< November 12	November 14 >

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 "?!" 16:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Incumbent Native American leaders to Category:Native American leaders

Nominator's rationale: Per ample precedent, for ease of maintenance, and because stable information is preferred for individuals, we shouldn't have categories for "current" leaders. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom; no current cats difficult to maintain. Carlossuarez46 23:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepI don't know why you prefer that we don't have categories for incumbent leaders. I use those categories, and I have found them very informative in learning about world leaders. Why not keep this category so that people can learn about incumbent Native American leaders? What precedent is there for this? And what do you mean by "stable" information? Biographies of living people are not stable by definition, they constantly need to be updated with notable events in that person's life. And why would they be easier to maintain if they were all in one category? I'm just rather baffled here. Asarelah 03:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will answer your questions in turn, to the best of my ability.
    • Why not keep this category so that people can learn about incumbent Native American leaders? Categories for incumbent leaders require constant maintenance and updating. While this is fairly easy to do with a list – where one need to watch over only one page – it is much more complex with a category, since the contents of a category are determined by edits made to articles and not to the category itself. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes.
    • What precedent is there for this? See here for a partial list.
    • And what do you mean by "stable" information? By "stable information", I mean information that doesn't change over time. Attributes such as year of birth/death, nationality, and current or former profession are stable over time for individuals; attributes such as current office are, by definition, not. Information in articles is updated all the time, but categories should not be treated the same as articles. They are much more difficult to monitor, maintain, and update.
    • And why would they be easier to maintain if they were all in one category? For the reason stated above. Membership in the "incumbent" category, unlike membership in the more general parent category, is not stable or permanent.
  • I hope that helps to dispel your confusion. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom - "current" cats are indeed to be discouraged, especially large ones where the latest information may not be easy to obtain. At the same time 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. I think there should be rare exceptions -like the "current world leaders" categories, but this is not one of them. Johnbod 14:56, 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) 17:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Would require continual maintenance, and is unsuitable for CDs, printed editions, or mirrors. See also September 9th discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:11, 15 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 to Category:Virtual reality communities. the wub "?!" 16:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Virtual Worlds - Kids to Category:Virtual worlds for children

Nominator's rationale: Rename, fix capitalisation avoid slang. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Snocrates 02:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename per nom. Doczilla 04:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Virtual reality communities. The "for children" qualifier introduces subjectivity into the inclusion criteria. Moreover, Category:Virtual reality communities is not so significantly populated that it needs subcategorisation on the basis of target audience. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Black Falcon. Doczilla 22:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew c ^[talk] 20:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Virtual reality communities per Black Falcon, and because regardless of target audience (initially) a popular site will spill over communities. Carlossuarez46 01:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Black Falcon. VartanM 02:01, 15 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 to Category:Hotel and leisure companies. That's the right target, but it also seems ripe for a renaming. That should be nominated separately.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Resort operators to Category:Hospitality companies

