< September 13	September 15 >

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 close. This discussion belongs at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. I have not reposted it there, because that forum uses a different format, but if the nominator or anyone else wants to pursue the proposed renaming, you now know where to raise the matter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United Kingdom pop musical group stubs to Category:UNKNOWN

Nominator's rationale: I don't know exactly who must be renamed where, but there is a kind of disagreement: wikipedia has Category:British pop music groups but no corresponding stub. Alternatively, there is a stub categry, but no Category:United Kingdom pop musical groups. Is this intentional? Laudak 23:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close. Is there any reason why you've brought this here and not to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion, as told to at the top of this page? Grutness...wha? 04:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy disagree: I don't want to delete it. And there is nothing at top or this page:only table of contents. And you are probably not reading carefully. I explained that I dont' know what to rename/add/delete: stub type or the corresponding category. Laudak 18:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SFD handles all stub category renaming, rescoping, and redirection, as well as deletion, though you're right, the note is on the parent page (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Special notes). If you did not know which to rename, surely you would have nominated both categories, not just the stub category. In any case, in cases like this, stub categories tend to (but do not always) follow the permanent category names, not the other way round. I repeat - this is not the forum for this discussion, please move it to WP:SFD. For what it's worth, BTW,, the term "United Kingdom" is used almost exclusively rather than "British" in stub categories, but this may be a case that has "slipped through the net" and needs renaming. Whether that's the case or not you're very unlikely to find out on CFD - the people who would be most likely to be able to tell you monitor SFD. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I don't really care about British pop to jump thru bureaucratic hoops here. I had a probably wrong idea that wikipedia is about cooperation: everyone contributes what one knows. Wy knowledge of wikipedia is barely enough to spot a minor problem. And I will not "move it" anywhere. If no one else cares and you are too busy or bossy, the less it is my problem. Whatever. Laudak 21:13, 18 September 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 delete attempts, merge musicians to holders, rename world record to world record (book), keep holders. Kbdank71 17:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guinness World Record (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Also nominating:

• Category:Musicians in the Guinness Book of World Records
• Category:Guinness World Record holders‎
• Category:Guinness World Record Attempts

Nominator's rationale: Delete these set of categories, for a number of reasons: why should inclusion or exclusion in a certain reference be category material: we don't have Category:Also an article in Encyclopedia Britannica, etc., second which version of the Guinness book is being referred to? Any, or this a dreaded "current" category, and most of all it's not defining for most of the entries: it's the accomplishment that makes them notable - that Guinness chooses to recognize it or not is just their editorial discretion and a reliable source but not the basis of categorization. Were these fully populated just consider how many athletes, companies, authors, planets, chemical elements, geographic features would be categorized in these. Carlossuarez46 23:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems that the nominator is confused by the world "book". Guinness is not a "reference book" per se. It is a a kind of recognition of merit (a stupid one it may be sometimes), Hall of Fame so to say. In this sense it is comparable to "awards" category, such as Category:Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees, hence deserves to stay. Laudak 02:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Guinness World Record to Category:Guinness World Records (book) as this is the correct name of the book and to minimize the chance it will be used incorrectly to house articles on the records or record holders.
• Merge Category:Musicians in the Guinness Book of World Records to Category:Guinness World Record holders as overcategorization based on irrelevant intersection.
• Delete Category:Guinness World Record Attempts. Otto4711 04:10, 15 September 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. Sam Blacketer 15:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actors on Taxi (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: all categories consisting of TV series cast members were deleted a while back MrBlondNYC 23:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just because a lot of these categories were deleted a long time ago doesn't mean they aren't useful. Having categories is a very useful way of orginizing these types of things. --Wack'd ^{Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork!} 23:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete performer by performance category that is not defining and contributes to category clutter which were the major reasons why they were deleted in the first place. Carlossuarez46 23:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per discussion of January 25th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and so much precedent. Wryspy 05:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Performer by series categories are just unnecessary clutter. The appropriate way of linking Taxi to Judd Hirsch and Danny DeVito and Marilu Henner and Andy Kaufman is in the articles, not by a category. Delete. Bearcat 19:53, 19 September 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:Articles with topics of unclear notability, importance to notability per this discussion, dropping "wikipedia" per tomorrow's. Kbdank71 18:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance (or Category:Articles with topics of unclear importance if the new convention proposal has proceeded before this CfD closes) to Category:Wikipedia Articles with topics of unclear notability (or Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability, respectively)

