< August 24	August 26 >

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: keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. This categorizes artists who have contributed to a certain recording magazine. The category even says "For many (but not all) of these artists an appearance in Fast Folk was the first time their music was recorded and distributed to the public.", which leaves the whole edifice a little shaky. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Trivial intersection" implies two unrelated traits like "brown-eyed badminton players"--which doesn't really fit here. I think you meant to say that you feel this is a "trivial characteristic." I disagree. -MrFizyx (talk) 04:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Fast Folk magazine/cooperative was at the center of a notable music scene in the 1980s and early 90s. Tracy Chapman, Lyle Lovett, Shawn Colvin, and Suzanne Vega all recorded for this magazine before they had their own albums and they went on to win Grammys. Numerous other less famous (but many still notable) artists were introduced. The ambiguous wording is due to the fact that a few artists from that earlier (1950s/60s) folk revival also participated in the new scene (e.g. Pete Seeger, Odetta). I also find the list to be helpful in a pragmatic sense. Without it I believe it will be more difficult to keep a short list of artists in the Fast Folk article from growing out of control. -MrFizyx (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a defining characteristic for these artists? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair question. Probably no more or less so than other categories in Category:Artists by record label. Many of them appeared on each others' records, shared gigs, honed their songwriting chops at a Songwriters' Exchange led by Jack Hardy. Some of them probably didn't participate in all of those things. It is easy, however, to say who did and did not record for Fast Folk. -MrFizyx (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced that this is defining for the artists. It is not a record company but a different venue for getting released. While being a different venue helps establish notability for the magazine, notability is not inherited. Also the list of people published is fixed. So the external list that is included in the article and the category serve the purpose of providing this information from an external source. What exactly is served by placing these individuals in this category? If kept, rename to Category:Fast Folk Musical Magazine artists which is the correct name for the magazine and is the name used in the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In an age where most music magazines come with a free CD and indy artists start record labels with ease and offer free downloads, I suppose it is hard to understand what was so unique about this magazine/record label from a quarter century ago. I created this category because these artist were part of an historic community of songwriters. The liner notes of the Smithsonian Folkways compilation, Fast Folk: A Community of Singers and Songwriters probably explain this better than I can (available here in pdf}. I also don't understand why the fact that the list is verifiable elsewhere should be a reason for exclusion from Wikipedia, generally this is a requirement for inclusion. -MrFizyx (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who is suggesting exclusion? The question is over the need for a category. There is no dispute that lists on this already exist. But what is not answered is why do we need a category. At this point there is no case being made for why this is defining for the artists involved. This almost sounds like WP:ILIKEIT or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS logic. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Surely deletion = exclusion from Wikipedia. And I don't feel that those generic essays are a fair characterization of my arguments. I do feel this grouping is notable and significant to its members, I've attempted to offer sources by others who feel the same. If you read the bios on personal websites of John Gorka, Suzanne Vega and many others you will see that they still cite Fast Folk as an important element in the formation of their careers. It is not clear to me what more you are looking for in terms of a "defining characteristic" or to what degree an individual is expected to be "defined" by a category. -MrFizyx (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider also this 1992 New York Times article which uses the phrase "Fast Folk allumni" to describe these people. -MrFizyx (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable and useful category. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 23:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I think I'm leaning toward "Keep", but I'd like MrFizyx to put this in a broader context to help me evaluate it. I've just created Category:Folk music magazines, starting with the first four magazines that I could think of -- I'm sure there must be others. Please compare Fast Folk with the others in terms of the sort of notability that you feel sets it apart as the basis for a category. Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a couple more entries to the category. I'm not sure what you're looking for in terms of a comparison. Fast Folk was unlike the others in that it was run as a cooperative and included an LP of new songs by both the well known and obscure participants. They should have a category in part, because they were an established community (see the above mentioned liner notes & NYT article). Most folk magazines have a fairly low circulation, Fast Folk had less distribution than most, but some of the subscribers were radio DJs looking for new music. Word got out and it was reported on in various sources, some of the musicians became famous. -MrFizyx (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And while you're at it, how about comparing it with other notable labels, like Folkways Records], Rounder Records, Verve Forecast Records, Putumayo World Music? Thanks again! Cgingold (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not sure what you want to know. When Fast Folk closed down all archives went into the Smithsonian Institution. All of the Fast Folk recordings are now available through Smithsonian Folkways. Fast Folk focused on contemporary singer-songwriters some of the artists went on to get deals with the "Philo" branch of Rounder, the High Street branch of Windham Hill, Shanachie and other places. In my opinion any number of labels might be worthy of a category in Category:Artists by record label if someone decided to create them. -MrFizyx (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also left a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Roots_music. Cgingold (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All in all this is a Keep, unless we're going to start dismantling Category:Artists by record label. What's not entirely clear, though, is whether it needs to be renamed. Seeing as we're talking about a "record label", I think perhaps it comes down to what name was used on the actual label -- was it "Fast Folk" or "Fast Folk Musical Magazine"? Cgingold (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The name is not a major issue to me. I thought the current name met the Wikipedia criteria for using the more general/common name for things. Even the New York Times liked using phrases like "the Fast Folk movement" to discuss the growing music scene. For most of its run the official name was "Fast Folk Musical Magazine". I wouldn't change it, but don't object if others insist on it. -MrFizyx (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per Mr Fizyx. Fresh Folk was an important hub for all things folk music and gave 90% of the artists in the category their start in the music business and thus, having a career effectively "launched" by Fresh Folk can be seen as a defining characteristic of the artist. ChaoticReality 00:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're pretty much right about everything except the name. Was there also a "Fresh Folk" at the time? -MrFizyx (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant "Fast Folk", of course. Fresh Folk is a podcast I listen to and somehow they got confused in my head. I blame tiredness and ColvinQuarmby. ChaoticReality 14:10, 30 August 2008 (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 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: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Vanguard Progressive Unionist Party politicians to Category:Vanguard Unionist Progressive Party politicians

Nominator's rationale: Rename per the main article which is at Vanguard Unionist Progressive Party (after a move in line with sources). Timrollpickering (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article was previously renamed after the previous name was shown to be inaccurate and not supported by sources. Valenciano (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportTraditional unionist (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2008 (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 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: rename. Kbdank71 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Comics-related websites to Category:Websites about comics

Per convention of Category:Media about comics. - jc37 21:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nominator. - jc37 21:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. Hiding T 09:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but what to do with webcomics? I assume they are the reason for the clunky name, but as this category is in "Media about comics" it doesn't fit here anyway. It seems to fit under Category:Comics by type so I' say just unlink the thing when it is renamed. (Emperor (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Webcomics should not be in there. At least not by my understanding of language. A webcomic is published on a website, just as a comic strip is published in a newspaper. Are comic strips a subcategory of newspapers? The clunky name was to avoid webcomics being there in the first place. That worked, didn't it. User:Hiding 10:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My fault. Errant colon and someone making the best but the worst of it in attempting to fix that errant colon. [1]. Hiding T 10:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah ha - the best laid plans and all. I think the new name should help make clear what was intended all along. (Emperor (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2008 (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 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: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Songs by Cole Porter to Category:Songs written by Cole Porter

Nominator's rationale: This should be renamed to match the other "Songs written by foo" categories. Without the "written", it sounds as if these were sung, not written, by Cole Porter. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - but there should also be Category:Cole Porter songs because he did record and release songs. Otto4711 (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity - and there are many more "Songs by foo" in Category:Songs by songwriter. Occuli (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Songs written by Cole Porter for songs he penned, and create Category:Cole Porter songs for songs he performed/recorded per Otto4711. -MrFizyx (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I am in part responsible for the fact that there are some "Songs by X" and other "Songs written by X" categories, and I agree that the naming should be consistent; I can only apologize for adding my share to the confusion. -- BRG (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2008 (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 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: delete. Kbdank71 14:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Dixieland mandolinists to Category:Mandolinists

Nominator's rationale: This is a subcat of the otherwise empty Category:Jazz mandolinists. Suggest that this whole thing be upmerged to Category:Mandolinists, not enough for a subcat. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Jazz mandolinists - Added per suggestion of TenPoundHammer.

This is empty except for the single sub-cat, Category:Dixieland mandolinists -- a clear-cut case of overcategorization. Both categories should be deleted as they were created for a single article. Upmerge the article itself to Category:Mandolinists (it already has a full complement of other categories.) Cgingold (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support merger for now, I guess. Allow, however, for the recreation of subcategories within Category:Mandolinists if others want to go to the effort to populate them (e.g. Snoozer Quinn under jazz; Yank Rachell under blues; Butch Baldassari under jazz, classical and bluegrass; Andy Statman under Klezmer...well not really). There is no reason that mandolin players cannot be sorted in the same way that guitar players and banjo players are sorted. -MrFizyx (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, any time there are enough articles to populate a given sub-cat, that's fine by me. Cgingold (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2008 (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 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: Withdrawn I made the category Outlet malls already, which now houses another subcat as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Outlet malls in the United States to Category:Outlet malls

