< October 13	October 15 >

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not enough content for a category. Just the main strip article, two subarticles, and the cartoonist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and WP:OC#SMALL. Otto4711 (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:OC#SMALL, this category will never have more than a few members. AdjustShift (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Note however that List of Pearls Before Swine books and List of Pearls Before Swine characters should be assigned a category (only current cat is the one to be deleted). Pichpich (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Members of the Chamber of Deputies of Chile. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chilean deputies to Category:Chilean Chamber of Deputies members

Nominator's rationale: Rename - see Argentine nomination below; current name is ambiguous. Otto4711 (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Members of the Chamber of Deputies of Chile or Category:Members of the Chilean Chamber of Deputies as less potentially ambiguous; these are not Chilean members of some other chamber of deputies. Category:Legislators has a mix of forms, but this one is easier to apply to a variety of bodies; we have Category:Members of the upper house of the parliament of Sweden for instance, where Category:Swedish upper house member of parliament would be awkward. -choster (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to either of the proposed renames. Whatever people think is clearest. Otto4711 (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think Category:Members of the Chamber of Deputies of Chile is cleaner. Pichpich (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Members of the Argentine Chamber of Deputies. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Argentine deputies to Category:Argentine Chamber of Deputies members

Nominator's rationale: Rename - current name is ambiguous, could refer to law enforcement personnel among other things. Otto4711 (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Members of the Argentine Chamber of Deputies or Category:Members of the Chamber of Deputies of Argentina as less potentially ambiguous; these are not Chilean members of some other chamber of deputies. Category:Legislators has a mix of forms, but this one is easier to apply to a variety of bodies; we have Category:Members of the upper house of the parliament of Sweden for instance, where Category:Swedish upper house member of parliament would be awkward. -choster (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to either of the proposed renames. Whatever people think is clearest. Otto4711 (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ditto. Category:Members of the Argentine Chamber of Deputies. Pichpich (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by non-defining characteristic. Otto4711 (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it only contains 2 userpages. (JROTC?) Occuli (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps. Otto4711 (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 19 October 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Current female members of the United States House of Representatives to Category:Female members of the United States House of Representatives

Nominator's rationale: Merge - I thought we didn't categorize politicians based on current vs former. Otto4711 (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I thought so too. Occuli (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I agree. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the presumption that "Category:Foo" generally means "Category:Those which are or have ever been Foo". — CharlotteWebb 14:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There should be no distinction between former and current in the names of categories. We have categories like Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament but they do not pay undue attention to the most recent ones. Nor do they need constant updating. Dimadick (talk) 16:23, 17 October 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; similar McCain and Obama categories were deleted in 2008 OCT 13 CfDs. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - for the same reasons the various subcats for McCain, Obama and McCain-Palin controversies are up for deletion. The articles are already in Palin's category. Otto4711 (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per arguments in McCain, Obama cfds (October 13). Occuli (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; see related CFD. Postdlf (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary and somewhat tendentious. Pichpich (talk) 17:53, 19 October 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: SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate cat. Deletion requested by authorRavichandar _{My coffee shop} 14:30, 14 October 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; no reason to salt unless we find it's being continually re-created after deletion consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category empty. Request it be Salted. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Category is also not needed and covered adequately elsewhere on Wikipedia. !! Justa Punk !! 04:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:01, 19 October 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; no reason to salt unless we find it's being continually re-created after deletion consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category empty. Request it be Salted. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Category is also not needed and covered adequately elsewhere on Wikipedia. !! Justa Punk !! 04:03, 15 October 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Artillery ordnance operation to Category:Artillery operation

Nominator's rationale: The word ordnance is superfluous. All articles are within Category:Artillery operation. Josh (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ordnance components to Category:Artillery components