Nominator's rationale: Merge. There is simply too much overlap here. Most hospitality companies operate resorts. Category:Hotel and leisure companies is the UK usage, but I don't believe that any of the companies here are British. It I missed any then they would need moving to the other category. Vegaswikian 20:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and rename but "Hospitality companies" sounds very odd to me, is certainly a euphemism, & does not contain what I might expect. Either follow the UK term, or Category:Hotel and resort companies is pretty clear. This is a very international field, so ideally we should have a global term. At the moment Category:Hospitality companies by country shows an odd mixture. Johnbod 14:47, 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: There is not enough material (at this time) to justify a disinct category for this city of 30000 people in Larestan County, Fars Province, Iran. The category's sole member already appears in Category:Larestan County. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Overcategorisation. Bencherlite^Talk 20:53, 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 consensus is that while particular food items may be very significant in a particular country, it is rare for them to be exclusive to that country, so categorising in this way would lead to category clutter. This could be summarised with reference to WP:CAT's requirement that a category should denote a defining characteristic of the article being categorised: a particular fruit may be a defining feature of Korean diet, but that does not mean that the Korean usage is a defining attribute of that fruit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Korean fruits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Countries don't own fruit species. --Saintjust 19:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - Editor needs to take a moment to examine how the Asian cuisine cats such as Category:Korean cuisine operate. Subcategories allow for easier navigation. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with how we subdivide Asian cuisine categories and abandon this poorly considered nomination. The four fruits in this category are strongly associated with Korean cuisine, as much as any other Korean ingredient such as kimchi, tofu, or cellophane noodles. Badagnani 21:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Categorising specific dishes by country is fine ... categorising species of fruit is not. Persimmon, for instance, is native to China, Mexico, North America, and the Philippines, among others. Ume and Yuzu originated in China, and were later introduced to Korea and Japan. Pyrus pyrifolia grows in China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. I don't even want to imagine what this type of categorisation scheme would do to fruits like apple. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. and Black Falcon. LeSnail 01:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If they are strongly associated with Korean cuisine, just categorize them to Category:Korean ingredients, which is also a subcategory of Category:Korean cuisine and only has five entries. --Kusunose 02:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Korea is a peninsula... does it have any unique fruits? 132.205.99.122 19:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If you examine the Category:Korean cuisine category, you'll see that we use subcategories to designate various elements of Korean cuisine, including food ingredients. Whether the fruit may have originated in China or not is immaterial; assuring easy navigation and logical subcategorization for our users is paramount. These fruits are indisputably extremely significant parts of Korean cuisine, all of them used extensively and strongly associated with this national cuisine as historically and culturally significant ingredients. [[User:Badagnani|Badagna:::Why don't you just use your id instead of using the ip address designated in Tokyo? I already assume who you are per your contribution history and same style and same tone of your wording. Provide "any source" to back up your theory that Korea has zero native fruits. The native fruits are also found other islands under the similar temperature. From your own standard, Japanese also only don't own the thee fruit indeed. Dekopon is a just developed fruit by Japanese not native one. Why don't you stop being such the biased person for Wikipedia? This is not "your" encyclopedia by your self justice and rule.--Appletrees (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)ni]] 19:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Commnet - First of all, Saintjust, you should've notified me of this deletion proposal because I created the category and am surely responsible for this process. Back to the point, at that time making the category, I was relatively a newbie (still don't know much of wiki rules), so I referred to the Category:Japanese citrus for sorting Korean ingredients. I don't mind this category being deleted even though many Korean native fruits are existing according to the Korean Plant Data Base. There are not many Korean editors here to dedicate to creating articles regarding Korean fruits. However, the same rule has to be applied to "Japanese citrus" because countries don't own fruits according to Saintjust's rationale. --Appletrees 11:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For equality- Black Falcon, LeSnail, Kusunose and Saintjust, I certainly believe that all of you guys will throw a same vote for the deletion proposal to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007_November_15#Category:Japanese_citrus like you said about this category. Regarding the association with Korean cuisine, the proposer, Saintjust are strongly associated with highly sensitive articles like Japanese imperialism per his contribution histories. Interesting indeed.--Appletrees (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Commnet The category Japanese citrus has at least 3 citruses that are native to Japan. The category Korean fruits has none. And I suppose that your vote here is "delete" since you are suggesting the deletion of the category Japanese citrus. --61.202.37.174 (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Commnet - Well, I didn't add Korean native fruits yet to the category. Korea is a peninsula, so of course there has unique fruits compared to continent and island. Lingonberry is also one of the native Korean fruits. And the voters say even though Korea has native fruits, the number at the time Saintjust tagged was not enough to keep it. I just want a same standard. And I didn't propose the deletion of this category. Why don't you see Saintjust's rationale, and other' opinions like "Countries don't own fruits". I only see why he brought this up here--Appletrees (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI - After 211.3.113.222, this mysterious anon of Osaka, Japan tagged the Korean fruit category to fruits native to Korea, this category has 18 Korean fruits. It is booming! However, 7 species among them are not really native to Korea after I checked on them, so eleven species are truely Koran native fruits in the category so far.

Except dekopon, lychee, pomegranate, the fruits are greatly cultivated and consumed in Korea and Japan.

Pomegranate - not native to any of China, Korea, Japan

Dekopon - It is certainly developed species by Japan but has no info regarding native country.

Lychee - native to China and Southeast Asia

Mikan - native only to China

Prunus salicina - only native to China but according to wiki page, it is called Japanese plum. From whom? weird.

