< November 17	November 19 >

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 I'm going to close this as No consensus. If this is to be seen as comparable to Category:Monty Python, then those who support keeping need to clearly define its inclusion criteria. (And possibly think of an appropriate rename option.) Else the next time it's on CfD it's likely to be deleted for just the reasons Otto4711 has shown. - jc37 16:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mitchell and Webb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Does not appear to breach any of the performer by performance sections of overcategorization, especially as all the material included is written by them, not just performed. There is not enough of it to warrant breaking into sub-cats as Monty Python has. There are several similar categories. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The first sentence of the performer by performance section is "Avoid categorizing performers by their performances" and the first sentence of the performance by performer section is "Avoid categorizing what a performer has performed." I'm kind of at a loss as to how this is anything other than articles that are categorized on the basis of being performed by these two gentlemen. Everything is also templated, further implicating the PbP nature of the category. The fact that other similar categories may exist is not a justification for keeping this one. Otto4711 (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said above, they can, and probably should, be categorised as material they have written. That is also why the "other stuff also exists". Any objection to that? Exactly what kind of a "loss" does that leave you at? Frankly, I'm puzzled. Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not seeing any other Comedy sketch by writer categorization scheme, other than Monty Python, and frankly at least 80% of those sketch articles should be deleted as having no independent notability (sadly my attempts to clean up that category were shouted down about 30% of the way through). Regardless, this still falls under the guideline and you've not presented a compelling argument for treating it as an exception. Otto4711 (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is clear from the section of WP:OCAT you quote that the category must be "by performance" - ie the performance name must be in the category name, as in the Star Trek examples they quote. I don't see this can apply to an eponymous category like this, just using the name of the act. Johnbod (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Your interpretation is incorrect, as evidenced by the fact that for example categories named after actors do not include the films in which the actors have performed and, in cases where an eponymous category is named for an actor but contains little or nothing beyond the actor's works it is deleted, not to mention the literally hundreds of musician/band categories that have been deleted because they contained nothing but performances (in the form of album and song articles and subcats). Even if it were correct, the OCAT guideline also includes performance by performer which, as I quoted, advises Avoid categorizing what a performer has performed. And of course it's also eponymous overcategorization which should be deleted on that basis as well. Otto4711 (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I keep pointing out, and you keep ignoring, that they wrote this stuff as well, and it should be categorised on this basis. Johnbod (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have not ignored what you said. I responded to it by saying that there is no widespread Comedy sketch by writer categorization scheme. Of the articles categorized here, one is the lead article, three are for people associated with the act, one is for a stage show they performed, five are for comedy sketches in various media, one is for a film in which they starred, two are for TV shows in which they appeared and one is for a television advert. Much of which material, by the by, they did not write. We do not categorize performances based on who performed them. We do not categorize performers on the basis of their performances. We do not categorize works under the name of the artists but in a Works by category. If you want to create a Works by category then go ahead, but in general it does not appear that we include such things as TV shows in Works by categories. Nor do we have Television programs written by nor as already noted do we have Comedy sketches written by. Every piece of written material does not need to be categorized by writer, especially something like a TV show which can have dozens if not hundreds of writers in the course of its existence. What you are apparently ignoring is that we have a template that captures this material and the articles are extensively interlinked. With the OCAT concerns both in terms of performer/performance and eponymous plus the interlinks along with the template and this category is simply not warranted. Otto4711 (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As above, this appears to be categorisation not over categorisation. Indeed in my opinion this is under categorisation, as the performances should be in a subcategory. Some of us like to navigate by way of categories you know...? --kingboyk (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Categorizing by performance is in direct contravention of the well-established OCAT guideline. There has been no rationale offered as to why this should constitute an exception to that guideline. Otto4711 (talk) 16:52, 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Disneyland Paris to Category:Disneyland Park (Paris)

