< November 18	November 20 >

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/Merge all to "Cities and towns in..." per convention of Category:Cities by country. - jc37 23:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Cities in Mexico

Categories giving cities by state:

• Category:Cities in Aguascalientes
• Category:Cities in Baja California
• Category:Cities in Baja California Sur
• Category:Cities in Campeche
• Category:Cities in Chiapas
• Category:Cities in Chihuahua
• Category:Cities in Coahuila
• Category:Cities in Colima
• Category:Cities in Durango
• Category:Cities in Guanajuato
• Category:Cities in Guerrero
• Category:Cities in Hidalgo
• Category:Cities in Jalisco
• Category:Cities in the State of Mexico
• Category:Cities in Michoacán
• Category:Cities in Morelos
• Category:Cities in Nayarit
• Category:Cities in Nuevo León
• Category:Cities in Oaxaca
• Category:Cities in Puebla
• Category:Cities in Querétaro
• Category:Cities in Quintana Roo
• Category:Cities in San Luis Potosí
• Category:Cities in Sinaloa
• Category:Cities in Sonora
• Category:Cities in Tabasco
• Category:Cities in Tamaulipas
• Category:Cities in Tlaxcala
• Category:Cities in Veracruz
• Category:Cities in Yucatán
• Category:Cities in Zacatecas

• Category:Towns in Mexico
• Category:Villages in Mexico

Categories giving villages by state:

• Category:Villages in Aguascalientes
• Category:Villages in Baja California
• Category:Villages in Baja California Sur
• Category:Villages in Chihuahua
• Category:Villages in Coahuila
• Category:Villages in Hidalgo
• Category:Villages in Sinaloa
• Category:Villages in Sonora
• Category:Villages in Tamaulipas

Nominator's rationale: Mexico is a federal republic divided into 31 states (Aguascalientes, …, Zacatecas) and one federal district (Mexico City). The states are further subdivided into municipalities (Spanish: municipios), which may contain one or more population centers (Spanish: localidades). Local government is done by the municipalities. There are no incorporated areas below the municipalities, and therefore there is no local governmental distinction analogous to the distinction in the English-speaking world between cities, towns, and villages. The bulk of our articles on human settlements in Mexico, regardless of size, are currently categorized in the categories which give cities by state. Therefore, I propose that:

• Category:Cities in Mexico is renamed to Category:Towns and cities in Mexico, and Category:Villages in Mexico and Category:Towns in Mexico are merged into it.
• The categories giving cities by state (Category:Cities in Aguascalientes, etc.) are renamed to Category:Towns and cities in Aguascalientes, etc., and the recently-created categories giving villages by state are merged into them.

Spacepotato (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I recently created the villages by state, because cities have a legal definition in Mexico, which doesn't apply to the articles that populate those villages. I wouldn't mind a merger as Spacepotato advocates so long as we are sure that towns have no legal definition. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Do cities in Mexico have a legal definition? If, so their categories should not be included in this merger. Hmains (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree I agree with Spacepotato, I think it's just silly to have categories like "towns in...", "villages in..." I think those newly created categories should be either deleted or merged into the original ones, although I'm not too sure about the name change, maybe it should be kept as "Cities in..." similar to Category:Cities in California, that's the title even though most of those places are not really cities but towns. Supaman89 (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do maintain the distinction between incorporated cities and unincorporated places, even in California. See Category:Unincorporated communities in California. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It's bothered me that "Cities in..." sometime include tiny villages that in no way are cities. State laws generally define numbers for a categorization of settlements -- eg, Veracruz: ciudad (30000+), villa (10000+), pueblo (5000+), ranchería (500-2000), caserío (>500); SLP ciudad (20000+), villa (7500+) pueblo (1000+), ranchería (>1000); Durango appears only to have pueblos, villas & ciudades -- subject to which, in consideration of the existence of other elements of infrastructure (schools, roads, etc.) the state congress can formally announce their 'elevation' to the next category. But, seeing as how some of the "cities in..." categories only have a dozen or less entries, I don't think we need to fragmentize the categories like that. Indeed, dividing Veracruz's settlements into the five layers given above make finding a given article more difficult: Pueblotitlán de los Tuxtlas -- caserío or ranchería? Please, merge them into "towns and cities in...". Or, to protect against "it's not a town, it's not a city, it's only a village" to "settlements in..." or "places in" -- but maybe that could be headed off by calling them "towns and cities in..." and including the legal definitions for each state's settlements on the Cat page. Aille (talk) 12:26, 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 relist here. Two comments is insufficient IMHO to declare a general consensus in this area that would be capable of being referred to as a precedent in future discussions. Bencherlite^Talk 11:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canada's Next Top Model participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Canadian Idol participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Let's build consensus - Recently just under a dozen reality TV participant categories were brought to CFD and all were deleted after fairly light discussion with the reason given as "precedent." All of these deletions were overturned at DRV. Rather than dealing with these categories piecemeal as they come up, let's try to come to consensus on them. I selected these to serve as a discussion point because there are only a couple of them but they are for franchises that have multiple by-nation categories so I believe they serve well as representational of the entire Category:Reality television participants structure.

