< March 6	March 8 >

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 15:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Situationism to Category:Situationist International

Nominator's rationale: As there is no such thing as "situationism," per se, it would be more helpful to rename the category to match the name of the main article, i.e., Situationist International. Furthermore, a more specific category name, one in keeping with scholarship on the subject, would dissuade adding the category to inappropriate articles. -RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note tag is still the speedy one. Comment I'm inclined to oppose, as the 1st SI disbanded in 1972, and many entries relate to things from later than that, the 2nd SI and so on. Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I would argue that this actually supports my rationale, but in two different ways. First, yes, the "original" SI disbanded in '72, with other associated groups pre- and post-dating the disbanding (i.e., Gruppe SPUR and the 2nd SI), but their existence, influence, importance, etc., are connected inextricably with the first SI; simply put, no 1st SI, no 2nd SI, both are still related to the larger subject. Second, at least one article, Hybrid Theory Conference, is not truly related to the SI at all---pro-Situ is the term in vogue for such things---and so should not be in the category. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your first argument would support putting all articles on, say, Methodism in, say Category:Bible, so I don't buy that. The Copenhagen Free University presumably does belong, but was founded in 2001. Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to stretch my argument violently to justify the comparison you have made. Clearly, there are a great many intermediate steps between Category:Bible and a specific form of Protestantism like Methodism. There are no such intermediate steps between the Situationist International and the Second Situationist International---first there was one and there was another. Furthermore, I would argue that Copenhagen Free University does not belong, and this is the 2nd point I was making: "Situationism," as a made-up term that seems to mean different things depending upon who you ask, is too loosely-defined to be useful in the context of an encyclopædia. The term was specifically rejected by the Situationists themselves. It has been used over the years more often as a pejorative term to be used against the theorists of the SI and those who have counted the Situationists as intellectual and cultural precursors and influences. Situationist and Situationist International have clear definitions, laid down by Debord, Vaneigem, Jorn, et al., and which are largely agreed upon within the academic and theoretical fields within which this subject has been discussed and debated for the past 30+ years. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful if you listed the articles you do/don't think belong in the category, although of course changing the name as you suggest would also change the proper scope. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than those already mentioned, the only other one in the category that does not fit is Anti-consumerism which, though influenced by Situationist theory, is a much wider topic, and is not an integral facet of SI theory or practice, which goes well beyond anti-consumerism. 'Pataphysics is borderline, but certainly influenced the Situationists. Otherwise, everything else fits. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:31, 9 March 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 13:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Insufficiently specific. Little girls grow up. Fayenatic (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Real ones do. Fictional ones don't. Not always anyway. For example, after more than 18 years on The Simpsons, Lisa Simpson is still only 8 years old!. For An Angel (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt - sex-based recreation of category deleted July 29, 2006 and speedy deleted again November 18 2006. Otto4711 (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, this is not the same category that was deleted. If the argument was the previous categories were too broad then this one is better because it is more specific. For An Angel (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per prior precedent on age-based categories for fictional characters. Vague and useless. Postdlf (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we can not be so hasty, is there another option besides delete that would be satisfactory? Would a rename or split be better? For example, we could break this category down into subcategories if everyone thinks it is too broad. Such as by medium: in film, TV and novels. For An Angel (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Postdlf. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 04:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, why does it have to be deleted? If it is too vague then it can be made more specific in the ways that I've already mentioned. For An Angel (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would grouping it by medium make the classification "little girls" less vague? Postdlf (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I thought that by making the categories more specific it would make them less vague. If the category of "Fictional little girls" is too inclusive then splitting them up into smaller categories would solve that problem. Such as, "Fictional little girls in film" "Fictional little girls in novels" "...in comics" "...in TV" etc. For An Angel (talk) 05:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • However, I don't even think that would be necessary. I mean, how many fictional little girls who are notable enough to have their own article on Wikipedia can there be? And how many would make the category "overpopulated" anyway? Some categories, such as Category:American film actors probably has over 10,000 articles and Category:Living people will obviously have many more than that. For An Angel (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe, just maybe, you could have a category for fictional girls who never grow up, as a defining characteristic. Even this needs to be clarified as to whether it refers to unchanging age like Lisa Simpson, or size like Thumbelina. And would it include those who would have grown up normally but died young? Make a case for something specific and defining, e.g. Category:Fictional characters who do not age, Category:Fictional characters who are supernaturally small, Category:Fictional characters who died in childhood. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Those are good ideas, however, I'm not sure how the "Fictional characters who never age" category would be a defining characteristic. If it was a category then it would probably be redundant with many other "Fictional charaters..." categories (everyone on The Simpsons would belong in it). The other two sound fine and I would have nothing against someone creating them. Though they might have the same problem with the last one unless the word "childhood" is defined specifically enough for everyone. For An Angel (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You were clear, you just weren't relevant—grouping by medium doesn't at all address what the hell "little girls" means, or why it's a meaningful basis for a category. If it's just synonymous with "female children", then as Otto4711 said above, it's just a sex-specific iteration of the previously deleted "fictional children" category. But based on what you've added to the category, "little girls" apparently includes fictional characters as old as 16, technically minors, but not really children in a meaningful sense. So what's the point, and why should we reverse our position against categorizing fictional characters by age? Postdlf (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Pardon me for being dense, lol. When you said the category would be too vague I thought you meant it wasn't a narrow enough category to be useful. I was assuming the definition of "little girl" was self-evident. To put it simply, a "little girl" is someone who is both "little" and a "girl" at the same time. Just kidding :-). But seriously, if that's all you want then we can define them as females 13 or younger. For those who age, I think it would be appropriate to include them only if they were little girls for the majority of their existence. For example, from the show Full House, which ran for 8 years, I included only Michelle and Stephanie. I did not include D.J. because although she was 10 when the show began, she wasn't a little girl for the majority of the show's run. Another example is Pebbles Flintstone. Pebbles is mostly known for being the baby girl in The Flintstones. Even though she appeared as a teenager and adult in various spinoffs, most of her notability is from when she was a baby. I'm not sure which 16 yr old your saying I added. Was it Hermione Granger? I knew I was stretching it when I added that one because although she was a little girl for the first three books, she was a teenager for the rest of them. So I wasn't surprised when someone else removed it and I'm okay with that. For An Angel (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, per precedent, and per vague creepiness. --Calton | Talk 14:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding precedent, to be fair, in the deletion discussion referenced, (Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 18#Fictional characters by unwieldy age range) the "Fictional children" category was nominated along with two other categories, "Fictional adults" and "Fictional teenagers". The only comment that didn't group the "Fictional children category with the others was this one:
    • Comment. Fictional adults is a disaster and should go. Fictional children, though, might be the only home in the "Fictional X" scheme for some of these folks. It's the parallel of category:Murdered children, which exists because the children hadn't had a chance to distinguish themselves beyond being children. And with fictional characters often being frozen in time, it might be all they qualify for, and they should qualify for something.--Mike Selinker 11:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
  • None of the other arguments (or should I say votes) regarded the "Fictional children" category separately from the others even though Mike Selinker made a good point and no one made an effort to counter his arguments.
  • Delete: How do you define whether a character is little in terms of age or not. Fifteen year old girls whilst not being adults are certainly not little girls either. People have different opinions on what makes a "little girl" little. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, 15 would be too high. That's why I sugggested 13 or younger. However, many fictional characters don't have a specific age anyway but still obviously belong in this category. For example, no one would argue that Little Red Riding Hood or Little Orphan Annie qualify as little girls. For An Angel (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. Personally I don't think thirteen year-olds could be classed as little either. They are after all teenagers. On an unrelated note if someone had called me a "little boy" when I was thirteen they'd have had seconds to live which really proves my point. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And when I was 13 nobody believed that I was a day older than 10, so what? All this irrelevant. Would using the ages of 12 or younger instead be satisfactory to you? For An Angel (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, the point is that arbitrary limits are not a good basis for categorisation. This is an established practice with lots of precedents here at CFD, although I'm not sure whether it is part of any formal policy. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Really? And when "Fictional teenagers" was nominated what was its reason for deletion? The age limits that define a teenager are not arbitrary and neither are the age limits of children if you define them as one who has not yet become a teenager. Arbitrary means picking any number at random when one number wouldn't be better than any other number and that's not what we're doing here. A teenager is someone between the ages of 13 and 19, by definition; these numbers are not arbitrary. For An Angel (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly an encyclopedic and useful category. Maybe rename to Fictional pre-pubertal girls if necessary. Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fictional characters really don't need definition by such categories - we don't have a correspoding category Category:Little girls for real people either. Thank God. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That kinda sounds like an WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument to me. There's a big difference between real people and fictional people. For An Angel (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether we change the meaninglessly vague "little girls" to something as "precise" as Category:Fictional females depicted as ages 13-19, I still haven't seen any suggestion as to what this would accomplish for article organization. Precision is not the only requirement of a category, and just because linguistically we can provide a definition for "teenager" doesn't mean that the same definition is not arbitrary when applied to separate one fictional character from another. So Character A is said to be aged 13 years old in Movie X, and Character B is said to be 19 in Movie Y. So what? Why is it productive to put them together, but not with Character C said to be 20 in Movie Z? Just by virtue of the common term "teenager," a 13-year old character is presumptively more related to a 19-year old character than a 19-year old character is to a 20-year old character? A precise line can still be an arbitrary one. Postdlf (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lol, but can't