Nominator's rationale: When I created this category ages ago, I honestly never thought of extending it to outlet malls outside the U.S. Granted, there probably aren't that many outlet malls outside the U.S., but still, it would be nice to rename this anyway, just in case. Also, if renamed, it would have to be moved out of Category:Shopping malls in the United States and into Category:Shopping malls. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's simple enough for anybody who wants to create Category:Outlet malls at any time there's reason to. (You could create it yourself right now if you want to.) So there's no real need to rename this, TPH. Cgingold (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The category is correctly named and categorized. If at some time this needs to be expanded, then the parent category Category:Outlet malls can simply be created. No reason to rename a perfectly good category. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2008 (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 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: merge Category:American generations to Category:Cultural generations. Kbdank71 15:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete: Redundant to Category:American generations. Katr67 (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's redundant and its subset of 5 entries are all (now) in American generations, which has 30 entries. It's possible that Cultural generations is a better name for the category though. —EncMstr (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renamerge. This category does duplicate Category:American generations, but "Cultural generations" is a better name for that category, which is not exclusively American.--Father Goose (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:American generations to Category:Cultural generations per Father Goose. The new category does indeed seem like a better name, since more places than just America use many of these designations. Many are common in Canada, the UK, NZ, Australia, even parts of continental Europe. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:American generations to Category:Cultural generations, consistent with global audience of Wikipedia and evidence that cat doesn't describe an exclusively (North) American phenom. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 23:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Category:American generations as is. Many of these 'generations' are exclusively American. There is no reason to diminish this category by merging it; there is no reason to lose the abiiity of this American category to have its American parents and lose its place in American history and American demography. Hmains (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Hmains, are you recommending a keep of both Category:American generations and Category:Cultural generations? -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 17:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reading the articles and lists, other than 'baby boomers' it seems like a real stretch to think these 'generations' apply anywhere else other than the United States. 'Cultural generations' with just one article on 'baby boomers' is a delete. Hmains (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree that they probably don't apply to, say, Papua New Guinea. But are they really exclusively American? Not even Canadian? -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 13:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I mentioned above, many apply in Canada, Australia, NZ, UK, and even other parts of Europe. Although informed strictly by my own WP:OR in making this statement, having lived in Canada I can say that most all definitely apply in Canada. They are used commonly in writing and television, etc. of Canadian origin, not just the American cross-over media. I live in NZ now, where there is even less American media cross-over, and they definitely use Generation X, Generation Y, Generation Z, Boomerang Generation, probably others. If you actually read the articles in question, many state in the lead that they refer to people of certain generations in "Western or First World cultures". They are not exclusively American. That said, it could be OK to keep the American one as a subcategory for the ones that are strictly American, if any can be identified. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:41, 28 August 2008 (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 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: delete. Kbdank71 15:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Weekly comics

The membership is based on the publishing frequency of comics. An example is Action comics, which for a short period in the 1980s was published weekly. At best, this could be a list (List of comics published weekly or something like that), which could note the circumstances of the publishing frequency. (Was it for the whole run? Part of the run? As a short-term novelty gimmick?) However, I don't know if we should start categorising (or even listing) based on publishing frequency. Consider "Monthly comics", "Bi-monthly comics", "Quarterly comics", "Annual comics", etc. - jc37 12:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Weak Listify as nominator. - jc37 12:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Delete, although the weekly comic has a huge tradition in the British market. Hiding T 14:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sure we've discussed this before somewhere - obviously there is no point in listing monthlies but there does seem to be a trend towards weekly comics in the American comics market, especially around the big events (52, Countdown to Final Crisis and Trinity) and it seems worthwhile making the distinction. (Emperor (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
In the American comics market, the "trend" is more of a periodic "sales gimmick". And in most cases these are merely limited series. - jc37 21:44, 27 August 2008 (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 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: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Comics by region to Category:Comics by continent

Per convention of Category:Categories by continent. - jc37 12:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - as nominator. - jc37 12:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Did I create this, and would it then be a speedy? Can't recall correct procedure. Hiding T 14:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's wrong with this cat as it is? Seems to fit Category:Categories by region at least as well. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 23:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In looking over Category:Books by region, the "by region" tree would seem to be cats about a region, rather than categorising "by location". - jc37 23:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a quirk of Category:Books by region. It doesn't apply to Category:Communication by region or Category:Politics by region, for instance. I don't understand why "continent" is preferable to "region" in this case. But I see that Category:Comics by region is a subcat of Category:Categories by continent, so I guess that's the problem. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 00:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move Category:Comics by region to subcat of Category:Categories by region. Oceania (as in subcat "Oceanian comics") is not a continent. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 00:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, shouldn't most everything in Category:Categories by continent be moved to Category:Categories by region? As it is now, there is an amount of ambiguity in how to use those two categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oceania is a geographic location, and in some places, it is indeed considered a continent.

But that aside, just try this simple test: Look at the contents of Category:Comics by region. Now look at the subcats of Category:Categories by continent. Now look at the subcats of Category:Categories by region. Which do you think that Category:Comics by region most resembles? - jc37 03:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well if we need to examine the contents to see where to place it, then the parents are ambiguous. Given the amount of overlap, do we need both to collect groupings of things? Remind me, what continent is Hawaii on? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Grin) You know, I had forgotten how much fun it was ~~arguing~~, ~~debating~~, discussing here with you : )

Anyway, I'm just trying to enclose within the (seemingly) most appropriate convention based on what we have now. I don't disagree that the "by region" tree is quite the gaggle of categories (Does it have a geographic or political region in the name? Then include it!) And "by continent" sounds odd, but seem to be at least "somewhat" better. (Incidentally, using the terms extant, Hawaii is apparently in Oceania geographically, and in North America politically : ) - jc37 08:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know when I created this category I mirrored something. I'll let you two work it out. Sorry. ;) Hiding T 09:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, not so fast.

Vegaswikian, it looks to me that we have the category creator here. Why don't we ask him what his intent was when he created the cat? : ) - jc37 09:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. It turns out that his user name is right there in the edit history -- who knew??? :) But seriously... this is one of the reasons I always make a point of notifying category creators when I take one of their cats to CFD. Cgingold (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He actually knew about this one in advance. : ) - jc37 11:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I couldn't work out how to name the continent Australia was in correctly, since when I was a kid I was taught it was called Australasia and so I went to our article [2] and saw it was a region. I went to Australia [3] and saw that was also a continent and so was Oceania [4]. This all confused me, since I was always told there were seven continents. I glanced around at our article on Continents [5], and they all referred to Template:Regions of the world, [6]. Ah well, I thought, that solves the issue of how I name the damned continents. I can skip it and call them all regions and then I'll be right regardless and avoid POV. This seemed to me to be a cunningly good plan because of the shared history of Franco-Belgian comics, which doesn't fit into a "by country" or "by nationality" structure, but does fit into a "by region" structure. However, given that Jc does tend to know more about categories than me, and given that they like to standardise and I don't, and given that our discussions always go on longer than really I have the time or the energy for, on this one I was prepared to let Jc have their head rather than force the issue. I've lost enough arguments now when I know I've been right not to let one more bother me. But I think that any decision regarding this has to take into account Franco-Belgian comics. Normally I mirror something, but I honestly can't see right now anything which matches "by region" in the structure. That may have been different in 2006. Hope that clarifies. Hiding T 10:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(rubs my head and wonders where it was going : )

And he isn't kidding, put two sincere editors in a room, each trying to understand the other one, while each is continually attempting to clarify his or her own stance, and you have something close to a perpetual motion machine : )

Humour aside, my main goal with this one is consistancy. And the grouping of sub-cats "looks" more consistant with "by continent". I'd be just as happy with "by region", if there was a consistant standard there, and this matched it. But it doesn't look that way, hence the nom.

But if you're saying we may need to re-think this tree from scratch, I can accept that, and would be happy to withdraw the nom in lieu of that (likely lengthy) discussion : ) - jc37 11:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to support that standardisation and avoid the lenghthy discussion, but I will likely avoid it anyway. My gut feeling is that this category should be placed where you would expect to find it chasing up and down the category structure. If that involves renaming it, so be it. My concern here would be to allow the reader to navigate through categories to their expectations. I placed it in Category:Arts genres by country or nationality because Category:Arts genres by continent wasn't then created. Now I would imagine I would place it there. I'd note I created Template:Comics region first, adding the cat to that before I created the cat. Hope that helps a little more. Hiding T 11:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to muddy the waters any further, but regardless of renaming, I suppose it could be placed in both cats...

But that aside, I'm wondering about the creation of the "by continent" tree. As you note, there were (and still are) several trees based on region/location. I dunno. It's obvious that "Categories by region" needs cleanup rather badly.

So anyway, after all of this, what's your preference?