On the side for deletion or merger to a national parent cat (in this instance Category:Participants in Canadian reality television series) the argument that's been advanced is overcategorization of performers by performance. This is the argument that has led us to delete all of the actors by series, writer by series, films by actor, etc. categories. The reasoning behind this is that for many biography articles the categorization scheme led to many, many categories being added on the basis of a small handful of appearances or a single appearance on a show (infamously Hank Aaron was categorized as a "Happy Days actor"). It would also lead, on film and television articles, to vast category clutter as each notable person within the film or series got his or her own "Foo films" category.

Countering that argument is the notion that in most cases reality television participants are notable solely or mostly in connection with the specific show on which they appear. With some very rare exceptions like Rob Mariano the vast majority of reality show contestants are not going to appear on multiple reality shows nor are most of them going to go on to the sort of show business career that's going to lead to the impulse to create categories for their film or non-reality TV appearances. It is unlikely that a participant on CNTM is also going to be notable for an appearance on Canadian Idol and vice versa. Their notability in connection with the show is what defines them and it makes sense to categorize them based on that defining characteristic.

So with an eye to using this CFD as a template for the other reality-participant-by-show categories, let's open the discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to hesitantly say Keep. I think these people are much more like athletes than actors. (Yes, I know some are actors. So are some athletes.) That is, they are defined more by the competition than their own merits. So I think it makes sense to categorize them by where they come from, but in this case where they come from is a show, not a country. I'm not taking a position on the notability of some of these people, but I do think that the ones that do have articles have both accurate and useful categorization.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:46, 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 with essentially the same rationale as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 18#Category:Pretenders to the throne of Sarawak: "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 10:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pretenders to the throne of the principality of Waldeck und Pyrmont to Category:Pretenders to the throne of the principality of Waldeck and Pyrmont