Ume - native only to China

Yuzu - native only to China

The other anon, 61.202.37.174, your speech turns out wrong per this info. There has 11 Korean native fruits so far. The articles related to plants are missing so many info. In addition, Saintjust, you know less of your country fruits. Japan own some species by researching and developing and sells the seeds or fruit trees to other countries such as North America, Brazil, Korea, Taiwan. Why don't you care more about your country fruits? Countries surely own fruit species. If you wanted to look yourself unbiased, you should've tagged the CFD to "Japanese citrus" to back up your assumption. --Appletrees (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be just native but also unique and exclusive to a country in terms of origin. Otherwise fruits like apple must belong in tons of categories. Korea has zero such fruits. For Japan, fruits like Dekopon and Fuji (apple) are created in Japan.--61.202.37.174 (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just use your id instead of using the ip address designated in Tokyo? I already assume who you are per your contribution history and same style and same tone of your wording. Provide "any source" to back up your theory that Korea has zero native fruit. The native fruits are also found other islands under the similar temperature. From your own standard, Japanese don't soley own the thee fruit indeed. Dekopon is a just developed fruit by Japanese not native one. Why don't you stop being such the biased person for Wikipedia? This is not "your" encyclopedia operated by your own standard and rule. The mutant apple can't be native because it is based on the original species from West Asia. I suggest that you should rather find what the word, "native" means. --Appletrees (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By your own standard the Koreans aren't even the native ethnic of the Korean peninsula because their ancestors came from Africa like every other ethnic in the world. Anyway, if Korea has zero unique fruits of its own in terms of origin, this category has got to go. The category Japanese citruses might be renamed to "Japanese fruits" to be more inclusive and stay. And no, I don't own an account on English Wikipedia. --61.202.37.174 (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue producing such the denouncing and false wordings against Korea like that, you're just making yourself more biased and defaming other innocent Japanese editors. Regarding the origin of ethnic groups, you certainly missed the news like the below.

In 2001, Japan's emperor Akihito told reporters "I, on my part, feel a certain kinship with Korea, given the fact that it is recorded in the Chronicles of Japan that the mother of Emperor Kammu was of the line of King Muryong of Paekche." It was the first time that a Japanese emperor publicly acknowledged the Korean blood in the Japanese imperial line. http://www.guardian.co.uk/japan/story/0,7369,625426,00.html

Your behaviors just prove that "You have not suitable to contribute to wikipedia because of your anti-Korean sentiment. "Wikipedia needs people with zero bias unlike you". Why don't you be rather a constructive editor than now?

By the way, the fruits are not purely native to Japan. Japanese developed some of them. Your excessive emphasis on your opinion looks more absurd. I don't believe you don't have any account at English wiki. You seems to know of too much details of here. If you haven't account, how you are even here? Very weird, indeed.--Appletrees (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per Black Falcon. Also I can understand that a category which resembled others exists, but I don't see any reason why this category is required for Wikipedia. --W/mint^-Talk- 06:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It has been stated why this category is needed. The editor needs to take a moment to examine how the Asian cuisine cats such as Category:Korean cuisine operate. Subcategories allow for easier navigation. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with how we subdivide Asian cuisine categories before commenting here. The fruits in this category (such as yuzu or persimmon) are strongly associated with Korean cuisine and have long been used in traditional Korean dishes. The criteria being proposed above are immaterial; this subcategory is needed to allow users to group fruits strongly associated with Korean cuisine, within the "Korean ingredients" subcategory--the way we do with any ingredients subcategory in any national cuisine category. This must not be turned into another "Japan-vs. Korea battleground," whose mindless bickerings have already wrecked so much of Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read above comments were posted by Black Falcon and Kusunose? Its seem to be a counterargument to your opinion. I merely agree them about the point of issue which you present.--W/mint^-Talk- 07:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. I see no need for one country to lay claim to a particular fruit, if there is a fruit which is, was and will only be grown in one nation, and is not just a different name for a more widely available fruit then maybe. But I don't see this being the caseSennen goroshi (talk) 12:09, 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 "?!" 16:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Genre hybrid games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This seems to be overcategorization in my view. as many video games are technically two (or more game types). There is many action adventure games, as well as strategy RPG and so on. RobJ1981 18:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete most games can be lumped into two genres and so become hybrids. If kept, re-name focusing on video games otherwise backgammon and contract bridge qualify as a hybrid of games of chance and games of skill - two genres. Carlossuarez46 01:35, 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 articles are adequately and appropriately interlinked, and there is not adequate material to justify eponymous categorisation (indeed, the inclusion of some of the current members is questionable). For instance, while the village of Drumcliffe may be known mostly for its relation with Yeats, such a connection is better expressed in articles than through Places by famous person categorisation. Although more articles could be added the category, their connection to Yeats would mostly be in the form: Works by (see Category:Works by William Butler Yeats), People connected to, Places connected to, and so on. (In general, eponymous categories are very limited in the degree to which they can reflect the complexities of human inter-relation.) – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:William Butler Yeats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Otto4711 17:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. One could populate it a lot more, but .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs) 23:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 01:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep (reluctantly, 'cos most of Yeats's poetry gets on my tits and he got far too close to fascism for my liking). Apart from the ginormity of his stature in Ireland, he has become synomonoymous with North County Sligo, which is marketed in all media as the "Yeats Country" (nearly 25,000 non-wikipedia ghits), his grave at Drumcliffe draws squillions of tourists in coaches, there is a Yeats County Hotel, a Yeats Tavern, and a Yeats just-about-everything-you-could-spend-your-money-on. Maud Gonne's single most-defining characteristic is that Yeats was scarily obsessed with her (see the first sentence of the article on her), the Yeats Summer School] has been a major cultural event for 50 years, and so on. Most eponymous categories are useless, but this one is a clear exception. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per precedent. Categorising his burial place in an eponymous category isn't needed, for example. Bencherlite^Talk 20:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeats's grave is the defining attribute of Drumcliffe. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 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 keep. The article Orientalism capitalizes the "O" throughout. Also, tagging is necessary before a change like this can be made.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming There is a whole collection of subcategries which require renaming, such as Category:British Orientalists to Category:British orientalists, Category:British Egyptologists, Category:Russian Hebraists. etc. The driver of the "renaming bot" must go through the whole tree of Category:Orientalists fishing out all miscaps.