(I know, I know... CfD nominators are supposed to be die-hard believers in their noms, and shouldn't be actually attempting to find out what others opinions might be. What could I possibly be thinking?...) - jc37 12:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a preference. But like I said above, I'm happy for this to go through and if people want to speedy it on that basis, they can do so. It seems to fit better as by continent than as by region. If that means we have to rejig the sub-cats, so what. This is just stuff I made up one day a long time ago, remember. ;) What do you want to do? What's the standard? What does WP:NCCAT tell us? Honestly, I don't mind. Hiding T 12:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe I'm naive, but I assumed that Category:Categories by continent was for things that could be grouped by continent or by neat subdivisions of continents, viz., countries (except countries that span continental boundaries) -- and that Category:Categories by region was for things that could not be grouped as neatly because it consisted of subdivisions like "Oceanian" together with "Franco-Belgian." That would explain why "by continent" looks more consistent than the purportedly non-standardized "by region." -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 17:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Oceania isn't a problem because you can simply rename that branch to whatever the consensus name of the continent is. "Franco-Belgian" doesn't overly cause issues either since it can be categorised in "European comics" which is part of a continental structure. Hiding T 20:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment summary? Well I think from the above, there seems to be a consensus to discuss how Category:Foo by region and Category:Foo by continent are used and that discussion really involves how the two structures should be used. The problem I see is that while in some cases you can drop stuff into cleanly into Category:Foo by continent it also excludes may likes that tend to be grouped together. If you use Category:Foo by region, then you eliminate the problem of dealing with most or all of the things that don't fit Category:Foo by continent but bring up the question of how do you define some regions, geographically or politically or, even worst, both? I don't know where I would wind up on the bigger discussion. I think it would be a good idea to close this early as no consensus, open a discussion on the talk page here and invite any associated wikiprojects to help out. Based on that discussion, if there is a consensus allow the parties involved to make their changes as speedy using the bots to allow for automated processing of the consensus changesVegaswikian (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said to Rob, I think this could be made to fit the by continent structure if so desired. But if it is felt a wider discussion is warranted feel free to do so. I have already stated I have no intention to participate. I do not care what decision is reached, only that one is reached. Best wishes, Hiding T 20:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename to "Comics by country" (following Category:Categories by country). "X by continent" is a separate structure and can co-exist and link into the Comics by country (as once you have the X by continent you'd move the continental categories out into it and just have the countries in that, as seen in Category:Books by country). It strikes me that "Comics by region" may actually be a parent to both categories. Note something can link into both as in: Category:British books it is a child of Category:Books by country but also a grandchild of Category:European literature, but why not "Category: European books"? I can't see a pattern there. We actually have a child of Categories by country: Category:Categories by nationality, which makes a fourth option as a possible precedent (this gets interesting as technically "British comics" may not be the same as "United Kingdom comics" - not how Category:British art is a child of Category:Arts in the United Kingdom and Category:Art by nationality - it leads you down the road of the natural of nations, nationhood, countries and some other stuff, which lead to complaints on Radio 4 that Team GB didn't really include people in Northern Ireland). So yes it all seems like a big mess resulting in numerous oddities like Category:Ethnic groups in Europe by country (so that it can also be brought back under continents and countries), so it looks like it all needs fixing. In the meantime I'd suggest we have two options: We keep "Comics by region" as a suitably general category; or we make "Comics by continent" and move the continent categories across to that and rename "Comics by region" to "Comics by country" and have all the countries in there. I'd suggest for now we keep it and kick this one out for a broader discussion and we see how it goes from there. (Emperor (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
If we wait for the various "big trees" to be fixed, we'll likely never see this renamed/categorised within any of the trees.

And yes, this on the surface, this may seem duplicate to the subcats of Category:Comics titles by country. But I think Hiding made it fairly clear that his concerns were about regions such as Franco-Belgian. So really, I think that that's the main thing which needs to be resolved. So I suggest that "by region" be renamed to "by continent" (since that seems to be the intent?), and we can always discuss the merging of "by continent" with "by country" in a future discussion. - jc37 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, like I've said above, I don't think there actually is an issue with renaming it to Continents and mirroring by country. Franco-Belgian just sits in European, and France and Belgium can sit in Franco-Belgian and by country. Would that solve anything? Hiding T 22:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it could. We would basically move the countries up into the "by country" category and create the "by continent" one for the difficult to define ones. However, there is clearly a larger problem that needs sorting out (and depending on how it goes it could mean another round of renaming) and as it stands the structure works and there are other "by region" categories so it isn't alone. The worst case scenario is if we create two categories for country/continent and the consensus comes back that all similar categories should come together under "by region" as it is a more general name that allows for breaking things down first by continent and then by country in one simple structure (as we currently have) - which would mean we would have to put everything back where it was. So I don't see any harm in waiting and seeing how things play out (I don't really have a preference, although "by region" makes sense to me, I'll be happy to go with the consensus). (Emperor (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. I came here with the intent to close, and finding no consensus, decided to add my 2 cents. I don't really see any need for having comics organized by continent or region. Isn't it enough to have them organized by country? The organizing principal is that categories are for notable characteristics and to help navigate. I doubt that the continent (or region) is relevant, or that it helps navigation. It may be useful to have them categorized by nationality, language, or some other attribute. Let's keep regions and continents for things that are relevant to regions and continents. If not relevant, categories organized this way should be deleted. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:21, 6 September 2008 (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 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: merge to Category:Comics publications for further categorization. Kbdank71 15:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comic book titles

This has the potential to be a sprawlingly huge category. Category:Comics titles by company already pre-exists, and makes for easier navigation.

(Note that I've already merged the 2 international cats that weren't already under Category:Comics to there.) - jc37 11:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hiding T 14:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; cat would be too large to be useful. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 23:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this was functioning fine, as it was with the titles by company and titles by region as its children - it was basically the catchall category for comic titles before they are recategorised to more specific categories (as sometimes it isn't necessarily clear with some stubs). I had assumed that this was going to be renamed to Comics publications but that now exists Category: Comics publications. I have been working through this category and reassigning the articles (I've got it down from a few hundred - so it was going to sprawl it was always going to shrink) and I am unsure what is going to happen with those articles. They really need assigning to comic titles by country but if this category is now deleted where are they going? Can we merge this to "Comics publications"? I'd rather these weren't scattered as they still need a more specific category. (Emperor (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
No opposition to a merge to the appropriate subcats of Category:Comics publications. I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that these were already so categorised. So please don't let this nom prevent you from this. - jc37 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Emperor to Category:Comics publications to facilitate better categorising and save these articles getting lost. Hiding T 22:04, 28 August 2008 (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 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: rename. Kbdank71 15:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Comic book magazines to Category:Magazines about comics

Clarify purpose, and per convention of Category:Media about comics. - jc37 11:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nominator. - jc37 11:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current name is ambiguous, so Rename per nom. Cgingold (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, current name is terribly ambiguous due to vagaries of the shared language. Do we also want to consider "Podcasts about comics" and "Websites about comics"? Hiding T 14:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated #Category:Comics-related websites above. Not sure about the podcasts one since all three category members are rather specifically about comic books. - jc37 21:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - just remember to whip out the few actual comic magazines as per discussion. (Emperor (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2008 (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 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: rename. Kbdank71 15:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Comic book awards to Category:Comics awards per List of comics awards. - jc37 11:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nominator. - jc37 11:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, there's a level of ambiguity here, especially as the medium evolves before our eyes. Hiding T 14:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per the above (Emperor (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Rename, consensus is at the project that if something is not clearly, specifically only for comic books, the general term comics should be used, as is here the case. Fram (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- "Comics" can also mean comedians. Accordingly, there is room for ambiguity. If anything it is the list that needs to be renamed to match the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That can be dealt with, with a hatnote. - jc37 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I can't see there being much confusion as a comic (as in comedian) would be comedy awards. Category:Comedy and humor awards. A proper explanation and hatnote should iron over any wrinkles (although I'd be surprised if many people arrive directly at the Comic awards category looking for comedy awards). (Emperor (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Not only that, what do you do with something like the awards given out at Angoulême? They're comics awards, not comic book awards. It was settled a long time ago that comics is the term used to refer to the art form, and comedian was the term used for comedians. Let's not unpick all of that work for no good reason. Hiding T 08:33, 28 August 2008 (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 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: rename to Category:Members of the Francs-tireurs et partisans. Kbdank71 15:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to either Category:Franc Tireurs et Partisans members or Category:Francs-tireurs partisans members - or ???. The current name is malformed in two respects: as a rule, the word "members" should follow the name of the organization; more importantly, the initialism needs to be expanded to the full name. However, it's not clear whether the name should be "Franc Tireurs et Partisans" or "Francs-tireurs partisans" (or some other variant). In our article on the French Resistance, the former name is used throughout; but in the article it links to, the term is rendered as "Francs-tireurs partisans". I'm also not entirely certain about mixing French & English terms in a category name, hence the question marks. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also left notes at both articles and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France. Cgingold (talk) 10:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it should be renamed according to Cgingold's suggestion, it should be Francs-tireurs et partisans or Members of the Francs-tireurs et partisans or Francs-tireurs et partisans members. Capitals are usually used only for first word in French party names, and "franc-tireurs" is one and only word, not two different words (see fr:Francs-tireurs et partisans). "Membres des FTP" or "Membres des Francs-tireurs et partisans" is not acceptable for English Wikipedia. Francs-tireurs partisans is another, unrelated except by name, group, from the 1990s, see fr:Francs-tireurs partisans Tazmaniacs (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Tazmaniacs was the creator of the category. - CG

Thanks for your reply, Taz. So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that that the word "et" ("and" in English) must be included as part of the proper name of the organization. I don't have occasion to deal with French language material all that often, so I wasn't aware of the capitalization rule you referenced. Apparently, neither of the articles got the name exactement. (You might also want to address these issues vis-à-vis the articles in question.) I take it that the name "Francs-tireurs et partisans" is nothing more than the combination of the two terms, "francs-tireurs" ("sharpshooters") and "partisans". (It just dawned on me that "franc-tireur" is the French equivalent of freischutz in German -- "free-shooter" in English.) Summing up, of the two viable names you've suggested, I'm inclined to think that the better option is Category:Members of the Francs-tireurs et partisans. Cgingold (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checking a couple of translation dictionaries, I find that there is no English version of the French name, that it is indeed Francs-tireurs et partisans (linking the historic term francs-tireurs for anti-Prussian irregulars of the 1870s with partisans), and that the et is often dropped in English sources due to misunderstanding. Support Rename to Category:Members of the Francs-tireurs et partisans. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 23:20, 25 August 2008 (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 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: delete. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Without a definition, the designation "luxury hotel" is utterly subjective and dependent on one's point of view. There is no article of the same name—Luxury hotel redirects to Hotel. (If kept for whatever reason, rename to Category:Luxury hotels.) Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)))[reply]

