< May 16	May 18 >

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: For the same reason as Category:Fictional children, because children grow up and although some gain notability while they are still minors, others stay notable long after they become adults. The category is far too broad to be useful or verifiable because it is not possible to define its boundaries. For An Angel (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not the same at all, and has been around since 2004. Nomination makes little sense: "although some gain notability while they are still minors, others stay notable long after they become adults" - So? Definitions of minority vary between counties, but not sufficiently to cause a big problem here I think. Johnbod (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long it's been around is not relevant. Why does the nomination rationale make little sense when applied to this category but makes perfect sense when applied to the Fictional children category? In both cases the problem is the same; what constitutes a child is too vague. For An Angel (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The argument assumes facts not in evidence: that rationale makes no sense in the other CFD, either. Cgingold (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of child actors gives '17 or under' as a definition of child, which sounds OK to me. An actor notable both as a child and adult will be in both child- and adult- categories. (The age of a person in fiction is not usually exactly given, dates of birth often withheld from the reader.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly -- Category:Children is for "individuals who became notable as children (before age 18)." Cgingold (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course - Honestly, it's beyond my comprehension why anybody would come along and suggest that there is suddenly a grievous problem with categories for people who became notable as children. (That's all I've got time for right now, but I will add more if necessary.) Cgingold (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful subcategory of actors. The fact that certain actors go on to have notable adult careers does not remove the need or usefulness of this category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I would encourage participants in this CFD to add their commments to the still-open CFD for Category:Fictional children, where these same basic issues are under debate. Cgingold (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This deletion request makes even less sense than the one for fictional children - per Shawn and CGingold - the fact that an actor was notable for a career as a child and also for a career as an adult just means he or she would be in - gasp - two categories. What in heaven's name is the problem here? Tvoz/talk 21:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a child actor remains so even when old. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wouldn't this be better suited as a list? - jc37 05:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would be far too long. Note that the vast majority of articles are in the sub-categories by nationality. There are two lists already but these appear to be US-centric. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length should have nothing to do with whether we should have a list. See also: WP:Summary style, and WP:Article size. But in particular, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists), and a related template: Template:A-Z multipage list.

So if that's the only concern, then let's listify per WP:CLN. As you note below, this requires explanation, and really, citations/references. - jc37 20:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly. --EivindJ (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and add the criteria stated on the category page ("achieved recognition as professional actors while still children") to each of the national sub-categories. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:24, 21 May 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Breeders' Cup Distaff winners to Category:Breeders' Cup Ladies Classic winners

