< November 11	November 13 >

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, seems sensible. the wub "?!" 13:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Mills Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Emptied as a result of cleaning up the Simon property group cat. Simon bought out Mills. Not a speedy since is was just emptied today of only article. Vegaswikian 23:35, 12 November 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 a non-defining attribute of those categorised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of Freeman of the City of London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not really notable; how many hundreds of visiting dignitaries get the Freedom of the City every decade? Does anybody even keep a list? Orange Mike 23:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A cross-reference to all those of whom this attributie is mentioned in the Wikipedia would, in my opinion, be a useful addition. There are also lists of peers, honours, etc., which lists do not strive for completeness either. See also the List_of_Honorary_Freemen_of_the_City_of_London. Putting this into a Category would make indexing the names of these people a lot easier (and automatic).Bonicolli 23:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we have a list, we don't need to categorize on this "award". Carlossuarez46 00:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think you missed my point. The existing list needs a lot of manual work to keep it up to date, manage new additions, etc. Maintaining this as a Category (and eventually merging the existing list into it) would enable these facts to be maintained semi-automatically and would need a lot less maintainance work. There are currently about 130 people listed in the Wikipedia which have this attribute. That number alone merits, in my opinion, a separate category to place them into. Cf. also e.g. the Category:Knights of the Order of St John or a list of old school pupils like the list at Category:Old_Tonbridgians. Bonicolli 01:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete though both nom & Carlos misunderstand the issue. The category we are discussing :Category:List of Freeman of the City of London contains some of the 1800 people a year who get Freedom by applying, which is totally non-notable. The List_of_Honorary_Freemen_of_the_City_of_London contains the "visiting dignitaries" who are actually extremely few, as they give a huge banquet each time. There is not a category for these, but I might support it if there were. Johnbod 01:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Do take a look at the list. Some of them perhaps have received this freedom by simple applying, but most of them have had their freedoms awarded for services rendered, (most of them received knighthoods as well), or are noteworthy of being freemen because they have been the Master of a Livery Company in a certain year (for which being a freeman is a necessary prerequisite). Therefore this information is of relevance. Bonicolli 02:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the category, it is clear that most are ordinary Freemen, which is certainly not notable at 1800 issued pa. Historically anyone trading in the City had to be a Freeman, so that is not notable either. Johnbod 02:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Whereas I do not deny that there are some entries for which it is debatable whether or not the recipient is an ordinary Freemen, a vast number of them were granted their freedoms as a reward for outstanding achievements (look in their biographies). I do not disagree that some 'vetting' still needs to be done (especially with the politicians among them!), but one has to make a start somewhere. In this case I made that start by listing (automatically, by category) all those for whom the freedom has been listed in the already existing biographies. And that is, as I perceive it, the purpose of this new category: to enable the retrieval of this information in a structured way. Bonicolli 02:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a relatively new editor has put in a lot of effort to set this up, and the discussion generated has brought out some interesting points that need to be addressed. Let's concentrate on addressing these before deleting something that is totally harmless. Motmit 09:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Previously discussed in CfD: Category:Freemen of the City of London was turned into a list. There are far too many Freeman. Nor is notablity an issue. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is one, but is that because she was worthy, or because her father was one? Either way, it is hardly important. Better to mention it in the Nelson Mandela and Helmut Kohl articles if suitable and avoid overstuffing categories. --Rumping 09:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the link! The previous debate was also marked by nearly unanimous failure to grasp the huge difference between a Freeman and an Honourary Freeman. The closer was I suspect wtong to rename the category from Freemen to Honourary Freemen when he closed and listified. I took the title at face value yesterday & removed from the list those who were clearly only ordinary Freemen, which was the majority. My advice to those interested in these is to convert this category into a (separate) List of Ordinary Freemen - this might be tenable as an article, whereas as a category it just isn't. Get a record whilst it's still here. Johnbod 10:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the problems with this variation in the granting of the Freedom is that there is a somewhat grey area. On the one side, there is Mr. Joe Bloggs (a totally unknown private person, one of the 1800 or so per annum) who just applies for the Freedom of the City and usually without any further ado receives it during a twenty minute ceremony. Simple: there is no reason to include him in a list (or even in the Wikipedia itself). On the opposite end of the spectrum, there is the fully fledged honourary Freedom, bestowed with great pomp and circumstance and with much publicity, usually upon people who are for one reason or another well-known (ranging from the Princess of Wales to Nelson Mandela to Luciano Pavarotti). This Freedom comes with almost state-like banquets in the Guild Hall, as a kind of "reward for achievements" (in the broadest possible sense). These are the two clear-cut cases. But then there is a third category which is far more difficult to judge. In a great number of these 'ín-between' cases, e.g. the Mayor himself plays a role in the ceremony of granting the Freedom, the Corporation of the City of London issues press-releases that the Freedom has been/will be granted (even if this was "just" another Freedom by Application), newspapers publish this fact, the BBC-news shows a snippet of the ceremony when they need some extra minutes of air-time to fill, etc., etc. In the long run, however, this makes no real difference: as all of these person become 'a freeman' in the end, without distinction between them. And this fact is mentioned in the biographies of those recipients, regardless of the form in which they received it, as an historical fact. I therefore still hold the opinion that, if a person is (for whatever reason) included in the Wikipedia, and in that article the fact that he/she became a Freeman of the City of London is included, than this fact is also deserving of being included in a category, which then automagically genereates a list of these people. I consider this to be on an equal level with categories which list alumni of a certain university, old boys of a certain school, etc. Bonicolli 13:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, though I don't think I've ever seen such a ceremony covered on BBC news myself. The trouble is, it isn't really defining for any of