< November 21	November 23 >

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 (empty anyway). Bencherlite^Talk 00:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Single use, no template. Moved from speedy name change request. SkierRMH (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy - not to be construed as arguments for this discussion - historical context only

• Delete' The "throne" is an elected position according to the article of the last holder of the title "Hetman" in Ukraine, which is the ancestor of the only article in the category. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I realize that I'm just trying to clean up obvious typos. From other discussions on CFD we may be preparing for a CFD of all Pretenders categories. For now, THIS applies to allow for subcategories in the overall scheme to have only one entry. Snocrates 01:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Be that as it may, it doesn't appear that there can be a pretender to the Ukranian throne, when it didn't exist in the first place. There could be one to the throne of Kiev, but that's not the same thing. 20:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I didn't create the category, I just nominated it under speedy criteria #1 above to get a typo fixed and am not particularly interested in whether you are correct or not. Would you prefer to keep it with name misspelled? Otherwise, it can be sent to the normal CFD for discussion on deletion. I'm not interested in doing that, but it's always open to you. Snocrates 03:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

---

• Delete there is no Ukrainian throne, and thus it cannot have a pretender to it. (if this is kept, it should be renamed per Socrates' suggestion on the correction of Ukrainian.) 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - single-article category in a structure that is being strongly questioned in multiple AFDs holding an article for a 7-year-old who is in no way notable. I've also put the article up at AFD. Otto4711 (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait for AfD/Keep Pretenders are generally notable, but this must be one of the weakest, er claims. If it survives AfD the category should be kept as part of a wider scheme - unsorted pretenders in the main category would be unhelpful. Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The lone article has been deleted at AFD and the category is now empty. Otto4711 (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment does this mean we can have pretenders to the presidency? 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since his ancestor operated without a constitution of any kind, and the state was not called a republic (unlike the states before & after), it is available to be claimed that he ran a hereditary monarchy. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "Pretend" in this context is an obsolete use of the word, meaning "claim". Pretenders are generally (or claim to be) the descendants of a previous hereditary monarch. The suggestion (above) that all pretender categories should be deleted is misplaced, but its use should be limited to those who are actively claiming a throne or falsely purporting to be a claimant, or where others are actively asserting this on their bahelf. This applies to the descendants of James II of England, to claimants to the French, Bulgarian, Romanian, and Italian thrones. It applied to the present King of Spain's father during the Franco era. In the medieval period there were titular Kings of Sicily (or perhaps Naples) at the French court, who were clearly pretenders, and I recall a reference to a titular Duke of Athens. I certainly cannot beleive that there are people in sufficient numbers to warrant a category for Ukranian pretenders. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for keeping is not that there are "sufficient numbers to warrant a category", it is that keeping the category would maintain a larger scheme whereby articles in Category:Pretenders are categorized by throne/locale in question, and that upmerging an article to Category:Pretenders is not desirable. (I'm abstaining from the vote on whether to keep or not; I just wanted to see the spelling corrected.) Snocrates 20:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete who can pretend to an elected position? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew Jackson did a pretty good job of it after the United States presidential election, 1824, and I don't blame him, either, after comparing the popular vote totals. :) Snocrates 10:57, 27 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 by creator.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mork & Mindy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - absent the improper performer by performance overcategorization articles the cat consists of two TV shows with a similar premise and a record album on which someone says two catch phrases from the show. Completely unwarranted eponymous TV show category. Otto4711 (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is a common type of category on Wikipedia, and is useful here. See already existing similar categories Category:The Simpsons, Category:South Park, Category:The X-Files, Category:Friends, Category:Seinfeld, Category:Dragnet, Category:Mystery Science Theater 3000, Category:The Jetsons, etc. The category was only started very recently, of course it will become more populated over time. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Again, almost everything in this category is improperly categorized. See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Performers_by_performance. It has been established through perhaps a hundred similar CFDs that a TV series should have a category only if the material about the series is so complex that the main article can't serve as an appropriate navigational hub. Should there suddenly be an explosion of articles about Mork & Mindy that can't be linked through the main article, then the category can be recreated. But for now it's not needed. See for precedent, just in the last three weeks, deletions for Mad Men, Jewel Riders, The Zeta Project, Chappelle's Show, Robotboy (and several other categories the same day). Otto4711 (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, see the categories about Television Series above, already in existence for some time now. Mork & Mindy certainly has enough information and related actors and other articles for its own category. I'd like to hear from some other editors on this as well. If consensus is not to keep it, I won't object. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• We do not categorize actors by the TV series in which they appear. The presence of those miscategorized articles does not support keeping the category. As for the other categories you note, first, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Second, look at the material in for instance Category:South Park. It covers not just the show itself (and notice there are no actors or other creative people in it) but books written about the series, soundtrack albums, the related film and other subtopics for which the main article on the show doesn't serve as a suitable navigational hub. The Mork and Mindy category is not comparable. Otto4711 (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you are correct here, and I see your point. I will change this to a speedy delete by author to save time. If enough other articles exist at a later point in time, the category can always be re-created. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete for now. Everything in this category is miscategorized except the head article and the episodes category. I generally support so-called eponymous categories for creative works, but this isn't okay.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:34, 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 a slow speedy delete for being empty for 4 days. Bencherlite^Talk 00:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Art schools in the Republic of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, there are no articles that are part of this category.--Jerry 20:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment They seem to be here: Category:Art schools in Taiwan 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Republic of China is the term used by itself for Taiwan, but many countries no longer recognise it as a country. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete empty for four days. Speedy candidate. Whether we use "Republic of China" or not is a larger debate, apparently we have Category:Education in the Republic of China, and why not many countries recognize the country, we have other unrecognized "national" categories: All sorts of Palestinian ones, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus ones, and others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:40, 26 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 Early Keep. As nominator of this CFD as well as looking at WP:SNOW, now that the category is populated I see no reasno to delete it now. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chilean memoirists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Covering a category dispute at Augusto Pinochet, I noticed this cat. During the process of attempting to salvage the good part of a revert, I was contemplating whether to leave Augusto Pinochet in this category. I decided to remove him since he was the only one there, and the revision before didn't mention this category, so I thought it rather superfluous. Rather than deleting it unilaterally, I wonder what other people think about it. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• An odd group of categories, with many members in some cats (like Indian), but no cats for American, English or French memoirists. At least relatively few politicians & generals seem included, mostly the likes of Karen Blixen and Frank McCourt, famous only for their memoirs. But very biased towards the 20th century - none of the biggies like Saint-Simon or Chateaubriand are there. If Pinochet's are actually revealing, I would restore him & keep. Otherwise, unless any other Chilean scribblers come to mind, delete. Johnbod (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Those other sub-cats do exist -- but they're in Category:Memoirists by nationality, which I created a while back, but never finished moving the remaining sub-cats. Cgingold (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok - still no Saint-Simon though, like category:Artists without Michelangelo! Johnbod (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I've just added Ariel Dorfman and Isabel Allende, and there may well be others. Cgingold (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as now populated, as part of a wider scheme. Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Johnbod. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 03:12, 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. There is another notability/utility discussion going on elsewhere on CfD, so this gets closed with the simplest possible change.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Contestants in British game shows to Category:Contestants on British game shows

Propose renaming Category:Contestants in American game shows to Category:Contestants on American game shows

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Not a speediable typo, but "in" is wrong. One is a contestant "on" a game show, not "in" one. Otto4711 (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all The people concerned are notable for the five minutes while appearing and then immediately become NN. Celebrity contestants will be notable in other respects and so will not need to be categorised thus. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not defining: if someone's defining moment is being a game show contestant, I question their notability. And many trivia books can point to many people notable for other things were game show contestants in their pre-fame days, and others were routinely cast as contestants in celebrity participation game shows like Password, the $100,000 Pyramid, Tattletales, and "stars" weeks on others like Wheel of Fortune or Jeopardy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have attempted to repurpose the category via the category description and aggressive pruning so that celebrity contestants who are not otherwise notable as contestants are outside the scope of the category. For people like Herb Stempel this serves as their primary category. I agree that there may be people in the category who shouldn't have articles (and indeed I initiated a number of successful AFDs for some otherwise non-notable Who Wants to Be a Millionaire contestants) but there is certainly a strong organizational utility to the categories. Otto4711 (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move. While sympathising with the above comments, I'm not convinced this is the appropriate place to dicuss the notability of the articles within the cats. The articles exist, and I've taken a look at them and the ones I looked at fulfilled requirements of WP:Bio so would withstand an AfD. However, if people are uncertain about the nobility of any particular article they should take that article to AfD, not here. Also, interestingly, the subjects of the articles are known for being contestants on game shows, so the cats appear to be appropriate and helpful. For example, Judith Keppel is well known in the UK for being the first person to win a million pounds on a game show. She is a regular on another game show, so is clearly defined as a Contestant on a British game show. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename per nom. Most of these looked notable to me - a few not. Whilst the articles are there, they should be categorised in the most obvious way. Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 27 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 redirect (empty, thank you Peterkingiron.) Bencherlite^Talk 00:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, or redirect to Category:United Kingdom, everything currently there is badly out of place. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Tim! (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The two articles currently in the category do not belong in a high-level category like Category:United Kingdom and so should not be merged there. A category redirect would probably be a good idea. Otto4711 (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to prevent re-creation, & remove contents as per Otto. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - The two items in it were an English architect Richard Paxton and a very minor political party People's Justice Party (UK), both of very limited notability. Neither warranted being in a UK category, and I have removed them. Both are adequately categorised in other ways. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Category:United Kingdom then have a nice cup of tea. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:05, 27 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. Insufficient consensus to de-genderize. Bencherlite^Talk 00:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Professional female pool players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Female pool players, see for example Female golfers; Professional is implied unless we say amateur. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom. In any case some of these, like In Wan-ip do not mention being professional in the articles. Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom. --Lquilter (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom. They probably wouldn't appreciate being referred to as professional females, either. Maralia (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete we don't need to categorize pool players by sex. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Pool players. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I understand the concerns with gender specific cats; however this guideline gives advice. It does say that "Whenever possible, categories should not be gendered." However, "A gender-specific category should [only] be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic." In this case the women pool players have separate and distinct competitions and leagues to the men. Also, we already have a Category:Sportswomen by sport. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, either to rename (to either one of the two options presented) or to delete. Bencherlite^Talk 22:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Star Trek robots to Category:Star Trek androids

Nominator's rationale: Rename. They are all androids, not robots. Otto4711 (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there is no parent category Category:Fictional androids or Category:Androids so I'm tempted towards opposition, but would re-consider if others are in favour of creating an android tree. Tim! (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The parent Category:Fictional robots includes in its category description that it is for androids as well. Honestly I don't have tremendously strong feelings about this. It just happens that no Star Trek robots have independent articles. Otto4711 (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative: As you say, parent category Category:Fictional robots is also for androids (e.g. Terminator T-1000). Would it be better to rename the parent as Category:Fictional robots and androids? With or without that change, we could rename this one as Category:Star Trek robots and androids and add robots e.g. a redirect for exocomp, not that I can think of any others. Otherwise, I support the proposed renaming for the sake of accuracy, and would simply keep it in the differently-named parent category. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Since all but one of the members are Data's family (the exception being a redirect listing of Norman). I presume that Data's family are all linked at each other's articles? - jc37 22:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not rename, as the name follows the precedent of the parent category. Although the distinction between "robot" and "android" is obvious in the context of these Star Trek characters, it's not so simple in any number of other cases. No opinion on whether or not the category should actually be kept at all. -Sean Curtin (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too narrow a category. There were androids in other Star Trek other than "data" and his family; lots of women on some planet I seem to recall, and even some guy who made a Kirk android. Big deal. Super narrow categories like this are not useful for navigation or collection of likes with likes. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: I find it worth keeping as a sub-cat of Category:Star Trek characters by nature. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then UpMerge into Category:Star Trek: The Next Generation characters (minus the Norman redirect, of course). - jc37 12:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I said by nature, not by series. All these articles are already categorised in characters by series (2 in TNG, 1 in film, 1 TOS). If deleting this category (which I oppose), upmerge would instead definitely be required to category:Fictional robots. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:04, 29 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:Companies based in Memphis, Tennessee. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies Headquartered in Memphis, TN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Companies based in Tennessee, or Rename to Category:Companies based in Memphis, Tennessee. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Companies based in Memphis, Tennessee. The "TN" abbreviation is not known worldwide outside of the United States. There is already a Category:Companies based in Chattanooga, Tennessee. There are enough companies in this Memphis category to justify the subcategory of Category:Companies based in Tennessee. --Ichabod (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Companies based in Memphis, Tennessee. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:06, 27 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 as follows – Almost an even split of "delete" and "keep" opinions expressed, with editors making good points on both sides. I have to say that I can't see consensus here and I can't honestly say that I weigh the arguments on either side sufficiently heavily to tip the balance towards either keeping or deleting. Bencherlite^Talk 23:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American athlete-politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, we usually don't want to categorize by double occupation, since there are thousands of possibilities ... usually it's better to just add them to both occupation categories. However there is as of yet no consensus to delete Category:Actor-politicians. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There are zillions of possible double occupation categories for politicians, all of which would add to category clutter on the already heavily-categorised articles on politicians. No objection to a list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a valid and encyclopedic sub-cat of Category:Celebrity politicians. An article could certainly be written on these. All I looked at were either ex-professional sportsmen, or had been in the Olympics. The category should certainly be strictly restricted to those who would be notable both as athletes and as politicians independently, and I have added to the category headnote to say so. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, I agree that an article can be written on the "celebrity politician"; but do you think that that identity is, itself, defining, to such an extent that it requires a category? So a celebrity politician would have categories for (a) politician; (b) celebrity; AND (c) celebrity politician? Because surely we shouldn't segregate celebrity politicians away from regular politicians, right? --Lquilter (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes and yes and no. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - I would delete the actor-politicians too. "Athlete-politician" is not an identity that anyone has, and it's just a species of "celebrity politician" -- many politicians acquire name recognition from one thing or another before going into politics. I really think there should be an article about the phenomena of celebrity & political activity, and to the extent that "actor politician" is distinguishable from "athlete politician" or "business magnate-politician" then separate articles can be written about them. Mini-lists can be included as useful. Individual categories are not useful. --Lquilter (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and as what's likely a neologism. Otto4711 (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep you wouldalso have to delete Category:Celebrity politicians and all of it's sub categories which have been there for years.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You mean, like Category:Comedian politicians? with Kinky Friedman as the sole occupant? I have no problem with deleting that category. Also catted under Category:Celebrity politicians are this one (Category:American athlete-politicians) and the much-disputed Category:Actor-politicians. That's it. I will eat my girlfriend's new $25 hat if the deletion of these categories has any negative effect on any 5th grade report or any other negative effect whatsoever, at all. --Lquilter (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha, you'll be sorry when you wake up in 20 years time & find you're being governed by the cast of Friends! Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That'll probably be a distinct improvement on recent offerings of various hues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Where to begin. Too ... many ... possible responses! --Lquilter (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So wikipedia's only purpose is for 5th grade book reports?... However funny the jokes may be, clearly the people opposed to this category are not serious wikipedians. Why are people opposed to this? It's merely a category for information,one that people often have an interest in. It's not invalid or incorrect data.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I did say "or any other negative effect whatsoever". Categorizing by all conceivable intersections is overcategorization at best. Categorization should be based on defining concepts. The people here are defined by their athlete-status, and their politician-status, but not by their status as "athlete-politicians". ... I'm sorry you're not amused, but please refrain from personal attacks in describing other wikipedians. ... More importantly, could you please give us a reason for keeping this category other than "other stuff exists"? --Lquilter (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did give another reason. It's a category of interest. Also, it wasn't a personal attack... I applied the remark to people opposed to this category and I never said "Lquilter is not serious" so it was not personal, it was general. Even if I had said that, it still wan't a personal attack because it was merely a description of behavior. If you're insulted by that description then that's your business. No attack was intended. I could argue that the comment about "5th graders" was a personal attack but you didn't see me go there. Now if I siad somthing like "this person is full of crap" or "this person eats the crotch of dead grandmas" that would be an insult/personal attack. --Dr who1975 (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said the people opposed to the category are not serious wikipedians. That's a personal comment. I'm glad to know you meant nothing by it, however, but it's a comment on fellow editors as opposed to their views; that's what WP:NPA covers. As for my 5th graders comment, I'm not sure how that has anything to do with personal commentary on other editors; to me, that is the most common purpose of encyclopedias: very basic sources for trying to understand a subject. --Lquilter (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In reply to DRwho1975, WP:CAT and several related guidelines all stress that it while a category should be based on accurate data, accuracy of data is not enough to create a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... I understand that... I also said it's a category people have an interest in. You can't deny this--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Most other (X)-politician combo categories should go too.