you say that about any other category? Say if person X was born on January 1, 1980 and person Y was born on December 31, 1980 then why would you put them both in the same category according to their age (Category:1980 births) when X is closer in age to Z who was born on December 31 1979? For An Angel (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Recorded birthdates of real people is one thing, represented ages of fictional characters in different works of fiction by different authors another. You're not answering what this category would accomplish. But you have essentially admitted that this is just a (still unexplainedly) sex-specific recreation of the previously deleted "Fictional children." Postdlf (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Making a distinction between different works of fiction and different authors for fictional characters is like making a distinction between nationality or religion in the categories for years of birth of real people. In other words, there's no reason to do that. If we can group together real people by the year they are born when they may not have anything else in common then there is no reason why we can't group fictional people by their age (even if they appear in different works and were created by different authors), especially considering the fact that although for real people the year they were born never changes but their age always does, for fictional people it is often the opposite. By that I mean 100 years from now the character in the story of "The Little Match Girl" will still be the same age as she is in the story today. So no matter how much time passes their age will always stay the same. That's why it makes as much sense to categorize fictional characters by their age as it does to categorize real people by the year they were born. For An Angel (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • As far as it being a sex-specific recreation of the previously deleted Category:Fictional children, first of all I didn't know that category had existed before (not that that should matter much) and second of all there were no arguments put forth for why this one had to be deleted along with the others that were nominated. In fact there was hardly any discussion at all. And I woulda created another one for boys too but this category got nominated two hours after it was created so I thought it was smart to wait and see what happened with it before creating the other one. For An Angel (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • A better analogy with birthyears of real people would be the year fictional characters are first published. Such a date would be absolute and objective, and it's significant for things to begin existence at the same time (whether a human life or a work of fiction). However, whatever age a character is depicted at is completely at the whim of the author, is often non-specific (just how old is the "little" match "girl"?), may shift significantly throughout the work(s) of fiction, or may vary based on various adaptations of the same character. In other words, without any intrinsic stability and without any objectively shared context, it's really just trivia, and ill-defined trivia at that. How does placing Nancy Drew and Michelle Tanner in this category further anyone's understanding of either? Postdlf (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • How does placing Europe and Antarctica in the category of Category:Continents further anyone's understanding of either? It doesn't. It's the article's job to further the reader's understanding of the subject, and it's the category's job to group similar article topics together. I'm not saying that categories for when fictional charaters were created are invalid, but what you call trivia is subjective. Why is it more important to know when a character was created rather than what type of character it is? Why should we even have to choose? Why can't we know both? The reason why Nancy Drew and Michelle Tanner both belong in this category is because it is the most obvious characteristic that they have in common (just like the most obvious thing that Europe and Antarctica have in common is that they are both continents). Does Sylvester Junior have more in common with the Cheshire Cat or Humphrey the Bear? It's a silly question because we don't have to choose. Sylvester Junior and the Cheshire Cat both belong in Category:Fictional cats because they are both that type of character even if they have little else in common. And Sylvester Junior and Humphrey the Bear can both go in Category:1950 introductions because they were both created in that year even if they have nothing else in common. For An Angel (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Very useful and a fun category. Seems very nicely organized too. Angie Y. (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Postdlf said it best, "vague and useless." What are the criteria for inclusion? How little are these girls? One of them, Hermione Granger, is thirty-seven years old by the end of her series. faithless (^speak) 00:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is she really? I've only seen the first couple of movies and I haven't read the books so I didn't know that. I also couldn't find much in her article about her age. Anyway, it was already removed from her article presumably by someone more familiar with her character than I am so I didn't replace it. I don't think the category is vague or useless. Some people might not consider Goofy a dog but he's still in the Category:Fictional dogs even if he doesn't fit under the technical definition of a dog... Actually I see now that Hermione was added back to the category by some anon about a half hour before you posted here. But if you say she is 37 by the end of the series then I don't think she belongs in the category. I'll remove it again. For An Angel (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, in the epilogue of the final book, which is set nineteen years after the 'conclusion' of the story. But even disregarding that, she starts off as twelve and is a year older every book for seven books, and I don't really think a teenager counts as a little girl. :) faithless (^speak) 01:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Based on any of the logic above. Why not have one for Category:Fictional big girls. Seems to be way too problematic. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the same reason why there is a category for Category:Fictional females (which is the parent to this category) but not Category:Fictional males. And because most people use the word "women" instead of the phrase "big girls". For An Angel (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW: if this category gets deleted because the term "little girls" is too imprecise (which is why Category:Fictional children was deleted before) then most of these categories should probably be deleted too for the same reason. For An Angel (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, especially when you consider the text of Category:Children:

Articles about individuals who became notable as children (before age 18).

-Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 05:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Right, so why can't we use the same criteria for fictional children? Fictional children who became/are notable for being children? There is also a category for Category:Child superheroes which obviously contains nothing but Fictional children, it just doesn't have the word "fictional" in the title of the category, and there's no problems there. For An Angel (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to something like Category:Fictional female children, or just Category:Fictional children. Just because Fictional children was deleted doesn't automatically mean it has no merit. Based on previous arguments it was deleted along with Fictional adults and Fictional teenagers, but perhaps the children category is more useful than the others, whose members would be well enough served by being included in Category:Fictional people. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing the actual arguments presented in the discussion from that deletion didn't apply to Fictional children on its own. If I had been aware of that discussion while it was active, I would have suggested keeping the children category while removing the others. As for Hermione Granger, she probably doesn't belong in the category anyway. We shouldn't use that as an argument to delete the category, but simply remove her from it. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 05:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • You're right, none of the arguments in the previous discussion applied to Fictional children on its own. Other people suggested (and gave arguments for) keeping the children category while deleting the others but they were ignored. Hermione has already been removed and I admit I shouldn't have added her. I would be okay with a rename to Category:Fictional female children and putting it under a Category:Fictional children, that way Category:Fictional male children and Category:Child superheroes can go under it too. For An Angel (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Objection: But the boundaries of this category have still not been defined. Although there is a brief epilogue in HP7 showing Hermione Grainger as an adult, she is notable for her actions as a child; if this category does survive, it would be daft to exclude Hermione and the few others who are also seen grown up. In this case, the way round it would be to put the list article Hogwarts students into the category, although I foresee that editors would be forever moving Hermione (etc) in and out of the category. What about others who are memorable both as children and as adults, in varying proportion, e.g. Anne Shirley, Jane Eyre and Meggie Cleary? I'd be inclined to say that Anne Shirley and Jane Eyre became notable as children, whereas Meggie Cleary is notable mainly for her adult life, although another Wikipedian clearly disagrees because s/he has chosen the child actor's photo for the article(since deleted). Even Lisa Simpson's future adult life is shown in a few episodes! Only the three categories I suggested above e.g. Category:Fictional characters who do not age have definable boundaries. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lisa Simpson clearly belongs in the category because she is most notable for being in her child form, the same is true for Pebbles Flintstone who also has appeared in adult form a few times. I am not sure about Meggie Cleary because I am not familiar with her but I don't see any image on her page. Why is it that there isn't this kind of problem at any of these categories? There's over 100 different categories with the word "child" in them and everyone who created those categories seems to have no trouble deciding which articles fit the definition of the word "child" well enough to belong in there. Besides, your suggestion that the Category:Fictional characters who do not age has precise boundaries is not even true either. Would Category:Fictional characters who do not age be the same as Category:Fictional characters who never age? Would Lisa Simpson belong there? In 18 years on the show she is still portrayed as an 8 year old girl. BUT! as you pointed out she has been portrayed as an adult in a few episodes such as "Lisa's Wedding". So, which one is it? Does she age or doesn't she? Moreover, I think it's reasonable to assume that not every Simpsons character was shown in that future episode, so should we assume that if one of them can age that all the characters in the Simpsons universe can age too? Or would it make more sense to include only the characters who have never appeared in any "future" episode in the Category:Fictional characters who never age? Or is using the word "never" just begging for trouble? Because we can't predict the future, we can't know if they will eventually be portrayed in a future "future" episode. Why don't we just create a category called Category:Fictional characters who don't age... for the most part? That will surely solve the problem! Oh, but wait... then people will start arguing over what the phrase "for the most part" means... (See? I can be anal too! LOL) For An Angel (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for the love of God, just delete it. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God, nor the love of His, should not be a determining factor in this discussion. For An Angel (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Says "For An Angel." --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? Oh, my name. It comes from one of my favorite songs, "For an Angel". Not religious in nature at all. :-) For An Angel (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• PS: The categorization guideline says "categories, which serve as classifications, should be the significant (useful) topics to which the subject of the article most closely belongs to as a member, and where users are most likely to look if they can't remember the name of the thing they are trying to look up." I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that someone looking for Lisa Simpson would look first in Category:Fictional little girls rather than Category:Fictional vegetarians. While she may belong in both categories, she's known more for being the little girl from The Simpsons, and not the vegetarian from The Simpsons. For An Angel (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd think they'd look first for Lisa Simpson in Category:The Simpsons characters. Postdlf (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, that was just an example. My point was that Lisa Simpson is most known for being the little girl in the Simpsons. When most people think of her, they think of her as being the little girl character from the Simpsons, not as the vegetarian from the Simpsons. That is what she is most known for and so that's the most obvious category that she would belong in. For An Angel (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand. You're saying that Lisa belongs in Category:Fictional little girls more than she belongs in Category:Fictional vegetarians, not that she doesn't belong in Category:The Simpsons characters. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 02:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly. Is that so unreasonable? For An Angel (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • But the category of fictional girls, once it was populated with all articles about fictional girls, would be so huge that it would not be very useful. You haven't started adding Video game characters or Anime and manga characters yet... - Fayenatic (talk) 09:04, 13 March 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, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Spouses of United States Representatives to Category:Spouses of members of the United States House of Representatives