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The race has officially been renamed the Breeders' Cup Ladies Classic, effective with the upcoming 2008 Breeders' Cup. Have noted the name change in the category lead-in. Dale Arnett (talk) 19:35, 17 May 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 without listifying because list already exists. Doczilla _STOMP! 07:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:List of people with Erdős-Bacon numbers to Category:People with Erdős-Bacon numbers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Basic naming convention case. BigBlueFish (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom if kept, but as the far more serious pure Erdos category was eventually deleted after major battles, I'm putting my helmet on and retreating to my bunker. Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and perhaps listify - O-M-G. Tell me this isn't really happening... I remember those CFDs too, and calling them "battles" doesn't do them justice. Is there any room for another person in your bunker, Johnbod? Cgingold (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Always room for you :) Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the creator of this category I'm not concerned about renaming it. As to why I created it, it's easier to add the category than to create a list and then go through every article involved and add a See also: List of people with Erdős-Bacon numbers. I also wasn't aware of the fights referred to above, so as I said, if this is going to be really acrimonious I don't have a bone to pick with anyone/anything. - JulesN Talk 18:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might also consider creating a nav-box template, which is sort of a cross between a category and a list-article. (Of course, that might run into opposition too -- one never knows.) Cgingold (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of the earlier vigorous discussions are linked from here. I must say that this seems (although of interest) less worthy than Erdős number. Also, there is a list within Erdős-Bacon number, which may of course not include everyone in the category. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Burn with fire - Not defining in any way, ridiculous basis for a category, trivial, useless and dumb. The fact that there's an article about this non-phenomenon is an embarassment to the project. Otto4711 (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's going overboard. As an article it's sourced and I believe it has sufficient notability. See The Telegraph, Oakland University, and several mathematicians home pages. Searching for "Erdoes-Bacon" got me around 3000 g-hits.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the comments above raise a good point. Is there anything actually notable about the fact that an E-B number has been calculated for somebody? All it shows is that somebody thought of the notion that the person might have a finite E-B number and found that a suitable path existed. It seems akin to categorising Tony Blair, Jeremy Paxman and Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf as people satirised on Dead Ringers, or elephants, houses and France as things often used as size comparisons. Unless I have misunderstood the subject and the number requires some active participation of the subject then yes, delete. BigBlueFish (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments for deleting Erdos number categories. Otherwise, the existence of this category will become an argument for reestablishing those same categories. 70.51.11.99 (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is sufficient. For most purposes this isn't notable to the person so not worth categorizing. (Granted Dave Bayer, Daniel Kleitman, and maybe Danica McKellar could be exceptions. I still don't think that's enough though)--T. Anthony (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify then Delete - per comments above, and previous erdros discussions. Even looking at the current name tends to suggest listification. - jc37 05:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is already a list at Erdős–Bacon number. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:06, 22 May 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Alumni of the University of Vienna to Category:University of Vienna alumni

Nominator's rationale: Merge, for consistency with the other categories in Category:Alumni by university or college in Austria. UV (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom - Category:Alumni by university or college in Austria is as stated. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:14, 17 May 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 to merge - I've done some "on-wiki" research concerning this. There seems to be, at least, a slight semantic difference between the two terms. (Further confusing the issue is Open pan salt making, which also uses the word "salt pan", but to describe a tool of sorts.) Salt flat currently redirects to playa. (Which was done back in 2004 by User:Finlay McWalter.) There apparently was a suggestion to merge Salt pan (geology) to playa by the same user in 2004/2005. Salt pan is a dab page, listing both Salt pan (geology) and Salt evaporation pond. Talk:Salt pan (geology) has some interesting information, and there is a discussion at Talk:Black Rock Desert#Playa/Dry Lake/Mud Flat/Alkali Flat/Salt Pan concerning the nominator recently adding Black Rock Desert to Category:Salt_pans. I took both discussions into account in this closure. (Re-affirming - though in reverse - Vegaswikian's comment that each process may reflect on the other.) So as I mentioned at the start, there seems to be a semantic difference here. It looks like the several articles need some cleanup and specification to clarify the terminology. At this point, no merge (category or article) should take place without verifiable, reliably sourced, references concerning the terms. (I'm also wondering if this could possibly be an issue of varieties of English which may also need clarifying. See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)#International organizations.) - jc37 21:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Salt pans to Category:Salt flats

Nominator's rationale: Merge and redirect. Some entries in one category are mentioned as examples of the other in the lead articles Playa (current redirect target from salt flat) and Salt pan (geology). The article Salt lake refers to Salt flat and Salt pan as the same thing. Talk:Salt pan (geology) has an article merge proposal that was rejected because Playa is not the same thing as Salt flat, but does not distinguish Salt flat and Salt pan. Fixing the articles may take more effort or need expert help, but we can merge the categories without waiting for that. Fayenatic (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Reverse Merge since we have a main article for one of these. If we have a main article, then that should be the name the caegory follows. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply and question: In that case I propose to take the article Salt pan (geology) to WP:RM with a proposal to move it to Salt flat, as I believe that salt flat is the more dominant term. Some content currently at Playa should then be merged into it. Now - should I withdraw this CFD until that is settled? or, if the CFD is first completed in reverse as you propose, and the article is moved later, would I then be allowed to recategorise the articles and reverse the category redirect without further discussion? Perhaps that can be settled here in advance. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is reasonable to use a CfD discussion as the basis for renaming an article. If the consensus here is to do the reverse merge, then the bots will do the grunt work and if we discuss the article as a part of this, a liberal admin could also move the article. In any case, if there is a merge, I'd be willing to also move the article unless there is some strong reason from the the geology community to do not do that. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:02, 19 May 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. Wizardman 01:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with little hope of expansion, given that the only articles in it are the lead article and a song article which doesn't belong. The concept of Punk house is pretty nebulous and the category is unnecessary. Otto4711 (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category expanded. // Liftarn (talk)