those groups, which under WP:OCAT makes it hard to justify a category. Where you went to school or university is agreed to be defining, but this rarely is - whether for all those ordinary Freemen Tory MPs or for Nelson Mandela, or for Samuel Pepys. I'm pretty sure that in most WP biographies of Freemen the fact is not even mentioned - not the ones in the category but the thousands who aren't. You almost never see it mentioned in a Times obituary, even when the person clearly was one. I still think you should concentrate efforts on lists in article space. Johnbod 13:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• actually, for that middle group it can be defining. From personal experience I've seen it as a positive action on the behalf of the Corporation and the individual to claim that affiliation. It some ways its more defining of the individual than, say, an old boy group, as this is a positive voluntary step made by an adult and an organisation/place. To be honest, I'd suggest that the honorary awards are less relevant as a category as the recipients had to do nothing to earn it other than turn up, even though they are typically notable in their own right. Ephebi 18:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The use of a category for honorary freemen seems inappropriate, but the use of 'this' category for people that have earned it seems more than appropriate and better to maintain than a large list. (I note that the previous CfD was wrongly selected for deletion by an admin who - like many others - was confused by the topic and thought it related only to honorary freemen.) Ephebi 18:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep first we delete a list because a category seems more suitable--and then we delete the category. This does not argue for any sort of consistency--unless the consistent intent is to delete as a general practice all lists and categories of groups of people from WP. It's as defining as any other general honour. DGG (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - partly because I am one, I certainly do not feel notable (how do I get on this category?). The only possible notability in this particular category is to be given it on an Honorary basis, and then that is also disputable - since these days they appear to provide an Honorary to all and sundry. The vast majority of people pay to receive this 'honour' as members of Livery companies - I'm unadopted though (too cheap to pay, I guess). That doesn't mean I don't consider it a valuable institution, merely that I find it in itself, non-notable. Kbthompson 01:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is turning the rationale upside down. It is not that people are notable because they have received the Honorary Freedom, they have received the Honorary Freedom because they are (in some way or other) notable. (Whether or not this is subject to 'inflation' (given to "all and sundry") does not alter the historical fact that it has been / is given at some point.) In this respect it is like any other reward/prize/medal/knighthood: not the receiving of it brings the notability, it is the other way around. It this particular case the accolade is given to an individual as a token of respect/esteem by the Corporation of London. As HM The Queen hands out OBEs and Knighthoods, the Mayor of London gives away Honorary Freedoms. As to the question: how does one get on that list? That has already been explained earlier: by achieving the notability first. In this case by having a Wiki-biography in one's own right. Bonicolli 03:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• <sigh> as noted before, this is not a category specifically for honorary freemen. Ephebi (talk) 17:57, 20 November 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. the wub "?!" 13:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Outer Limits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous TV show category; material doesn't warrant category. Otto4711 22:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 00:20, 13 November 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 merge. the wub "?!" 13:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBTQQ South Park Characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Upmerge into Category:South Park characters, there's not so many of these that sub categories are needed. If kept it should at least be renamed. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge into Category:South Park characters, Totally useless sub-category probably exists for pushing agendas--Java7837 01:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Otto4711 03:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. This is excessive. Doczilla 07:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• South Park has had about ten regular or reccuring charactrers that are/were GLBT thats probably more than any other mainstream show I can think of other than possibly Nip/Tuck, just making my case here Velps 16:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: None of the LGBT characters are main characters, though many of them are well known. But a category of them isn't necessary. Perhaps a list? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I like the idea of a list being made--Java7837 (talk) 04:27, 18 November 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. the wub "?!" 13:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lobbyists who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is only one entry in this category. Suggest moving him out of it. Montchav 22:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete People are notable for being lobbyists, and notable suicide victims should be categorized as such. However, there's no special notability in being a lobbyist who committed suicide. There seems to be an occupation-based categorization scheme in Category:Suicides, with every possible occupation, including "chefs" and "mathematicians". Maybe that needs to be looked at. szyslak 23:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & I thought we'd gone through a bunch of occupation + suicide, which seems OCAT connection unless someone can write something about suicidal lobbyists. Carlossuarez46 00:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Category:Suicides would be massive if not subdivided in some way, and the way we have (as we do with Category:Murder victims) is by occupation. It saves us from having this category subdivided by age, for example.--Mike Selinker 02:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How about categorizing by nationality, as in "Americans who committed suicide" or "American murder victims"? szyslak 07:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Still pretty darn massive.--Mike Selinker 13:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is already broken out into Category:Suicides by method. Vegaswikian 03:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete along with all of the other Category:Fooists who committed suicide. Not defining. No need to upmerge since they should also already be included into Category:Suicides by method. Vegaswikian 18:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Some of the others Category:Fooists who committed suicide are well-populated, but this one is small and unlikely to grow much. It reminds me of the masses of tiny categories which Pastorwayne used to create, in that it's a form of tagging (i.e. sticking a label on something) rather than a group of related articles to facilitate navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
• Delete. Non-notable intersection. Suicide by method is equally non-defining. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:18, 17 November 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. the wub "?!" 13:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Launceston to Category:People from Launceston, Tasmania