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure if this was a typo or not so I'm assuming it was rather a use of German in the category name. Propose changing to WP:ENGLISH. Snocrates (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom although I'm getting dubious about these. This guy was a reigning prince (I'm not sure if this strictly involves a throne) who presumably signed the Treaty that ended his state. The Sarawak one recently also had ceded all his rights. There doesn't seem to be much actual pretending going on, or even claiming. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (nominator) : To be a "pretender", the person in question does not need to be the one making the claim to the throne. It may be claimed on his behalf by others and the "pretender" could be completely unwilling. Strictly speaking, it may not be the best term to use from a technical standpoint, but its use is so widespread that there's probably nothing better. Of course, a similar criticism can be laid against the sole article in the category — no one was claiming the throne for him (at least it's not cited in the article). For that reason, deletion of the category could be appropriate due to a lack of any article for the category. Snocrates 03:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - If this isn't overcategorization par excellence, then there ain't no such thing. I don't give a pflaming pfennig whether every last German principality has a category for its "pretenders to the throne" (be they real or pretend). So what if there's a residual group of unsorted pretenders? It's bad enough that we insist on these tiny categories for every single nationality -- at least there's a consistent rationale for that. But for every two-bit principality?? Please. I would draw the line at Bavaria and Wurttemburg, seeing as they at least were full-blown kingdoms. Cgingold (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article does not support categorizing him as a "pretender." He was a reigning prince. I am less than sanguine at the notion of categorizing either people who were reigning monarchs or those who acted to abolish their own throne as "pretenders." I also question the notion that someone who makes no personal claim to a throne but has others who do qualifies but that's not strictly relevant to this discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as over-categorisation, unless there are going to be significant numbers of additional Pretenders to the throne of P&W (which doesn't seem likely). Perhaps the whole array of "Pretenders" cats is due for a purge. HeartofaDog (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The present category merely duplicates one for Princes of P&W, which only has one entry. The term pretender uses pretend in an obsolete sense of claim, but I doubt that the present successor (if there is one) is claiming entitlement to rule. I am not clear what titular status the heads of princely houses have in Germany today, but I would have thought that it would be sufficent to list successors at the end of the article on the last ruling prince. Such people are unlikely to be notable per se, and would only warrant an article if notable in their own right. German princes were sovereign princes, but only because the German state lost its authority in the Middle Ages. They should thus be treated in a siumilar way to the nobility of other countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 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 all to Category:Voting theory, without prejudice to recreation if more material is created. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tactical voting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: (The title is slightly inaccurate, but I didn't know about the second two when I started this process:)

• Category:Tactical voting
• Category:Tactical voting by electoral system
• Category:Strategic nomination
• Category:Strategic nomination by electoral system

Have existed for a year and a half, with four articles between them that could/do go in Category:Voting theory Lkjhgfdsa (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Voting theory per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all to Category:Voting theory per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs) 02:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all to Category:Voting theory per nom as underpopulated, but without prejudice to recreation if there are enough articles. There are many more encyclopedic articles which could be written about tactical voting, and there's no point in deprecating the categories for the future if they are written. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:01, 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 - jc37 10:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italo-Irish Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mild delete, there's probably hundreds of possible crosses like this, how deep do people want to go?. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Burn with fire - overcategorization based on ethnic mix. The existing ethnicity-citizenship categories already go way too deep. Any more than one ethnicity or one nationality should be met with tremendous resistance. Otto4711 (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another logical extension of Wikipedia's obsession with categorization based on race/ethnicity. So, if you are only partly Italian you get into Wikipedia's Category:Italian-Americans and only partly Irish you get into Wikipedia'sCategory:Irish-Americans because there are no criteria for how Italian or Irish you must be. People's race/ethnicity is not particularly relevant and not encyclopedic and for most, ambiguous and not defining (after all someone who immigrated from Italy to the US yesterday is lumped in the same category as someone who had one Italian ancestor way back when (assuming that all his or her forebears were legitimate). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete certainly a step too far. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - On the whole I'm inclined to think that there isn't a very strong rationale for X-Y ethnicity categories. So I'm not entirely sure we should keep this -- but it happens to be one of the better candidates for such a category, given the history of these two groups in this country. They're both heavily Catholic, and there are many cities which have had mixed Irish & Italian neighborhoods -- resulting, of course, in a substantial number of mixed marriages and offspring. I think all of the 8 people currently in this category are actors, which suggests that there are probably dozens of other articles for non-actors that could be added to the category.