I don't believe that Die Slaughterhaus Records supports its inclusion in the category. Even if it did, we are still talking about a grand total of four articles, all of which are listed in the main article. The small number of articles, the low potential for expansion, the interlinkages between the various articles and the vague definition of "punk house" (for all intents and purposes, "a place where punks live") all argue against the category. Otto4711 (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think the concept of a punk house is sufficiently known (at least to those interested in the topic) as to make a category possible. I can think of at least one punk house that we could have an article about, but don't (Disgraceland, in Hollywood, California). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The three current members can be listed (and described) at Punk house. If anything, this would seem to be more useful to those who may be interested, as a Navbox than as a category (per WP:CLN). The example listed above by Metropolitan90 would seem to confirm this (as redlinks may be listed in a navbox, or in an article in general, while that's not possible in a category without making the page a redirect (presumably to punk house). So Listify at Punk house (for possible later inclusion in a NavBox, should there become a "need") then Delete the category. - jc37 00:15, 23 May 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 and Delete. Consensus is to delete. However it is reasonable to allow Cgingold say 5 days to listify. If not done by then it can be deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - categorizing filmmakers based on the genre or style in which they direct is untenable. Directors can direct in any number of genres and categorizing them on that basis will lead to dozens of such categories on a director's article. Otto4711 (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given that we don't have any other categories by genre for filmmakers, I'm not sure it would be wise to start that particular cat-tree. (Have others been deleted previously?) However, I would rather see this listified rather than merely deleted. Cgingold (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we don't have any other categories by genre for filmmakers - Yes we do. Take Category:Horror film directors, for example. And the parent cat Category:Film directors by genre. Lugnuts (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, how on earth did I miss that? I actually looked, but somehow didn't see it. (Which goes to show how easy it can be for a reader to miss seeing a category that s/he is looking for... ) That being the case, the argument for deletion is seriously undermined. Cgingold (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see -- I was looking for "filmmakers", and you're talking about "directors". I presume most if not all of these people are, in fact, directors -- so I've added Category:Film directors by genre as a parent cat. Perhaps we should be talking about renaming to Category:Punk film directors?? Cgingold (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is the argument undermined? Are directors or filmmakers limited in the genres they can direct? No. Will directors end up with every category for every genre they've ever directed? Seems highly likely. The existence of a bad category tree is not an argument for keeping its constituent categories. Otto4711 (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete purely subjective and will lead to cat clutter on bios. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For info, Cgingold asked me to create the page, and I have - List of punk filmmakers Lugnuts (talk) 11:13, 23 May 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: Split per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The term can apply to politicians of at least three different parties, and in order to match interwikis and for further accuracy, the category should be split in three; Category:German Christian Democratic Union politicians, Category:Bavarian Christian Social Union politicians and Category:Politicians of the Christian Democratic Union (GDR). Soman (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, split. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support split but query the names - I prefer the clarity of Category:Politicians of the Christian Democratic Union (GDR) to Category:German Christian Democratic Union politicians which has too many adjectives strung together. Are these politicians of the German Christian Democratic Union or German politicians of the Christian Democratic Union? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split into new categories per nom. Johnbod (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:32, 20 May 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This category only has 21 pages in it. This is because it is only used by one template. There are far more images with fair use claims than that, so it is currently rather useless. Since all non-free media should have a fair use claim it would seem to be redundant to Category:All non-free media anyway -- Gurchzilla (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. You don't seem to have followed the proceedure quite right, there is no link to the category etc. I've linked the heading though so that should do. Richard001 (talk) 00:04, 18 May 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 per nom. I am taking no position on the delete, but it is clear that there is no consensus to keep two categories. If anyone wants to propose a deletion of the remaining category after the merge, feel free to do so. My close is in no way an objection to deletion if there is consensus for that which is not present in this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Americans in Germany to Category:American expatriates in Germany