Nominator's rationale: Rename, For consistency with placename article (Launceston, Tasmania) and to avoid possible confusion with Category:People from Launceston, Cornwall. DuncanHill 22:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename -- agree with proposal to disambiguate between place names. - Longhair\^talk 22:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. LeSnail 01:23, 14 November 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. the wub "?!" 13:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Roosevelt, Utah

Delete: Only one person can be included in this category. Cat should never have been created and should be deleted. Pippedatthepost 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't follow why only one person "can be included" here (is there only one person from Roosevelt, Utah in all of history that meets the WP notability requirements?), but I agree that for now it should be deleted for lack of articles presently included. Snocrates 23:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Snocrates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 16 November 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, but feel free to create an album version of the talk page template: Template:reqimage (there are apparently already several variations according to that template page). - This category seems to be populated from Template:Infobox Album, the infobox on each of these articles. One template should be as good as another for this, and it's clear that this should be on the talk page or not at all. - jc37 10:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Template:Reqcover (a talk page template) has been created. - jc37 01:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Album articles without cover art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category clutter: What is the category system used for? I don't really see the point in adding to the categories of an article with metadata that few people will be interested in. We should use the talk page ((reqimage)) template or look at what links to Image:Nocover-upload.png (though this lists only a tiny fraction of those in the category). The category has also gotten to the point of being unusable with thousands and thousands of entries that I can't believe people would go through. violet/riga (t) 21:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd be fine with keeping this as a Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums cleanup category applied to talk pages. This kind of information is useful for people working on albums in general, but it's not really part of encyclopedic content. -- Prove It ^(talk)
• Keep if restricted to talk page. Otherwise Delete. Vegaswikian 23:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While it's nice to have cover art in articles about albums, a lack of cover art is not an urgent cleanup problem ... as if our album stubs don't have enough fair use images without sources or rationales. szyslak 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to talk page or delete I seem to recall this one before: without cover art is either that the album itself lacked it (is that defining? maybe it is.) or that WP lacks a picture (maintenance self-reference, repurpose to talk page or delete depending on whether this is something being actively worked on). Carlossuarez46 00:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to talk page or delete per everybody I think. Johnbod 02:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This cannot be applied to talk pages for the reasons stated in the previous CfD for this category. --PEJL 14:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep where it is, as a useful WP:ALBUM maintenance category and per PEJL. tomasz. 12:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to talk page or delete. No evidence that this is a defining characteristic of an album cover, and several assertions that it's a maintenance category, in which case it's no use to readers and belongs on talk pages. The discussion has demonstrated that there are several other ways of tracking album covers with this deficiency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • "No evidence" that the cover art is a defining characteristic of an album cover? It's logic like that that makes me think that in discussing this category, people should be deferring to the people who actually use the category: the people at WP:ALBUM who regularly use it, for instance. Also, i'd wager that none of our readers who aren't also editors even use the category system. And there may be several other ways to track the deficiency but they're all inferior to the current infobox-generated method for reasons of (at least) practicality. tomasz. 14:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, readers do use the category system. I have suggested an efficient method of doing this that removes the category clutter. As for those that use the category deciding it's use well I'm sorry but two people have voiced their opinion that it should be kept, one of whom has stated that they no longer make use of the category. While it appears all over thousands of articles it is not something that just those who "regularly" use it. violet/riga (t) 17:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is. Though it's not impossible, it's highly impractical and therefore completely unnecessary to move it to the talk page. The whole point of the category is to define where the album infobox has not had an album cover added, this category is the maintenance category people (like myself, when I have the time) go into to view and add the covers as applicable and possible. Now, technically, a bot could discerne when this has been done, but really, that would lead to bot clutter. So we'd have bot clutter to cover for what you consider Category clutter. I might add that there's no policy basis for the deletion request. As to the amount of articles that lay in the category, it fluctuates. One month it may have 10, the next it might have 2 or 3 thousand. This is generally due to betacommandbot (among others, though it's the worst culprit, breaking the usage rules etc) tagging images and only occasionally notifying the uploader (there seems to have been a glitch in the last couple of months, because I've seen it happen in a large number of pages recently, with an appropriate amount of backlash). The fact that in some months we've gone from 2 or 3 thousand entries to fully clearing it out is pretty strong confirmation that it's not an unachievable task (though it is a large one) to overcome the backlogs. --lincalinca 14:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get a bot to go through and create a page (probably a subpage of a wikiproject) which lists all the album articles without a cover. This means that the categories aren't cluttered and the bot doesn't perform mass article/talk page tagging. violet/riga (t) 16:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But again, we'd have to have a bot dedicated to the task. The simplest solution is to keep this category and the method used just as it has been. It ain't broke, so we shouldn't go and try to fix it. --lincalinca 21:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it wasn't broken there wouldn't be so many people agreeing to delete or talkify the category. It is broken and the bot wouldn't need to be dedicated - just an ocassional run perhaps once a week; it would be very easy. violet/riga (t) 08:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As a former-regular frequentor of the category, and having just looked at it, I don't see how it's broken. The system is still in place. The thing that's broken is betacommandbot, as usual. --lincalinca 07:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It spams articles with a category that is irrelevant to our readers and clutters the system. Oh for a meta tab. violet/riga (t) 08:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • and if it were broken, there wouldn't be so many people agreeing to keep it. strikes me that that's just a matter of opinion. tomasz. 14:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Two people is "so many"? violet/riga (t) 17:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's as "so many" as four is, which is kind of the point i was making. tomasz. 18:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'd actually count it as seven people saying that it shouldn't be used in articles, which is pretty much a consensus when compared to two. violet/riga (t) 19:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Lincalinca. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep as is, for the sake of editors. I recently went through all the articles that had incorrect album infoboxes and fixed them. I did this in part because it was easy to fix the page it was on. But if I had to fix the talk page and the article page, that's twice as much work, so maybe I wouldn't do it. The solution is to fix the articles, not remove the category saying the articles need fixing.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:53, 22 November 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. the wub "?!" 13:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Supervillain pastiches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete subjective category. Any inclusion criteria would be arbitrary. We've deleted other pastiche categories before. Doczilla 21:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete tricky inclusion criteria that would involve a reference and heavy policing. (Emperor 21:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Based on its description, this category has been applied correctly. --Basique 02:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree with nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the category is too broad, as many characters draw influences from each other. More specific pastiche cats have all been deleted, as should this. 66.109.248.114 (talk) 21:46, 17 November 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. the wub "?!" 13:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Superhero pastiches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete subjective category. Any inclusion criteria would be arbitrary. We've deleted pastiche categories before. Doczilla 19:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete tricky inclusion criteria that would involve a reference and heavy policing. (Emperor 21:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As far as I've seen this category has been applied correctly. --Basique 02:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree with nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the category is too broad, as many characters draw influences from each other. More specific pastiche cats have all been deleted, as should this. 66.109.248.114 (talk) 21:45, 17 November 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. A rare but reasonable exception to the "no-current-categories" doctrine, per Category:Current national leaders.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Current female heads of government to Category:Female heads of government

Nominator's rationale: Per precedent, for ease of maintenance, and because stable information is preferred for individuals, categories for "current" office-holders should be avoided. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I normally am strongly against "current" categories, but this one is high-interest and small, and should not be hard to maintain by those interested. It seems in apple-pie order at present? Johnbod 19:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge no current categories - current Wimbledon title holders or other "current" things are interesting but not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 00:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom to make information timeless. Snocrates 01:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel that making the information timeless in this case would reduce its overall usefulness. Bonicolli 16:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment then what should be made of Category:Current national leaders, of which this is a subcat, and others, such as Category:Current monarchies? Hmains 05:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep I echo Johnbod's sentiments- this is a topic of interest, no matter how small it may be.-RomeW 19:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it is undeniable a topic of interest, not all topics of interest are suited to categorisation. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify as easier to maintain list of... 132.205.99.122 19:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• not much easier, when there are currently 8! Johnbod 23:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The "relative ease of maintenance" argument is a myth; in editing terms it is arguably easier to maintain a category - you adjust the ex-incumbent's article, including category, then the new person's one, and that's it. With a List you have to go there as well - if you know the List exists. I think there should be rare exceptions to the general objection to "current" categories, and this is one of them. Johnbod 15:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Your comment assumes that the editor in question is aware of any changes in status. That assumption is certain to be untrue with large categories, such as Category:Current mayors of cities in California. While this also applies to lists, a list can be sourced, thus allowing information to be checked and updated from time to time. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• That is much less of an issue here, with currently 8 members, and all changes reported in the media. Johnbod 14:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Johnbod, as a logical subcat or Category:Current national leaders. If anyone wants to chop out the current categories, the parent category should go too, but these strike me as a being demonstrably useful rare exceptions to CfD's usual shoot-on-sight policy for "current X" categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
• Keep per Johnbod and BHG. I'm not a fan of "current" categories in general, but this does appear to be a worthwhile exception (as we're talking about national leaders, rather than e.g. local mayors, and so the potential size of the category is necessarily small and manageable, and information about changes in status will be prominently available). It's also an acceptable sub-category of the parent, which is not nominated for deletion. Bencherlite^Talk 21:03, 20 November 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. the wub "?!" 13:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ancient Empires of Africa to Category:Former empires of Africa