Another strong candidate would be African-Native Americans, given their inter-twined histories and the high degree of intermarriage among them. After surveying all of the ethnic American sub-categories, my sense of things is that there are at most about half a dozen "X-Y crosses" that could be considered to merit a category like this, in terms of their mutual historical relations and the number of X-Y individuals notable enough to have Wikipedia articles -- especially if we were to impose a minimum threshold of perhaps 10 or 15 articles. I would like to see a more substantial discussion based on real knowledge of these subjects, rather than a relexive dismissal of the whole idea. Basically, I'm saying that I don't want to totally foreclose the possibility of having a limited number of categories of this sort. Cgingold (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Certainly an overcategorization. I will change my vote to keep, if someone can demonstrate that this overcategorization has something unique to it.Vice regent 17:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, grave overcategorization. --Soman (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Yikes. Snocrates 13:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete over categorization. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:57, 25 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) 21:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States soccer competitions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:American soccer competitions, convention of Category:Football (soccer) competitions by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge synonymous categories as parent and child ought be merged. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:42, 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) 21:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Malayali business people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Indian businesspeople, or at least Rename to Category:Malayali businesspeople. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Improper intersection of race/ethnicity & occupation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge since no category exists for other ethnicities (such as Punjabis, who are known for business).Vice regent 18:00, 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 delete all. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Motorway articles by quality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This and the ones below have been superceded by Category:UK road articles by quality (or will be) following a recent project move in order to broaden the scope.

I am nominating Category:Motorway articles by quality as well as all its sub-categories

• Category:FA-Class Motorway articles
• Category:A-Class Motorway articles
• Category:GA-Class Motorway articles
• Category:B-Class Motorway articles
• Category:Start-Class Motorway articles
• Category:Stub-Class Motorway articles
• Category:Unassessed Motorway articles
• Category:List-Class Motorway articles

Simply south (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Superseded by Category:UK road articles by quality Regan123 (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy move Will ^(talk) 20:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or move per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:UK road articles by quality. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete all as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:02, 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 speedy delete per CSD G6 (housekeeping: empty maintenance category) and CSD C1 (category that is empty for 4+ days). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Bears work portal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty category AND nothing links here. —ScouterSig 18:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• agree delete. Traveler100 (talk) 19:06, 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 Nomination Supported - Not sure what else to call this one. It seems to be a fair use of Categories for discussion (though being procative, rather than reactive, about a WP:BOLD action.) I won't suggest that all such recreations must do this (that would be a very bad idea), but I have to admit that it was a nice, "non-disruptive" way to do it, and similar nominations in the future should be welcomed. (Side note: next time, please tag the categories, since that gives others who may be interested a chance to see the discussion. Template:cfd should be fine as a generic notice.) - jc37 07:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate Category:Organizations established in 2000