Nominator's rationale: the later matches the standard naming for such cat pages. (was populated actually with Germans of American descent - have removed these links, now this page is empty) Mayumashu (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Living in a country for a short time is non-defining. To the extent that any of the entries lived there for a substantial period of time they qualify for Category:German Americans. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is for people living in America. Hmains, where are you now? Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It's the standart naming used in the parent categories Category:American expatriates and Category:Expatriates by nationality. The Wikipedia article on expatriates states that "An expatriate (in abbreviated form, expat) is a person temporarily or permanently residing in a country and culture other than that of the person's upbringing or legal residence.[...] Expatriate can just as well be used to describe any person living in a country other than where they hold citizenship." German-Americans are naturalized German immigrants to the US or their descendants, that's not exactly the same. I'm unsure about the categorization of American people who were born in Germany or grew up there without ever becoming German citizens.--Wulf Isebrand (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. There's no good reason to pick off one particular sub-cat of expatriates. Cgingold (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as current categories and as unnecessary intersections. Once an American leaves Germany we pluck them from this cat; if it's any American who has been to? lived in? for how long? Germany, it's just POV, OR, subjective, and ultimately a useless category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:34, 20 May 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Americans with German-Irish ethnicity

Nominator's rationale: incidental intersection of two unrelated ethnicities; having this cat page would set precedent for an infinite no. of potential combinations Mayumashu (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even if they weren't combined they should be deleted as vague, overinclusive and undefining. A fortiori, this intersection. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom and Brewcrewer. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That's too vague and specific. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Triple intersection. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete, intersectionalism. --Soman (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another unneeded racial/ethnic category; folks if 2 is too many, can't you see that 1 is as well? Particularly when most of these people will end up with more than one - hard to find a purebred in many countries, heck even the Queen of England is Irish, Welsh, Scottish, German, French, and Norse as well as English. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To me this is just an example of Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. - jc37 05:16, 21 May 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: Consensus to rename - but not directly to what the target should be. Indirectly, however, there were some key points that had distinct consensus.

The overwhelming sense to the discussion is the wish to follow current conventions, and to be as accurate as possible without the name becoming "unweildy".

Category:World War II naval ships and its subcats (such as Category:World War II naval ships of Norway) seem to define the current convention for WWII.

That said, Category:Naval ships of Norway doesn't seem to have a "convention", in that its subcats seem to vary between conventions.

And the similar Category:Vessels captured from the United States Navy doesn't follow either convention, and seems to be general without historical reference.

And just as use of "Royal Norwegian Navy" wouldn't follow convention, neither would use of "Nazi Germany".

So per the above, the strongest consensus seems to be to have the category name contain the following:

naval ships of Norway - follows convention
captured by - intent of the category
naval ships of Germany - follows convention
World War II - as an historical reference, used as a convention, which should refer to the Norwegian ships, the German ships, and the "time" when captured.

This would give us:

Category:World War II naval ships of Norway captured by World War II naval ships of Germany during World War II.

This, while presumably accurate, and following the conventions, is rather lengthy, and would seem to be contrary to the wish for the name to not be "unwieldy".

Since the intent of the category seems to be more interested in when the ships were captured, the antecedantal usage of WWII may be removed, while still retaining accuracy.

