbod 01:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are approximately 194 countries in the world, will you make all those categories, dear Johnbod? AW 02:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Johnbod, thanks for the response. And it's an interesting philosophy: that (at least some) categories should hold only subcategories because people don't scroll down a page. But it would require a rather radical revision of the entire category system. Anyhow, I'm up for this discussion if you want to propose it. --Jbmurray 04:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many category trees, especially "by country" ones work this way (and many don't). Debates here often keep very small categories on this point. Johnbod 15:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah, grand: precedent. Can you point me to these debates, in which this matter of ensuring people don't have to scroll down was discussed? Thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The current lack of additional articles reflects systemic bias, but no doubt more will be written one day. Ravenhurst 01:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious delete, totally useless and redundant category which makes no help to the readers. The template Template:Lists of flags tells it all. I second Jbmurray's comment that Flags of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Flags of Bulgaria, Flags of Thailand, Flags of Turkmenistan, and Flags of Vietnam should be deleted, too. AW 02:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep Standard category that should exist for all countries. Postlebury 22:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Categories that contain only one or two articles are still useful if they are part of a larger hierarchy of categories, as is clearly the case here. This category complements Category:Flags of Italy, Category:Flags of the United Kingdom, etc. Dr. Submillimeter 11:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Christ's Hospital Old Blues --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Old Blues to Category:Christ's Hospital Old Blues. (Revised nom - was to Category:Christ's Hospital alumni- see below)

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The term 'Old Blues' is certainly used but it is quite unclear and confusing to outsiders who may confuse it with Oxbridge Blues. Bduke 23:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for reasons I gave in nom and also to bring it into line with other alumni categories.--Bduke 23:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that Category:Old Blues, which I created, could cause confusion with Oxford and Cambridge Blues (and, indeed, with other kinds of Old Blues) and needs to be improved on. I should prefer Category:Christ's Hospital Old Blues, as that includes the name used for the school's alumni (and alumnae), while dealing with the ambiguity problem. Category:Christ's Hospital alumni would not be in line with the pattern for English School subcategories - see Category:People by school in England. Xn4 23:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• OK. I agree with the creator of this category. I had failed to notice that alumni of English Schools did not follow the usual pattern. Let it be renamed to Category:Christ's Hospital Old Blues. --Bduke 23:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per revised nom, which I have amended at top. Johnbod 01:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: when I first saw this category, I assumed it had something to do with early blues music. I don't particularly care how it's renamed, but I wanted to toss that in as an additional reason to rename it. Xtifr _tälk 22:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Christ's Hospital Old Blues. Honbicot 01:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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< 10:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging or renaming the following sub-cats of Category:Roman Catholic primates

Category:Roman Catholic Primates of Canada to Category:Archbishops of Quebec

Category:Roman Catholic Primates of All Brazil to Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of São Salvador da Bahia

Category:Roman Catholic Primates of Germany to Category:Archbishops of Mainz

Category:Roman Catholic Primates of Hungary to Category:Archbishops of Esztergom

• Merge, because in each case the "primate" title is a subsidiary title held ex-officio by the (Arch)bishop of a particular (arch)diocese, and the two categories can only ever be duplicates.
  As with previously discussed primates categories, these categories have been created as a result of confusion about the purpose of a category, which exists not "tag" articles with text which properly belongs on the lead section of the article, but to facilitate navigation between related articles. Those navigation purposes are not helped by having duplicate categories which will only confuse the reader. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination now complete. Note that there are other sub-categories of Category:Roman Catholic primates, but in those cases the relationship between the bishopric and the primacy has not been consistent. In those cases, I think that it may be better to replace the categories with lists or articles. but that's a matter for a separate discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as helpful and appropriate cats in conjunction with other Primate cats. Pastorwayne 11:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why is it appropriate or helpful to have two categories whose contents should always be identical? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because one will be able to find the relevant primates in the primates menu without having to know which archbishopric applies. "Primate" is a higher title, so it should take precedence. Alex Middleton 09:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all as described in the nomination - The titles using "Archbishop" are much more frequently used than the titles using "Primate" for these people. This should be relatively straightforward. Dr. Submillimeter 12:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all, chimpanzees can't be Catholic. --tjstrf talk 01:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all for naviation purposes. Alex Middleton 09:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all Category:Roman Catholic Primates of Canada is the same category as Category:Archbishops of Quebec so keeping both is not an option; and Archbishop is the commonly used term. -- roundhouse 16:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom and Dr. S. Clearly redundant and borderline non-defining as a consequence. Xtifr _tälk 20:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Batman episodes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete as an unneeded navigation tool. A list of the episodes exists and is linked to the episode article in their infoboxes. J Greb 18:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As below.--Mike Selinker 18:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mike. Tim! 18:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It may be easier for a reader to look through a category than a list. Hydrogen Iodide 19:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep by conventions of Television episodes by series -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a defining characteristic. One of Wikipedia's strengths is that it has several different navigation systems, which allows readers to choose the one that suits them best. Mowsbury 10:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw as per Prove It. I was looking at the cat itself and missed the parent. - J Greb 19:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Part of the scheme for Category:Television episodes by series. Dugwiki 19:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Batman: The Animated Series episodes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete as an unneeded navigation tool. A list of the episodes exists and is linked to the episode article in their infoboxes. The list is also listed in the cat. J Greb 18:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I certainly would use it for navigation purposes. This is how we categorize episodes.--Mike Selinker 18:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mike. Tim! 18:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a defining characteristic. One of Wikipedia's strengths is that it has several different navigation systems, which allows readers to choose the one that suits them best. Mowsbury 10:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw as per Prove It above. I was looking at the cat itself and missed the parent. - J Greb 19:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Part of the scheme for Category:Television episodes by series. Dugwiki 19:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, definitely.-Insomniac By Choice