Delete per nom -- and I can't help wondering how many pricey hotels would contest their non-inclusion. Cgingold (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - highly subjective Chris DHDR 19:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subjective and ahistorical. Hotels change over time. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 20:23, 25 August 2008 (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 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: delete. Kbdank71 15:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unclear criteria for inclusion. It's pretty hard to delimit the interdisciplinary fields of biology from the non-interdisciplinary ones. Nowadays more or less all biology is interdisciplinary. Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was hoping to hear from the creator, but that hasn't happened. In any event, I agree with Eleassar's assessment -- for example why Category:Astrobiology but NOT Category:Evolutionary biology? There's also another problem: all of the subcats were pulled out of the uber-cat, Category:Biology, so unless a reader happens to look in Category:Biology interdisciplinary fields, s/he won't find them, since it's not absolutely obvious that that is where one should look for them. Cgingold (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2008 (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 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: keep. Kbdank71 15:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure that grouping the Middle East and North Africa is useful here. There does not seem to be much relevant content, anyway. --Eliyak T·C 08:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm undecided about the merits of this category, but I can see a valid rationale for it, since the geography clearly encompasses countries with populations that are primarily Arab and Muslim. To that end I've added two more parent cats, Category:North Africa and Category:Arabic culture. And I would also note that the category has a very substantial main article at the same name. But I would like to see more arguments pro and con before I make up my mind. Cgingold (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the editor who created the category, I would like to say that Cgingold's comment hit the nail on the head. While the Middle East and North Africa are separate geographically, there is sufficient similarity in population/culture that it is logical to group them, especially vis-a-vis elements of society such as education. Furthermore, I did take into consideration the existence of the Education in the Middle East and North Africa article, before creating the category. As to the dearth of content in the category, I hope to fix that. Right now, I am working -- albeit alone -- on the Middle East Textbooks WikiProject, which should create articles for that category. Also, I would like to point out that it may be the case that there are already a number of topical articles, which simply have not been placed in the category yet. ← Michael Safyan^(talk) 15:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Middle East and North Africa (from Mauritania to Sudan and Djibouti) are united by the Arabic language. But the article that defines this cat includes Iran and Turkey, which are linguistically and culturally distinct from the Arabic-speaking nations. So I'm puzzled. Islam is not the unifying criterion, as in that case the category would continue through southern Asia and across the Indian Ocean to Indonesia. So as defined by the article -- which is more like an essay than an encyclopedia article -- the category is neither linguistically, geographically, nor ideologically unified. It seems that the category serves a single, essay-like article that draws an arbitrary line on the map. What is the point? -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 23:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iran and Turkey are a part of the Middle East, hence their inclusion in the article. The association of the Middle East with North Africa is done quite frequently outside of Wikipedia. For example, a Google search for "Middle East and North Africa" gives an impressive number of results. Also, a Google Scholar search for "Middle East and North Africa" gives a similarly impressive number of results. Furthermore, if the association is good enough for the World Bank, for UNICEF, for the U.S. Department of State, and for Amnesty International, then it ought to be good enough for Wikipedia. ← Michael Safyan^(talk) 03:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, other people draw boundaries at the same place as this article and category, although they typically include Israel as well. I am unclear why this article/cat/WikiProject excludes Israel and the Occupied Territories, which also have school-age, Muslim, Arabic-speaking inhabitants. This seems like a well-intentioned effort, but is it encyclopedic? Wikipedia may not be the proper home for what is admittedly a one-person project, apparently a research project at that. (I realize I've gone beyond the bounds of a category discussion, but all of this seems relevant to evaluating the category.) -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 17:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken; the category doesn't exclude Israel nor does it exclude the Palestinian territories. Category:Education in the Middle East contains the child category Category:Education in the Middle East, which includes the child category Category:Education in Israel and also the child category Category:Education in the Palestinian territories. As for the comment about WP:WikiProject Middle East Textbooks... every WikiProject began with only one member. I am hoping to gain additional members. I am not sure I understand why you are linking to WP:OR, since the articles created by the WikiProject are well-sourced. Also, can you explain the relevance of the WikiProject vis-a-vis deciding to keep or delete the category? Are you voting keep or delete? ← Michael Safyan^(talk) 19:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks for pointing out the subcats; that takes care of one concern. Mschiffler made a number of useful suggestions on the talk page. I would only add that there are formatting problems (doubled line breaks between paragraphs) that seem to have been caused by pasting in the contents of a Microsoft Word document. But the article has a lot of potential. Looking more closely at the WikiProject, my first impression was mistaken: The project seems to be aiming to bring a body of existing research into Wikipedia, which is welcome. The main article is an original work and can be made more encyclopedic. (MSchiffler's suggestions, made in February, have not yet been acted upon. But that's not the responsibility of any one person.) The articles the project links to are a mixed bunch, and some could certainly use extra help. If the project goes nowhere, we can revisit this category later, but for now it appears to have potential. I know of no standardized way of referring to the Middle/Near East and the Maghreb in categories, so this will do. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 21:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the intent of this category is to include education in Arabic countries, why not rename to Category:Arabic education? It would be more precise, and would also include Somalia, which the article Arab World includes. I think that other organizations use the grouping "Middle East and North Africa]] in order to divide the world neatly into regions, without overlapping or leaving places out. But that reason does not apply here, and would only create category clutter. --Eliyak T·C 10:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One reason (I assume) is that not all education in mostly Arabic-speaking countries is done in the Arabic language. Some countries have linguistic minorities with their own schooling; some schools and universities teach in the former colonial language (French or English). Also I believe Michael Safyan indicated that Israel would be within the scope of this category, so add Hebrew to the mix. (Maybe this is a case for refining the scope of the article and category.)

Your point about how organizations use "Middle East and North Africa" is well made. Wikipedia has no such consistent internal boundaries for regions. We'd have to allow that not all editors would have the same definition of ME&NA in mind as Michael Safyan and whoever joins the Middle East Textbooks project. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 13:43, 28 August 2008 (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 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: listify. Kbdank71 15:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional double agents

Were you a "bad guy" and switched sides, but didn't tell your old friends? Then have we a category for you. How about you were a good guy, who "went bad", but didn't tell your old friends? Same category.

How about if you're a good guy who's "under cover"? Wouldn't the bad guys call you a "double agent" if they found out? Same with a bad guy under cover?

What if it doesn't involve "good guys" and "bad guys", except that it's merely Spy vs. Spy, swapping sides, "under cover" and keeping the "fun" to yourself?

This is a fairly common theme in fiction. (I'm trying to think of any James Bond story which didn't have this at one point or other.)

This just cries out for listifying, if only to explain the nature of the "doubling". - jc37 07:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify - as nominator. - jc37 07:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify, agree with Jc. Hiding T 09:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fundamentally defining characteristic. That double agents are common in fiction is not a reason to delete it. Otto4711 (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't just that they're "common". It's that (as I note above) there are different reasons for someone to be called a "double agent". (Not to mention the always fun triple or quadruple agent. I personally will never forget Peter Ustinov in Romanoff and Juliet : ) - This is just too vague as a category. Explanations in a list would better serve the topic. jc37 21:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing the fact that there are different scenarios for double agency as a reason for deleting the category. And I think that you're cutting things artificialy finely to justify the nomination. "What if you tell your friends?" "What if you don't?" Well so what if you do or don't tell whoever? You're still working for both sides, you're still a double agent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 26 August 2008
There there are "different scenarios" is a reason for listification. You keep commenting as if you're concerned the information will be "lost". It's merely being moved to a format more applicable to the topic. On a list the characters, the incidents, an so on can be referenced/cited/explained/etc. It allows for sortability if formatted to a table (which is common in lists). It allows for structure by presentation. It's adaptable, and allows for all those things that a category does not. - jc37 22:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant cat. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant to what? -MrFizyx (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying the nominator has a point. The category reeks of WP:OR. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:54, 27 August 2008 (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 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: listify. Kbdank71 15:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with eidetic memory

Photographic memory? Rather common for an author to "grant" this ability to the "smart person" archetype in their story. This might make a decent list (allowing for references, and explanations of presentations of the ability), but not a category. - jc37 07:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify as nominator. - jc37 07:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify, agree with Jc. Hiding T 09:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this has already been discussed in this CfD. I'll say now what I said then, eidetic memory is often an important and defining characteristic for many characters currently in the category. Far more defining in many cases than being able to turn intangible (Category:Fictional characters who can turn intangible) or being able to stretch (Category:Fictional characters who can stretch themselves). --Philip Stevens (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify with nom's conditions. On reading some of the categorized articles, I find no indication of how they fit in this category. I agree to listification on the condition that it is not merely a list of names. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 21:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per previous cfd. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per two previous CFDs, April and July 2007. If some articles contain no support for being categorised this way, by all means remove them from the cat. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]
- Expanding the above as requested below: Eidetic memory is a significant characteristic, and many fictional characters have eidetic memory as one of their defining characteristics. Inclusion criterion can be simple: Characters explicitly identified in their source material as having eidetic memory. To support the categorisation, this should normally be stated and sourced in the Wikipedia article on the character. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For all of you who said "per x previous CfD". Please clarify what arguement(s) in those previous CfDs you feel applies. CfD is a discussion, not a vote. And vague, blank statements do not help foster discussion, and in no way indicates that your doing any more than "voting" I like it or I want it. Without such contextual support, the closer may ignoreor discount your "vote", since, as noted, CfD is not a vote. - jc37 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I have no objection to this and have complied, but I would comment that the process is asymmetric. Although CFD is now named as discussion rather than deletion, the overall process still favours deletion. Once a category is deleted, then re-creation is a ground for speedy deletion, even if the original decision was marginal or the grounds were temporary i.e. based on bad membership at the time rather than clear principle, and ignoring any clear statement of criteria that might have been added to the re-created category page. Contrariwise, if it was kept, it can be re-nominated for deletion. In this case, the previous CFDs were dominated by Keep and Strong keep arguments, and there were links to them on the category talk page. Shouldn't the onus be on the nominator to explain why the arguments that previously persuaded the closing admins were mistaken or no longer apply? Without that, a repeat CFD nomination can come across as "I don't like it". - Fayenatic (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)(talk) 12:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. If you'll look at the top, I did provide reasons for the nomination. I didn't say "Per being adverse to the result of the previous CfD." Indeed, there are quite a few nominations of "Fictional characters with x feature or ability" which have been repeatedly deleted. But rather than just point to the hundreds of CFDs, I decided to see where Consensus is currently, as (as I would presume you know) Consensus can change. That aside, what I said above is true. Closers can and often do discount "votes". See also: WP:JUSTAVOTE (and other sections on that page) which may provide a fuller explanation. And finally, I would be happy to delve into analysing the previous CfDs. Most of the arguements (where they exist) were merely statements that this ability is "defining" for the character. Besides those blank statements, the main arguement seems to be made by User:Dr. Submillimeter. (And if you are a "vote" counter, 4:3 doesn't look like overwhelming consensus either...) The other discussion made it clear that there was an issue with WP:OR. (Something I alluded to in my nom.) The 3 "oppose" "votes" merely stated that the inclusion criteria should be narrowly defined. "characters who don't have eidetic memory as their defining attribute should be removed." Again focusing on "defining attribute". To be clear, someone or something may have some feature as a "defining attribute", but that doesn't mean that we should categorise by that. (WP:OC and the archives of WP:CFD haves quite a few examples of that.) Listification is often the better choice, as it allows for references/explanations/etc. And in looking over those previous CfDs, and looking at the current state of the category, I think that's as clear as ever. - jc37 19:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. [apart from the 4:3 :-)]. Changing my view to listify and delete. As you may be aware, a list already exists at List of people in fiction with claimed eidetic memory. I haven't checked its quality or inclusiveness. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2008 (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 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: relisted Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_9#Category:Fictional_thieves. Kbdank71 14:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional thieves