Nominator's rationale: This category was deleted with little relevant discussion on Sept. 28 (link). Most discussion seemed to center on the fact that only one article was in it & the cat was deleted because empty. However, as BHG pointed out at the time, the whole tree is badly in need of pruning, which will help organize relevant category trees. I've been going through the "Category:Year establishments" tree and creating the Category:Organizations by year of establishment tree -- oftentimes 10-25% of a "year establishments" are organizations of various sorts. (Types of organizations are sub-catted under Category:Organizations by year of establishment.) If any here now have objections please state them. <g> --Lquilter (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No objection to recreation from me - I nominated the category for deletion last time as it was an isolated category, but as it's now part of a better-organised structure, I can't see that this should count as impermissible recreation. Bencherlite^Talk 22:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support re-creation per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Outlawz affiliates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - no objective criteria as to what constitutes being a part of the "extended family." This largely amounts to categorization based on collaboration, which IMHO is overcategorization. See for example Brecht collaborators. Otto4711 (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we don't do "affiliates" categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:10, 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 - There has apparently been no discussion about this at the WikiProject, which would seem to make sense, since the creator of the category User:Szhaider has been banned for a year (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan), and has had the block restarted in August due to block evasion. No prejudice against rectreation under a "better" name (fif there is one) if the WikiProject decides they need it sometime in the future. - jc37 07:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pakistan articles about unknown subject of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I cannot work out what this category is mean't for. It seems to be mostly grouping talk pages. I feel it is unencyclopedic. I propose it be deleted - Green Giant (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion, support renaming. The category name is clumsy, but it appears to serve as an "others" category for articles in the maintenance category Category:Pakistan articles by subject. Since these are subcats of Category:WikiProject Pakistan, I'll ask the good people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan for their input. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deletion, support renaming, to perhaps Category:Unsorted Pakistan articles, per bhg. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Unassessed Pakistan articles, or simply Delete. Many projects have task force cats, but we don't really need one for the general case. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Unassessed Pakistan articles is about quality, this is about subject-area; a merge would destroy the point of both. The cat is restricted to talk pages, as it should be. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. On thinking about it further, it seems that the creator of this category seems to be thinking that every single Pakistan article needs to be claimed by some taskforce ... which is not actually the case. I'm change my opinion to Mild delete. I don't think they need it at all, and if they really want to keep it they should probably choose a less awkward name. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just the ones they haven't allocated to a sub-cat of Category:Pakistan articles by subject, which I suppose is fair enough, but they have a big back-log. Maybe they have other stuff on their minds right now! Johnbod (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What confuses me is that the category is almost exclusively composed of talkpages rather than the actual articles themselves, which are almost all categorised anyway. Green Giant (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We encourage (& sometimes insist) maitenance categories like this go on the talk page to reduce category clutter. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• WikiProject tags always go on talk pages, since its not part of the article itself. These are all project categories. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename after discussion on the wikiproject page. —ScouterSig 15:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to fix capitalization.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:IEEE DASC Standards to Category:IEEE DASC standards

Nominator's rationale: Rename, capitalization fix; or upmerge to Category:IEEE standards. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. Categorizing design standards on the basis of the committee that developed them strikes me as more than a bit ludicrous. Otto4711 (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - IEEE develops lots of standards, so breaking it down by committee might not be as ludicrous as you think. However, "committee" probably really serves as a proxy for subject, so it might not be necessary if there's also good subject-based categorizing. <dithering> -- I'm not sure I can come up with a recommendation because I don't know whether IEEE standards are well represented, or whether there are major gaps in notable standards. However, cat-by-committee is not as absurd as it might sound. --Lquilter (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not Upmerge, but do rename per nom. I set this up with the idea that yes, there are hundreds of IEEE standards, and about 20-50 IEEE-SA->IEEE Computer Society -> Design Automation Standards Committee. The groups has a history that is worth tracing and recording separately from the parent groups, and separate from the "child" groups. For these reasons, I agree with Lquilter.

A question that I have is if there is a way to link a DASC header description to a collection of the pages that have the category. Is there an example that someone could point me in the direction of: (one that would put the list on the DASC page) the Elder Delp (talk) 19:29, 24 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 - This is indeed just an example of Wikipedia:Overcategorisation#Award winners. In addition, there is no related article, and there wasn't even a reference to the museum at Winnfield, Louisiana. - jc37 07:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Louisiana Political Museum and Hall of Fame inductees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete and listify as overcategorisation per WP:OCAT#Award_winners. All the people in this category will notable primarily for the political careers, and their presence in this hall of fame cannot be a defining characteristic (if they were not already highly notable, they wouldn't be eligible for inclusion in the HoF). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and because there are lots of regional or local "halls of fame" etc. would lead to cat proliferation on bios. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "Hall of Fame" and the vast majority of other awards do not define the recognized person, but simply recognize what they are already notable for. --Lquilter (talk) 22:08, 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European countries never qualified for a major tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, this is a list article in category space ... if someone wants to make this an article I have no objection. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. (The grammar in the title needs work if it is not deleted). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. We must have a guideline against "negative quality" categories. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we do. Do you want to draft an addition to WP:OCAT? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Done - [1]. Plus I notice few of the category members are actually European. Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non defining, improper article in cat space, but don't article-ize it per the above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a list called List of countries that have never qualified for a major football tournament it would be ok I think. Johnbod (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to create an article, but I zkroowed it up. Oops? I have turned this now into an article. Countries never qualified for a major tournament Might need help (but not help deleting the article, thank you very much. I am thinking expanding it with sub-articles dealing with CONMEBOL, CONCACAF, etc. AFAIA concerned the category can be deleted, the article ... NOT ! —Preceding comment added by Brian Tjoe-Nij (talk • contribs) 07:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, empty category. As a side-note, I found four countries in the list that shouldn't have been there (Wales, N. Ireland, Israel and E. Germany) and I have asked Brian Tjoe-Nij to recheck the contents. Bencherlite^Talk 14:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk tc 23:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Works at the Museum of Modern Art to Category:Collection of the Museum of Modern Art