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Evidence If it's not of interest how come CBC Sports has an article about it, how abot this NPR Story, maybe this ESPN article will prove it't notable.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Having an interest in" or "being of interest" is possibly a reasonable argument for creating an article (which would still have to demonstrate notability) but it is not by itself a reason for a category. See WP:CAT and see arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Lquilter (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying it is noteworthy. I just cited 3 seperate, independant sources. I am not merely saying I like it. Citing something makie's it notable. That's always been the standard.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a test applicable to articles; categories are assessed differently. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Wikipedia:Overcategorization it mentions notability in several places.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep politicians who were previously athletes is a notable intersection. I do not know of American examples, but can think of two prominent British MPs (one no longer in politics), who were successful Olympic athletes. Actor-politicians such as Ronald Reagan and Shirley Temple would be worth having, but I doubt this would be useful for otehr previous professions, such as lawyer and journalist. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No double occupation cats, there is no end to them so we should not have a beginning to them. And for the record, how much of an athlete must one be and how much a politician. Someone played high school sports then runs for mayor and loses. Seems s/he fits in. By the way, most modern US presidents would qualify as playing some high school sport or another. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the debate above; all must notable BOTH as politicians and athletes independently, as the current members are. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. Where does this stop? If someone was an athlete and then becomes a singer and dancer and an actor, do we then create Category:Athlete-singer-dancer-actor-politicians or do we create a category for each combination? And don't forget the ever popular Category:Lawyer-politicians. Wait for category intersection to do searches like this. I might see some value in Category:Prostitute-politicians, but that might be considered ambiguous or an oxymoron. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you haven't troubled to read the debate above either. One would have thought two actor-Governors of California, and a current presidential hopeful would be enough to dispel the notion that celebrity politicians are some sort of statistical inevitability. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a sub-cat of Category:Celebrity politicians as per above discussions. Sting_au Talk 10:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a subcat as a notable intersection with relevance in at least US politics. Possibly other similar ones are justifable. "not usually justifiable" implies there will be a considerable number of exceptions. DGG (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't know whether this category would make sense anywhere else on the planet, but here in the US this is certainly a noteworthy sociological phenomenon, much like actor-politicians. The concerns expressed over rampant creation of random "Xxx-politician" categories strikes me as hyperbole and reductio ad absurdum. We will only have categories that are warranted by their socio-political notability, any others should be deleted. Cgingold (talk) 19:46, 29 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, empty. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Many Warcraft organization articles have been deleted recently, due to lack of notability. The category is down to one article, currently overdue at AFD with all merge or delete comments. The category will not be populated due to lack of notability. Delete. Pagrashtak 15:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No longer needed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Bencherlite^Talk 16:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disney comics authors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A useful category! Skizzik (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:USEFUL is not persuasive. Otto4711 (talk) 13:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sorry. But i don't think this category really match the examples in overcategorization. It would also be hard to find most of these articles if you don't know the exact names whitout the category, most of them cannot be linked in articles like Donald Duck (there is many hundreds disney comics authors) but they are readed by many hundreds of thousends (probably millions) of peoples all over the world so I think they deserve articles even whitout so many links in other atricles. Maybe it still should be deleted according to the policy but it would be a really weakness in wikipedia. Skizzik (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per precedent on categorization of artists by works or performances. -Sean Curtin (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Every article I checked had at least one other comic category. Most were in several. Sting_au Talk 10:45, 29 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, except to Delete Category:School massacres in the United Kingdom, per nom. - jc37 12:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging:

• Category:School massacres in Japan to Category:School massacres and Category:Massacres in Japan
• Category:School massacres in Russia to Category:School massacres and Category:Massacres in Russia
• Category:School massacres in Yemen to Category:School massacres and Category:Massacres in Yemen
• Category:School massacres in Israel to Category:School massacres and Category:Massacres in Israel
• Category:School massacres in Finland to Category:School massacres and Category:Massacres in Finland
• Category:School massacres in Germany to Category:School massacres and Category:Massacres in Germany
• Category:School massacres in Scotland to Category:School massacres and Category:Massacres in Scotland

... and Delete Category:School massacres in the United Kingdom (which is only a container categ for the Scottish one)

Nominator's rationale: Merge all, because except in North America, there are simply not enough articles on school massacres to need national sub-categories. This is a followup to Cfd Nov 7, when the intermediate Category:School massacres in North America and Category:School massacres outside North America were upmerged to Category:School massacres.