Well for one thing, this category would potentially include nearly every villain in comics, and much of fiction. A nearly all-inclusive cat is purpose-less for categorisation.

(This nom does not include its subcats.) - jc37 07:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not oppose listification, especially for the reasons Hiding suggests. - jc37 10:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Listify, I could see a list as part of a Crime in fiction article topic, or something similar. Certainly would support research and aid readers, which is what we are here for. It's just that the category structure isn't the place for doing this, since we can't see why these characters are similar and why they are different within the topic for which the category classifies. How are the Artful Dodger and Cockney Wanker the same? Hiding T 09:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and avoid listifying, as the criterion is too broad. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 21:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per jc37's points, this one is non-defining. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate proposal - I would suggest possibly keeping this as a container category, with all articles being assigned to sub-cats for specific types or genres of thieves. (I've got a handy-dandy template available with a clear note to readers for such categories.) We already have two sub-cats, and I'm pretty sure Category:Fictional cat burglars and Category:Fictional art thieves could be readily populated with existing articles. Category:Pickpockets is another possibility (the Artful Dodger and Fagin, for starters). Cgingold (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question on that: Would that mean the category page should be properly posted as "Article should not be added to this category, but to its subcategories. This category will be routinely removed from articles."? Also, will subcats that have small, as few as 1 or 2, members be shielded to a degree by being part of this umbrella?- J Greb (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is basically what I was suggesting that we might want to do, J Greb -- here's the template I mentioned:

No articles about individuals should appear directly in this category, which is solely a container category for sub-categories. All articles should be placed in the appropriate sub-categories.

As for the sub-cats, I'm no fan of overly small categories. In any event, I'm not really suggesting that every variety of thief should have their own sub-cat -- merely that there are certain specific types that do lend themselves to being used as categories. Cgingold (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the subcats have similar problems of subjectivity. (For example, Cat burglar redirects to Burglary.) And categorising by what is stolen sounds like a bad idea (Art, money, vehicles, etc.) Also, quite often a single character will qualify for some if not most of these subcats, so the subcats would likely be bloated, near-duplicates of the parent. Again, this all sounds like something that could be cleared up in a list. - jc37 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned Cat burglars precisely because there are characters who are specifically described as being "Cat burglars" -- so that's not a subjective call. A quick-and-dirty search turned up seven sure-things (with existing articles) -- the most famous being Big Pussy Bonpensiero, Black Cat (comics) and Catwoman -- as well as four others who are mentioned in articles and could have redirects under their names. I fully intend to create and populate that category in the next day or two, which will give us three sub-cats -- enough to justify keeping Category:Fictional thieves as a container category. I haven't had the time to look more closely into other possible sub-cats, but I think there are probably at least one or two other specific varieties of thief that would also work as categories. Cgingold (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's no reason not to use this as a grouping level. use ((diffuse)) 70.55.85.122 (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is, per the discussion above. (Whether, in your judgement, you may agree or not, is a whole other matter.) - jc37 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Please relist for further consideration, as the early "Delete" votes were posted prior to my Alternate proposal. Cgingold (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedian professional thieves or delete - As I see it, the problem with this category lies in the definition of "thief": a single act of theft qualifies someone as a thief, which is why this category currently includes characters who shoplifted once or twice (e.g. Dawn Summers). What this category should include is fictional characters who are professional thieves (e.g. Amanda (Highlander)). So, I would favour renaming the category to Category:Fictional professional thieves and removing any articles that do not belong.
I oppose splitting the category by types of thieves or by the object being stolen, for two reasons: (1) this will result in a lot of narrowly-scoped categories, (2) there will be a lot of overlap between categories, since criminals (in fiction and in reality) tend not to limit themselves to one particular style.
I also oppose listifying per Rob. C ("the criterion is too broad"). Although an article about Crime in fiction would be most desirable, it should not consist merely of a list of fictional characters. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:23, 2 September 2008 (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 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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional bullies

I think this one is self-explanatory. - jc37 07:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safe to say that someone can go ahead and speedy this one. User:Dodgechris created the category page, placed a note on the talk page asking for its deletion, and, for good measure, is blocked as a sockpuppeteer. - jc37 10:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I could see a list as part of a Bullying in fiction article, or something similar. Just... not with these category members on the list. Hiding T 09:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a recreation of previously deleted material. Otto4711 (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - recreation of deleted category. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This one really is too subjective. Even though there are some characters that everybody would agree are bullies, there are far too many cases that fall into the gray area, since there's no sharply defined boundary. Cgingold (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2008 (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 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: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional orphans

This category inclusion criteria is essentially based upon whether the parents died before their children.

Literary present tense is one problem. Another is that this is an incredibly common theme in fiction. Everything from Oliver Twist, to the Pirates of Penzance to Superman and Batman. - jc37 07:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not oppose listification, especially for the reasons Hiding suggests. - jc37 10:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion criteria should not be as described by the nominator, but only for those whose parents died during the character's childhood. See Orphan. Any current members whose parents died during the character's adult life can be removed now. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's not what is said in the article. It essentially states what I said, but then noting that "common usage" (i.e. semnatic connotation) suggests that this applies to "children".

This creates several problems for categorisation. The first is that what a "child" is, is debateable throughout the world. (Noting, of course, that modern definitions aren't necessarily applicable to fiction, which can be of any historical era, and also not required to conform to the "common usage" of terms and rules in that era or any other.) Consider also the Orphan#Orphans in literature section (the first line in particular). This is a plot device which is very common and which varies in presentation. And I'm still thinking of the pirate king from Penzance. He was orphaned as a child, but was only presented in that presentation as an adult. Would he be categorised? If so, why. If not, why not? Oh wait, that would be a judgement call. And if a judgement call needs to be made, then this requires references. And if we need references, then this should be a list not a category. - jc37 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. There should be an article on Orphans in fiction, that has to have been discussed in academia and must be a topic of note. A list will support such an article. A category would not. Hiding T 09:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is such an artcile, but it is still part of the main article (which could possibly be used as a splitting point for such a new article): Orphan#Orphans in literature. I believe that section reinforces this nom. - jc37 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - methinks this one is legitimate. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too large and lumping to be useful. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 00:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Fictional characters orphaned in childhood, since it is defining for many characters, like Swiss Miss Heidi, Little Orphan Annie, Anne of Green Gables, Oliver Twist. Being orphaned is used a the core event to drive characters in revenge stories. 70.55.85.122 (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this category deserves to be deleted. Fangusu (talk) 08:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Category:Fictional characters orphaned in childhood. Being orphaned as a child is certainly important enough to warrant a category. Cgingold (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename and pre-approve a split. If this is renamed as Category:Fictional characters orphaned in childhood I propose to create a new sub-cat Category:Fictional orphaned children or Category:Fictional child orphans for those characters whose are notable as children (as a sub-cat of Category:Fictional children). Please comment on this sub-proposal. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a common enough theme, but how does that make it non-useful? Make more specific as necessary, such as Cgingold's proposed re-naming. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 04:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional blondes - "It's a common enough theme, but how does that make it non-useful?". Should be self-explanatory. - jc37 04:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, please eludicate. Are Category:Fictional Americans and its parallel categories non-useful, on the grounds that this characteristic is too common? - Fayenatic (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a guess, but I would presume that there are quite a few more blondes world-wide than Americans. And I'd even venture to guess that there are more orphans world-wide than Americans. But those are just guesses. (And Elle Woods is clearly defined by her hair colour, right?)