We can also shorten "naval ships of Germany" to "Germany", since the intent of the category doesn't appear concerned whether a "ship" was what captured the naval ships of Norway.

Which now gives us:

Category:Naval ships of Norway captured by Germany during World War II

As this name would appear to fulfill the overall consensual "wish" of those commenting below, I'm closing this with the result of:

Rename Category:Royal Norwegian Navy ships captured by Nazi Germany during World War II to Category:Naval ships of Norway captured by Germany during World War II

- jc37 00:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:World War II naval ships of Norway captured by Nazi Germany. To conform better with Wikipedia "of country" naming conventions, plus it's a bit shorter and less unwieldy. I'm the creator, btw. Manxruler (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In principle I support renaming, though I think we could probably drop "World War II" entirely and go with something along the lines of Category:Norwegian naval ships captured by Nazi Germany. I think it should be noted, however, that there appears to be only one other category for captured ships, Category:Vessels captured from the United States Navy, so some editors may wish to comment on that issue. Cgingold (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me to drop the during World War II. I feel this is a needed category as the Germans captured many Norwegian warships in 1940, far from all have Wikipedia articles just yet, and listing them at Category:World War II naval ships of Germany looked a bit odd to me. Manxruler (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...although it seems to be standard to use of "country", so perhaps Category:Naval ships of Norway captured by Nazi Germany? Manxruler (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment may I say I think the first redlinked alternative sounds a lot more unwieldy than the name we currently have? --Relata refero (disp.) 19:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The parent categories are Category:World War II naval ships of Germany and Category:World War II naval ships of Norway. So I tend to keep the "World War II" part of the name. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suppose the first alternative I proposed, Category:World War II naval ships of Norway captured by Nazi Germany, would be most suitable? 20:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Manxruler (talk)

Yes, I think it is. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:World War II naval ships of Norway captured by Nazi Germany. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Naval ships of Norway captured by Nazi Germany. Presumably Nazi Germany defines the period as WWII, since it wasn't doing much capturing of Norwegian ships before or after WWII. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with this alternate name if that's what other editors prefer. Cgingold (talk) 03:23, 22 May 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:Fictional life forms. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Fictional life forms. The very diverse contents of this category are not fully encapsulated by the term "species", so the broader, all-encompassing term "life forms" is required. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's often very unclear in fiction whether something is a species or a genus or something else. In fact, it's often unclear in fiction how life is supposed to have come into existence at all - by evolution or what? For my nomination just below this I have suggested 'evolution by taxa' rather than 'organism'. Species would certainly be inappropriate there. Here is pretty much the same, but I don't know that taxa is any better in this case. 'Fictional life' or 'fictional life forms' is probably best. The former is simpler but perhaps also somewhat ambiguous, so I support your suggested name. Richard001 (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; seems sensible to make the net wider. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - sure, sounds like a reasonable distinction. --Kiz o r 15:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is the parent of a large tree based on "species", no doubt, the next move will be to rename them based on this precedent; shouldn't they be marked and let people of Trekkie persuasion, for example see Category:Star Trek species realize what's on their monitors and open a hailing frequency to this debate? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an awful lot in there that falls outside the concept of "species" -- so if this is to serve as the parent cat for all of them, the name needs to be broadened. Unless you think it would make sense to keep Category:Fictional species as a sub-cat of Category:Fictional life forms, with the non-species content being moved into the new parent cat. Cgingold (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the logic of the ultimate parent being Fictional life forms, why not just create it atop the current tree, rather than doing it this way? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In principle I would be amenable to doing that. Roughly half of the sub-categories would need to be moved either way -- not a major concern. However, there are around 160 individual articles that need to be sorted out, and it would be much better to have them in the broader category while they're being sorted. If a bot can be assigned to move all of them into the new parent cat I guess we can handle it that way -- so basically, whichever route/solution requires less hands-on work. Cgingold (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think "species" is the best word for "a group of mostly identical life forms," so this would be the title I'd use.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Does Frankenstein's monster belong to a species? --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 17:50, 20 May 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Useless duplicate of Category:Deities and its many dozens of subcategories, created as a POV response to Category:Names of God. -Sean Curtin (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you failed to pay attention that Category:Names of gods is for specific personal names of gods. Therefore, Category:Names of gods and Category:Deities should stay.--71.108.31.176 (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to what? The surnames? Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Human and specific names of humans are the same to you. Therefore, we might as well call all humans "Human." The Category:Names of God is inaccurate because it pigeonholes all belief systems into a monotheistic system and doesn't jibe with the included articles.User:Names of gods--71.108.31.176 (talk)