That leaves us with two well-populated sub-categories (for Canada and for the United States), and 7 remaining categories containing only 11 articles between them. None of these small categories has significant potential for growth, and none of the merge target categories will be anywhere near overpopulated as a result of the upmerger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all (and delete container category) per nom. An earlier discussion (December 2006) failed to succeed, but the same arguments still apply, though this nomination is better presented. Carcharoth (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom, & my arguments for this last time. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom -- Overcategorization. It's about time we start cleaning out some of these tiny categories by nationality, where warranted -- as it certainly is here. Cgingold (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all to distinguish school massacres in US and Canada (two well-populated categories) from similar events in other countries.Biophys (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply They are already distinguished by being in ther own well-populated sub-categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Reply. There is a common practice in WP for handling such cases. Let's consider Category:Astronauts by nationality, for example. The sub-category Category:American astronauts is highly populated, but there are only two persons in Category:Polish astronauts. There are no Georgian astronauts at all, and no sub-category for that country. No one suggests to eliminate Polish astronauts, of course. So, let's simply follow common practice and keep everything.Biophys (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge differently - Merge Finland, Scotland, Germany and Russia into a single new Category:School massacres in Europe category. The Israel and Yemen categories should be part of a new Category:School massacres in Middle East category. The Japan category does not fit and should be retained ore merely merged into a "massacres in Japan" category or a general "School massacres" category. The fact that some parts of a category are subcategoriesed does not mean that all have to be. Additionally, the articles should be recategorised into a "Massacres in country" category for each country. In the case of Scotland, this should be a United Kingdom category without subcategories: the only other modern British massacre was Hungerford, which was not a school massacre. I am glad to say that in Europe massacres are rare events. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not logical to keep a category for some countries (say US and Canada) and do not keep it for others because they are "under-populated".Biophys (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes it is - there is absoltely no necessity to have categories for every country just because some have them. There are plenty of examples in Category:Categories by country and other categories. Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. There is a common practice in WP for handling such cases. Let's consider Category:Astronauts by nationality, for example. The sub-category Category:American astronauts is highly populated, but there are only two persons in Category:Polish astronauts. There are no Georgian astronauts at all, and no sub-category for that country. No one suggests to eliminate Polish astronauts, of course. So, let's simply follow common practice and keep everything.Biophys (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There is an equally, if not more, common practise of treating matters the way proposed here. Johnbod (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that sub-category Category:Azerbaijani astronauts (for example) should be merged/deleted because it includes only one astronaut? There are hundreds cases like that.Biophys (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably yes, although I think nationality is more relevant in that case, and unlike these, the astronauts are in a specific "by country" category scheme, which does indeed cover a largwe number of countries. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That is what I call total lack of logic. Each phylum can include only one or several classification objects. Otherwise, the entire biological classification of species would be messed up, for example.Biophys (talk) 06:50, 27 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, empty. When you're both back from your exotic field trips, tag and nominate the other categories if you feel so inclined. Bencherlite^Talk 01:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Development banks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty for months. While it seems like a reasonable category, Categories Category:Supranational banks and Category:Multilateral development banks also exist. I suggest deletion of DB; or, alternatively, keep DB and merge everything in MDB and SB into DB and delete those categories. But I'm no banking expert, so I'm making the more modest proposal now. Lquilter (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Multilateral" is a bit vague here - I'm not aware it is a term of art, although it might be. I'm tempted to say to merge all to Category:Development banks, although that would leave the Bank for International Settlements a bit stranded, as it has no real development remit. On the whole I think Merge Category:Multilateral development banks into Category:Development banks, and add to it all members of Category:Supranational banks except Bank for International Settlements. Then make the development banks a sub-cat of the supranationals and go and have an enormously