Nominator's rationale: The word ordnance can be unknown or confusing to readers not expert in artillery terminology. It is unnecessary to use it in place of artillery which is clearer as to what is included. As this is primarily found under Category:Artillery, this should avoid misunderstandings. Josh (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt most people know the difference between "ordnance" and "ordinance" whether they're in the military or not. Support. — CharlotteWebb 19:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:02, 19 October 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, empty. Kbdank71 13:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a minor cricket league which fails the notability criteria set out in WP:CRIN and thereby WP:N and WP:ORG. The sole article has been AfDed for the same reason. An article about the league may just about qualify but a category certainly does not since none of its member clubs can possibly meet the criteria. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. non-notable (potential) members. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NB – this is distinct from Category:Central Lancashire League cricket clubs and Category:Lancashire League cricket clubs, both of which have related articles. I would think there has to be an article on Lancashire County League cricket before we can consider categories related to it. Occuli (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, that is a very good point and I would stress that the Lancashire and Central Lancashire leagues have much higher status than the Lancashire County. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Member clubs of the Lancs County League are highly unlikely to warrant articles, so a category is not justifiable. --bigissue (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Johnlp (talk) 20:53, 15 October 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 per WP:NOT issues. Not listify, as me creating the list would not be able to include sources. If anyone wants to create a properly-sourced list of out this, I can provide the articles/subcats. Kbdank71 13:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public domain characters

I can't believe that I'm going to say this, but Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory.

I think that this is one instance where this really is similar to a list of phone numbers.

And further, the category itself notes a big problem, in that the characters in the cat may not even be public doamin, since it varies by country (and presumably treaty?). - jc37 06:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 06:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Postdlf (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This category is extremely encyclopedic, and it saves a user several steps. The job here is to make the encyclopedia easier to use and navigate, not harder. --Xero (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify - the bare category is too problematic. A list, including sourcing that establishes the status of the characters under the appropriate national or international law, would be very much an asset to the project. Otto4711 (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not oppose listification. (Though, "good luck" with the WP:NOT issues.) - jc37 17:39, 17 October 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, if further articles are found, a sourced list would be appropriate. Kbdank71 13:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Open source fictional characters

Single member category.

Beyond that, since this is a question of licensing, I would presume that this should be part of a list (which can then be sourced), and not a category. - jc37 06:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 06:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to vote under your nomination. XfD is not a voting procedure. The administrator will close the debate by reading opinions and not by counting votes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between a nomination, and the subsequent discussion. I feel that this is simply clearer. And incidentally, I have no worries that a closer will misunderstand and count my comments "twice", since xfd is assuredly not a "vote". - jc37 17:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I'm sure there are more characters to fill up the category. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that, but see #Category:Public domain characters directly above. (I probably should have nominated these two together, since they pretty much have the same rationale.) - jc37 12:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the public domain characters category is deleted this one has to go as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To the closer - Please take #Category:Public domain characters into consideration of this closure. - jc37 17:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional slaves

How often in a story is a character enslaved? It's a common plot point, often done by an author in order to provide a motivation for the other characters.

Should we consider Princess Leia a slave?

And further, are we differentiating between slave, indentured servant, serf, etc.?

And of course, the issue of literary present tense. Has the character always been a "slave"? Were they born into slavery? Were they ever "freed"? Did they escape? If they escaped, would they still be considered slaves "somewhere"?