Nominator's rationale: To correspond to the main parent categories: Category:Former empires and Category:Former countries in Africa. Also, there seems to be agreement for the change on the talk page, but it was never implemented. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom - many of these are medieval in European terms, which is confusing. Johnbod 19:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - and without division by time can also include Central African Empire. Carlossuarez46 00:28, 13 November 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 merge. the wub "?!" 13:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Incumbent Indian Deputy Chief Ministers to Category:Deputy chief ministers of Indian states

Nominator's rationale: Per precedent, for ease of maintenance, and because stable information is preferred for individuals, we shouldn't have categories for "current" office-holders. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. and much precedent. LeSnail 19:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom; no current cats; also potentially useful, but not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 00:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, as "current" -- Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 16 November 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 merge. the wub "?!" 13:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Incumbent Indian Chief Ministers to Category:Chief ministers of Indian states

Nominator's rationale: Per precedent, for ease of maintenance, and because stable information is preferred for individuals, we shouldn't have categories for "current" office-holders. Lists, such as List of Chief Ministers of India, are much better suited to that purpose. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. and much precedent. LeSnail 19:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, as "current" -- Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 16 November 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. the wub "?!" 13:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Warcraft lore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only contains two articles (excluding the general universe article), which should be deleted or merged. Too limited for a category. Pagrashtak 17:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:00, 16 November 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. the wub "?!" 13:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LGBT characters in comics to Category:LGBT comics characters

Nominator's rationale: Rename - in line with the parent Category:Comics characters. Otto4711 16:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- Proposed rename is ambiguous as to whether the comics are LGBT or the characters are. I'm sure there is such a thing as LGBT comics, since there is so much LGBT literature. LeSnail 19:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose LeSnail makes a good point. (Emperor 21:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Oppose per LeSnail. Carlossuarez46 00:29, 13 November 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. The sole category member already appears in Category:Warcraft. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Warcraft items (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Contains one article. Too limited for a category. Upmerge. Pagrashtak 16:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Upmerge to Category:Warcraft or Category:Video game items or Category:Fictional objects? Vegaswikian 19:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose Warcraft, as a "set" is not actually an item, but a grouping. The better answer is probably to delete the article, however. Pagrashtak 19:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Warcraft those things whose only existence is in that universe. Carlossuarez46 00:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is only one article in the category, what, exactly, is there to upmerged? -- Jelly Soup 04:37, 14 November 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 upmerge. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Warcraft custom games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Contains one article. Too limited for a category. Upmerge. Pagrashtak 16:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Warcraft per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge -- Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:01, 16 November 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:LGBT superheroes. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Gay superheroes to Category:LGBT characters in comics

Nominator's rationale: While this category is useful (star as opposed to supporting character) it is problematic as it would only lead to unhelpful subcategorisation of the LGBT parent. There aren't enough notable LGBT characters in comics to warrant this sort of subcategory, despite its good intentions. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to Category:LGBT superheroes. Many of the characters in the parent cat are superheroes and merging the categories removes the sub-catted characters from the Category:Superheroes structure. "LGBT" is standard when not divided into G, L, B and T subcats (something that isn't warranted here). Otto4711 16:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My second option would be "Gay, lesbian or bisexual" superheroes. I think T is it's own animal in this case.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Actually, that would also be fine, because it would preserve "LGBT characters in comics" and "fictional bisexuals/gay men/lesbians" as separate categories.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:LGBT superheroes per Otto. They should be part of the Category:Superheroes structure. LeSnail 18:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per Otto, though sub it under both structures. - J Greb 20:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename following Otto. (Emperor 21:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep and rename per Otto; but this should be a child category of "Superheroes" and "LGBT characters in comics", not just one or the other. --Orange Mike 23:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Otto. Superheroes are a distinct type of comic characters. LGBT status among superheroes has been notable. Doczilla 07:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Otto. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Consensus has clearly been established - would it be feesible to add John Constantine to the category? The bi Starman and Sarah Rainmaker are already included. Also, would LGBT supervillains be a separate category?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments RE: the villains... maybe. Personally, I'd prefer to treat the cat as a genre until there's an indication of how many superheroes and villains populate it. If it's large enough, then the treatment should change to character type, and split it.
    RE: Constantine... My gut-check is to keep him in the comics characters parent. As a character, IMO, he doesn't fit the "superhero" label any more than the sorcerers in most fantasy or horror novels. And the vast majority of the stories he's appeared in are of the horror genre, not superhero. - J Greb 22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question two: Would a LGBT superhero like Captain Hero be included in this "LGBT characters in comics" subcat despite not being a comic book character? Should the two structures be kept separate?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at what cats he's already got... Category:Extraterrestrial superheroes is a good template. It subs from Category:Superheroes, which subs from Category:Comics characters and Category:Fictional characters by nature. The latter would place him in the cats regardless. By nature he is a "superhero", regardless of media. - J Greb (talk) 05:32, 18 November 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Singaporean people by ethnic or national descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Singaporean people by ethnic or national origin, convention of Category:People by ethnic or national origin. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod 02:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom. I created this category using some precedent or another, but now it needs to be renamed to match convention. Hmains 04:43, 13 November 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 No consensus to Merge (or just about anything else, at the moment). (Personally I think they could use better names - ducks out of sight from Mike : ) - The writers aren't about Russia, they write about Russia.) From what I see below, feel free to renominate each for individual renaming, and/or perhaps listification, but merging appears to be currently opposed. - jc37 09:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-closing comment: You won't get any objection from me about finding a better name.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Western writers about Russia to Category:Historians of Russia