expensive dinner to celebrate. See below Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Enormously expensive dinner, check. Are you recommending (a) Keep Category:Supranational banks (creator/member/funding) and (b) Keep Category:Development banks (purpose); and (c) delete Category:Multilateral development banks? I'm not sure I go with subcatting development into supranationals, since it seems to me these are orthogonal concepts -- development banks might not all be supranational and, as you point out, some supranatl banks are not development banks. --Lquilter (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I was, although on another look International Financial Institutions should also go in "supranational", as should the International Monetary Fund (on technicalities, not a bank, but does lend money). Then you would have 3 in Category:Supranational banks, and a sub-cat of the development banks, all of which are I think international except the Afghanistan International Bank which should really not be here, as it is a commercial bank owned and funded by a development bank. Can I have a brandy now? Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you Multilateral development bank asserts this is a term of art, which a Google search rather confirms. So just Delete Category:Development banks & the rest can be sorted out. Dinner cancelled but enormous fee for consultancy will be submitted. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should hold a meeting in some exotic locale to hash this out further. --Lquilter (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A field visit to the Caribbean Development Bank certainly seems called for! Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 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 no consensus to do anything, and it's already been relisted once. Bencherlite^Talk 01:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vancouver television series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Do something - the category as it stands casts too wide of a net. It captures shows whose production offices are in Vancouver, shows that are filmed theere and shows that are set there. Either delete because it's overly broad or split into three separate categories (although shows should not IMHO be categorized by where their offices are). Otto4711 02:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Split into Category:Television shows shot in Vancouver and Category:Television shows set in Vancouver and Delete anything left over. No reason to have a breakout for series only. Nomination should also include Category:Toronto television series. If there is consensus for this rename, then Category:Television series by country also needs to be split since the contents of the category and all of the children is ambiguous. Vegaswikian 03:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted from CfD Nov 9 to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- If one were to split into "shows shot in Van" and "shows set in Van," the shows put into the set category would be minimal. Lots of shows are shot in Vancouver, but not many are set there. Guroadrunner (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Television series set in Vancouver and delete those which don't qualify. Where a series is actually shot is not defining or relevant. Most series are shot all over the place, in studios hither thither and yon. Otherwise a huge majority of US tv series would be "shot" in Los Angeles, regardless of where they are set. And if one episode of some show includes some pan of the Vancouver skyline, presto inclusion in a "shot in" category. Meaningless. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:00, 27 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: Speedy deleted by User:SkierRMH. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Games in Star Trek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category contents have been converted into the article List of games in Star Trek, so there's no need for the category anymore. Maelwys (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - was just waiting for the outcomes of the AFDs for the game articles before nominating this myself. Otto4711 (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (as creator of this category) - I would have nominated this for speedy deletion myself now that the listified version of it has survived pre-emptive discussion. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You can tag the category with ((db-author)) Otto4711 (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per above. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as author requested. SkierRMH (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rail transport in Nelson to Category:Rail transport in Nelson, New Zealand

Nominator's rationale: NZ's Nelson may (perhaps) be the largest, but there are enough other contenders for the title of best-known that a disambiguator is needed - and indeed one is present on the parent article (Nelson, New Zealand). Grutness...wha? 08:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, for clarity and for consistency with the main article Nelson, New Zealand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:06, 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Nelson to Category:Buildings and structures in Nelson, New Zealand