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

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

The result of the debate was delete as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Batman: The Animated Series title screenshots (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete Category is empty, and unlikely to be repopulated as contents, save one item, were deleted, not moved. J Greb 18:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete empty category. Doczilla 18:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delele. Nothing there. Hydrogen Iodide 19:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:BTAS screenshots and pictures in case it is repopulated before the CfD closure is implemented. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not needed. Mowsbury 10:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unneeded and empty category. Acalamari 21:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Jamie Mercer 23:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename, as nominated.--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University of Ghent alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Ghent University alumni, to match Ghent University. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Postlebury 22:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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< 10:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Statistics of India to Category:India-related lists

• Merge. This new category only has one item, and it is a list. Other countries do not have statistics categories. Sarsdran 17:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and populate. This category has obvious potential for expansion, and although we don't have a Category:Statistics by country, we should have. A quick peek at Category:Statistics shows lots of articles which relates to particular countries, and it would be very useful to have them grouped in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move the one article to Category:Economy of India lists, where it fits quite well. Mangoe 00:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge Any statistical article is likely to be a list, and we have Category:Lists by country. Generally I would say that articles that are mere statistics without discussion of the related topic should not be encouraged, which statisics by country categories would do. Alex Middleton 14:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete Redundant. Postlebury 22:14, 25 May 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oxyrhynchus manuscripts to Category:Oxyrhynchus papyri

• Merge, There are a number of issues at play when considering categorization of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. One issue is that not every manuscript is on papyrus, some are velum/parchment. So technically P. Oxy. 840 is not a papyrus manuscript, even though it is listed as part of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (that's what the P. stands for). Another issue is that there are well over 4000 Oxyrhynchus papyri, so if we had an article for each manuscript, we'd need some sort of classification scheme to break up the 4000+ articles into smaller subcats. I say, we cross that bridge when we get to it. Right now, we only have 7 articles that would fit under either of the above categories. I say merge the two categories, deal with subcats once the category is more fully populated (creating subcategories preemptively seems like over classification), and make a note that the most common name for this body of work is The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, even though, technically speaking, some of the manuscripts are not papyrus. Andrew c 15:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I support merger. Andrew's assessment sounds good to me. Of the 4,500 manuscripts excavated at Oxyrhynchus, only a handful are parchment. For all practical purposes Oxyrhynchus manuscripts are Oxyrhynchus papyri. Oxford University has an online project covering all the Oxyrhynchus manuscripts. Alastair Haines 15:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete=Merge as both articles in "manuscripts" are also in "papyri". To be pedantic, merging to "manuscripts" would be more correct, and unlikely to mislead, but I'm happy to leave this to the locals. Johnbod 01:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and while we're at it, can we move List of Oxyrhynchus papyri to Oxyrhynchus papyri? Mangoe 13:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think I agree with changing the list to an article, there is a lot more to say than simply listing the papyri. In fact, we can be more comprehensive in description than in listing. Results could be:

• an article covering all 4,500 manuscripts (though they are commonly known as papyri),
• a redirect from whichever term -- manuscript or papyri -- we don't use,
• a sub-head listing all NT papyri from Oxy,
• article included in Category under discussion, and also in Category:New Testament papyri because of the subsection and the prominence of Oxy papyri for NT textual criticism. (And, of course, inclusion in Category:African archaeology and others as relevant). Alastair Haines 04:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oxyrhynchus papyri is actually a very short article on the papyri, followed by the list (which seems to be rather abbreviated). If the article doesn't get much longer, then even if the list gets quite long there's not much reason to keep it separate. Mangoe 11:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete as overcategorization by award or honor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Governor General's Academic Medal Winner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Governor General's Academic Medal winners. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - overcategorization by award or honor. Otto4711 16:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - should rename with trailing "s" to be consistent with other categories. Roger Hui 21:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Should be renamed to Category:Governor General of Canada's Academic Medal winners as it is completely unclear which country the Governor General comes from. The article on the medal should be renamed also. --Bduke 22:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This award is given to students "graduating with the highest grade point average from a Canadian high school, college or university program". The people in these categories are not notable for their grades in high school, college, or university. Instead, the people in these categories are notable for their accomplishments after graduation (such as in writing or in politics). This category just contributes to category clutter problems in these articles (especially for Canadian Prime Ministers such as Pierre Trudeau). A list of notable recipients at Governor General's Academic Medal, possibly with additional information and references, would be appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 12:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as overcategorization by award or honor. Dr. S has addressed any concerns I might have had that this could qualify as an exception to that general guideline. However, in the remote chance that this is kept, it should be renamed per Bduke to indicate the nation of origin, as there are many Governor Generals in the world. Xtifr _tälk 22:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Otto. Greg Grahame 20:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not what these people are notable for. Ravenhurst 01:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman officers surviving Cannae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Somehow I don't think it is a good idea to categorize soldiers by which battles they survived. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Listify. Per nom, it's not a good idea to categorize soldiers by which battles they survived, but if listified, editors can decide whether to expand the list or merge it into another article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment considering that Cannae was a slaughter of the Roman forces by Hannibal, it could be considered significant if one survived it. One of several battles where the Romans were almost totally annihilated from the field of battle, during Hannibal's campaign in Italy. 132.205.44.134 03:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mowsbury 10:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is an awkward way to categorize military personnel. A discussion in the article about the battle would be appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 12:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I created this category because Cannae was a slaughter of many Roman officers of senatorial rank, including praetors, aediles, and tribunes. Those surviving the battle learned from their commanders' mistakes at Cannae (the most notable examples being Scipio Africanus and to a lesser extent Publius Sempronius Tuditanus); they included several future Roman consuls and censors, who might not have attained those offices at relatively young ages if those senior to them had not died en masse. However, if this category is deleted which seems likely, I will try to add the information to the main article itself. Creating a secondary article on Cannae's political and military aftermath would probably also be considered in bad taste. BTW, I was planning only to list officers (we have no names for ordinary Roman soldiers anyway). wikibiohistory 13:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and reject listification. Bulldog123 14:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as overcategorization. Placing the information in the main article or in an article about the aftermath sounds like the best solution. Pax:Vobiscum 13:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: more appropriately covered by a list, preferably within an existing article. Xtifr _tälk 20:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Category:Verified Federally Recognized Tribes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, category associated with a rejected proposal, lacks global world view. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. The fact the policy proposal was rejected has little bearing on the validity of the category, which seems useful. The "lacks global world view" is frankly a ridiculous argument against a category! Much better arguments needed for deletion - at the moment no valid case has been made. It would be useful to know how the category fits, or doesn't the existing catgories, & the views of the project.Johnbod 01:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The category is not really being used for its intended purpose at this time, as it only contains a template and a talk page. I suggest recreating it when consensus is reached for using the category. Dr. Submillimeter 12:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete To all intents and purposes this is an empty category, and it is known to be controversial, so there is no need for better arguments for deletion. Haddiscoe 01:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or at the very least rename to "cat:Federally recognized Native American tribes." However, I don't think that federal recognition (or its absence) can reasonably be considered a defining characteristic for an entire people; therefore, deletion seems preferable. -- Visviva 05:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Alex Middleton 10:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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< 10:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bands Whose Names Are One Repeated Word (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, as categoration by name, see also May 18th discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Trivial, over classification. Semantic characteristics are not defining. These bands having no other similarities.-Andrew c 16:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivial category. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as trivia and as categorisation by name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnecessary. Hydrogen Iodide 18:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Spellcast 10:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. In addition to being overcategorization by name, several of those aren't even words. At least, my dictionary doesn't seem to contain a definition for "duran", and I don't believe that an exclamation mark can reasonably be considered a word either. Xtifr _tälk 07:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per word, "A word is a unit of language that carries meaning and consists of one or more morphemes which are linked more or less tightly together, and has a phonetical value". Not all words are in dictionaries. :) -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mmm, ok, but even by that definition, I question whether those are words, especially the punctuation mark. :) --Xtifr _tälk 19:12, 22 May 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< 10:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films containing graphic female rape (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The introductory sentence for the cat is The following list contains films which show graphic rape scenes, highlighting the true horror and degredation of rape. Films which trivialise or asceticise should not be added to this category. Sounds like extreme POV and utterly subjective inclusion criterion. Now I'm not exactly sure what to do with this category. It could perhaps be listified in some way or another. One could argue that in some cases, this is a defining characteristic so I do see a possibility of keeping the category under a different title and different inclusion criterion. Pascal.Tesson 14:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - either categorizing or listifying films by the sort of scenes they contain is overcategorization. Films under this category would have nothing in common beyond the rape scene and the POV decision that the scene highlighted the horror and degradation of rape as opposed to, I don't know, some other aspect of it. A properly sourced article on the depiction of rape on film (addressing not only the horror and degradation aspect but also the fetishization of rape on film) would no doubt be fascinating, but an alphabetical list (which is what a category or a list would be) is not that. Otto4711 15:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, limiting the category to depiction of the rapes of females is an unsupportable arbitrary gender-based limitation. Otto4711 15:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure what you mean Otto. Lawrence of Arabia and several other films depict rapes of men by men. I've seen at least one film where a man is raped by a woman. The category title is ambiguous. Rape by or against women? Female humans or female animals? The word for female Homo sapiens is woman. According to technical literature regarding rape, gender is a very salient issue. Wiki has articles on man and woman, is this an unsupportable, arbitrary, gender-based limitation? The POV against gender stereotyping is well documented. It is based on the existence of real gender distinctions, it's meaningless if there are no such things. It is simply false to deny they exist, and it is POV to insist they be ignored.