Nominator's rationale: Notability != importance. That particular matter was settled sometime around 2004! See Wikipedia:Notability/Historical for background. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree in principle. However, both Template:Notability and Template:Importance put their respective articles into this category (and since the two concepts are often confused, this might not be a bad idea after all). Whether the category is renamed or not, it should be considered what to do with articles that are tagged with Template:Importance - there are quite a number of these. --B. Wolterding 12:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: I didn't realize that the wording in Template:Importance has recently (and quite suddenly) changed to refer to "notability"; if that change is stable, renaming seems to be a good option. --B. Wolterding 12:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the documentation to explain the difference in policy/guideline terms that are pretty clear and obvious, so it should be stable. ((Importance))'s wording is a holdover from pre-WP:N days. See Wikipedia:Notability (historical) for the old "Importance" rejected proposals that eventually evolved into WP:N. The template's name should probably change too at some point, but ((Notability)) is already taken by a more "forceful" and "certain" variant. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The fact that ((notability)) also puts articles into this category is super-strong evidence that it needs to be renamed from Category:...importance to Category:...notability. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Close You should withdraw this as you have nominated the category yourself on September 15. People should not be asked to discuss different issues on the same category in different concurrent debates! Johnbod 13:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: Disagree strongly; they are entirely unrelated nomenclature issues. The debate opened at the 15 Sept. CFD log is liable to take a long time to settle out, and has nothing to do with this specific category in particular, which also happens to need another kind of rename, affecting it and only it, that is unlikely to be controversial and (regardless) will not conflict in any way with the proposal there (15 Sept. log, I mean). I think you may have missed that over there I greyed out the original nomination, copied from CSD/Speedy for background purposes; the proposal presently at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 15#Est. naming convention for "Articles..." vs. "Wikipedia articles..." is not to rename the handful of categories listed in the greyed-out background material, but to draft a cat. naming conventions addition. Apples and oranges. So, please chill out; I don't see the rationale behind your dual bursts of "Speedy Close" and "improper nomination" invective. Concurrent debates of different types fairly often affect the same category, and the sky has yet to fall. I think all of the editors here are pretty smart and can handle it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator does not control the issues or course of any debate here, nor how long debates last. You may think the issues are completely separate, but it is not up to you. It is against procedure, for obvious reasons, to have two open debates on the same category. Apart from anything else, it wastes people's time. But being civil does not seem to be your strong point. When I made my comment only one person had commented before me. You could and should have merged the two & copied the comment over with explanation. Johnbod 03:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view, your engaging in combative hyperbole and seeming sport-argument of no current relevance, and your characterizing me as trying to "control" debates and their timespans here, as trying to impose my will, as wasting people's time, as uncomprehending of how CfD works, and as incivil, does not strike me as particularly civil on your part.

To get back to the issue: There aren't two debates (rename or otherwise) open on this category. There is this one. And there is a proposal for a new naming conventions guideline addition in the Sept. 15 log. No connection between them, other than the proposal if approved would affect this and many other categories in a completely different way from this rename debate, some time down the road. That the Sept. 15 proposal happened to have begun as a speedy rename nomination that would have affected this category immediately, but which was withdrawn, is of no relevance. Even if that proposal passed yesterday, it would still take a separate, new rename nomination to affect this category (namely one calling for it to be renamed from "Wikipedia articles..." to "Articles..." per the new convention; this is a nomination that does not and cannot even exist yet). I understand CfD's workings just fine, thank you. Are we done now? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, since you are now making my points for me. Johnbod 10:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that, then you are not reading me accurately. But whatever. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. -- roundhouse0 13:27, 16 September 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. Kbdank71 15:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brightside Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Small, unlikely to grow. Alksub 19:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- per nom. - Longhair\^talk 05:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; this is really an article in category space. There is no article on Brightside Church, but the category text wouldn't do as an article because it is unreferenced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; the only related article is Pastor Michael Stowell which might well fail an afd (NB: Britside, the creator of the cat and the article, seems to be User:Britside/Mike Stowell). -- roundhouse0 15:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wryspy 05:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep will do more work, and will add references. Britside 17:06, 20 September 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. Kbdank71 17:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Maps showing the history of countries to Category:History maps