Nominator's rationale: Rename, capitalization. `'Míkka>t 16:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Re/decapitalize all non-standard titles per nom. Johnbod 14:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Orientalism uses a capital "O" throughout, rather than talking about "orientalism"; Egyptology a capital "E", and my impression from reading those articles is that the correct usage is "Egyptologist" and "Orientalist", rather than "e" and "o". Only a couple of the categories have been tagged (not even Category: British Egyptologists, which is one of the ones specifically mentioned above). A mass renaming without proper notice to those who would be best able to discuss the correct usage of capitals for the occupational titles is not a good idea. Bencherlite^Talk 20:48, 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 merge Category:Pokémon items into Category:Pokémon. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: With all items but two found in List of Pokémon items, this category is too small to be useful and will not see significant expansion. Upmerge into Category:Pokémon. Pagrashtak 16:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This category naturally fits into its two parent categories, Category:Nintendo items and Category:Pokémon.--Mike Selinker 01:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one's debating that. What's important here is that the category is too narrow to be useful. Do you have a comment about that? Pagrashtak 06:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's more useful than sticking them into Nintendo items.--Mike Selinker 17:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a case where a list (namely List of Pokémon items) is more useful than a category. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes discusses the pros and cons. Pagrashtak 18:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well, there isn't a reason why we cant have both a list and a cat. ĞavinŤing 15:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's just a variation of WP:HARMLESS. Pagrashtak 15:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Given the existence of the list and the lack of articles listed under the category, it seems to serve no additional purpose. Though Wikipedia allows for both a list and category on the same topic, it is not required that they be kept, especially if one does not offer much. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:56, 19 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 "?!" 16:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional child characters in television programs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, no good place to put this since fictional children was deleted. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as essentially a re-creation of the deleted fictional children category. Otto4711 16:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & Otto. Carlossuarez46 01:36, 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 "?!" 16:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wrestling venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete this and child categories. The vast majority of arenas in the US have hosted a touring wrestling act at one point. This would be no different then adding a Disney on Ice venue category everywhere. ccwaters 13:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - hosting a touring wrestling promotion is not a defining characteristic of a sporting venue. Otto4711 17:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm contemplating whether to AFD Wrestling arena as well. ccwaters 18:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. Otto4711 18:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrestling arena ccwaters 21:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we don't categorize general purpose things for there possible specific uses. Carlossuarez46 01:37, 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 delete. the wub "?!" 16:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Elder women in television programs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete' From the category text, this category seems to want to mix fictional characters and real people, which is not a good idea; also, it uses an arbitrary inclusion criteria (why is 55 "elderly") - note the problem of allowing categorization if people "appear to be" 55+. Bencherlite^Talk 09:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no useful function to the category and the original research is inherent. Otto4711 14:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, see also discussion of July 18th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & Otto & Prove It (all of the above :-P) Carlossuarez46 01:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Otto, its OR VartanM 01:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective category. Any inclusion criteria would be arbitrary. Doczilla 06:34, 15 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 split into Category:Defunct organizations designated as terrorist and Category:Organizations formerly designated as terrorist. the wub "?!" 16:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former designated terrorist organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose splitting into Category:Defunct organizations designated as terrorist and Category:Organizations formerly designated as terrorist