Leaving immorality out of the issue, and the issue of simple bad taste or public offensiveness, this category does not lend itself to a child-friendly Wiki. Do we want to advertise which films contain such scenes?

The only censorship I believe in is self-censorship, but that's my POV. I'm only commenting here, not voting. Alastair Haines 16:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the category title and description as limiting the category to depictions of women being raped. If that's the case, then it implicates the guideline against arbitrary categorization on the basis of sex/gender. If movies containing rape scenes should be categorized, then the sex of the perpetrator and the victim should be irrelevant to the categorization. It's hardly my hardiest objection to the category but I hope that clears it up. Otto4711 16:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I'd like to remind everybody that we're not a child-friendly wiki and I think that deleting the category because we think that some creep will go "oh cool! I want to rent that movie tonight!" or because some 6-year old will see the cat and ask "Mommy, is rape nice? because this category on Wikipedia has me confused" is pretty absurd. Somehow, I think that the idea of the creator of the category was to create something for films that are somewhat known for a rape scene and their underlying condemnation of it. That classification does make some sense but I don't think it's clear enough to create a cat for it. I have to agree with Otto that there would be room for an article (and a pretty interesting one at that) about depictions of rape in film which would mention not only films like The Accused or Irréversible but also movies in which rape is presented in a disturbingly more ambiguoug way like Straw Dogs or Blue Velvet. (By the way people, if you haven't seen it, and are 18 or older, do rent Straw Dogs.) Pascal.Tesson 00:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Films containing graphic rape, removing the word "female"; otherwise listify. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The suggested rename still has POV problems as to what constitutes "graphic." Otto4711 18:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ... I don't think it makes sense to start a convention of categorizing films based on specific scenes. There's thousands of possible things that happen in films, and I don't want to see Films which include a kidnapping, Films which contain nude scenes, Films which contain gun violence, etc. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't films get officially classified this way? The following film contains strong language, drug references, adult themes or horror, etc. The point is that it gives people information one which to base their decisions. "R18+" classification for example could be an NPOV class here at Wiki, if it followed what the Office of film and literature classification have said. IMDb do that. We are willing to include "plot spoiler" warnings, why wouldn't we note other salient features? Rape is rather more notable than nude scenes.