Nominator's rationale: Merge Duplicate. Alksub 19:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom as duplicate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom as duplicate. Johnbod 23:24, 17 September 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. Kbdank71 15:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Superheroes blacklisted during the McCarthy Era (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The subject is not notable in itself. It is strictly in-universe as there was no blacklisting or even censure against super-heroes and it was in fact a genre that evaded censorship. It is unrecognised in the medium. Nobody has ever wrote about it so this is original research. One is talking about heroes "blacklisted" in their fictional histories. So one is creating a category based on a minor plot point. The category name is incorrect. "To blacklist" means to put a list circulated between employers to prevent people from working. Since superhero activity is anonymous, none can be effectively blacklisted. The list also includes names that could not belong: how could the Watchmen have been blacklisted? They didn't exist during this era except for the Comedian who was certainly not prevented from work. This is made up from a fan viewpoint and is uncyclopedic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Leocomix (talk • contribs) 16:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Added the subst for the nom... - J Greb 20:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per nom, this is an in-universe plot element with low significance to the real world events. As a plot element all cases are "after the fact" since none of them were incorporated in-story during the McCarthy hearings, and, in most cases, related to fictional McCarthy-like events. - J Greb 21:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As a plot element in just a few Justice Society of America storylines, it does not deserve its own Wikipedia category. Arion 00:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-defining plot history. The name makes no sense either. No superheroes were blacklisted in the McCarthy Era. Make your fiction clear. Wryspy 05:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - an insignificant and rather pointless category.--Redeagle688 02:38, 17 September 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. Kbdank71 15:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete; see discussions of February 8th and November 1st. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MrBlondNYC 07:17, 15 September 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. Kbdank71 15:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anarchism books (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Deprecated category replaced by User:Cast with Category:Anarchist fiction, Category:Books about anarchism. Skomorokh ^incite 11:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Murderbike 23:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Yet another pre-emptied category though (not by nominator). Johnbod 23:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge to Category:Numismatics. If further categorization is necessary, someone with more specialized knowledge than I will need to do it.. Kbdank71 17:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:British African numismatics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:British American numismatics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:British Asian and Far East numismatics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:British Pacific Islands numismatics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Indian numismatics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Several reasons:

• By WP:NOT#DIR, Wikipedia is not a list of repositories of loosely associated topics. Why do we have to categorize numismatics subject by former colonizer? The relationship is in fact indirect. The currency is related to a political entity, then the political entity is related to a former colonizer. We don't have Category:People born in a leap year.
• As I have explained at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics#Categories for British Empire and Commonwealth numismatic articles, this kind of categorization scheme is a slippery road to category explosion (e.g. Commemorative banknotes with Arabic and French in sub-Saharan Africa after 1980) . (I don't know if the creator did in on purpose, he ignored my comment on the common place for numismatic discussion, and posted a personal message on my talk page)
• This categorization scheme is probably POV and offensive to some people in these countries.
• User:Numismaticman, the creator of these categories, is a very like suspect of a banned user. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Numismaticman. For example, Category:British African numismatics was created by User:Paisleyite1976, and Numismaticman created many articles and put them under these categories.
• User:Numismaticman is obviously a Britophile, he insists on moving Solomon Islands pound to British Solomon Islands Protectorate pound.
• Category:British American numismatics and Category:British Asian and Far East numismatics have been previously deleted. The reason for American is at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 7. The reason for Asia is CSD G5.