Nominator's rationale: Rename. As previously discussed a while ago, they are not "United States Representatives" (which might include ambassadors and the US Trade Representative. It's just a matter of semantics. From time to time they are casually called USReps, but for the sake of categorization we should call them "members of the USHouse of Reps." —Markles 20:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename As the original creator of the category, I support the proposed name change. --TommyBoy (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:24, 10 March 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 12:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Andretti family members to Category:Andretti family

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per all the entries of Category:American families, plus the fact that the included Andretti Curse isn't a member of the family (in the usual sense, anyway). Rigadoun (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unnecessary eponymous overcategorization. All of these family members are extensively interlinked through each others' articles. No need for the category. Otto4711 (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or templatize As there are two heads to this family (Mario and Aldo)... and it's four generations... 70.55.84.89 (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Otto & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No objection to someone creating a template if they want but the existence of a template is not a requirement for deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:41, 12 March 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 15:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ami Suzuki to Category:Ami Suzuki images

Nominator's rationale: Categories named after musicians are generally deprecated. In this case, the category consists entirely of non-free images of this musician, which aren't otherwise grouped. (The other articles relating to her appear in the templates ((Ami Suzuki)) and ((Ami Suzuki singles)).) Not really sure if this is useful, I don't have much experience in image categorization. Rigadoun (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the rename. If the category is only going to contain images then the name should reflect that just like the other sub categories of Category:Images of musicians --For An Angel (talk) 05:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:25, 10 March 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:Indian Americans to Category:Americans of Indian descent. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Americans of Indian descent to Category:Indian Americans

Nominator's rationale: The categories seem to be the same. There is no definition given at Category:Americans of Indian descent, but all the members seem to be born to one or both parents of Indian origin, which fits the explicit directions at Category:Indian Americans. Rigadoun (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the other way. There are categories using both styles, though "Foo-Americans" with a hyphen is most popular. But "Category:Americans of Foo descent" is clearest, most accurate, and least likely to conflict with the identity the subject gives or gave themself. I would except the best known combos like Irish, Italian, African, Asian & so on. Johnbod (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the other way. As the article Indian American says, the term is (particularly) ambiguous. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary race/ethnicity category, so what if someone is of this race/ethnicity, how much must they be - if they are born of Anglo-Indians do they count, why is WP obsessed with race anyway? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as ambiguous. There is no way that the name of either of these categories makes it clear as to the contents of the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a whole tree Category:People of Indian descent, not usually thought to be ambiguous. Tatyana Ali is a good example to test Carlossuarez46 to the limit. (I don't know why WP is so obsessed with race - I had supposed it was a US thing.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:00, 12 March 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: WP:BOLD. Kbdank71 15:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

During a discussion on the merging of the sub-templates of ((Globalize)), it was mentioned that a category which separated out country-centric articles was deleted. Currently there are over 2,000 articles in Category:Articles with limited geographic scope. That is too many to maintain. So, the proposal is to allow the creation of categories for country-centric articles on an as need basis, with the category names to follow a category name convention set during this discussion.