Nominator's rationale: Rename, for consistency with the convention of Category:Museum collections. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I created this category not realizing the convention. Please move to the correct name. Remember (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:54, 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 merge. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Works in the Metropolitan Museum of Art to Category:Collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art

Nominator's rationale: Merge, orphaned duplicate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I created this category not realizing the other one existed. Please merge it into the original category. Remember (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:54, 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 merge. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Classical guitar composers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Composers for guitar, which says it is for classical guitar. Perhaps leave a redirect? -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:54, 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 keep. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Incarcerated rappers to Category:Incarcerated celebrities

Nominator's rationale: Merge. I think it's a little unfair to have a separate catergory for incarcerated rappers, because it's singling them out as though only rappers can be bad influences (some people think that's true, but I'll save that for a message board). I mean, if you look at the main category (Category:Incarcerated celebrities), you'll notice that this is the only subcategory. Anthony Rupert (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Hmm, Rappers are celebs too, so merge. ĞavinŤing 15:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Rappers are a category of celebrity notoriously prone to imprisonment, whatever view anyone has on why that is the case. It would be quite possible to write an encyclopedic head article on the subject. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per bhg. Other sub-cats could be set up - Category:Incarcerated politicians must be ready to roll, and Category:Celebrity prisoners-of-war also. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the inspiration! I have just copyrighted my new gameshow: I'm a celebrity prisoner-of-war, get me out of here". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per BHG. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per BHG. And furthermore:

Hey, my man -- don't be so glib,
Street cred's phat, so don't diss my crib.

I could go on, but... Cgingold (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per BHG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:55, 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:

The result of the debate was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comic Book Characters created in the 60s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as repost, see October 17th discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:06, 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 merge. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:High Schools in Hesse to Category:High schools in Germany

Nominator's rationale: Merge, orphaned single-article category. There are no other subcats of Category:High schools in Germany, which is not an over-populated category (only 24 articles). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. When the number of high schools in Germany becomes large, dividing them by state is obviously the right thing to do. But certainly not yet. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per both. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 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 merge (note: currently empty). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Portuguese theologists to Category:Portuguese theologians

Nominator's rationale: Merge, as duplicate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:56, 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PD-self (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete, orphaned category, and after examining the sole article Barkas, I can't find any indications of what the category is for. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too confusing with the media PD-self tag. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:18, 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 Merge Category:Lists of fictional characters by work to Category:Lists of fictional characters by medium. It's a start at least, while accepting that the members will still need to be merged into the subcats. - jc37 11:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging to Category:Multiple

Nominator's rationale: Split and Multiple Merge - this category is completely redundant to Category:Lists of fictional characters by medium and its subcategories. The by medium structure allows for more precise categorizing of like with like rather than the overly wide net cast by by work. Otto4711 (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment what about multi-medium characters? 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Then they can go in multiple categories. Otto4711 (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete many fictional characters show up in many works: Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are likely to have 100 each, and no, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this is not for individual characters. The category contains lists of characters from specific works of fiction. Santa and the Easter Bunny would not have any of these categories on their individual articles; rather, Santa and Mssr. Bunny would be included on a list of characters (such as List of characters in The Nightmare Before Christmas) and the list article (in the absence of a work-specific characters category, which The Nightmare Before Christmas has) would be categorized within this structure. Otto4711 (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe lists now, but the title of the category if changed could encompass multiple cats on popular recurrent characters. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand the objection. The proposal is to move list articles from one Lists of category to several other categories also called Lists of. If an article about an individual character is placed in a category called Lists of then it's miscategorized no matter what the rest of the Lists of name is. Santa Claus would never go into a Lists of category because while Santa makes a list and checks a list (twice) he is not himself a list. Otto4711 (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Split and Multiple Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Multiple merge as nominated. Let's hope an admin who will enjoy the ensuing (considerable) task finds this. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:41, 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 listify (already done).--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:War on something (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete (or at least rename to Category:War on something or other)