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Parent only has one article and this sub cat. No reason for the extra level. Parent also matches the name of main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge they are the same. --ĞavinŤing 16:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Should not both cats be tagged? Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 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 reverse merge, convention of Category:Georgia (country). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct airlines of Georgia (country) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category:Defunct airlines of Georgia already exists. – Zntrip 19:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge per the possible ambiguity of the name "Georgia" in line with many other similar categories. Otto4711 (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• reverse merge per Otto. The naming standard for articles and categories on the country of Georgia is to specify 'Georgia (country)' to avoid ambiguity with 'Georgia (U.S. state)'. Hmains (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge per Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — There’s no way that it can be confused with the state, as there are no categories for airlines of US states. – Zntrip 01:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delta Air Lines is based in the state of Georgia. Otto4711 (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Delta would be in the cat airlines of USA, not of the state, ya? ĞavinŤing 16:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• But someone spotting Airlines of Georgia without the modifier might think that Delta belongs in it. That's the point. We want to reduce ambiguity and we do that by modifying "Georgia" with "(state)" or "(country)" as appropriate. Otto4711 (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Georgia without the (country) as above. ĞavinŤing 16:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge per Otto & ample precedent. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge per disambiguation of Georgia precedents. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 04:00, 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 reverse merge, convention of Category:Georgia (country). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Airlines of Georgia (country) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category:Airlines of Georgia already exists. – Zntrip 19:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge per the possible ambiguity of the name "Georgia" in line with many other similar categories. Otto4711 (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• reverse merge per Otto. The naming standard for articles and categories on the country of Georgia is to specify 'Georgia (country)' to avoid ambiguity with 'Georgia (U.S. state)'. Hmains (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge per Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — There’s no way that it can be confused with the state, as there are no categories for airlines of US states. – Zntrip 01:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delta Air Lines is based in the state of Georgia. Otto4711 (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge per Otto4711, and for consistency with other categories relating to the two Georgias. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge per de-ambiguation of Georgia precedents. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Airlines of Georgia ĞavinŤing 18:49, 21 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 - Per WP:BLP, we're going to err on the side of caution on this. This just screams for a need for references. Anyone who would like to nominate the the whole scheme of Category:Pretenders for listifying (or at least renaming) is welcome to do so. - jc37 07:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pretenders to the throne of Sarawak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Single-entry category. Obsolete to Category:Sarawak royalty. kingboyk (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of a general classification scheme for parent Category:Pretenders. Having one article in Category:Pretenders to the throne of Sarawak is more helpful than upmerging it to the more general parent category. If deleted, we need to then consider deletion for a number of the other (what I view as helpful) subcategories with one entry, including Category:Pretenders to the throne of Hyderabad, Category:Pretenders to the throne of Sikkim, Category:Pretenders to the Ukranian throne ([sic], have submitted to speedy rename), Category:Pretenders to the Albanian throne, and others. Snocrates (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As below, I'm not entirely sure the sole entry was a pretender, as there's no evidence he claimed his throne once that particularly monarchy was abolished. --kingboyk (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added some info from White Rajahs which suggests that this Brooke initially opposed the ceding of Sarawak in 1946. Given that the article also says he renounced the throne in 1951 we might be expected to assume he was a "pretender" during those 5 years. I don't know. The article needs some work, clearly. --kingboyk (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's my understanding that to be a pretender a person doesn't have to be making the claim on their own behalf—others may make it for them. I know others don't like this idea and it doesn't make a lot of intuitive sense, but that's the way it seems to be used in sources I have read. It likely comes from what is implied by the word when used in the French, where the term comes from. If true, that may suggest it's an inappropriate way of categorizing on WP. Snocrates 01:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thinking back to History class, you may be right. You may also be right that this isn't a great way of categorising people either. Unfortunately I'm no longer sure if this should be deleted or not (I'm still leaning towards yes, not least because it contains only one person)... Expert help needed! --kingboyk (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of wider scheme per Snocrates. Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the only person characterized was not a Pretender. A pretender asserts a claim to a defunct throne and per the article the gentlemen renounced all claims to the throne. Otto4711 (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the whole tree might be better renamed "Claimants", which can mean those who just have a claim without actually asserting it. Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 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 (currently empty), without prejudice to creating Category:21st century French writers. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Living French writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:French writers, due to the unique attributes of Category:Living people, see also Living people. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. We're not supposed to categorize as living/ead. Doczilla (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge if necessary, then Delete as current category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree. Please see talk page. Suggest renaming as 21st c. F writers if living deprecated. --Anne97432 (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete. By the way, we don't have a living english writers cat.ĞavinŤing 18:51, 21 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Major concepts in Red Dwarf to Category:Red Dwarf