Suggest merging Category:Western writers about Imperial Russia to Category:Historians of Russia

Suggest merging Category:Western writers about Muscovy to Category:Historians of Russia

Suggest merging Category:Western writers about Soviet Russia to Category:Historians of Russia

Nominator's rationale: Merge - I realize the discussion that resulted in this rename was long and involved, but this merger seems very simple and obvious. They wrote about Russia, their writings are historical, they should go with historians instead of the awkward "Western writers about" scheme which as near as I can tell has no parallels. Otto4711 14:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LINK to previous discussion needed Johnbod 01:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The trouble is most of their writings were not historical, but have become valuable sources for historians by the passage of time & lack of other information. This would put them under "academics", which few were. Johnbod 15:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Contemporary history is still history. There's no fixed time that a work must exist before it becomes historical. Otto4711 16:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If true that would have massive implications for categorisation. All books on politics, culture & who knows what else to history, and their authors to historians? Johnbod 16:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would have no objection to a merger to an appropriate subcat of Category:Travel writers either but sentiment was expressed in the last CFD that this was somehow too dismissive of the writing. Otto4711 16:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be clear purpose behind maintaining category as Writers about Russia (including Muscovy, USSR and contemporary) i.e. focussing on outside reflections regarding Russian/Soviet culture and life; and it is dissimilar to Historians because former covers impressions, apology, etc. while latter implies research. There is no strict dichotomy though but pragmatics is relatively straightforward. DBWikis 15:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It didn't seem very simple and obvious to me when I closed this discussion. The people making the rename case made valid points about the historiography of Russia. These people were not necessarily in the historians tree, but they did write outside views of the various statges of the country's evolution. It seems a valid if new categorization scheme and one that only needed standardization, not deletion.--Mike Selinker 15:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes - I thought that a very good close, btw. Johnbod 16:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• In the long run this triple-intersection scheme will become unworkable. There is no theoretical limit on the topics about which a writer may write, especially writers of travel-type works. Categorizing writers by the subject matter of their work will lead to who knows how many different categories, especially when it inevitably migrates to the fiction side. I shudder to think how many categories would be tacked on to someone like Isaac Asimov just based on his non-fiction. Writers about Foo is a spectacularly bad road to start down. Otto4711 16:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree we don't want this to spread. Fortunately people actually don't create many new writers categories compared to other fields like music and cinema. Eternal vigilance is the answer. Johnbod 16:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Stopping it before it has any opportunity to become entrenched is the answer. Look at the nightmares we went through with the actors/directors/writers by TV series categorization structure and the fictional character with the power to Foo structure. Why set ourselves up for that battle over these cats? Otto4711 16:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This does seem like a bad idea for a category: it seems to be similar to the idea of "Category: Songs with references to ___". We could have a category for Western writers recognised for their writing about Russia (for example, if we had ten Western writers with Nobel Prizes for works about Russia), but we need to have a tightly defined category in this situation if we have any such category. Nyttend 17:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify all into List of travel writers about Russia. A list can provide the details and supplemental information that is desperately needed in this case. I think the closure of the previous (admittedly convoluted) CFD was well-done, but I view it as a temporary measure only. The category system is simply not suited for these types of categories. How much about Russia must one write in order to merit inclusion? Is one paragraph in some obscure journal article enough? A book chapter? A book? How "Western" must one be? A category like Category:Western writers about Soviet Russia would include a substantial portion of Western social scientists during and after the Cold War. If no consensus to listify, then merge all to Category:Travel writers. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is just repeating the issues settled in the CfD of last week. Otto's nomination is (relatively) different, but that proposal was debated endlessly. If we are going to allow a reopening days after the last close - which I am very dubious about - it should not cover the same ground. Johnbod 01:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Procedural Close These were debated endlessly, closing just days ago. This suggestion among others was discussed (and gathered little support). There is no reason to reopen immediately. Johnbod 01:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly oppose this notion. The previous CFD was closed by and large because it needed to be closed and the reasoning of the closing admin was "consensus is something needs to change." He then crafted a solution largely out of whole cloth. No disrespect intended to the closing admin but if the best rationale is "something needs to change" and a guess at what that something ought to be, then reconsidering the situation is not unreasonable. Otto4711 03:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I stated above, I think Mike Selinker's closure was fine for that discussion, which was convoluted beyond hope. It was a closure intended to get some good out of a "no consensus" situation. However, that shouldn't preclude reconsideration of the same issues in a situation of reduced ambiguity (e.g. absent suggestions to relocate biographical articles into a category whose title is clearly non-biographical). So many suggestions were floated around in that discussion, that few were adequately discussed and little was actually settled. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Two things that were settled were that categories were wanted, and a merge to Travel writers was not. Yet these are exactly what are now being offered. It is Deletion Review by another route, and should be taken there. The close did indeed rename the categories, and I thought achieved a good lowest common denominator from what were certainly an untidy bunch of suggestions. Johnbod 04:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "No consensus to delete" is in no way the same as "categories were wanted." Otto4711 04:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete, prune down to scholars (not Feuchtwanger, Rolland, Wells, ...), listify or create overview article. There's infinite number of such political novelist (e.g. Curzio Malaparte in Tecnica del colpo di Stato) but what they wrote was subjective first hand account at the best and not dominating their work. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:30, 17 November 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 all - These are writers, journalists, explorers, and soldiers. While the intent of the category seems to be those who "may be" notable for travelling distances, the inclusion criteria is vague and subjective - as noted in the discussion below. (For what seems to be a semi-related category, see: Category:Travel writers.) "Adventurers" may be nominated in a separate discussion, but since it wasn't tagged, it isn't included in this closure. - jc37 09:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:English travellers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Polish travellers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - category is far too vague. How many millions of people "travel" every day? The constituent articles are appropriately categorized. If these people wrote about their travels then they should be in the Category:Travel writers tree. Otto4711 14:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree the name is too vague, and the present categories very unsatisfactory. I would prefer to bring in Category:Adventurers also - if anything this is worse, combining adventurers in the sense of "plausible crook" with polar/rainforest types who can't be called explorers because everywhere has satellite photos. I don't agree all are appropriately categorized otherwise; many who should be in travel writers are not - both the English ones for a start. What about Vladimir Yarets who writes nothing and is only notable for constant round the world motorbiking? At the least they should be merged to travel writers/explorers/adventurers where appropriate (not always), but I would still prefer to see a tightly defined category for non-writing travellers notable for being either early or extreme/complulsive. Johnbod 16:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The name is vague especially when English travellers is juxtaposed with Irish travellers which has an entirely different meaning. So, there are people famous for their journeys rather than their writings about them Alexander Selkirk comes to mind. But what distinguishes him from any modern-day British person who goes to the Pacific Ocean? It's timing, so perhaps something along the lines of Category:Travelers of the 19th century etc.? But even that is not a great solution, so perhaps deletion is the only route that doesn't do disservice to the encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 00:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps Category:Early travellers, with a cut-off of ?1800, and tough criteria for entry. I can't think of a way of defining the modern walk-the-world Forrest Gump types, so unless someone else can, they'll have to go. Johnbod 02:13, 13 November 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. the wub "?!" 15:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gilman School alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No other individual schools are listed as categories; it's arbitrary and overly narrow.