--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge all to Category:Numismatics rather deleting. Nominator is right about the overcategorisation involved in adding the former colonial power, but it's important not to lose the numismatics categorisation entirely. (Yes, I know that some pruning will probably be required after merger to prevent overcategorisation). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Even if these categories are deleted, the articles that are presently under these categories are already in Category:Banknotes or Category:Postal Orders, which are in turn already in Category:Numismatics. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ChoCho here - in fact almost all of these are already cluttering up Category:Numismatics in a gross display of categorising at too many levels. If upmerged, they should go to an appropriate sub-cat - Banknotes or Postal Orders in the vast majority of cases. Johnbod 00:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If numismatics is anything like philately, and I think it is, these are in fact classifications very much in use in the field. The problem here, it seems to me, is not with the categories but with the articles, which are unacceptably short - many just one line. They are all pretty new, but perhaps not really capable of much expansion anyway, since most deal only with postal orders. I don't know what was in Category:British American numismatics and Category:British Asian and Far East numismatics, previously deleted. If the contents were good, then the decisions would seem to be perverse, so perhaps the contents were also not good. The first three, and last, of the nom's arguments I don't find convincing at all (nor BHG's). But these articles are so useless, with a couple of exceptions, they should all be rolled up into perhaps one per category, thus removing the need for the categories themselves. I also point out that the nom as it stands would leave several articles uncategorised orphans, which is not right. Johnbod 11:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You are right about articles being too short. Banknote of Ambliara is a perfect example. It says in the article, only a single banknote was issued. It cannot be expanded. In addition, a lot of the articles Numismaticman writes are most likely copyvio. They are blatant rip-off from the Standard Catalog. Numismaticman is completely up front about re-creating the content of the Standard Catalog (see here). Should these violating articles be deleted, then these categories will be emptier. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The numismatic classification system is very much like that of philately. Some of you have asked me about why some of the postal orders are so short. I have only started collecting them avidly in the past few years. I haven't yet got a scanner or a digital camera to be able to illustrate some of the articles. In the case of the British Empire and Commonwealth, it is a very specialised field, especially in relation to banknotes, as a number of countries had a lot of institutions issuing banknotes. Some of them issued banknotes for more than one country. I see nothing wrong with dividing the British Empire and Commonwealth numismatic articles by region - Australian numismatics, British African numismatics, British American numismatics, British Asian and Far East numismatics, British European numismatics, British Pacific Islands numismatics, and Indian numismatics. It would make it a lot easier to find the articles to add catalogue numbers and photos. - (Numismaticman 12:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment You are right about Commonwealth numismatic being a very specialized field. And it is precisely because of that, we don't make such categories. This is Wikipedia, not banknote wiki. Wikipedia articles about video games would probably include a general overview about the game, each race (lets assume role-playing or real time strategy), hero characters. But Wikipedia articles does not enumerate the statistics of all units (e.g. health, mana, build cost). Nor does Wikipedia provide game strategy. Why? Because they are too specialized.

As I have said before, this kind of categorization is a slippery road to category explosion. A point you've never addressed. By your rationale, I can create Category:French Empire numismatic, Category:Commonwealth of Independent States numismatics, Category:Slavic numismatics, Category:Muslim numismatics, Category:Maori numismatics, Category:Feminism numismatics, Category:De La Rue numismatics, Category:Inflationary numismatic, Category:Scientist numismatics, Category:Gay numismatics, etc. What do you think about those? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too many bad arguments are not helping your nomination! Johnbod 12:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain why my arguments are bad? It seems to me that saying someone's argument is bad without explaining is a bad argument itself. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dealt briefly with your original ones above. For the latest lot, editors can judge for themselves if these are realistic. Johnbod 13:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChoChoPK, I see nothing wrong with having the catalogue numbers from the Standard Catalog of World Coins and Standard Catalog of World Paper Money in numismatic articles. To say that it is a blatant rip-off and a copyright violation is wrong, as the catalogue numbers are common knowledge, easpecially within the numismatic trade. - (Numismaticman 11:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