But that aside, in looking over Category:Fictional Americans, I'd likely nominate that whole tree for listfying. For one thing, presuming that a character is "American", even if it is never specifically stated anywhere, just because the character may be shown as active somewhere in the United States? Well, that's quite clearly WP:OR: "...should make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." But this is a touch off-topic, I suppose. - jc37 19:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to the definition on this site and elsewhere, orphans are children who lost both parents through death or abandonment during childhood. At what age a person is considered a child varies with the social environment, but since our fictional children live in one such culture it's feasible to use that society's criteria for being a child versus an adult. Also, once an orphan, always an orphan. However, if the parents were lost when the character was an adult, the character would not be considered an orphan. So on one hand side, even if the story starts in a character's adult life, the character would be listed in this category. But renaming the category to something like "Fictional characters orphaned in childhood" sounds like a tautology. After all, it's always childhood in which the character gets orphaned, even if we get to know him only during his adult life. In summary I am for keeping this category, even if it's getting pretty big because of the common use of the concept in fiction. autrata 11:50, August 30, 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:17, 30 August 2008 (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 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: delete. Consensus can in fact change. Kbdank71 14:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional lottery winners

This would be similar to "Fictional horse race winners" or even "Fictional characters struck by lightning". We shouldn't catagorise by an event in a fictional character's life. Such events are often intended to further the plot, whether to provide conflict, tension, or whatever.

Not opposed to listifying. - jc37 07:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Listify as nominator. - jc37 07:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per overwhelming prior consensus. 2005 (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, noting that consensus can change. Hiding T 09:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - to repeat myself from the previous CFD: "a review of the articles in the category indicate that it actually is a defining characteristic for them. Every flashback involving Lost's Hurley, for example, has been about how his lottery win has affected his life in one way or another and his lottery win (using the numbers) is what landed him on the Island." Otto4711 (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, two words: Big Ron. The character's lottery winnings define nothing about him. It was simply a nice way to write a character out. Would At Home with the Braithwaites qualify? And how much do you have to win on the lottery to be categorised so? Why were the Roseanne characters removed. That seems to be based on a subjective point of view regarding the meta-textual ending of the show. I'd recommend listifying, so we can know and explain to readers why these things are like each other and why they are not. Hiding T 14:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why a character no longer appears on a show has no definitional value? I beg to differ. And even if one fictional lottery winner is less defined than others, being a lottery winner is still a defining characteristic. Hurly is defined by his lottery win. Zonker Harris' lottery win drove months of stories.
At Home with the Braithwaites would not qualify for the category because it is not a fictional character. If we had Category:Television programs about lottery winners (which I do not advocate) it would go there. Roseanne (TV series) was removed for two reasons: one, it is a television show and not a fictional character; and two, since the last season was revealed to be a story written by Roseanne Connor, the show contains no lottery winners with articles. Now if god forbid someone should write Roseanne Connor (metafictional character) then that article would go in this category. There's nothing subjective about it. TV shows are not fictional characters. Otto4711 (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why Big Ron no longer appears in EastEnders is because the actor who played him died. Plain and simple. Going beyond that, I don't know where you are from so I can't speak to your knowledge of EastEnders, but Big Ron was a character of lesser importance to the show than, say, Gunther in Friends or Miles O'Brien in early Next Generation. He's a recurring extra. He did not have a defining characteristic, so I struggle to see how he had a defining exit. As to Hurley, I haven't watched Lost past series two, but given your beliefs regarding Roseanne, I am puzzled that you can state with certainty that Hurley won the lottery. I've read Doonesbury for a few years and had no idea Zonker had at one point won the lottery, so I would hardly call that defining either.
Regarding Roseanne, I'd be gratified if you could explain your thought processes in determining the meta-fictional character. Why have you decided that the character who claimed to have made the lottery winning show up is the "real" fictional character, and why is this not a subjective decision?
It appears to me that what constitutes a defining characteristic is in fact a subjective determination. Why then should it be granted any merit in a deletion debate? Hiding T 09:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come now. How many counter-examples of actors dying or otherwise leaving soap operas or other TV shows and having their characters played by other actors shall I offer here? Referring back to Roseanne, the boy who played DJ in the pilot was replaced by Michael Fishman, Lecy Gorenson was replaced as Becky by Sarah Chalk and at least three different actresses played Dan Connor's mother. The producers of EastEnders could just as easily have recast the part as write out the character.
A fictional character created by another fictional character is a Metafictional character. Therefore, The Rosanne Connor who created the Connor family within the lottery storyline is the, to use your terminology, "real" fictional character and the Connor family who won the lottery is metafictional.
What is or isn't a defining characteristic is somewhat subjective, because we are not robots. We operate on a consensus model, so if consensus is that a particular characteristic is defining we keep the category. If not, we delete. If we gave no weight to editors' opinions then there would be no point to the various XfD processes. Otto4711 (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recasting roles did not have a great tradition in the UK at that time, and there was no role to recast. As I have already explained, Big Ron was an extra, not a role. You seem to be failing to address this point.
You still haven't answered how it is you have determined that the episode in question depicts the "real" fictional character of Roseanne. Since both characters are fiction, and given the tendency in televisual fiction for final episodes to distance themselves from the preceding oeuvre, why have you taken the decision to afford that episode more weight than the rest of the series? That's simply your subjective interpretation, and not the only reading of a work operating on more than one level. Does Patrick Bateman kill anyone? Who is Keyser Soze? Was St Elsewhere a real hospital? Did Hurley win the lottery? Is Tony Soprano alive?
Okay, that's fair enough. I took your assertion that "being a lottery winner is still a defining characteristic" at face value as a statement of fact rather than opinion. My apologies. For the reasons outlined above and also by Vegaswikian I respectfully disagree. Winning a lottery is a plot point. I have no objections to lists, where entries on Roseanne and Hurley and Earl Hickey and even poor old Big Ron, named after the bloke who played him, can be considered and the criteria explained. But this cannot be acheived in the category structure. We cannot tell readers why these people are the same and why other people that appear the same are not included. Therefore this should not be a category. Where membership needs to be annotated, a list is the most suitable mechanism. Hiding T 15:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the UK did or didn't have a tradition of recasting roles is irrelevant. The fact remains, the producers had the option of recasting the role following the actor's death and chose instead to write the character out. The fact that they felt that the character was important enough to write out indicates he was more than an extra. Indeed, his article confirms that he was involved in a number of storylines.
I am mystified at the continued question of identifying characters from Roseanne as metafictional. The character Roseanne Conner of seasons 1-8 is a fictional character created by Roseanne Barr. "Roseanne Conner" of season 9 is a metafictional character created by the Roseanne Conner of seasons 1-8. Roseanne Conner didn't win the lottery. "Roseanne Conner" did. Therefore, if there were individual articles on the characters of Roseanne, the only one that would belong in it would be one written about "Roseanne Conner" of season 9.
Generally, when a fictional character wins a lottery, the writers don't make it a piddly amount. While I'm sure there are some, I can't think of any instances where someone was depicted winning $1 on a scratch-off or whatever. The wins tend to be substantial (something like $180 million for Hurley, IIRC something like $14 million for Zonker Harris, $108 million for Roseanne-season 9) and drive months or years of storylines. Otto4711 (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to take my word for it, are you. The article on Big Ron overstates the case. Big Ron had a heart attack in one episode. Other times he would be buying a pint or a tea in the cafe. That's his storylines. Let's have a look. "Market trader Big Ron, played by Ron Tarr, became hugely popular with fans despite remaining practically silent for his 12 years on the show."^[1] "TV's best-known extras are on EastEnders: Big Ron"^[2] "Background character Big Ron also died"^[3]. This is a good one: "Pop music has always had its role in soaps. Usually this has been akin to the role played by the late lamented Big Ron in EastEnders: plotless and in the background." (my emphasis)^[4]. Direct quote from Adam Woodyatt: "Big Ron, an extra at work, died shortly after my father." Note this is an actor who works in the show^[5]. "Big Ron - in the background since day one" ^[6] Now you suggest they could have recast the role; this is a character they didn't even invite to parties: " Eastenders bosses banned loyal extras from a 12th anniversary knees-up at the Queen Vic. Fifty actors on the show since it started - like Ron Tarr (Big Ron) and Ulric Browne (Queen Vic regular Winston) - were not on the guest list."^[7] Now, more than an extra? Personally, the article should be merged to List of minor EastEnders characters (1985). Hiding T 21:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Roseanne Barr and others write a television show which is a work of fiction. In one fictional episode they suggest some of the preceeding fictional episodes did not happen within the context of the show. The audience then has the choice as to whether this episode is the "real one" or the preceding ones were. You have elected to make the choice that the final episode is more real than the preceding ones. I am asking if that choice is the basis for categorising. There is no definitive take on which reading is correct.
Fictional characters do win piddly amounts. See here, where one character finds a winning lottery ticket dropped by another worth £5000. That's what, $9000 and change? Blimey, Ricky won a tenner the first week of the UK lottery. But I think we have run this to ground. We simply disagree. Hiding T 21:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) If Big Ron's article gets merged then he's out of the category anyway, but until it is then he should be categorized as a lottery winner because, other than an EastEnders character, what else defines him? Fictional heart attack sufferer? Fictional fat guy? Don't have categories for those.
Roseanne Conner Mark I specifically states that her family did not win the lottery. She specifically states that she had Roseanne Conner Mark II win it. Regardless of what other events within the series are put into question, that is explicitly stated. Therefore there is no question that the category doesn't apply.
One character found a lottery ticket that another character dropped. From the looks of that spoiler page, that drove the plot for a while. Does it rise to the level of defining characteristic for that particular character? Perhaps not, haven't seen the show. But just because the association for one character is not defining doesn't mean that the association isn't defining for others. Homer Simpson has had umpteen different jobs over the course of the show, but he's not categorized under each of them. Does that mean that based on the Simpsons example that all such categories are invalid on their faces? Of course not, and neither is this one. Otto4711 (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to starting from a position that i do not recognise; that an article has to be in as specific a category as possible, even if that means creating one for the purpose. Otherwise I fail to see why Category:EastEnders characters is not the most relevant and suitable category. That is the defining aspect of the character. He appeared in East Enders.
Again, you start from a position I do not recognise. Who are Roseanne Conner Mark I and Roseanne Conner Mark II? In my starting position they are both fictional constructs of a group of writers. Where's your starting position?
And again, your starting position is different from mine. You seem to be indicating that any relationship which can be defining for one character dictates that a category is the best method of presenting that information to readers. In my starting position I have no such prejudice. I would prefer to present the information in an encyclopedic rather than navigational manner. However, as I stated above, we're going round in circles. Either you're ignoring my points to gently mock me, or because you don't have any answers, or because you do not understand them, or because I am not explaining myself well enough. I now do not think it is the latter, I would expect a smiley if it was the former, and can do nothing about the middle two except walk away. I believe I have indicated I understand your viewpoint, that I can see the chains of your thinking, but that I feel they do not best suit the situation as it stands. I hope you can acknowledge at least the direction I am taking, and why. You are aware that Roseanne was a television show and one fictional construct weighs the same as another? I appreciate your efforts here, but I think it best if I am quite open. You are not going to convince me that category space is the correct way to present encyclopedic information; that is what we have article space for. Best wishes, and my apologies if you feel I have been overly harsh. I hope you can agree life is to short to carry this on ad nauseum. Hiding T 10:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring anything you're saying; I'm disagreeing with it. Yes, I understand that Roseanne Conner is a fictional construct created by a team of writers (in other words, Roseanne Conner Mark I). However, within the fictional construct of the show Roseanne Conner created a fictional construct of her own, also called Roseanne Conner (Roseanne Conner Mark II). A fictional character created by a fictional character is a metafictional character. The only reason I'm even discussing Roseanne Mark I or II is to explain one reason why the article for the series shouldn't be included in the category, with the other reason being that it's a show and not a character. Otto4711 (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this then is the root of it. You're taking an in-universe approach, and I'm taking an out of universe approach and making no judgement as to which fictional Roseanne is of more worth than the other. The writers created Roseanne and in the last episode the writers used that character to pretend that the previous episodes hadn't actually happened, which is a nice trick to play but we're all adults and we all know they didn't happen anyway. Still, if the show doesn't get categorised there, maybe it's all for nothing. Unless we make redirects and categorise those accordingly. Hiding T 14:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete or at best listify. I don't know where to begin. The category is obviously ambiguous and OCAT. Winning a $1 is winning the lottery. So being listed is subjective and probably POV. If you try to limit it to a certain amount, then it is arbitrary inclusion criteria. If it is restricted to the the top prize, then the category should be renamed if kept. As was pointed out above, situations created for a plot line are not always defining for the person, just for the plot line. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I'm pressed for time, so could somebody help me out with the answer to a question that I may simply have missed seeing: Would I be right to assume that most or all of these cases involved winning a grand prize/top-level prize in whatever lottery? And if that is the case, would not a simple rename take care of one major objection? Cgingold (talk) 12:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then that would probably cause this to have an issue with WP:OC#Arbitrary. (And being able to list monetary amounts is another good reason to listify.) - jc37 19:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth is "arbitrary" about winning the grand prize in a lottery, jc? That's about the same as saying that there's no fundamental difference between a home run and a base hit in baseball. Cgingold (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the analogy. To "win" a lottery, mean you "win" a game, not just hit a single or a home run. A more comparable analogy might be one team wins by 37 points, and another team wins their game by 51 points. The "top prizes" are varied in value. I've personally won the top prize of a local lottery and won what would be considered a small amount (double digits). Yet that was the "top prize". Why should that remain grouped when someone who won millions, but was second prize, doesn't get grouped? It's an arbitrary, subjective dividing line for inclusion. And now, we have another reason to listify. It allows for the potential of a sortable list, which could be sorted by monetary amount. - jc37 05:37, 29 August 2008 (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 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: delete. Kbdank71 14:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Internet personalities