• Keep at least for now, by conventions of Category:People by high school in the United States. I don't see this as any different than the others, but at the same time I don't see it as a defining characteristic. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment we should probably take up whether one's high school alma mater is defining as a more global discussion. Carlossuarez46 00:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good luck. You are probably correct. However there will be a small number of schools where for some this would be a defining characteristic. How would they be addressed? I guess if proposed, I think that a decision to listify and include year graduated and a source would be a better sourced solution then a category. I could support that. I suppose that a listify vote here could be a test for moving in this direction. Vegaswikian 01:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, reluctantly, but support the idea of a wider discussion. There are very few cases where old school is a defining characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 16 November 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional people with diabetes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Having diabetes is not a defining characteristic for real people or fictional characters. See the CFD debate for Category:People with diabetes. szyslak 08:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Having diabetes is not a defining characteristic" Try being someone living with diabetes and then say that. NorthernThunder 13:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, having diabetes is very difficult. However, people don't become famous because of their diabetes. Thus, it's not a defining characteristic. szyslak 23:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - while a real person may or may not be defined by having diabetes, it seems much less likely that a fictional character will be. Additionally this is a small category and unlikely to grow. Otto4711 16:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not defining for fictional people. Carlossuarez46 00:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This whole fictional area is a major problem. What do we really loose by deleting most of the categories? Vegaswikian 03:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous deletion of several diabetic categories as non-defining. My sister would be pretty PO'd if anybody said her diabetes defined her as a human being. I'm pretty sure this category is a recreation. Doczilla 07:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per discussion of February 7th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Vegaswikian, and support a much wider cull of fictional categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:47, 16 November 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 Category:Hebrew Bible saints to Category:Old Testament saints - jc37 09:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hebrew Bible saints (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The Hebrew Bible categories essentially split out the topics relating to the Jewish canon, i.e. Jewish topics. However, these are Christian saints. (Judaism does not have saints in the same way Christianity does) This category should be deleted, and possibly replaced with a Category:Biblical saints to also cover any saints of the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books and the New Testament. Eliyak T·C 05:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 05:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 05:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The notion of "saint" is not utilized by Judaism in relation to personalities in the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh. The term "Tzadik" in Hebrew is the closest that comes to "saint" and it is usually applied to Jewish rebbes involved with the rise and function of Hasidic Judaism, and is not utilized that much outside of those circles. So it's not something that is connected with all the Biblical era's personalities. IZAK 08:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this is a very peculiar category. I am a Christian not a Jew, and can see the rationale of having an apparatus of categories that treat scriptural subjects from a Jewish point of view, so that they do not have to use Christian ones which may be unintentionally offensive, due to the differences in theology. The headnote to this category concerns the Hebrew Bible, a matter on which I cannot comment. However to have that followed by a category list of "saints" is odd, to say the least. The question is however what to do with the saints. I am not clear in what usage they are saints: is it Catholic, Orthodox or Jewish? If the identification is a Christian one, I would suggest "Old Testament saints". If it is in fact Jewish, "Ancient Hebrew Saints" might be appropriate. This would need a headnote limiting the category to end with the post-exile period of Nehemiah and Ezra. I hope some one else can suggest a suitable event, perhaps about 300 BCE. In summary, the "saints" is a legitmate category, but the category needs to be restructured. Peterkingiron 09:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These figures are not normally categorised as saints by anyone. However, the nominator is completely incorrect to say "The Hebrew Bible categories essentially split out the topics relating to the Jewish canon, i.e. Jewish topics". Now that "Hebrew Bible" is used in preference to "Old Testament" the Hebrew Bible categories also cover all Christian topics as well. Adjustments will no doubt have to be made, but this category is not one of them. Stuck comment, as I see Category:Old Testament is back on the road again! Johnbod 11:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Change the name to Category:Old Testament Saints, and change it's category to Category:Old Testament instead of Category:Hebrew Bible. Jon513 13:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But who calls these "Old Testament Saints"? Johnbod 13:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as Category:Old Testament saints and up-categorise per Jon513. There are 42,000 results on Google for "Old Testament saints". - Fayenatic (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair enough. I see there is considerable use of the term by several Christian denominations. The Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican uses generally seem to have a specific list in mind, something like this, based on traditional liturgy & so on, but in many other Protestant denominations the term seems to be far more generally understood (reflecting different uses of saint in all eras). The category seems to be leaning to the former approach, but should be more sharply defined, and perhaps renamed to reflect this. I'll wait & see if more information is forthcoming. Johnbod 14:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another consequence of the mistaken re-do of Old Testament to Hebrew Bible. I haven't heard this "Hebrew Bible saints" and it generates 32 ghits, most of which are WP mirrors. "Old Testament saints" has 42,000 ghits - so either WP engages in protologism development or renames this or best still delete it. Who has been canonized among the various characters who show up in the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament) is denomination dependent. Ask a theologian in Rome, another in Mecca, another in Moscow, another in Salt Lake City, and you'll get 4 different lists. Carlossuarez46 00:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rome, Moscow & Canterbury are, I suspect, fairly close to each other, and the contents of this category, but RS are currently missing. Johnbod 01:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Old Testament" was not moved to "Hebrew Bible" - "Tanakh" was. The Old Testament includes more texts than the Hebrew Bible. --Eliyak T·C 01:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The issue is that the category does not specify if the person being considered a saint is done so by lutheran, catholic, eastern orthodox tradition, etc.