As for catagorisation of numismatic articles, I see nothing wrong with having categories for the regions of the British Empire and Commonwealth, especially for the banknote and postal order articles. Don't forget that both Russia and the Philippines also have a very specialised numismatic history as well, as there were hundreds of issuers of banknotes during the Russian Civil War and during World War II when the Philippines were under Japanese occupation. The same thing also applies to the United States of America and most countries in Latin America as well. - (Numismaticman 11:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Numismatician, you should only categorise at the appropriate level of the tree. Since I last looked you have added dozens of these inadequate articles to the top-level Category:Numismatics, which is totally wrong. At the moment, I would support the deletion of most of these articles, as you seem to be just starting up very short stubs and leaving them. You should roll them up into decent sized articles until there is enough material to separate. Johnbod 00:31, 21 September 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. Kbdank71 17:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Philadelphia music groups to Category:Philadelphia musical groups

Nominator's rationale: Rename, in keeping with precedent set by Category:Chicago musical groups, Category:Miami musical groups, Category:Los Angeles musical groups, etc. Chubbles 07:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. All similar city, state and country categories use "musical groups". (Note that this is distinct from Category:Musical groups by genre which does not have any such consistent usage, for good reason.) Xtifr _tälk 09:15, 14 September 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. Kbdank71 17:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Aberdeen built ships to Category:Aberdeen-built ships

Propose renaming Category:Barrow built ships to Category:Barrow-built ships

Propose renaming Category:Belfast built ships to Category:Belfast-built ships

Propose renaming Category:Clyde built ships to Category:Clyde-built ships

Propose renaming Category:Dundee built ships to Category:Dundee-built ships

Propose renaming Category:Mersey built ships to Category:Mersey-built ships

Propose renaming Category:Plymouth built ships to Category:Plymouth-built ships

Propose renaming Category:Portsmouth built ships to Category:Portsmouth-built ships

Propose renaming Category:Southampton built ships to Category:Southampton-built ships

Propose renaming Category:Thames built ships to Category:Thames-built ships

Propose renaming Category:Tyne built ships to Category:Tyne-built ships

Nominator's rationale: Rename all these "by dockyards" subcats of Category:Ships built in the United Kingdom, for improved grammatical and common-usage precision. Would not be adverse to considering "Ships built in [dockyard/shipbuilding region]" as an alternative, but I think X-built does the job perfectly well. cjllw ʘ TALK 05:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with rename. I created the Aberdeen category, and thought at the time Aberdeen-built might be better, but followed the convention of the existing categories. --Kateshortforbob 08:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 14 September 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. Kbdank71 15:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foreign-born Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary duplicate of Category:Immigrants to the United States. - EurekaLott 05:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as un-needed, though the category is not strictly a duplicate of Category:Immigrants to the United States. "Foreign-born" includes people born to expatriate American parents, and such a child who returns to the US with her parents is not an immigrant. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I believe they still cannot become President! Johnbod 11:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain thinks he can. Carlossuarez46 16:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we know better, don't we! Johnbod 22:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:52, 14 September 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. Kbdank71 17:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Repatriated slaves of African American descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Repatriated Africans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Repatriated ex-slaves (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Repatriated slaves (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: We probably only need one of these four highly-similar categories. Keep one and delete the other three. - EurekaLott 05:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Repatriated" fits oddly with the historical reality, especially for the Louisiana ones. I agree with nom, but none of these names really works. Johnbod 11:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Johnbad, maybe you (or anyone who understands the issues here, which I don't entirely, so far) could offer an explanation of what ought to be included in new category or categories to replace these? That would be a useful starting point for devising a new name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Lousiana articles seem to have been removed from the categories (or I was mistaken before, but I don't think so) so we are just left with stuff to do with ex-slaves relocated to Liberia by the US and Sierra Leone by the Brits, plus the subsequent re-emigration of many to various parts of the English speaking world. The Sierra Leonean ones were often from the UK or rescued on the high seas by the Royal Navy & never were in the New World, so Pavel below is not entirely right, but yes, it's all late C18 & C19 & I guess all Atlantic. I just think "repatriated" isn't quite right, as they might have come from lots of places in Africa, or been in America for several generations. How about something like:Category:African populations returned to Africa? - although that might sound like a biographical category, & not all articles are by any means. Also I think some were long-free/never enslaved blacks who volunteered to go (see Black Poor and Black Loyalist), but I'm no expert. It's all the area covered by the recent Simon Schama book Rough Crossings which I haven't read! Johnbod 21:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the category should be renamed to clearly indicate it is all about the US and not about the other periods/regions. Medieval Mediterranean had a long tradition of capturing slaves and selling them back for a ransom, for example. Pavel Vozenilek 18:40, 15 September 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. Kbdank71 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Radio stations in NC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Radio stations in North Carolina, convention of Category:Radio stations in the United States by state. -- Prove It ^(talk) 05:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom as obvious duplicate. (We really ought to have a speedy criterion for clear duplicates). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: inappropriate abbreviation in an obvious duplicate. The problem with having clear-duplicate be a speedy criterion is that it's not always clear which of the duplicates should be kept. On the other hand, I think speedy criterion 5 (abbreviations) should probably be expanded to cover more than just country names. Xtifr _tälk 19:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about a speedy criterion stating that duplicate categories can be speedied if it is absolutely clear and unambiguous that one category is correctly named per the relevant naming convention and the other is not, with the caveat that ambiguous or uncertain cases should be taken here instead? Just a thought. Bearcat 19:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Bearcat 19:51, 19 September 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. Kbdank71 15:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People of Sierra Leone Creole descent to Category:People of Sierra Leonean Creole descent