If you'd read Names of God before you tried deleting the article and corresponding category, you would note that the topic isn't restricted to monotheistic interpretations of the concept of a singular or supreme God. -Sean Curtin (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed the mattter at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_16#Category:Names_of_God. Over there, you stated, " Belief in a singular God is not unique to monotheistic religions," which essentially is a way of selling the notion of "that all religions of the world worship the same god under different names." User:Names of gods71.108.31.176 (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely agree. Category was created as a POV response (or at least out of process rename), and serves no purpose that the current categorization scheme doesn't already. If this category were to be properly populated, it would have thousands of articles. And if were were to break up this category into subcats, such as "Names of gods by culture", it would be strikingly similar to Category:Deities by culture or Category:Gods by culture. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Redundant category. Duplication of category Deities.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a god is usually at an article based upon its name. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. - jc37 05:16, 21 May 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Evolution by organism to Category:Evolution by taxa

Nominator's rationale: Rename. A more appropriate title seems to be 'evolution by species', as an organism must belong to a species, and organisms as individuals don't evolve. Given that many of the articles are not about species, but about classes, phyla etc, the name 'evolution by taxa' seems the most appropriate. Richard001 (talk) 01:42, 17 May 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Don't see a reason to categorize this. Non-defining characteristic. Why fish as opposed to any other animal/object? Sets precedent to create any "List of x on stamps of (country)" category. Additionally, no idea why this category should start with "List of". Overall, worthless on several levels, and only created because it was in Special:Wantedcategories. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This reminds me of someone putting food in something like 'category:items in [some game]'. It would be renamed Category:Fish on stamps of Afghanistan if it were to be kept, as a category can't be a list.

But look at some of the similar categories that seem to exist: Category:Lists of people on stamps, Category:Lists of birds appearing on stamps by country, and yes, Category:Lists of fish on stamps (which includes List of fish on stamps of Afghanistan); no precedent is needed!). It looks like you are proposing more for deletion than you might have realized. Richard001 (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turn into an actual list. At present it is a category, and Delete since there is already a list. non-defining for the contents. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean List of fish on stamps of Afghanistan? Didn't you read my comment? Richard001 (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but your confusion appears to be catching. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - "It looks like you are proposing more for deletion than you might have realized." That's incorrect. The cats that you show are cats of lists, not of fish.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh right, my confusion this time. Frankly I'm surprised we even have such lists, especially given the number of really important articles that don't even exist. Richard001 (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and keep list. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete / listify per Johnbod and Brewcrewer. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify if sourced; people on stamps seems a well-developed series of articles, perhaps fish (and animals) could as well, but it's not notable for the species to have been featured on the stamp. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:43, 20 May 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.

May 17

Category:Child actors

Category:Breeders' Cup Distaff winners

Category:List of people with Erdős-Bacon numbers

Category:Alumni of the University of Vienna

Category:Salt pans

Category:Punk houses

Category:Punk filmmakers

Category:German Christian Democrat politicians

Category:Images with fair use claims

Category:Americans in Germany

Category:Americans of German-Irish ethnicity

Category:Royal Norwegian Navy ships captured by Nazi Germany during World War II

Category:Fictional species

Category:Names of gods

Category:Evolution by organism

Category:List of fish on stamps of Afghanistan