This area is normally used for deletions and merges, so a proposal for creation should be a nice switch. - LA @ 17:45, 7 March 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 15:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:May 68 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:May 1968 in France to match name of main article, May 1968 in France. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I wish I had noticed this one myself. Good catch. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:24, 9 March 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 15:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:US far left magazines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: "Far left" is a pejorative term of little encyclopedian use since it does not seem to be used either as a self-identification nor as a common term to categorize news media.

The category only has 2 articles, and would be difficult to populate under any objective, policy-compliant criteria. скоморохъ 13:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Although it could have been worse -- he might have called it Category:US far left propaganda magazines! Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One could be devilish and create a category for all propaganda magazines, Category:US propaganda magazines and just chuck all propaganda magazine articles there. - LA @ 19:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Why hasn't US Category:US far right magazines been put up for deletion, or has it? I just didn't think it was fair to put the nation in the same category as Revoltionary Worker or National Review in the same cat as National Vangurd. Sorry for spelling mistajes but I'm holding a poodle...long story--Dudeman5685 (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hold on to that poodle too long or you'll soon be holding a puddle. :) Cgingold (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category you link to does not appear to exist. скоморохъ 02:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• rename Perhaps a category for US Communist/ anarchist periodicals would be appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudeman5685 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that, but Category:Anarchist periodicals has too few articles to warrant subdivision by nation, in my opinion. скоморохъ 02:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not suggesting grouping anarchist & communist periodicals together -- they have nothing in common. Cgingold (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I've been looking through, and there just might be enough US anarchist pubs to warrant a subdivision. I don't know if we could do that for every country though. I think I've found enough commie periodicals to justify a subcat.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure, but I suspect there aren't enough. However, it might make sense to create a broader category for socialist periodicals, which would be inclusive of communist ones. Cgingold (talk) 07:31, 9 March 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 12:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pagan metal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Pagan metal musical groups (talk)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The term is a neologism without any article on wikipedia. The term currently redirects to the folk metal article. Only three articles were categorized under pagan metal, namely the bands Primordial, Folkearth and Silent Stream of Godless Elegy. All three bands are folk metal groups and I have changed the categorisation for the three bands accordingly. There are now no articles on wikipedia listed under Category:Pagan metal or Category:Pagan metal musical groups.--Bardin (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, not clear that this genre exists, and what counts. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, many genres of metal have pagan qualities to it such as black metal, death metal, and viking metal. Mr. C.C. (talk) 19:01, 7 March 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 12:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:West Coast-based Investment Banks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - Overcategorization. There's no need for this overly narrow category, which has a single article in it. Creator has not edited since Feb. 2007 Cgingold (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based by state not group of states. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Presumably this is used for banks based in Perth, Bordeaux, Greymouth, Walvis Bay, and Fishguard. If not, then at the very least the name needs some serious change - but a deletion seems a more approriate solution. Grutness...wha? 23:53, 7 March 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 12:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Men with women's names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Trivial, generally non-defining, to some extent subjective, and entirely self-contradictory: The fact that a man has the name in question means that it's not solely a woman's name now, doesn't it? Could also be used as a means of attacking others. (Maybe if a man was named "Betty" it would be defining for him, though!) Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - overcategorization on the basis of name type, not defining. Otto4711 (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if a man has it, it's a man's name. If we're talking about men with names more typically found given to women, it's OCAT per Otto and it's geographically screwy: name your kid "Angel" (girl in England, most likely; boy in Mexico, most likely); "Andrea" (girl in England most likely; boy in Italy most likely), etc.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because there are many uni-sex names such as Terry, Chris, Morgan, etc.. Mr. C.C. (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Nicknames also often blur the male/female naming conventions, especially in places like Russia (was "Nikita" Khruschev a woman?). I know this personally, BTW - my name within my family is Jamie (I'm a James). And then there are Saint's day names used in some Catholic communties, where a middle name is that of the day saint, irrespective of the saint sex. All too messy. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jamie Grutness" has a certain ring to it ... :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I had a teacher named Sister Christopher David (pure Original Research but fact no less). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:36, 12 March 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: close already implemented Category:Non-Japanese baseball players in Japan renamed to Category:Expatriate baseball players in Japan. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Non-Japanese baseball players in Japan to Category:Expatriate players in Nippon Professional Baseball