Nominator's rationale: Redundant categories. Merge. - EurekaLott 05:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, and someone needs to decide whether Category:Krio people should be a parent or a sub-cat. At the moment it is both. Johnbod 23:29, 17 September 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. Kbdank71 15:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hobart events to Category:Festivals in Hobart

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Propose renaming to suit naming conventions of existing categories within the Festivals in Australia category structure, or a merge of the categories content back into Category:Visitor attractions in Tasmania. -- Longhair\^talk 05:26, 14 September 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. Kbdank71 15:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ships sunk by UK submarines to Category:Ships sunk by British submarines

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to avoid deprecated use of "UK" in cats, and in conformance with "ships sunk by [nationality (adj.)] submarines" pattern established in parent category. cjllw ʘ TALK 05:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod 17:34, 15 September 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. Kbdank71 15:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ships sunk by U.S. submarines to Category:Ships sunk by American submarines

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to avoid deprecated use of "U.S." as an abbreviation in cats, and in conformance with "Ships sunk by [nationality (adj.)] submarines" pattern established in parent category. cjllw ʘ TALK 05:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom Johnbod 17:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose CSS Hunley sunk a Union ship, and CSA counts as American. 132.205.44.5 00:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So? If we need a category for the confederate states, then we can create it. 24.113.208.4 01:19, 19 September 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. Kbdank71 15:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Modern Human Behavior (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Duplicates Category:Human behavior. Alksub 04:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the two as duplicative. Carlossuarez46 23:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Human behavior per nom. Johnbod 23:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with prejudice & do not merge - Yikes. Not only is this category not "duplicative" -- it's actually a piece of full-blown Original Research. Seriously. The person who created this page clearly had no idea what a category is -- he/she wrote an article advancing his/her personal POV on the subject of (anthropologically) "modern humans". And the sole article that he/she placed in the category has nothing to do with Category:Human behavior. All in all, one of the strangest "categories" I've come across. Cgingold 12:38, 19 September 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. Kbdank71 15:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Strange Diseases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Categories should not give commentary on the articles in them, e.g. by calling them "strange". delldot talk 04:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subjective criterion. --Alksub 04:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- subjective criterion. - Longhair\^talk 05:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; strange is subjective. -- Prove It ^(talk) 05:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete strange is subjective. Carlossuarez46 23:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Actual criterion seems to be "Rare diseases with unusual symptons that some might find comical", so no thanks. Johnbod 17:36, 15 September 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:Missle defense. Kbdank71 15:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Missile Defense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Nearly empty category which duplicates Category:Missile defence. Alksub 04:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both to new Category:Missile defense, per main article Missile defense (with an S). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per BrownHairedGirl -- the category should be in alignment with the main article, as noted. Cgingold 08:32, 17 September 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. Kbdank71 15:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Metaphysics(other) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category with subjective guideline for inclusion that is not clear from its title. As the articles in it are already in subcategories of Category:Metaphysics, delete. Alksub 04:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the guideline is non-subject, it is 'not recognized by publications in philosophical metaphysics', which can be and is measurable to a much higher objective degree than most categories. the articles do not belong in Category:Metaphysics and they are not represented by any subcategory. i suggest nominating it on the principle that the content and category are not notable, or something actually true about the category, such as it was created only to contain things that people thought did not belong in Category:Metaphysics because they are primarily pseudoreligions, or perhaps because the category was created to end an edit war in Category:Metaphysics, which is pretty clear when you look at it and its articles histories.--Buridan 13:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I consider that this category does nothing to properly categorize or understand the subject matter of any articles, but was merely created by an individual who thought that this was a solution to a disagreement on the categorization of certain articles into the "Metaphysics" category. It actually creates questions as to what is meant by "(other)". I believe that the decision should be delete. Arion 18:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redundant, ambiguous, semi-POV fork. Delete. -Sean Curtin 03:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ambiguous, poorly named, poorly conceived psuedo-category apparently created as part of an editorial dispute, which makes it a WP:POVFORK. This is absolutely unacceptable. Xtifr _tälk 07:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• not a povfork, it is a definitional constraint fork, x category was for things defined as possessing qualities x(1,2,3), materials that used the title x kept appearing without those properties, thus a category of x without such properties was required. --Buridan 13:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• move I think there should be an alternative field for philosophy not part of any prevailing view, or not accepted by mainstream academia. I'm thinking for Ayn Rand, mysticism, MOQ, and other subjects close to the fringe and whatever else comes along. I think we should make a place for this sort of thing (a distant place, but still under philosophy). Perhaps also integral thought. I don't know much about it, so I don't know where that goes?Greg Bard 07:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - To begin with, I'm not sure what Alksub means by "the articles in it are already in subcategories of Category:Metaphysics", unless some articles that were there have been removed -- the three articles currently in this category most assuredly aren't subcats of Category:Metaphysics. On the other hand, there's no question that they are all well-categorized (at least, in the sense of having been placed in plenty of categories). Be that as it may, I'm more concerned with the category itself, and why it was created in the first place.

After reading the comments from users Buridan and Arion/Aburesz, I spent a good chunk of time looking into the background on this category. I think Buridan made a good faith effort to resolve an ongoing dispute over the use of Category:Metaphysics. Arion/Aburesz has been asked by other editors to explain his/her rationale for insisting that certain Theosophy-related articles be placed in Category:Metaphysics, but from what I saw, has not provided the sought-for explanation, beyond insisting that the articles in question "are in fact directly concerned with philosophical metaphysics" and stating that the subjects of these articles are involved in discussion of issues that might (possibly) be considered "metaphysics".