Nominator's rationale: Merge - not seeing the organizational utility of splitting up the relatively small parent along these lines. Most or all of the items are in the parent anyway. Also involves a touch of original research in deciding what concepts are "major" enough to qualify. Otto4711 (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Doczilla (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:35, 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 delete, influenced by ample precedent. While Category:The Domination would have been a better title, renaming does not address the issue of eponymous overcategorisation. Creating a navigation template is an option, but its appropriateness is contingent on whether there is enough material to necessitate one. In any case, it is not a prerequisite to deletion of the category, as the articles are adequately interlinked via text. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a fictional antagonist from a trilogy of novels. The articles are interlinked with additional categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see a need to rename the category to make it clear that it is for all of the articles relating to the The Domination series of alternate history works. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unconvinced of the necessity for such a category. Otto4711 (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Templatize recreate when there are more articles. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:36, 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. As noted in the discussion, "events of historical interest which may not have much historical impact, but which might be interesting as events" requires subjective interpretations regarding the historical impact of an event and the degree to which it may be interesting. Moreover, the category is empty due to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 17#Category:United States popular history. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a followup to the November 17 CFD for its sub-cat, Category:United States popular history. This category should be deleted for the same reasons offered there: "Poorly defined, underpopulated, and collects articles of dubious correlation." I have notified the category's creator of this CFD. Cgingold (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. I will abide by whatever you folks may decide. However, it seems to me that Wikipedia is going to be around for quite a long time. there might be some value to starting a category now for events of historical interest which may not have much historical impact, but which might be interesting as events, and as a chronicle of popular events and lifestyles, and as a window into popular attitudes during that time, for readers a few years later. so that's my thoughts on that. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; purpose/definition is too squishy/vague. Snocrates (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I love the phrase "articles of dubious correlation". Responding to Steve, SM8900: "History" is a funny tree, because of course everything is history in the future. But we categorize based on currently studied historical eras. You're suggesting "popular history" as a sort of "current events that will be historical trivia" and I would suggest that these things would be classified under their various subjects; then when they're history they would still be under those subjects, and possibly under relevant historical trees as well (e.g., cultural history). --Lquilter (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, and I appreciate your answer. However, do you really feel there is no benefit to grouping some items which may occasionally occur which are not hugely important, but which are good instances of everyday life or happenings? Categories can be more generalized things sometimes, you know. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not in all instances. "Popular history" is just too -- vague. It could mean anything, from popular culture to politics to academia to conferences, etc. --Lquilter (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm, ok, i take your point. Any suggestion here for an alternatives? in other words, any suggestion on a category which could group articles which describe specific everyday events, (and maybe also specific mass trends) which do not fit in any special historical or political category? Please note that I am referring to articles describing actual events, so the substance of this category is already clear; the only question might be (if people want to, that is) how to phrase it. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll leave this issue for later. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any ideas for your proposed topic, because the description is also vague. Categories shouldn't be loose associations of things by some feature that someone sees in common. They are supposed to be groupings of articles by defining features of the subjects of those articles. --Lquilter (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This category merely has a PH in US subcategory. If that is deleted (as it should be), this category will become unpopulated and should not survive. The present content of the subcategory is not even hisotry, and the concept is certainly not adequately defined. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 21 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) 04:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Friday Night Project hosts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Performer by performance overcategorisation. ^anemoneI_projectors 15:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as performer by performance, see also November 20th discussion. However, I think a list article would be a fine idea. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete provided that a list will not be deleted also. (I don't want to waste my time)--Hiltonhampton (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: The hosts are all listed in The Friday Night Project. ^anemoneI_projectors 21:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  So?--Hiltonhampton (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm just letting you know that a list already exists. No need to be rude. ^anemoneI_projectors 23:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & Prove It. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not being rude I'm simply asking a question.Sorry if you feel offended by this.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 15:36, 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 all per nomination except to Delete Category:Plays by Truman Capote. No prejudice against an immediate renomination (including tagging, of course) for an overall change in the category's convention. - jc37 11:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plays by Truman Capote to Category:Truman Capote plays