Nominator's rationale: The previous CFD was closed as no consensus[1], but User:Hersfold suggested that we split the category in two parts. Category:Former organizations designated as terrorists and Category:Organizations formerly designated as terrorists. This way we can separate the good guys, who chose not to practice terrorism anymore and the ones that no longer exist. I believe majority showed support to what Hersfold suggested. VartanM 08:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If split, I suggest dropping the "s" at the end of "terrorists", per the parent (Category:Organizations designated as terrorist). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, the "s"'s were dropped. VartanM 18:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Split but name the "former" category Category:Defunct organizations designated as terrorist both per the majority of the subcats of Category:Former entities and to further distinguish from still-existing organizations by removing the word "former" from one of the category names. Otto4711 14:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, its much clearer and less confusing this way. VartanM 18:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Split per Otto and named per Otto. Carlossuarez46 01:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per my comments in the previous discussion that this sort of categorisation-by-the-selectively-applied-labels-of-powerful states embeds the POV of a few powerful countries into the category system. I am aware that this category is the result of a previous compromise over the unqualified application of the term "terrorist", but it sets a very bad precedent. I can see no substantive difference between this and categories such as "countries designated as imperialist", "countries designated as rogue states", "leaders praised as Democrats". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:06, 19 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 "?!" 16:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional fire victims to Category:Fictional burn victims

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Fictional fire victims" could mean many things, including losing one's home to a fire. A hospital treats burn victims. Characters for whom this is a defining quality are fictional burn victims. Doczilla 07:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Deletion would be okay too. Note that Wikipedia has neither Category:Fire victims nore Category:Burn victims. Butterfly McQueen died from burns incurred in a fire, but is only categorized under accidental death, not as a fire or burn victim. Doczilla 07:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If being in a fire is not significant enough to mention in most articles it is not a defining characteristic. How can a film be a fire victim? Vegaswikian 07:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - being a burn victim is in many if not most instances not a defining characteristic. Inclusion criteria can never be objective. If a fictional character gets tortured with a cigarette s/he's a "burn victim" as is a character who picks up a too-hot coffeepot. Otto4711 14:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neither being a fire victim nor being a burn victim is a defining characteristic. I was going to nominate this page for deletion myself. szyslak 20:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete poor Bambi & Thumper Carlossuarez46 01:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it just takes a little common sense when using this category. Certain characters, such as Zuko or Freddy Kreuger, are noticably affected by fire and it is a very defining characteristic for them. A character who gets burned with a cigarette at one point shouldn't be included in the category because that's not a defining characteristic. Like I said, just use common sense and it will work fine. --Piemanmoo 08:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it needs common sense, then it is ambiguous and should be deleted. Vegaswikian 10:06, 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 "?!" 16:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Authority members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete superhero team member category per overwhelming precedent. Doczilla 07:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and extensive precedent. Otto4711 22:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion - but if retained it (and the main article) should be retitled as "The Authority (superhero team)": the "Authority" can refer to many different things. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:23, 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 "?!" 16:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gen¹³ members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per oh so many other superteam category member deletions. Doczilla 07:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and extensive precedent. Otto4711 22:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. ĞavinŤing 15:40, 19 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 "?!" 16:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Retro automobile trend to Category:Retro style automobiles