Too broad, and too ill-defined. Needs supporting sources at the very least. - jc37 05:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 05:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In order to reduce lengthy copy/pasting, I ask the closer to take this essay into consideration. - jc37 17:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, add inclusion standards. A lot of notable works deal with slaves and slavery, and issues surrounding the practice of slavery in the US. "Roots" was a seminal piece of US TV history, and has notable slave characters. 70.51.10.188 (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which are two good reasons to make a list. Inclusion standards = explanations for each member; and of course, "notability" means that a list would likely be kept, and should be developed. - jc37 07:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but divide in to Category:Fictional slaves in fictional worlds and some wording for Uncle Tom & other fictional slaves given a real-world setting - a highly encyclopedic category. At the moment we only seem to have Category:Novels dealing with slavery, which is rather specific. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between a topic, and a grouping of characters whom "someone" is broadly labelling a "slave". - jc37 12:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every character captured in an episode or something like that may fit inside making this category a real mess. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion of an entire social class? Have you even considered historical slavery? Characters who are simply captured should not belong here in the first place. Dimadick (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An example: In Battlestar Galactica in season 3, the remaining humans were slaves by the Cylons on a planet. It was only for the half season (out of 4 seasons so far and a fifth is on the way). All the human characters (maybe with 2 exceptions) were slaves, in same sense. Am I wrong? Can someone go and add each one of this characters in this category? I hope not. -- Magioladitis (talk)
That's a trouble with categorising fiction characters, fictional definitions and settings may or may not match the definitions and settings of RL. - jc37 12:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In real life, people make decisions. In fiction they are made for them. The foolish proposition persistently put forward by the nominator that fictional characters make choices flies in the face of relevant Wikipedia policy. The even more ludicrous argument from retroactive continuity applies only in a limited number of comic book stories which are themselves an infinitesimal speck of the world of fiction that we know as "books". The question is whether there are reliable and verifiable sources supporting the description as slaves for these characters, what is a strong defining characteristic. The nominator's essay should be roundly ignored as irrelevant here and in any other case where it is presented as part of a rationale for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Retcons actually apply to just about every character Marvel or DC has ever published to some extent, and I'd imagine comics characters actually represent a significant portion of our fictional character articles; most characters in most books are not going to have independent articles unless they were featured in an ongoing series. But absent some showing that a character's status as a slave is something that has been written in and out of continuity, I would agree that retcon disruption is probably not a significant or relevant issue here. The deeper issues for me with this category are its equivocation of fictionalized depictions of historical slavery (as in Roots) with science fiction enslavements by aliens (Battlestar Galactica), and its equivocation of slavery as a social class (as it was historically) with slavery as a temporary situation (i.e., the one episode where a character got enslaved and then released). I suspect that addressing the former issue would ameliorate the latter. Postdlf (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comic books are a pimple near the left pinkie toenail of the world of fiction. I loved comic books. I still look at the occasional comic, decades after coming to the realization that there are other forms of fiction. Many of this non-comic fiction comes in the from of books, like comic books but without the word "comic". They are often sold in bookstores and are the main object distributed at public libraries. In book fiction, there is in general a much more stable story line. Sure, someone can write the 197th book in the Star Trek series that recreates Captain James Tiberius Kirk as a left-handed Tribble named Steve who grew up in Detroit in the 46th Century, but even that doesn't do much to the argument. The overwhelming majority of fiction ever produced is of stories in which there is a stable beginning, middle and end. Character traits assigned to the characters remain stable and predictable. While it appears that a significant number of some of the most active editors and admins participating at CfD have a strong affiliation with comics, the world of fiction does not revolve around the animated art form. As such, while the argument from retroactive continuity may play a role in the comic book world that some editors occupy, it has little to no relevance elsewhere. It can, and should be, ignored as an argument for deletion. At best, it may have relevance in determining if a particular defining characteristic is indeed defining for a particular comics character who has been represented in several different manners in different reimaginings of a story or character. Retcon does not even attain the status of a tail that it should be wagging the structure of categories in Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 13:50, 20 October 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 (<personal opinion>I don't think albinism is a handicap</personal opinion>). Kbdank71 13:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with disabilities

Per Disability, this is incredibly too vague.