The vagueness is an issue because some groups may not consider a certain figure a saint and others may.

It is comparable to making a category called hebrew prophets in which if any religion Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Manichaeism, etc. considers someone a prophet they are part of the category as one can see it is more logical to make a category on Category:Hebrew prophets according to Islam, Category:Hebrew prophets according to Christianity, Category:Hebrew prophets according to Judaism, Category:Hebrew prophets according to Manichaeism--Java7837 01:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, I recommend this category be split up by religious sect--Java7837 01:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I respectfully disagree with Java. This category should overlap with categories by Christian denomination. This category provides a further analysis which is of encyclopedic value. Some at least of these articles are already categorised by denomination, e.g. Zechariah (Hebrew prophet) is in both category:Eastern Orthodox saints and category:Hebrew Bible saints. The latter was originally category:Old Testament saints until redirected in August.

Most Tanakh -> "Hebrew Bible" categories had been accepted by consensus, and "Old Testament" categories were being depopulated into their "Hebrew Bible" subcategories where appropriate. In creating and populating this category, Java was following the pattern of naming categories as "Hebrew Bible", which would make use of common ground, and remove the duplicate and potentially offensive "Old Testament" categories from the face of the articles. However, in this case Category:Old Testament saints is the more meaningful terminology, as it's a matter of Christian tradition, even if all these "saints" are in the Tanakh as opposed to the deuterocanonical books. It seems that those changes should simply be reversed. - Fayenatic (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as Category:Old Testament saints and up-categorise per Jon513. Some explanation of the criteria for inclusion should be added - Java? Johnbod 11:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Agree "Old Testament Saints" would seem the more logical name. Agree that since saints are a Christian concept, the clearly Christian phrase "Old Testament" seems a much more logical choice than "Hebrew Bible". I express no opinion on how such saints should be identified. It seems perfectly reasonable to have different categories for different religions and put the same prophet etc. in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic categories when there's overlap. I see no need to attempt an ecumenical category or to come up with Wikipedia's own definition. It should be noted that there's very likely disagreement as to who is considered a prophet among the religions. For example, Ezra, Nechemiah, and other figures not specifically called prophets in the Bible are nonetheless traditionally regarded as such in Judaism. Best, --Shirahadasha 08:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Similarly, Judaism doesn't really have a concept that's a direct analog of the Christian concept of a "saint". Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Old Testament saints. I acknowledge that some of the saints, beati, etc., do not overlap among the various churches, but they are comparatively few in number. Most of these individuals will be held as saints or venerable, servant of god, blessed, whatever by the Catholic and Orthodox churches. However, for those comparatively few cases where that is not the case, they can be categorized for the various saints by faith categories as well. However, considering the books in question are referred to as the Old Testament by the majority of Christians who recognize saints, that seems to me to be the most acceptable name. John Carter 15:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I said something on this earlier and do not seek to "vote" again. I am a Christian, but this category is about people honoured in the Jewish religion, for whom my "Old Testament" is their entire Bible. Muslims refer to some of these people as prophets, but I do not think this adds significantly to the question. I consider that we should have an inclusive description, which was why I suggested (above) Category:Ancient Hebrew saints. This might strictly excude a few people before Abraham. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judaism doesn't really consider itself to have saints, but works on more of a sliding scale. This category therefore seems to be referring to Christian saints. If so, the term "Hebrew Bible," referring specifically to the Jewish canon, is a non-sequitur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliyak (talk • contribs) 05:24, 23 November 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:Anti-Serbian sentiment per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 7#Islamophobia. If after the name change, someone wants to nominate it without the neological problem, that's fine. If there are other "(X)-ophobia" categories for actual acts of racism or ethnic cleansing, they should also go through this change.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article Serbophobia has been a matter of some dispute so it seems like category is debatable. Although I think I'd prefer a rename, it's possible it's enough of a "go nowhere" category to merit deletion.--T. Anthony 03:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On consideration I'm suggesting a rename to Category:Anti-Serbian sentiment to put in-line with others in Category:Anti-national sentiment.--T. Anthony 03:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all articles in that category have Serbophobia in common.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 00:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this nom coming from someone wanting to keep Category:Islamophobia seems odd. What is the difference other than we like it, we don't like it. Carlossuarez46 00:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning toward a rename for both. If I lean more delete here it's because this doesn't seem to have as much potential to go anywhere and Serbs are less common than Muslims. Still you're right in a way and I'll try to be focused on desiring a rename.--T. Anthony 03:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unnecessary category that has the potential to be misused. Yahel Guhan 03:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you give a few examples of possible misuse? Nikola (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Divisive, conflict prone, blowing things out context. The article is AfD candidate like his siblings. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Much like "Islamophobia" (see that discussion), this term is far too inflammatory and subject to POV interpretation to be appropriate for a category. Cgingold (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename. The category serves a purpose[1]. Nikola (talk) 05:55, 18 November 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 no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mitsubishi Motors templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

:Nominator's rationale: This is a case of overcategorization. The template category that this template exists in (Category:Automotive company navigational boxes) has less than 60 entries. There is just no reason to subdivide the category any further than it already is. And this is true of the company's main cat as well, which has few enough entries that there are more subcats than entries. It's just overkill. And it'd be different if there was a precedent here but there isn't. Ford, GM, etc do not have subcats just for their templates. This shouldn't as well. And this category isn't going to grow much beyond 4 or 5. That's really true for all of the car companies, as we don't really have templates for each model. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 00:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn See below. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 00:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. To correct a few factual inaccuracies put forward by the nominator:

First, it was never a subcategory of Category:Automotive company navigational boxes until the nominee put it there this morning—each template in this category was in there independently, as they should be. I've reverted that edit as unnecessary.

Second, "overcategorization"; this nominated category is in only two parent categories, Category:Automotive company navigational boxes and Category:Mitsubishi Motors templates. I don't quite see how that becomes an overcategorization problem, especially reading the first paragraph of WP:OCAT. Where's the category clutter? And since, if this category is deleted, I'd suggest that the templates should be moved to the parent Category:Mitsubishi Motors, there'll still be two categories.