I agree removing female from the name, clarifies but broadens the category. I also agree with removing graphic, but because there's a strong element of redundancy. Films are graphic. Perhaps explicit would be better, perhaps not. Is the category supposed to include pornographic films? Alastair Haines 00:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As noted by User:ProveIt, such categorization is pointless, infinitely deep and not useful. Valrith 04:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Listify, and rename to remove the word "female", as per BHG. Grutness...wha? 06:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as a POV list with subjective inclusion criteria. "highlighting the true horror and degredation of rape" is POV by nature (I understand that's a controversial statement, but the category seems to be advocating for a certain cinematic depiction, rightly or wrongly is not our place to judge, we must be neutral), and secondly, it's impossible to have objective criteria for inclusion. Some people would argue, for example, that A Clockwork Orange sensationalizes and glorifies rape (not without justification), and some others could argue that it is powerfully anti-violence and rape is depicted graphically as a despicable act (also a justified position I think) but any argument about it would be bound to be Original Research because it's the opinions of editors. Wintermut3 06:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, much too subjective and POV in its current form, as per comments by nom and Wintermut3, and I'm not convinced that a non-subjective, non-POV version could be non-trivial as well (partly per arguments by Proveit). As for the comment by Alastair Haines, I'm not quite sure what's he's referring to by "officially classified", but I suspect that whatever it is does not reflect an international point of view. I certainly hope we do not add Category:Films containing public displays of affection, no matter how significant the National Film Board of India might find that information. Xtifr _tälk 00:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and any other category for films by incident. Alex Middleton 14:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep can anyone suggest a way to modify this, that would be acceptable? There aren't any categories distinguishing female rape, and distinguish it from male rape, and from trivial rape (you know the type, she really wants it and enjoys it, as opposed to genuine rape). I'm trying to put together a list of movies for my thesis and would REALLY have appreciated if someone had put this category together before. Reillyd 09:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way to modify this is to make a list. Categories are for defining characteristics, which "contains scenes depicting X" is generally not. A list can be organized in many ways, allowing for great flexibility in the presentation. As for your thesis: as I mentioned in a previous debate, Category:People with strong body odor might be of interest to someone researching body odor, but that does not make it appropriate for a category. If we created categories for every possible thesis topic, most articles would have more categories than content. Which is one of the reasons we have lists. Xtifr _tälk 21:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per various comments. Reillyd seems to be confused between the severity of the assault, and the amount that is shown on screen, which are two very different things. Jamie Mercer 23:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Help me modify, I've removed the language to make in a neutral POV, but just need a little help to make it into a list now before it gets deleted. Yes its probably a newbie error, but can someone suggest/or help modify it to make it suitible, rather than outright deleting. Oh and Xtifr, you make a very valid point about more categories than content. Reillyd 08:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Otto and Prove It. Inclusion criteria are subjective and/or arbitrary.Doczilla 07:49, 30 May 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 as empty. >Radiant< 10:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Choral musical groups (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete, The category is redundant to Category:Choirs. Pax:Vobiscum 13:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom as duplicate. (The category is currently empty, but should be tagged for merger rather than deletion in case it is populated before this CfD is closed). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or possibly reverse merge - in looking at Choir it appears that "choir" is a more specific subdivision of groups that perform choral music. I see some utility in categorizing non-"choir" choral groups separately while maintaining the existing choir category structure. Otto4711 19:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Choirs are choral groups, but not every choral group is a choir. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as it is now empty. Mangoe 13:08, 23 May 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, suggest creating a List of volcanoes by elevation similar to the one for mountains. >Radiant< 10:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Volcanoes by height (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Volcanoes below 999 meters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Volcanoes between 1,000 and 1,999 meters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Volcanoes between 2,000 and 2,999 meters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Volcanoes between 3,000 and 3,999 meters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Volcanoes between 4,000 and 4,999 meters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Volcanoes between 5,000 and 5,999 meters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Volcanoes over 6,000 meters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Delete all. Heavy overcategorization. Also categorizing volcanoes by height is not useful and against common sense. - Darwinek 13:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes#Categories, with unanimous support for deletion so far. -- Avenue 14:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, however a referenced list of volcanoes by height would be fine. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The list would more appropriate in this case. Solarapex 15:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't mind the overcategorization that much, and would be fine with keeping all of them, but it is already clear that the consensus is for deletion. So I am inclined to trust everyone's judgment on this issue and go along with deletion. However, I do think we should at least keep Category:Volcanoes over 6,000 meters, which is a nice compact category that would include about 50-60 members, all in the Andes. These members are the highest volcanoes in the world, and thus deserving of a separate category, just as there exists Category:Eight-thousanders for the highest mountains in the world. Can we get consensus to keep that one?
  A "list of volcanoes over 6,000 meters" would however be highly problematic, because the exact elevations of many of the 6,000+ meter volcanoes are not well known, due to poor topographic mapping and also conflicting topographic maps issued by Argentina and Chile. Thus a category (which is alphabetical) is much better than a list article, which would almost have to be in descending height order. Extending any such list below 6,000 m (i.e. a lengthy "list of volcanoes by height") is an impossible task, there is no way to do it in an inclusive and accurate manner. --Seattle Skier (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. After thinking about these categories, I realized that these categories were unnecessary. Hydrogen Iodide 18:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete all except Category:Volcanoes over 6,000 meters. This seems to me to be material for an excellent series of lists, which might not be complete but would certainly be interesting and useful; but as a category, it seems to be on of the less significant ways of grouping volcanoes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I share the idea of creating a list. If the elevations given are attributable and without bias, I see no problem in the creation of such list. Jespinos 19:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not keen on keeping the 6000+ category on its own either to be honest. Since they're all in Category:Volcanoes of South America anyway. Eve 20:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although perhaps keep the 6000+ cat as long as volcanoes in it are also in the parent cat or the national subcategories. These cats are a reasonable attempt at keeping the category sizes down but I think the national categories are doing a fine job of that. Pascal.Tesson 06:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One article with a list is enough. Bulldog123 14:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify Perhaps keep the parent category to hold the lists Bluap 15:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete. Personally, I think 6000 meters seems like a pretty arbitrary cut-off point; even if it does make a nice small category, I think it's bordering on original research to just retain the one cat. Anyway, where's Olympus Mons? Xtifr _tälk 08:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete. 6000 metres may denote volcanoes of a significant elevation but is otherwise an arbitrary cutoff point. Also, there is the problem of meter vs metre. We already have List of mountains by elevation so a list of volcanoes by elevation is reasonable although is really just a sub-list of the former. RedWolf 19:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete per Redwolf. Carlossuarez46 17:43, 25 May 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< 10:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trinidadian painters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Speedy. Duplicate of Category:Trinidad and Tobago painters. Jbmurray 12:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as duplicate. Does not qualify as speedy, because category appears to have been emptied by nominator [1]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Indeed, I moved the one article there into Category:Trinidad and Tobago painters, which it duplicated and which is named in line with all similar categories related to Trinidad and Tobago. I'm not sure why this should be a problem. But so be it. --Jbmurray 04:05, 21 May 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< 10:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trinidadian artists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Speedy. Duplicate of Category:Trinidad and Tobago artists. Jbmurray 12:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as duplicate. Does not qualify as speedy, because there is a question over how long it has remained empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What's the question? --Jbmurray 04:05, 21 May 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< 10:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propse renaming Category:Works by Andrew Lloyd Webber to Category:Compositions by Andrew Lloyd Webber