Category:Plays by Lord Dunsany to Category:Lord Dunsany plays

Category:Plays by Brad Fraser to Category:Brad Fraser plays

Category:Plays by James Joyce to Category:James Joyce plays

Category:Plays by Yukio Mishima to Category:Yukio Mishima plays

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Convention of Category:Plays by author. Tim! (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom for consistency. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom for consistency Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all but mildly suggest deleting the Capote category. It will only ever have one entry which is Capote's adaptation of his own novel. It's already categorized as a Capote novel; catting it again as a Capote play seems superfluous. Otto4711 (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm pretty sure I nominated a bunch of these once, but I'm going to reverse myself and say oppose and reverse merge the rest of the subcategories. Plays sit somewhere at the trilateral intersection between novels (categorized like Category:Novels by John Updike) and poems (categorized like Category:Poetry by Edgar Allan Poe) and films (categorized like Category:Films directed by Steven Spielberg). Thus, to me it makes no sense that plays are categorized like songs (categorized like Category:Bruce Springsteen songs). So I'd say it's time to turn about the entire scheme to Category:Plays by (X), making it match novels, poems, and films. (If we don't go this route, though, I'd support the renaming.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Convention! I actually think that the Plays By... Would work better, as it easily distinguishes the cat as a play cat. Perhaps we should rename all cats to Plays by... ? ĞavinŤing 18:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should tag the remainder of the categories if you want to rename them. Tim! (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this nomination gets closed as a "keep," that will happen. Let's see if people agree first.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:11, 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 Rename Category:People from West Berkshire by settlement to Category:People from West Berkshire, per convention of Category:People from Berkshire. )(and really per Category:English people by county.) No consesnsus on the UpMerge proposals. It just looks like more discussion is needed to find an appropriate convention on what should and shouldn't be categorised (and how they should be categorised) under the subcats of Category:English people by county. (The presumably "wider context" noted in the discussion below.) - jc37 07:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest renaming

• Category:People from West Berkshire by settlement to Category:People from West Berkshire

Suggest merging the following to Category:People from West Berkshire

• Category:People from Basildon, Berkshire (9)[5]
• Category:People from Bucklebury (4)
• Category:People from Bradfield, Berkshire (3)
• Category:People from Chaddleworth (4)[2]
• Category:People from Chieveley (2)
• Category:People from Englefield, Berkshire (8)[4]
• Category:People from Hamstead Marshall (4)[3]
• Category:People from Hungerford (4)
• Category:People from Kintbury (3)
• Category:People from Lambourn (3)
• Category:People from Pangbourne (3)
• Category:People from Speen, Berkshire (5)[4]
• Category:People from Shaw-cum-Donnington (2)
• Category:People from Sulhamstead (5)
• Category:People from Thatcham (3)
• Category:People from Tilehurst (1)
• Category:People from Wasing (3)[3]
• Category:People from Yattendon (10)[7]

Nominator's rationale:: Upmerge all these excessively small sub-categories with limited potential for growth (currently an average of 4.2 articles per category). The people concerned should be listified in the appropriate articles in parishes or villages.

I have postfixed each of the sub-categories with the number of articles currently in each category. I noticed that in several cases the list seemed to consist of a number of articles relating to the same family (usually gentry or nobility), so in those cases I have added the the number of those articles italicised in square brackets. (If the notable people from a particular place are members of the same family, that seems like an issue which should be covered in the article on that place).

These categories split up a relatively small number of articles (76 in this case), which would make a perfectly manageable category, into 18 small categories, many of which have limited potential for growth, e.g.

• Yattendon, for example, has a population of only 331, and already lists all the notable people in the article on that village
• Shaw-cum-Donnington is tiny, and its most notable person categorised is a civil war officer who should be covered in the article
• Wasing is a small parish, whose only claim to fame (according to the article) seems to be the existence of the Mount family, ancestors of Conservative Party leader David Cameron

I am aware that other people-by-county categories are being subdivided in similar ways (e.g. Category:People from West Yorkshire), and having stumbled on West Berkshire, I have nominated it as a test case. It seems to me to be quite proper to create "People from" categories for cities and large towns, but this attempt to categorise by every little civil parish creates a plethora of tiny categories, and looks like an attempt to use the category system as a database, an approach which has been repeatedly rejected.