• Rationale: Fuzzy concept —> Fuzzy category name —> Motley assortment of articles.

• I guess it seemed like a good idea at the time.... (This is why we don't edit on Wikipedia when inebriated. I'm sure I saw that in the guidelines somewhere.) Notified creator with ((cfd-notify)) (hopefully he'll appreciate the humor...) Cgingold (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - categorizing unlike things based on having the word "war" in the name, a form of overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Quite a useless cat. Also agree with otto. --ĞavinŤing 15:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, after creating War on disam page. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Another option is to rename to Category:Wars on concepts. To me it seems like a useful construction for a category, in that these wars don't have an opponent that can surrender, so you never know when you're done with them. With a decent header, this could be a strong category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the members are only united by a choice of phrasing - they include TV comedy shows, a charity, and several political campaings or slogans. Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we prune it. What I'm saying is that the War on drugs, War on Terror, and War on Poverty do have something meaningful in common, and thus a well-named category is OK with me. Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting argument, but I'm still not persuaded that it's a good rationale for a category -- whereas it might well have the makings of an quasi-list article with an explanatory Intro that goes into the propagandistic aspect of these terms. Cgingold (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, at least as a start. Take a look at List of wars on concepts and see if there could be substantial improvement.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice - better than a category. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a great start, and it will support a lot of references -- I've seen multiple articles on this topic (use of "war" to describe concerted efforts to eradicate something). --Lquilter (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's a related article called War as metaphor which may also provide content, or perhaps be a target for merging one way or the other.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:58, 24 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 as nominated. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:EDA software to Category:Electronic design automation software
• Category:EDA companies to Category:Electronic design automation companies
• Category:Free EDA software to Category:Free electronic design automation software

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The acronym EDA is not well-known. It could easily be mistaken for a company name. --Eliyak T·C 09:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 09:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all - per nom, to expand potentially ambiguous abbreviation. Otto4711 (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. ĞavinŤing 16:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and convention of expanding most acronyms. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Though my instinct was to upmerge to Category:Fictional media, neither article actual belongs in that category tree. One article is about a real series of sketches and the other about a science fiction concept, and both are otherwise categorised. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Vague category, yet capturing articles which seem to have little to do with the concept. Seems less than entirely useful. Otto4711 (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:58, 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 merge. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Fictional businesses to Category:Fictional companies

Nominator's rationale: Merge - not seeing the rationale for categorizing fictional "companies" and "businesses" separately. . Otto4711 (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:49, 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Big collectives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - grouping unrelated things on the basis of their being referred to as "Big (something)." A form of overcategorization by common name. Otto4711 (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Disam pages like Big Four have many more entries & do this much better. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not a very sensible rationale for a category. Cgingold (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ocat by common name. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Les Six.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Groupe des six (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with no growth potential. Oddly, for a group with six members, there are eight people categorized. Regardless, a list exists in Les Six which is more than sufficient to link the actual six people together. Otto4711 (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Rename to Category:Les Six to match the article. There is potential for growth in further sub-cats for compositions. In any case I don't think 9 articles + 2 sub-cats = "few" as the current wording of the guideline has it. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename per Johnbod. And I, too, believe there's potential for growth here. Cgingold (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• With whom? Otto4711 (talk) 15:04, 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.