Nominator's rationale: Same as the rail category above. NZ's Nelson may (perhaps) be the largest, but there are enough other contenders for the title of best-known that a disambiguator is needed - and indeed one is present on the parent article (Nelson, New Zealand). Grutness...wha? 08:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, for clarity and for consistency with the main article Nelson, New Zealand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:59, 26 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 both to Category:Closed railway stations in Victoria (Australia). Bencherlite^Talk 16:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Closed railway stations in Victoria to Category:Closed regional railway stations in Victoria

Nominator's rationale: The articles in this cat should be in the subcategory, a lot of them already am but I don't want to manually move them. Wongm (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both into Category:Closed railway stations in Victoria (Australia) - as per article Victoria (Australia). We don't seem to need two such similar categories, and the plain railway stations one seems more all-encompassing. If there are significant numbers of closed stations which are not regional, it might make sense to have two categories, but I don't really think that's the case here. Grutness...wha? 08:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Grutness to (Australia) 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Grutness to Category:Closed railway stations in Victoria (Australia). Sting_au Talk 10:48, 29 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. Bencherlite^Talk 01:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rider legislation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete, overcategorization by characteristic. Eliyak T·C 01:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is categorisation of law by procedural device used in the legislature, which could open up a raft of similar categorisations. I'm most familiar with procedures in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and although Westminster abolished "tacking" (as they called it) of unrelated measures over 300 years ago, westminster legislation could be categorised according to this logic in numerous ways: Acts passed after a three-line whip by the governing party; Acts debated in a committee of the whole House; Acts passed after debates subject to a guillotine; Acts subject to Parliamentary ping-pong; Acts introduced as Private Members Bills; Acts introduced in the House of Lords/Acts introduced in the House of Commons), etc etc.
  All these issues might usefully be covered in the article on the law, but they are defining characteristics of the debates on the bills rather than of the resulting laws themselves. There may be a case for lists of this sort of thing, but most of it is relatively trivial; even in a list of measures passed by a legislature in a particular session, it's hard to see much justification for including more than a very few of these characteristics.
  Finally, the text in Category:Rider legislation demonstrates that it is a blatantly POV category, which might just as well have been called Category:Nasty legislation passed by the wicked trickery of people I dislike. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Opposeoops Delete per nom & BHG's very cogent analysis. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the nature of the category is not clear without explanation. It would also need to be subcategorised by jurisdiction, but it only has one article at present, and is best killed off quickly. If retained, a category involving the word "tacking" or "tacked" would be better, as I think I have heard this used in relation to American legislation (though I am English). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and for inherent POV. --JohnPomeranz (talk) 15:48, 28 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. Bencherlite^Talk

Category:New articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a failed experiment, bu not worth tagging as {historic}. Was meant to be a cat for articles tagged with Template:New, where new articles can be sorted out. We have plenty of other tags to replace {new} and this cat isn't needed. There is a subcat though for wikiproject subpages of new articles, which I suggest should be recatted. Montchav (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now, because this is putting cart before horse. Although I share many of the nominator's concerns, this category is populated by ((new)), which seems to have been the subject of some dispute. Discussion at Template talk:New seems to have stopped in January, but if that template exists, this category serves a useful purpose. I suggest that if we "have plenty of other tags to replace {new}", then the first step should be to go to WP:TFD to propose deletion of ((new)). If that proposal is passed, this category will be depopulated and can be speedy deleted; but I don't like the idea of CfD being used as backdoor route to template deletion. I'm sure the nominator acted in good faith, but CfD is the wrong place to tackle this issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I've been depopulating this category article by article, and it's a good way to make sure that new articles don't end up in the 20k WP:CU backlog... While it's true that we have lots of cleanup templates, I think ((new)) is a good one to keep, as it's very quick and doesn't require much time on the part of the editor to decide exactly which tags to apply. Also, per BrownHairedGirl above, CFD is not the place for template discussions. Cricketgirl (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per both. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment shouldn't this be handled at WP:SFD stub-types for deletion? 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, it's not a stub template; more like a cleanup template, if anything. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:17, 26 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.