I suggest that the principle to be applied for English "people from place" categories should be:

1. Categorise by county
2. Sub-categorise by unitary local authority, as per other geographical categories
3. Create further sub-categories only for settlements where there are at least 20 notable people to be categorised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There is a long standing convention on definition of People from that we go to local settlement. The category structure in place is designed to handle the multiple changes to local authority boundaries by collating the categories and allowing a settlement defintion. We define people's birth location by the situation at time of birth, not by the current local authority boundary. For example, prior to 1974 people from Bolton are listed as being from Lancashire not Greater Manchester. West Berkshire is only 15 or so years old. Most of the people listed in these categories were born before this happened. Numerous edit wars have happened over place of birth cats and the structure in place has stopped them. Regan123 (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Regan. Lugnuts (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Far from a longstanding convention, I see a widespread practice most which is quite recent (these categs were created in June 2007), which does not appear to have been properly tested at CfD. The way this is being implemented, with lots of tiny sub-categories, runs counter to the general principle of WP:OCAT to "Avoid categories that will never have more than a few members". That description is a perfect fit for the likes of People from Shaw-cum-Donnington and People from Wasing, and most of the other categories here. A lot of CFD's work involves upmerging just this sort of tiny category.
  The point about changing local authorities is an important one, because wikipedia's categorisation is ill-equipped to deal precisely with historical geography, and this micro-categorisation does not actually solve the problem. A database could of course plot co-ordinates, but wikicategories are not a database, they are a device to aid navigation between related articles, and a collection of dozens of tiny categories impedes navigation. Trying to solve the changing-local-authority-boundary problem by massive subdivision merely creates a whole new set of problems, since the boundaries of even small towns have often expanded massively since the start of the industrial revolution, and an area now part of the town may have been a clearly distinct settlement only 70 years ago. Additionally, people move around within towns, and trying to categorise them by the precise part of the town which they were associated with merely leads to category clutter as "People from town X" is replaced by a list of categories ("people from neighbourhood1", "people from neighbourhood2").
  So this finely-grained system creates as many ambiguities as it solves, and makes the catgories less useable for their primary purpose, which is navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A quick response. The convention I referred to was defining the settlement, not the local authority area, in the prose. Some of the categories are quite new. I come back to, though, why should one place be treated differently. If X is born in 1881 why should they be from West Berkshire not the place they are from? I appreciate the reasoning that you have given on the database issue, but I don't see how they are database structures. They are primarily hierarchical with appropriate categorisation to cope with County changes etc. We can't be arbitrary in when a town "deserves" a category or not. Yes, some of them are small, but working through the London list (as an example) rapidly increased the population of the sub cats along with the additional bio articles being created. One has now been confusingly upmerged so that people from ages past are now suddenly from Ealing, not where they are from, but in general they work quite well. Regan123 (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose In general terms, I tend to agree with BHG - there isn't a "longstanding convention" on this. BUT - while some of these seem unlikely to grow, others show strong potential for growth - both Pangbourne and Hungerford, for example, have long histories and both villages' articles with several people redlinked who are notable enough for articles. The Hungerford article actually lists seven people who already have articles, so there is perhaps some undercategorisation going on here. As such, a large group nomination like this may not be the most sensible way to go. Grutness...wha? 23:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply When making the nomination, I omitted People from Newbury because it's a sufficiently substantial settlement that it ha evident growth potentail. The other two which I wondered about were those listed by Grutness, viz. Hungerford and Pangbourne, and since they are reasonably substantial towns, I'll remove them from this nom. --09:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Changing !vote to weak support with the removal of those two, with no prejudice against re-creation of any of them grow beyond their current minuscule size to at least a dozen articles. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support - This probably needs to be discussed in a wider context than this, as there is a wider principle involved. I would suggest a convention that towns (and large villages) should have a category, to be a subcategory of a county (or district) category, but villages should not. The village categories should be listified within the village article. However, this policy needs to be applied generally, not merely to West Berkshire. This will be a lot of work for somebody, unless somebody cna arrange for a BOT to do it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 21 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, CSD C1, just tag as ((db-catempty)). -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Simpsons Screenshots (Tracey Ullman Show) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete empty category. I'm guessing the screenshots got recategorized or deleted altogether. Doczilla (talk) 07:38, 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, CSD C1, just tag as ((db-catempty)). -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American vampires (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete empty category. Doczilla (talk) 07:36, 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, CSD C1, just tag as ((db-catempty)). -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serial Experiments Lain episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete empty category. Doczilla (talk) 07:35, 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, CSD C1, just tag as ((db-catempty)). -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:One Piece Abilities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete category with no entries. Also, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Doczilla (talk) 07:34, 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, CSD C1, just tag as ((db-catempty)). -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Haruhi Suzumiya novels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete empty category. Doczilla (talk) 07:32, 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 Delete, CSD C1, just tag as ((db-catempty)). -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fullmetal Alchemist episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete empty category. Doczilla (talk) 07:31, 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, CSD C1, just tag as ((db-catempty)). -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ghost in the Shell theme music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete empty category with little room for growth. Doczilla (talk) 07:29, 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, CSD C1, just tag as ((db-catempty)). -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pakistani cartoonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete empty category. Doczilla (talk) 07:28, 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, CSD C1, just tag as ((db-catempty)). -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian caricaturists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete empty category. Doczilla (talk) 07:26, 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.