Third, the category is a subcat of Mitsubishi Motors, but contrary to the nominee's assertions, that category does not have more subcats than entries. It has seven categories (including this one), and eight page entries, and if I ever get this page finished it'll be nine. And it has so many subcats because I tried to tidy the parent category, which including all subcats has 183 pages not including the main Mitsubishi Motors article. I'd sub-categorize the personnel as well, but I've been hesitant to as per WP:OCAT guidelines on people by occupation.

Fourth, as I mentioned when I was putting forward many of the same arguments while requesting undeletion (the category was previously speedy deleted by the nominee), there are at least three other templates which could be added, for Mitsubishi Motors Europe, Mitsubishi Motors Australia and Mitsubishi Motors in Japan (which doesn't have its own article, but has external source data(pp.26–27); this would follow Mitsubishi Motors North America, which has its own regional automotive timeline (MMC sells many cars in specific regions only). So the category could grow to at least seven.

Finally, while one of the nominee's statements is true—other automotive templates are not categorized (note, not sub-categorized) by company—I don't see a problem if they were. As per my second point, it hardly seems an overcategorization issue to put such templates in two categories, one for the type of page they are, and one for the company they relate to. --DeLarge 08:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Automotive company navigational boxes cat is the logical place for this category. All template categories should be in a template parent cat just like all article pages categories should be in article page cats. If you don't want the category deleted, that's your call. I always defend the cats I create. But not allowing it to be put into a template parent cat is sort of silly. This is an automotive company so this cat should be within the automotive company cat. And besides, some of these pages were already in the Automotive cat when I created the new subcat. There are more than enough pages for the company subcat (nearly 60). And as the page on subcats states, we should have as little overlapping as possible. So if it belongs in the company cat more than the parent cat, then it should go in the company cat.

Secondly, I don't think you are understanding me when I say overcategorization. I don't mean that the template (or template cat) itself is in many, many categories. I mean that the category is being defined way too finely. Defining a category too finely is just as damaging as doing it too broadly. I had a discussion about this recently with someone over another category of templates. When you define things too finely, you end up with people spending time trying to figure out where to go to find the information they are looking for. It's why we generally don't have categories filled with just one or two articles. It causes people to hunt for things and that defeats the purpose of categorization. If you look at the CfD page, many of the deletions are for what the Overcategorization page describes as "small with no potential for growth". That's why we can't really have subcats here for every manufacturer. It would be simply pointless.

Finally, you've said a couple of times that you can add more templates to the cat. Well. Create them and add them. :) I mean. I have no problem with subdividing the cat if there are enough entries relating to one particular aspect of the category. Honestly, if you add a few more and allow the cat to be put into the automotive company subcat, I'll withdraw this nomination. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh?? Let me clarify, because the way I read your argument is (a) it does belong in Category:Automotive company navigational boxes, but because there's no other subcategories like that it simultaneously doesn't belong there, and therefore even though we can put the templates into Category:Automotive company navigational boxes individually, (b) the separate subcategory of Category:Mitsubishi Motors must be deleted as well just because it describes itself as a template category?? It shouldn't exist in one category, ergo it shouldn't exist anywhere else...? Have I got that right? I'm not being flippant or sarcastic; that's genuinely how your last comment reads to me.

Bear in mind that your comment "The Automotive company navigational boxes cat is the logical place for this category" completely contradicts your CfD, because it argues that the category has a logical place somewhere. CfD, unless I'm mistaken, is for categories which have no place anywhere. It's this shifting of position which is causing me confusion.

As to your final point, "create and add them". I'm kinda busy with real life, and as far as I'm aware, Wikipedia is not working to a deadline. Given my 8,000+ edits over the last eighteen months, and what I consider to have been a semi-reasonable job of tidying up and/or creating articles relating to Mitsubishi Motors, I think it'd be an assumption of good faith on your part that I will get round to it eventually, especially since the whole "small categories" rule explictly applies to "Small [categories] with no potential for growth" (bold text mine). I've demonstrated an almost doubling of potential growth with three other templates (one of which is already stored on my HDD at home, and has been for some time), so why the desperation to purge the category as soon as possible? But you'll magnanimously allow it to exist if I get all this done before the end of the CfD? Gee, thanks awfully... --DeLarge 11:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contradicting my nomination? Yes. It's called compromise. :) I'm not an arguer. I'd much rather come to an agreement on stuff like this (and no I'm not saying you are arguing. Just explaining why I seem to be changing my tune).

Anyway. I'm saying that if you want to keep this cat, then I'd be agreeable to dropping my nomination as long as we have this cat under Automotive company navigational boxes, which is under Automotive navigational boxes. I think the confusion is that I didn't explain myself well enough. Reverting my addition of it into the automotive company left us with some templates which should've been in the company cat in the parent cat instead. That's all I was saying.

Anyway. I never said you had to create the new temps by the time the CfD was closed. :) I just said that they'd need to be created eventually. The reason why this was a red flag to me in the first place is that template cats are notorious for being populated sparsely and then abandoned. But if you are committed to staying on top of it, that's great. I want that encouraged. I've spent the last 5-6 months categorizing templates. It's a major black hole. So any help is appreciated.

Anyway. If you will create the temps eventually and if you will return the Mit. Motors cat to the automotive company navigational boxes cat, I'll withdraw this. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And actually. I just moved it back to automotive company myself. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 13:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that seems straightforward enough. --DeLarge 20:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and replace with a template like ((General Motors)). Vegaswikian 19:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The template used to be like that, but by January this year it was getting a bit unwieldy, so I spliced out the groups into individual templates. One of the troubles (for a WP editor at least) is that the company has a habit of giving multiple names to the same car depending on the market. The Mitsubishi Freeca is a good example; only sold in eastern Asia since the late '90s, less than 30,000 combined annual sales, yet badged with four different names. But they're now all here, redirected and categorized as appropriate. And believe me, this isn't fanboy-ism; I've never even seen a Freeca in my life and wouldn't care if I never do. But I would like our coverage to be as complete as possible.

Split templates also meant that car articles navigated to other car articles, corporate articles went to other corporate articles, etc etc, and every template has a titular link to the main Mitsubishi Motors page, which contains all the templates. Each individual template has grown since the split, so I wouldn't like to see what a conglomerated one would look like now. I took a quick measure, and viewing Mitsubishi Motors at the common 1024px-wide resolution, the expanded templates together are 573px deep. That seems a bit much to cram in to some of the smaller MMC articles. --DeLarge 20:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A navigation template can link to other templates. I don't see why this is a problem. Vegaswikian 23:42, 12 November 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.