Nominator's rationale: The articles in this category are for automobiles, not a "trend" (which is a subjective term) itself. I would also suggest "Retro-styled automobiles" as an alternative name.. or possibly a discussion to delete the category altogether. --Vossanova ^o< 19:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Rename per nom. With no objections this does not need to wait 5 more days to be renamed. Vegaswikian 18:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename per Vegaswikian. Silence=assent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 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 "?!" 16:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category categorizes articles by their titles, rather than by their subjects. Powers ^T 22:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This category gathers together articles about groups of places or things named after people. Carlossuarez46 22:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know what it does; the problem is that that's not how we categorize articles in Wikipedia. We categorize based on the subject, not based on the name by which they are called. Powers ^T 03:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, we are gathering lists of eponyms, not things that are called some particular name. Carlossuarez46 23:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify. Actually, there are already a number of lists in the category. Changing vote to Weak keep- perhaps some eponymns are notable as such. Articles should not be categorized here willy-nilly, though. --Eliyak T·C 04:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Category has sufficient content with subcats. Doczilla 07:36, 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 rename. the wub "?!" 16:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mandaen to Category:Mandaeism

Nominator's rationale: Rename to reflect the name of the topic, not an adjective. Eliyak T·C 04:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. and to agree with main article Mandaeism. LeSnail 01:26, 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 No consensus - And after reading the WikiProject's talk page, I don't think that there is consensus yet there either. I think the best would be to determine the main article name first, and then decide about disambiguation, and the category. Note that articles names can indeed be in other languages if appropriate. (As someone said once: "Redirects are cheap" : ) - jc37 11:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Eikaiwa to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: Eikaiwa is a Japanese term, not in common usage outside of Japan. Although we have an Eikaiwa article, categories (as listed in Category:Companies of Japan for example) should be named more conducively towards non-specialists. A discussion has taken place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Capitalization which favors a non-Eikaiwa word, although the exact terminology can still be debated here. Neier 10:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and, suggest rename to Language schools of Japan, as some schools teach many languages besides English. - Neier 10:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm fine with "Language schools of Japan", but as I am not too familiar with the eikaiwa world, I wonder: Is there a significant difference between eikaiwa companies/schools and other language schools, in their organization, teaching methods, etc? In other words, is there any reason to define eikaiwa separately as its own special category of language schools? If so, then I think we should enforce that difference in our naming. LordAmeth 23:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:English conversation schools in Japan. My understanding is that eikaiwa schools differ in that they only teach oral conversational skills—there is generally no study of written language at all; the focus is on helping people be able to converse in English. (The public school system's courses in English have more of an emphasis on English writing and grammar and being able to read English.) Also, the word "eikaiwa" in Japanese specifically describes a school that teaches English language conversation—an eikaiwa that teaches a language other than English is an oxymoron. Snocrates 04:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See GEOS (eikaiwa) for one example. Neier 05:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Eikaiwa refers to a particular type of object that is unique to Japan. In such cases, and since the article is located at Eikaiwa, it is justifiable to use the original-language term. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew c ^[talk] 02:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Black Falcon: no compelling need shown for the category name to differ from the main category name, and aligning the two is generally A Good Thing. Bencherlite^Talk 20:50, 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 "?!" 16:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eerste Divisie 2006/2007 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one article, Eerste Divisie 2006-07, and could only contain that article, because nothing noteworthy or encyclopedic happened during the season. The article Eerste Divisie 2006-07 is included in Category:Eerste Divisie seasons, the parent of the nominated category. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• agree per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 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:Stikine Volcanic Belt to Category:Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province. (Based only on the discussion below, looking over the category, and reading the two related articles.) I have to say that in looking over Stikine Volcanic Belt, it seems to be more about what it isn't than what it is. Both articles should probably be merged (but that's beyond the scope of this closure : ) - jc37 11:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Stikine Volcanic Belt to Category:Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Northern Cordilleran volcanic province is the newer term than Stikine Volcanic Belt. Black Tusk 01:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: according to the naming conventions, the title of the category should correspond to the title of the matching article. The article Stikine Volcanic Belt appears to be the "parent article" of Category:Stikine Volcanic Belt, whereas Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province is not listed in the category at the moment. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I only included the Stikine Volcanic Belt in the category because that's what the category is for. But "Stikine Volcanic Belt" is the older term for the "Northern Cordilleran Province". I have been thinking about merging the Stikine Volcanic Belt article into the Northern Cordilleran arcticle since they pretty much mean the same thing (we only need one article about the same thing). Black Tusk 01:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then go ahead and make the merge. We certainly only need one article on one subject. I know nothing of the subject however. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:26, 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.