The intro states that this is only intended "for characters who are Internet personalities in the fictional environment they inhabit, rather than simply characters originating in Internet-based fiction."

However, this cat includes fictional characters ranging from those who interact online, and therefore have an "internet personality", as well as for fictional/fake users/usernames which apparently became "famous" online, such as Mark V Shaney or BIFF.

This is simply vague and confusing.

At the very least the fictional characters should be culled from the cat. - jc37 07:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (first choice) Split and Rename to "something" (second choice) - as nominator. - jc37 07:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, given the confusion over what is being categorised here. I'm not sure there is a need for this level of categorisation. Hiding T 09:34, 25 August 2008 (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 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: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge Category:Fictional dictators to Category:Fictional Heads of State

This is a subcat of Category:Fictional characters by nature. It isn't someone's "nature" to be a dictator. In addition, this is Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Subjective inclusion criterion. - jc37 06:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge - as nominator. - jc37 06:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two minds on this one. On balance I agree with the nominator, upmerge. Whilst it is easier to determine who is dictatorial in fiction, simply a primary source quote from the work itself would suffice, that would render the category useless; near every work includes someone calling someone dictatorial in some fashion. Do we have a Category:Fictional Heads of totalitarian states? Correct the capitalisation in that cat if necessary. Hiding T 09:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this category. In contrast with the real-life individuals, there is no serious concern over POV issues here. Surely this deals with a useful & important distinction that would be lost by merging into Category:Fictional Heads of State. Cgingold (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that (among other things) it's a subjective distinction. - jc37 11:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think this particular characteristic is all that subjective, jc. I think it's generally rather apparent to readers when the leader of an entity is ruling as a dictator. It's precisely because these are Fictional dictators that we can use our best judgement as editors when assigning characters to this category, rather than applying the extremely strict ~~NPOV~~ WP:BLP standard that would be required (and is in essence not possible) for real-life individuals. Cgingold (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, we actually cannot do that. It doesn't matter if it seems "apparent to readers", as that would be original research. As noted at WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". And before we ever start deciding about whether something is overcategorisation (as I am proposing in this nom that this is), we have to ascertain whether it's verifiable, regardless if we're talking about fictional characters or real people. And I'm sorry, but in all such cases we do have to apply the "strict NPOV standard". This isn't just a Wikipedia policy, but actually the #1 Foundation issue. - jc37 05:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, I slipped up and referenced NPOV when (as you can see from the context) I really meant to say "the extremely strict WP:BLP standard". Sorry -- my bad. The point I'm trying to get across is that there at times a slight amount of judgement involved in deciding on what goes into which categories -- especially when it comes to fiction. Of course we want to minimize that to the extent possible, but I think the standard you're trying to impose is so inflexible that it would amount to a straighjacket -- and if applied across the board, would probably result in the elimination of tens of thousands of very useful categories. Cgingold (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tens of thousands? I think I'd have to dispute that as an exaggeration, if merely just on principle : ) - jc37 10:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... well, if you're thinking just "thousands", jc, how about we split the difference and say, "many thousands"? :) Cgingold (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dictatorship is not subjective, a long-standing debate already adressed to here. Freedom of press, of association, of elections, etc., are very objective facts, despite eventual torsions and open or disguised tamperings. Tazmaniacs (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm asking because I'm not sure, based upon your comments.) - Did you notice that this was concerning Fictional dictators?

If so, all (or even any) of those things may not necessarily be noted by the author. This would seem to be something which would require explanation, and may not necessarily be "self-evident" based upon the article (a requirement of categorisation). Thus: Listifying. The content is preserved, and citations/sources/references/explanations can be provided. - jc37 22:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Useful category. Has socio-political relevence and helps reduce the clutter of an equally useful but potentially bloated category like Fictional States of State. I agree that it shouldn't be in Fictional characters by nature however and I have for the time being removed the offending cat. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. Sorry, neither Jake Featherston nor Yertle the Turtle are clear-cut examples of a dictator. The cat is too subjective. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 00:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have read both articles and yes they are. With regards to subjectiveness, categories will always cause debate. That's one of the interesting things about Wikipedia, the debates. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In relation to User:Tazmaniacs's comments? I'm not certain how you can come to that conclusion. But that's ok, I'd instead welcome some references supporting your theory. - jc37 10:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tazmaniacs brings up some useful criteria for defining a dictatorship early in the discussion cited above (this one). But I believe he and J.O. Maximus go too far in creating a dichotomy of "democracies" and "dictatorships," in which every government must be one or the other. That seems to be the standard that makes Yertle the Turtle a dictator. While it is possible to define a dictator precisely, I think this discussion shows how subjectively the category will continue to be used in practice. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 22:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yertle the Turtle is in the category because his "regime" if you will over the other turtles is an allegory of autocratic dictatorship (totalitarianism). --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or it is an allegory of hubris. It ends in the overweening turtle's humiliation, not his replacement with a new head of state (as one usually sees upon the fall of a dictator). It's a children's story with an implied moral. That moral is more likely to be "don't climb all over your peers" than "don't become an autocratic political leader." Adults may read it as a political allegory, but not necessarily an allegory of dictatorship. (His assumed title is "King Yertle," for one thing.) This is just an especially clear case of the kind of subjective interpretation that the category is rife with. (Start collecting dictators, and before long you begin to see them everywhere.) -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 20:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seuss specified that Yertle was an allegory of Adolf Hitler, the quintessencial dicator. Furthermore since when does being a King disqualify you from being a dictator? Personally I think that enhances your standing as a dictator. Look at William the Conquerer and all the Roman Emperors like Julius Caesar and Caligula. All were kings and all were dictators. Thus, as far as I can see all the characters in the category belong in it. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So every King or Emperor is a dictator?

But that aside, using "real" people from history as example is simply not comparable to character from fiction.