And further, the term itself is subjective (as noted in the article). - jc37 05:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 05:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In order to reduce lengthy copy/pasting, I ask the closer to take this essay into consideration. - jc37 17:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - at the very least as a parent category for its subcats. Otto4711 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The category is tagged to merge into Category:Fictional characters. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, and that was my intention. I may perhaps need to renominate with a clearer nomination explanation. - jc37 12:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete exactly as Category:Fictional characters with heart problems. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful parent category. Dimadick (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So would you define all the members as disabilities? Why or why not? Is not knowing how to drive a car a disability? It would seem to meet the definition. Is not having a college degree? Let's say we change this to physical disabilities. In certain cultural situations, would being a member of a "different" race be a "disability"? Why or why not? Then let's say we rename this to medical disabilities. Is having bucked teeth a medical disability? A cleft lip?

Let's look at one of the members. Is having abinism a disability? Being a hunchback? How about having dwarfism?

Does it have to be debilitating?

So one problem is that all of these questions (and more) need answering, which means that we need verifiable relaible sources.
And here's the main reason why this category needs to go:
- "Disability is a lack of ability relative to a personal or group standard or norm."
So, since the author determines what is "normal" in a fictional work, this category is fairly useless.

For example, in an undersea world, a character without gills, would be seen as having a disability.

And there are nearly an infinite amount of such examples. What of a person who's physiology precludes them from space flight in setting where everyone lives on ships and/or satellites?

This is too reliant on setting, and thus too broad and too vague. - jc37 12:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having a disability is like your sexuality or your nationality. We have a category for lesbian, gay and bi characters, we even have categories for characters with their heritage. So disabilities shouldn't be any different. --AKR619 (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAX... - jc37 12:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Fictional characters. Since that is how this article is tagged it is not inappropriate to do this. If this was a pure delete nomination, I would have supported delete since there is no clear case made to delete besides WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I would have suggested that deletion be held to see what remained after the subcategories were discussed to see if there was enough left to keep per Otto4711.

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 13:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with mental retardation

Per Mental retardation#Causes, this is entirely too vague. - jc37 05:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 05:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In order to reduce lengthy copy/pasting, I ask the closer to take this essay into consideration. - jc37 17:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete exactly as Category:Fictional characters with heart problems. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per norm. --AKR619 (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't consider plot points as meriting categories. For fictional characters, these types of classifications can be subjective and POV. If managed to where this condition is lifelong and major part of the role you might be able to justify this category. However that would invite a maintenance character. So simply delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:14, 19 October 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 13:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with spinal disabilities

Is this any "spinal disability"? I'm looking at Spinal cord injury (of which there are apparently quite a few), Spinal cord compression, and Central nervous system disease.

Does this include nearly every character in a wheelchair? Or does the text have to actually state the reason is due to the spine? (Note that the central nervous system is considered to be both the brain and the spinal cord.) And whether it's due to compression, actual injury (of various types), or disease?

And what about those who have a spinal disability due to an event? If I read an issue of Batman from the 60's, Barbara Gordon is Batgirl, not Oracle. So now we have another situation of literary present tense. - jc37 05:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. - jc37 05:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In order to reduce lengthy copy/pasting, I ask the closer to take this essay into consideration. - jc37 17:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unencyclopedic. I remind that Category:Fictional characters with heart problems was deleted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per norm. --AKR619 (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't consider plot points as meriting categories. For fictional characters, these types of classifications can be subjective and POV. If managed to where this condition is lifelong and major part of the role you might be able to justify this category. However that would invite a maintenance character. So simply delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no Category:People with spinal disabilities, so there is even less reason to have this category for fictional characters. Postdlf (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional amputees

It is not someone's "nature" to be an amputee, for one thing (the parent of the parent cat).

And this is another example of categorising a fictional character by a fictional event. (In this case, amputation.)

Any time there is an "event", there is a "before" and an "after". And since the guidelines state we have to follow Listerary present tense, characters may be included in this cat regardless of when in their character history it may have been accurate.

An excellent example of the problem is Chucky (Child's Play). This is clearly a fictional character. But the character doesn't even have a human form. Should that be presumed? And the character was "rebuilt", so the category doesn't necessarily apply "now". But then, when is "now"?

And what about a character that can regenerate?