Nominator's rationale: 'expatriate' a more appropriate term than 'non-Japanese' for name of category, used in pages such as those under Category:Expatriate footballers. Alternative naming could also be Category:Expatriate baseball players in Japan. Mayumashu (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - There's got to be some way we can work basubaru into the name, e.g. "Expatriate basubaru players". However, in anticipation of that proposal not achieving concensus, my second choice would be, Category:Expatriate baseball players in Japan. Cgingold (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But basubaru is a Japanese word, not an English one, and the convention of wikip is to use foreign words only in proper names (of people, places, organizations) Mayumashu (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I wasn't serious -- please forgive my overly-subtle humor! (I fell in love with the word the first time I heard it.) I really do think that Category:Expatriate baseball players in Japan is the way to go. Cgingold (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. No, I m from Japan so it s just another (of thousands) foreign-loan J-words for me Mayumashu (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is already Category:Nippon Professional Baseball players (Category:Non-Japanese baseball players in Japan ought to be a subcat, surely). We could have Category:Nippon Professional Baseball players by nationality (cf non-Italian Popes in a current cfd). (At a quick glance most of the non-Japanese appear to be American or Canadian.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Expatriate baseball players in Japan. There are other leagues in Japan[1][2] which could conceivably have expatriate players, so, it is probably a good idea to avoid fine-tuning the cat name to only include NPB. Neier (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Neier (talk) 14:05, 9 March 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 15:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Professional kickboxing organizations to Category:Kickboxing organizations

Propose renaming Category:Professional mixed martial arts organizations to Category:Mixed martial arts organizations

Nominator's rationale: There is currently no need to differentiate martial arts organizations by professional or amateur. The other categories in Category:Martial arts organizations are all formatted "martial art organizations." These categories should be renamed for consistency. Additionally, an article was recently placed in the non-existent Category:Amateur kickboxing organizations. However, this one article was also placed in Category:Professional kickboxing organizations. Since the one article covers both amateur and professional, why not have just one combined category? Scott Alter 01:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are there any amatuer MMA promotions or organizations? So do we really need a category for professional MMA promtions or organizations? So why not just have one category for all. Same with kickboxing. Mr. C.C. (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remame kickboxing per nom. Empty mixed into parent category and then Delete. - LA @ 09:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom - seems cleaner to me. --Lquilter (talk) 14:38, 12 March 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. Kbdank71 15:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Films, based on true story to Category:Films based on actual events

Nominator's rationale: Merge to the previously existing (and properly named) category. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, based on nomination - probably speedy, obvious duplicate. Otto4711 (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom Lugnuts (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom - easy one this! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But what do we do with: Category:Films based on the Bible vis-a-vis this cat? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why have it in this tree at all? It's perfectly happy in Category:Films based on books. Otto4711 (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So, we take the POV that the films based on the Bible are not also based on a true story? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As opposed to the POV that they are? Either way it's POV and since the Bible films are already comforably housed in the based on books structure, why stir the shit by even dragging them in here when AFAIK no one was contemplating including them at all? What the hell does the Bible category have to do with this nomination in the first place? Otto4711 (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films based on the Bible is not included in this nomination; the reason it's a sub-cat of Category:Films based on books (and not Category:Films based on fiction books or Category:Films based on non-fiction books) is to avoid POV battles over whether it should be in fiction or non-fiction. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I do not think we need to decide about films based on the Bible. I happen to believe it is true, but that does not mean such films need to be in this category (save possibly as a subcategory). I would encourage the category to be limited to recent events. Those based on historical events would be better in a separate category (probably another subcategory. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to the scope of events, you get into the "how recent is recent?" conundrum, and the category isn't that big, so I think we can shelve that issue for now.

• Merge per nom. - LA @ 19:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Mr. C.C. (talk) 16:54, 8 March 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 12:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Avatars of Captain Universe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - not defining of the characters. They all appear to be listed at Captain Universe. Otto4711 (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mr. C.C. (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete the list in the article should be enough Palendrom (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:30, 9 March 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.