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, CSD C1, just tag as ((db-catempty)). -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Judge Dredd images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete empty category. Doczilla (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Speedy if possible. Cats purpose was subsumed by other cats making it redundant, hence it having been emptied. - J Greb (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC) (Yup, editor that created this cat and the replacements.)[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, CSD C1, just tag as ((db-catempty)). -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saint Tail images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete empty category. Doczilla (talk) 07:23, 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, CSD C1, just tag as ((db-catempty)). -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comic book publishing companies of Bermuda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete empty category. Doczilla (talk) 07:22, 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, CSD C1, just tag as ((db-catempty)). -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Superman graphic novels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete empthy category. Doczilla (talk) 07:20, 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, CSD C1, just tag as ((db-catempty)). -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Elemental Gelade characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete empty category. Doczilla (talk) 07:20, 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, CSD C1, just tag as ((db-catempty)). -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Homestar Runner characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete empty category. Doczilla (talk) 07:18, 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 keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Free word processors to Category:Free word processors software

Nominator's rationale: Most categories used for software have either "software" or "(software)" as part of the name. Thus quickly identified in lists of subcategories and supporting "Category:software" searches. tooold (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Free word processing software. Changed to keep - "Word processors software" is ungrammatical. Otto4711 (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It may be ungrammatical, but the main article is Word processors. My observation is that Wiki style/naming-rules/... attach words such as "Free" and "software" without altering the article name. A solution I've seen for other articles where the result could be considered ungrammatical is to bracket the word "software" with ()s. Thus the new name would be "Free word processors (software)". Another possibility would be to rename both the article (if it's name does not correspond to Wiki naming guidelines) and all related categories. My interest is only that, consistent with exiting Wiki practice, "software" be in the final name. Thanks tooold (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no reason to abandon the rules of grammar. The main article is actually Word processor, singular. Word processors in the plural is a redirect to the singular. We also have the article Word processing. The main category is Category:Word processors and all of the other subcats are in the form of "[Platform] word processors." Upon reflection I see no compelling reason to rename this category in isolation. If the entire category tree were being considered for a rename to word processing software then I would support it but not just one of the categories. If adding the word "software" is important for searching then it should probably be added to all of the categories. But I can't support "word processors software" and also oppose adding punctuation to category names unless absolutely necessary. Otto4711 (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Otto's revised reasons. Since main category is Category:Word processors, this subcategory shouldn't be renamed in isolation and thus create a category with an anomalous (and ungrammatical) name. Snocrates 06:54, 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 Speedy delete as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete for General housekeeping, however category is not yet 100% depopulated. Waiting on protected edit request(s) for that. All merged now into Category:WikiProject Films templates. Also, if someone could double check the imdb & rottentomato articles, they continue to transclude even though they were changed... server lag? SkierRMH (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the category is now empty after a null edit. Is it OK to speedy? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 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 to Category:People from Queens County, New Brunswick. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Queenstown, New Brunswick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Wikpedia article on Queens County, New Brunswick reveals Queenstown to be an unincorporated village therein. I suggest that this is not a notable urban centre or category. Suggest we delete Category:People from Queenstown, New Brunswick and substitute Category:People from Queens County, New Brunswick on the sole article it appears on, Eldon Rathburn. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:People from Queens County, New Brunswick, which appears to be what the nominator intended. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I now see that Merge is what I should have proposed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 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 speedy delete and salt. Bencherlite^Talk 02:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional antagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete recreation of subjective category that cannot have objective inclusion criteria and would be excessively broad if it could. Doczilla (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as recreation of deleted content. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - as re-creation, otherwise delete as deprecated. We don't categorize fictional characters on this basis. Otto4711 (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete again. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:11, 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 speedy delete as empty / housekeeping. Bencherlite^Talk 02:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles with unsourced statements since July 9, 2007 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete arbitrary, almost unpopulated category. Doczilla (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Articles with unsourced statements since July 2007 if possible, otherwise speedy delete as nonsense. Otto4711 (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as empty. Bad tag fixed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:28, 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 speedy delete as empty / housekeeping. Bencherlite^Talk 02:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles with unsourced statements since 2007-10-08 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete arbitrary category. Why since October 8? Doczilla (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Articles with unsourced statements since October 2007 if allowed, otherwise speedy delete as nonsense. Otto4711 (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as empty. Bad tag fixed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional messihas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete misspelled recreation of fictional messiahs category. Doczilla (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as recreation of deleted content. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete again. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:12, 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Brain tumour deaths to Category:Brain cancer deaths