Nominator's Rationale: The list of Category:Compositions by composer has the word 'compositions' for everyone except Webber and a Moslov. Moslov's category is only one article and can be easily rectified. Webber has written a few more pieces and the category is a little more tedious to rename.Centy 12:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Johnbod 01:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Postlebury 22:16, 25 May 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< 10:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Daniel Defoe to Category:Works of Daniel Defoe

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, All bar the article Daniel Defoe itself is a work by Defoe, so I suggest that a "works of" category is better than an eponymous category in this case. Tim! 09:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, and per our general convention of deprecating eponymous categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Johnbod 01:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I suggest speedy rename of such categories. Pavel Vozenilek 11:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete these are all linked at Daniel Defoe, no navigation cats required. Carlossuarez46 17:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Part of a wider system. Honbicot 02:01, 26 May 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: as nominated. >Radiant< 10:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note:This is a substantial umbrella nomination.

Proposed merges:

Because anime and manga are closely related subjects, with any popular anime or manga inevitably earning an adaptation in the other format, their category systems, Category:Anime and Category:Manga, necessarily share many subcategories. In most cases, these are named in the form Category:Anime and manga whatever, though some variations exist.

However, we for some reason currently have two separate trees of genre subcategories, under Category:Anime by genre and Category:Manga by genre. Since anime and manga series share identical genres, the categories contained within these systems are all redundant to one another, and the existence of separate categories results in immense category bloat on pages like Elfen Lied which are both anime and manga series, giving us lists of categories like "Drama anime | Drama manga | Horror anime | Horror manga | Romance anime | Romance manga | Science fiction anime | Science fiction manga | Seinen".

I believe that these categories are an instance of overcategorization, since they serve as an arbitrary intersection between the Japanese media genre they represent and the format the media is taking. Merging the two trees together will result in no loss of information, especially once the category intersection functions have been implemented: a category like Category:Action anime simply duplicates the result of a search for the intersection of Category:Action anime and manga and Category:Anime series.