The key point is that none of the articles that I've seen actually even touch on the subject of metaphysics, no matter how broadly construed. In other words, by any objective standard, it's simply not the case that these articles are "directly concerned with" the subject of metaphysics -- any connection is, at best, indirect. Therefore, it's misleading to readers who make use of Categories in hopes of finding what they're looking for, not so they can sort through a lot of unrelated chaff. I don't have a problem with including articles in Category:Metaphysics that fall outside the realm of academic philosophy -- provided they actually deal with that subject. The articles in question don't pass the test. I sincerely hope that Arion/Aburesz will take this to heart. Cgingold 08:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As I indicated, I am sympathetic to Buridan's reason/motivation for creating this category. However, it simply isn't a well-conceived category -- and that's all that really matters in the end. The problem it was intended to resolve should be addressed elsewhere. (I do hope my comments above have a salutary effect.) Cgingold 08:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The original contents have mostly been moved to Category:Ascended Master Teachings, which seems an appropriate place for them. I would also like to go on record as rejecting the WP:POVFORK claim. The term 'metaphysics' is used in two signbificantly different ways. Category:Metaphysics contains philosophy related metaphysics articles. However, the term is also used to refer to a hard to define category of things/ideas that cannot be studied through empirical means and that philosophers only discuss as examles of what philosophy should not be. However, these things/theories often fit neatly into one of the spiritual categories. Buridan understood the distinction between the two forms of metaphysics and started the new category to try to reconcile Arion/Aburesz's desire to have articles like Lady Master Nada in a metaphysics category - not a POV desire on her part because of the two alternative meanings of 'metaphysics', and the inappropriateness of including such pages in the existing Cat:Metaphysics. The category or one like it could plausibly be started again by someone in the future, but this seems irrelevant to the decision being made now. Anarchia 00:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Anarchia and others. "Other" categories are not liked. Johnbod 00:59, 18 September 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. Kbdank71 15:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:List of Dominicans to Category:People of the Dominican Republic

Nominator's rationale: Redundant. Alksub 04:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom as obvious duplicate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge duplicate and ambiguous - I thought it was a list of Dominicans. Johnbod 12:05, 16 September 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, already listified at List of Jedi Survivors of Order 66. Kbdank71 15:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jedi Survivors of Order 66 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination. This was tagged for speedy deletion with the explanation "unimportant category" which of course is not a very good reason for deletion and is certainly nowhere near the speedy deletion criteria for categories. I have absolutely no opinion whatsoever on the subject. Pascal.Tesson 02:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Burn with fire - that is to say, delete. Completely in-universe category to capture fictional characters who survived a fictional order? Just, no. There appears to be an article about the order, so if surviving the order is in some way important and can be discussed in an out-of-universe perspective, a list of survivors can go in that article. Otto4711 05:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep listification is silly for this because wikipedia is not a directory, find a real reason for deletion, obviously this is notable information and it is important to a large group of people. using a category to organize a group like this is ideal. --Buridan 13:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, using a list for a group like this is ideal, because a list can include context and out-of-universe information that establishes the notability and importance of this collection of characters. A category can't. Otto4711 15:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to list - I originally created this category after reading about some of the characters not feature in the films who also survived the purge, but I never really had the time or whatnot to expand on it. I have no objection Otto4711's suggestion of converting this to a list. Sweetfreek 15:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge to Category:Abortion-related violence. Kbdank71 15:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Abortion-related violence in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category contains just 1 article currently, and I suspect it won't hold many more if we attempt to populate it. Overcategorisation. - Longhair\^talk 01:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Upmerge to Category:Abortion-related violence. - the one article in this category is already appropriately included in the crime-related categories of Category:Australian murderers, Category:Australian prisoners and detainees, Category:Australian prisoners serving life sentences. Another category attached to the same single event is not required. In addition, the article itself states that the incident ""is the only case of a killing by an anti-abortion activist in Australia's history." This strongly suggests the category is unlikely to be heavily populated. Euryalus 02:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that there has only been one killing does not exclude other less extreme violent acts. I have no evidence either way, and it's moot point since we currently have only one article categorised here, but it's important to note than "the only case of a killing" does not necessarily mean "the only case of violence", which is what the category is for. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's true, but I think my point remains that the category is unlikely to ever be heavily populated given Australia's comparatively small population and the relative weakness of the cultural/religious factors that have relevance to abortion-related violence elsewhere. Certainly, serious assaults and similar could go into this category as well as the one and only verifiable murder but we still won't end up with enough to justify the category. However, noting your comments below I have also changed my view to supporting a merge. Euryalus 03:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Abortion-related violence. There may in future be case for national subcats of Abortion-related violence other than the existing Category:Abortion-related violence in the United States, but one article is not enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per BHG, not enough articles. Johnbod 17:38, 15 September 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.