And by the way, to make such an assessement: Yertle the turtle is an allegory on Hitler; Hitler was a dictator; therefore Yertle the turtle is a dictator; is not only a logical fallacy, but it's also Original research. - jc37 00:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't say every King or Emperor was a dictator, I just said that a lot of Kings and Emperors have been dictators. Actually real people from history are frequently comparable to characters from fiction, just look at Josef Stalin and Napoleon from Animal Farm. Furthermore, Yertle exhibited absolute autocratic control over the other turtles (there are nine words I never thought I'd use in succession), it was only after someone rebelled (aka burped) that he didn't get his way and was overthrown. Surely if the pond had a turtle parliament or democracy of some description, he would have been prevented from bullying the other turtles as he did. Yertle is quite clearly an allegory of dictatorship in general, the same as Napoleon or Adam Susan. Furthermore can anybody see any characters except Yertle whose status as a dictator is questionable? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said "comparable" not "allegorical". In other words, when attempting to discern if categorisation is the best method for grouping a fictional topic, fiction is not comparable to "real life", as "real" events are not comparable to fictional events. The latter being merely at the whim of the author. (And no, I don't wish a philosophical debate about whether God or some other omnipotent being is the "author" of all events in existence. That's totally beside the point.)

And you haven't addressed the fact that your assessments are WP:OR. Which is a big part of the problem with this category. "Presumed" inclusion. This discussion alone proves that references are needed on a case-by-case basis to indicate that such-n-such character is a dictator. And so this shouldn't be a category. - jc37 00:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in some cases fictional events are comparable to real events, whether at the whim of the author or not but we're veering off topic here. The point is that all the characters in the category assume sole autocratic power over the state and therefore belong in the category. It isn't subjective to define whether or not a character assumes sole autocratic power over the state and therefore the category has its uses and it would be folly to delete it. It hadn't actually occurred to me in this debate that God was the author of all events in existence but that's pegged my interest now so thank you. But you needn't worry, I have no wish to engage in a philosophical debate with you as you clearly hold me in utter contempt. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Editors can disagree and not have it be personal. Discussion and debate is one of the hallmarks of Wikipedia and the Consensus model. - jc37 19:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well that's alright then. I still don't the category should be deleted though. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2008 (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 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: listify. Kbdank71 13:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional conspiracy theorists

Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Opinion about a question or issue. - jc37 06:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 06:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not oppose listification, especially for the reasons Hiding suggests. - jc37 10:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify, Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes in the same category as Rorschach and Fox Mulder? Again, whilst I think there's scope for an article on Conspiracy theory in fiction, which a list would support, the category structure is not the place to do this. In what sense is Calvin like the other two, and in what sense is he different. In what sense are Rorschach and Fox Mulder similar. The categorisation structure was implemented to allow us to classify mammals and lakes and athletes. This pushes the tool too far past its breaking point. Hiding T 09:40, 25 August 2008 (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 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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with powered armor

This categorises a fictional character by an object that they may have. Traditionally, we don't categorise by objects, since they can be given to (or taken by) other another character, or lost, at the whim of the author. Compare to "Fictional characters with capes", or "Fictional characters with utility belts", or "Fictional characters with jetpacks", or "Fictional characters with laser weapons". - jc37 06:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 06:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hiding T 09:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - you do have a point. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you keep it then please add in a "u." --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing it to "armo(u)r"? Since the cat collects characters from fiction produced under both British and American English. - J Greb (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That a side, Delete since it is effectively "Characters using powered armor". That does open it up to bloating with "used in one story" situations. - J Greb (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with any category based on possession of a prop. (You see, in Shakespeare's planned revision, Macbeth had to murder Banquo because he knew about the powered armor that Macbeth got from the Weird Sisters, and which he kept hidden in the dungeon and couldn't get to it before Macduff found him and cut off his head. Prove I'm wrong!) -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 21:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Powered armor is a weapon, but in most cases, it serves several functions and is the primary source of the character's power. The character may be dependent on the armor for his/her powers, so in a way, it's different than a gun or a sword. As for the above statement, capes, unlike armor, serve no function other than making the character look good. A utility belt, while a useful piece of equipment, is just that, a piece of equipment. It can hold tools, but it can't give that character any powers. A jetpack is just another tool, but it only gives the character one power; flight. Powered armor grants a variety of powers to the character. Also, I agree with (J Greb), this category was originally created for characters from all media who rely heavily on powered armor, and not characters who use power suits once in a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwhale9382 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're suggesting that the types of armour are not consistant among each other? Well that should require explanations concerning presentation, powers, usage, and so on. Sounds like a potential list, but a rather confusing category. And by the way, technically nearly every character in sci-fi fiction set in space would have "powered armour". And how do we discern the difference between a mecha and Iron Man or even the Rocketeer? Again, sounds like potential for a list, but a poor category. - jc37 23:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The presence or absence of powered armor is not often very notable. For characters like Samus Aran and Master Chief, it's a central point (since the character is rarely or never seen outside of it), but most of the time this powered armor concept falls into the category of "object a character possesses", not "object that defines the character". — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:47, 28 August 2008 (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 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: rename to Category:Oasis (band) and leave as dab category. Kbdank71 13:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. Category:Oasis should be a dab for Category:Oasis (band) and Category:Oases, e.g. Category:Eels. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~. I have missed something somewhere. Where and when was it decided to adopt dab phrases in the category structure? There really is no need is there? We're supposed to avoid dab phrases where-ever possible. I don't see the need to disambiguate here either. A hatnote pointing people to Category:Oases from Category:Oasis should suffice. Hiding T 09:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite obviously in the monority here, but I still don;t get it. I guess I'm just old fashioned. I'd prefer a really long name like Category:Popular beat combo Oasis. Happy to bow to consensus though. Hiding T 14:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. For one, this will let the category match the main article, Oasis (band), which is never a bad thing. Second, the chance for confusion definitely exists when the only difference between a band name and the appropriate category for the thing that the band is named after is pluralization. Third, if we're going to use Category:Rush (band), then Category:Oasis (band) makes sense. (Really, why would another category be called Category:Rush? But editors have agreed that it's a good idea to dab this word.) Finally, I disagree that we need to "avoid dab phrases where-ever possible". On the contrary, we need to use them when there's a good likelihood of confusion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- hmmmm maybe Category:The Rush Limbaugh Show? :) -MrFizyx (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Hiding, and I agree with Good Ol'Factory. (It boggles the mind, doesn't it? : ) - Anyway, while we often have cats which have quite different inclusion criteria which have a difference of only a single letter (often the singular and plural forms), so I'll defer to our readers' ability to differentiate, and while I also don't necessarily see the need for the dab phrase in this case, I think that since this is part of a larger category "scheme", and follows some sense of a "convention", and I kinda like (in this case anyway) that it will match the article name, that I'll Support. - jc37 10:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per thorough summary of Good Ol’factory -- I don't think he left anything for me to add to the argument for renaming. Cgingold (talk)
Rename - there's a general feeling (I think) that category names should be even less ambiguous than article names (the suggested addition of (band) to Category:Pixies as opposed to their article Pixies being the most recent evidence of this). I also like the example Category:Eels. Occuli (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Oasis (band). REtain the existing version as a redirect and provide a capnote for Oases. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated and argued well by others above. -MrFizyx (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2008 (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 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: delete. Kbdank71 13:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This page is unused and unnecessary. in fact, if you look at ((ShouldBeSVG)), you can see that the template adds images to the category page 'chemical images that should be in SVG format', not 'chemistry images...'. I'll modify the template so that any pages that use the word 'chemistry' get redirected to 'chemical...', just to be sure, but in any case this category page serves no purpose. Ludwigs2 02:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--Imz (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2008 (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 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: listify. Kbdank71 13:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - trivial basis for categorization. Not to mention that some 95% of the included characters did not originate in motion pictures. Otto4711 (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and then delete. (Though don't list the comics characters, obviously.) - jc37 06:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and then delete per Jc. Hiding T 09:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and then delete - per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Category:Supervillains first appearing in films, which describes more clearly the definition stated on the page, and by analogy with Category:Supervillains first appearing in novels. This is part of a structure of category:supervillains by medium. I hereby volunteer to depopulate it of those members who do not fit the new name. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"First appearing"? That so sounds like something that should be a list. That way one can also show "other appearances", and put the presentations in content with each other. Something categopries can't do. Wikipedia guidelines concerning fiction to be typically presented in literary present tense also works against such categorisation. - jc37 21:44, 27 August 2008 (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 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.

:Non-admin close: Moved to next day's CFD page. Cgingold (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any need to split British Scientologists into English, Scottish and Welsh as it is currently. British Scientologists would be sufficient. Johnalexwood (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Under Category:Scientologists_by_nationality (sic) I find Category:British Scientologists and a subcat Category:English Scientologists with four members. No Scottish or Welsh. Exactly what are you proposing? -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 00:45, 26 August 2008 (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.

August 25

Category:Fast Folk artists

Category:Vanguard Progressive Unionist Party politicians

Category:Comics-related websites

Category:Songs by Cole Porter

Category:Dixieland mandolinists

Category:Outlet malls in the United States

Category:Cultural generations

Category:Weekly comics

Category:Comics by region

Category:Comic book titles

Category:Comic book magazines

Category:Comic book awards

Category:Members of the FTP

Category:Luxury Hotels

Category:Biology interdisciplinary fields

Category:Education in the Middle East and North Africa

Category:Fictional double agents

Category:Fictional characters with eidetic memory

Category:Fictional thieves

Category:Fictional bullies

Category:Fictional orphans

Category:Fictional lottery winners

Category:Fictional Internet personalities

Category:Fictional dictators

Category:Fictional conspiracy theorists

Category:Fictional characters with powered armor

Oasis (band)

Category:Chemistry images that should be in SVG format

Category:Film supervillains

Category:Scientologists by Nationality