Finally, I recognize that some of the categories here may not be real genres (non-defining, neologisms, etc.) and that deletion might be a better option for some of them. However, mass nominations are difficult enough on the closing admin as is without us forcing them to judge a simultaneous parallel discussion over whether categories 17 and 26 of the 40 listed should be deleted. So please, for the sake of order and to be nice to whoever closes this, save those discussions for another day. --tjstrf talk 08:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- tjstrf talk 08:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two points:

1. So far, I have only checked one genre (viz. horror), looking at that one there doesn't seem to be a great overlap between the Horror manga and Horror anime categories. Unless we want to completely merge all manga and amine categories, merging the genre categories will require each article to be somewhere else in a specific anime or magna category. Before we decide on this, I think it would be a good idea to have some figures on the extent of the overlap in each category pair.
2. It's all very well to say that things will be OK when category intersection functions have been implemented ... but for now, they have not been implemented. From what I have read, they don't look likely to be implemented any time soon, so it seems like a bad idea to plan categorisation as if category intersection was already in place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to point 1, that's partly the result of people not adding the articles to both categories when they apply, probably also that horror anime is a bit less mainstream and thus less likely to have both anime and manga adaptations. However, my concern is more the effect within articles, where we are doubling the number of categories on a page without providing any additional information about its traits, than the effect from the category view.

With the exception of things like production companies, dates, etc. that are version specific, combined anime and manga categories are exactly what have been created. We don't have separate categories for characters or terminology or stubs or the WikiProject. In fact, we don't even have separate anime and manga categories for genres that are named in Japanese, like Category:Seinen or Category:Shōnen. --tjstrf talk 12:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thanks for the clarification. I have done some more reading, and I can see that there does indeed seem to be a wide overlap in some other genres. However, I am puzzled not to see any sign of a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. This proposal is for a huge recategorisation which could not be easily undone (it's one of the biggest I have ever seen at CfD), so I wonder is there a particular reason why it was not first discussed amongst the people regularly working together on anime and manga articles? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was, several months ago, and is now archived. I never got around to the actual nomination because (as you can probably guess) it was a total pain to set up. --tjstrf talk 17:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to previous discussion, which got rather sidetracked. --tjstrf talk 17:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all. This is a smart idea, as many anime have manga, and vice versa.--Mike Selinker 18:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mike, the proposal is for a set of mergers, not renamings :)--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now, but I may change my mind. Thanks to tjstr for the link to the previous discussion, but having read it, there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus there for the merger, and one clear strand of argument against which seems to carry some weight of logic: that although there is considerable crossover, anime and magna are clearly distinct art forms. I'm not wholly persuaded by that argument, but would want to be reassured that it is wrong before supporting such a big restructuring. It's relatively easy to set a bot to work doing he merger, but it'd be a nightmare to undo it, so let's be sure that we are getting this right. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Distinct in other ways, yes, but genre classifications is not one of those ways, not a single one of the genres described here is unique to just anime or just manga. --tjstrf talk 18:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, but there are many other genres which are common to different media, such as Category:Thrillers, Category:Spy fiction, Category:Science fiction by media and Category:Romance; in all of those cases we subdivide the category between films and novels. There may be a clearer case for the film/novel separation, because only a small minority of books are made into films, but surely there must also be a lot of anime which do not become manga? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To answer your question, consider that there were almost 50 anime that debuted this Spring alone [2]. Of those, the majority were based on an existing manga. Of those which were not based on an existing manga, the successful ones will be adapted into a manga now, alongside the other merchandise like artbooks, figurines, dozens of dojin, etc. Outside of creepy mindscrew seinen series, I'd have more difficulty naming manga that don't have anime adaptations. It's different from novels and movies, since a successful novel will not necessarily earn itself a movie, but a successful manga will almost definitely become an anime. There's also a much more substantial difference between film and novel presentation than between anime and manga presentation. --tjstrf talk 20:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose - There are significant numbers of manga which do not become anime, and significant numbers of anime which are not adapted from any other source. The two are different mediums, and do not overlap enough to justify this at all. Only the most mainstream properties end up getting adapted into all kinds of merchandise and mediums, and altering Wikipedia to focus only on those properties would be inappropriate. Of those fifty three anime that debuted this spring, several were based on manga, several were based on novels, at least one was based on a stage play, and several more were not adapted from anything. Both anime and manga remain very diverse, and the categories should reflect that.
• I agree that overcategorization is a big problem, but I think there are many solutions to the problem that should be tried before merging medium. For example, Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann has nine categories and five genre listed. But the genre mecha means the genre 'action' 'adventure' and 'science fiction' are all redundant. Certainly, adding 'drama' to everything is not needed, especially if it also says 'comedy' but mostly because 'drama' is the absence of other genre. Additionally, there is often no reason to list both medium. Manga adaptions of anime that exist only as a two or three volume cash in do not deserve a category. The problem only exists for major properties, and the solution above only works for them - for everything else, it's a disaster. Doceirias 10:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply We already automatically classify series by medium through another set of categories, so this would in no way reduce the amount of information given about a series by the category systems. --tjstrf talk 16:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I agree that anime and manga have near perfect overlap in genre, and I think this is a good idea in general. My concern is that when looking at the category pages it will not be clear whether a particular listing is anime, manga, or both, and that this could lead to confusion. So long as entries are flagged according to medium, I'm in support. MkDoyle 14:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply We also flag pages by whether they are an anime series, manga series, anime movie, OVA, etc. through a separate category system, so no worries there. --tjstrf talk 16:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all - in favour of keeping consistency. DC&Marvel maniac 15:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I oppose this merger, but I'd support getting rid of some categories that have no useful purpose.
  • How many Category:Baseball anime or Category:Motorsports anime exist? Merge them to Category:Sports anime.
  • Category:Western anime. Besides the three "cowboy" series that came out in 1998, there's not a lot more series to populate the category. Having them in Category:Science fiction Westerns should be enough.
  • Category:Kaitō anime. That's like a heist film, right? But no one uses that term. Kill it.
  • Now, I think something could be done with the genres "exclusive" to anime and manga.
    • Merge Category:Magical girl anime and Category:Magical girl manga
    • Merge Category:Harem anime and Category:Harem manga
    • Merge Category:Creature anime and Category:Creature manga, but think of a better name.--Nohansen 00:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge Category:Mecha anime and Category:Mecha manga
    • Merge Category:Ecchi anime and Category:Ecchi manga
    • Category:Retro fiction anime. I'm not sure if the editor who created the category intended it for Alternate history anime or retro-futuristic anime. Either way, it should go.
    • Also, the anime articles make the mistake of having the Category:Seinen, Category:Josei, Category:Shōnen and Category:Shōjo as genres. Those terms aren't genres, they describe the shows target demographic. As long as we're fixing the categories, something should be done about that.