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All other subcategories of the category Category:Cancer deaths use cancer instead of tumo(u)r when using a non latinate name for the type of cancer, even where the corresponding article does not. Switching to cancer allows the category to sidestep the issue of American versus British spellings for tumo(u)r. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for each reason in nomination. Doczilla (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I make no claims of expertise but it does not appear from reading Brain tumor and tumor that all tumors are cancerous. Otto4711 (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True. Then again, according to the category's definition, it is about cancer deaths. Doczilla (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The category description seems to be scientifically inaccurate. It asserts that all brain tumors are caused by "cancer cells" but the articles for brain tumor, tumor and cancer do not support this assertion. Since apparently all brain cancers are tumors but not all brain tumors are cancer, the proposed rename has the potential of excluding some brain tumor deaths from the category. It also possibly requires editors to perform original research in determining whether a death is from cancer or not. Otto4711 (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Deaths from brain cancer - In general, most people who die from brain tumors have brain cancer. With this change, there may be some people who no longer fit in the category and need to be recategorized; however, using "brain cancer" fits with the rest of deaths by cancer. There are currently no other categories for tumor-related deaths, since the death is from cancer (and usually not the tumor). My reason to changing the format to "Deaths from..." is to match with the rest of the deaths by illness in Category:Deaths by type of illness. When I get a chance, I'll open a new CfD to rename Category:Cancer deaths to Category:Deaths by cancer and for all of the subcategories. --Scott Alter 21:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No objection per se to a mass renaming of Category:Cancer deaths and its subcategories to Category:Deaths by cancer but that is tangential to this CfD. Also last year in a prior CfD the subcategories were all changed to the current forms. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For now, I support the proposed rename. I don't want to have 2 CfDs for the same category at the same time. When this is resolved, I'll created another CfD (even though it would potentially reverse the previous CfD you mention). --Scott Alter 05:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Is it not possible that some one might die as a result of a benign tumour? Unlikely perhaps, but not impossible, I think. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you stated, it is possible to die from a brain tumor - just very unlikely. There are 3 types of brain tumors a person could have. 1: The majority of brain tumors are malignant metastases from another part of the body. 2: There are primary malignant brain tumors which can cause death (these start in the brain). 3: Benign tumors are slow-growing and are usually successfully removed by surgery. People who die from metastases to the brain (1) should be placed in the category of "primary cancer deaths," where primary cancer is the original cancer that spread to the brain. Deaths from primary malignant brain tumors (2) should be placed in "Brain cancer deaths." If there are any deaths from benign brain tumors (3), they would need a new category. Since there should be few people in this category, I would suggest creating Category:Deaths from benign tumors that would be located directly within Category:Deaths by type of illness (outside of the Category:Cancer deaths tree). If an article doesn't say if a tumor was cancerous or not, additional sources would need to be found for proper categorization. --Scott Alter 18:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 21 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.