I believe the merging of categories should be taken on a case-by-case basis, especially if members of WP:ANIME have their doubts and it'd be rather difficult to revert the change... But I see no problem in combining all anime and manga of the harem or Magical girl genres.--Nohansen 05:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge of all categories into "XXX anime and manga". Also ask that all subcategories get a good check during this process per above comments about Category:Baseball anime; Category:Kaitō anime etc.--ZayZayEM 05:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per DC&Marvel maniac in favour of keeping consistency which is what this is all about. I think Nohansen has made a good point too that we should be general with the categories. --Squilibob 06:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all This is a good and reasonable way of creating a clear and easy to use category structure. It would reduce the overly heavy categorization of articles like Angel Cop and create consistency with other combined categories like Category:Anime and manga characters. Pax:Vobiscum 12:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep as ((categoryredirect))s. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Category:Toy makers Category:Toymakers Propose deleting these two categories since they consist of nothing but redirects to Category:Toy inventors. T@nn 08:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as categoryredirects, which I will create. Honbicot 10:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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< 10:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Panchira (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Every article that is in this category right now, except Panchira itself, has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject except that it incidentally contains panty shots. As a large percentage of anime contain panty shots, and this is a non-defining attribute which we should not be categorizing by, and what little purpose it does serve is entirely redundant to that of Category:Ecchi anime, this category should be deleted. --tjstrf talk 06:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. --tjstrf talk 07:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but the thought of categorizing anime based on pantie shots did make me laugh. -- Ned Scott 07:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Ecchi anime. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The only page that was in Panchira and not already in Ecchi anime was Najica Blitz Tactics. It's in both now. --tjstrf talk 09:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless a category is trivial or nonsense, I think it's always safer for CfD to recommend a merger than a delete, because the category may be populated in he time between nomination and the category's deletion. If the category remains empty, a "merge" result is functionally equivalent to a delete, so there's no harm to the merger result. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In my view, this one is both trivial and nonsense. --tjstrf talk 21:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems pretty trivial to me. Could be a subcat of ecchi, but Category:Ecchi anime is hardly huge and needs to be split. Use the more general category. --Squilibob 06:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-definitive. -Sean Curtin 05:23, 25 May 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.