Categorisation should simply not be due to some fictional event in the history of a fictional character. - jc37 05:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 05:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In order to reduce lengthy copy/pasting, I ask the closer to take this essay into consideration. - jc37 17:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I must say I cannot follow jc37's arguments about present tense and fictional events. jc37 seems to be arguing that fictional characters cannot be categorised by anything fictional ... so for instance Rocky Balboa cannot be characterised as a boxer and Rambo had no defining characteristics related to Vietnam ... hmmm. Surely there are perfectly valid fictional amputees - there is one in Forest Gump. (There may well be a case for excluding comics characters from many categories.) Occuli (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that being an amputee is an "event." I understand Jc37's point regarding when the amputation is depicted during the course of the character's narrative, whether within one work or across many, but I don't think it's confusing or incorrect in this context (contrast with categorizing a fictional character as "dead"). I don't think it's controversial to omit characters who regenerate (and so suffered no loss) or characters who aren't actually biological (robots, animated dolls, etc.) and so were instead "broken"; is "amputee" really that ambiguous? I'm still open to further arguments as to why this can't work as a category in principle, however. Postdlf (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At any moment, someone may come along with a "purple ray" or some such miraculous cure and regentate the lost limb, for one thing.

Trying to categorise characters based upon some in-universe feature means that at any time that feature may be changed, modified, etc.

And consider Aquaman.

One whole point of literary present tense is that we aren't supposed to be involved in being "continuity cops".

So someone buys a DVD of the Aquaman TV series. Aquaman isn't amputated there. Nor is he throughout most of his 67 year history in comics. (Regardless of continuity.)

But recently in comics, the character lost a hand.

For all you "defining to a character" fans, should we consider this "defining" to Aquaman? Why or why not?

Is it "defining" for Captain Hook? Or is it part of the "pirate stereotype"/stock character?

Or here's a fun one: are all the characters on Futurama who are only heads in a jar to be considered amputees?

What about Frodo Baggins? That he became an amputee was central to the resolution to the plot.? Or was it? Wouldn't an observation of whether something is "defining" require interpreting the text?

And if so, doesn't that make it WP:OR?

All of these might make for an interesting article. But we shouldn't be categorising based upon it. For WP:OR reasons, among others. - jc37 12:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Comment': I think some basic standards for inclusion would help a whole lot. Captain Hook for the most part predates the stock aspect and it's even reflected ironically his *name* (and his central motivation, consistent in nearly all versions, is vengeance for having been amputated), so I don't think an objection there really makes sense. On the other hand, Chucky and Aquaman are definitely problematic. Similarly, looking around, Pete (Disney character), where the pegleg was just a design aspect until artists worried that audiences thought it was painful so it was dropped (one and only one comic strip actually explained it as Pete having acquired a store-bought leg, but otherwise it was dropped and "Peg-Leg Pete" became simply Pete, and in general Disney continuity now pretends he never had it). But I think simply excluding comic books and other fantasy issues, as well as amputations that occur near the end of a plot, would take care of it. And it does have a long history in literature and literary criticism that need not require any "original research." On the otherhand, looking around, pages like pegleg list characters who qualify (including Simon Wegg from Our Mutual Friend, whose status [referred to constantly as a "literary man with a wooden leg") to a greater extent and more fittingly than those in the character. Looking at the recently nominated disability related categories, this is the only one that I think could work in theory, but would be better off as an article, as mentioned, or as a list *with strict guidelines and criteria* (something like "Notable fictional amputees") requiring an explanation (and, when possible, say, quotes from the text or a critic about it) and excluding Aquaman, Chucky, and others for whom limb removal is either non=permanent or only pertinent to a specific media incarnation. I'm not sure if that's feasible, though. -- Aleal (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per norm. --AKR619 (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator suggests deletion! What do you mean by keep per nom? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word is "norm", not "nom". Alansohn (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another category involved in fictional characters' overcategorisation. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fictional characters do not lead a life of their own. They do not make choices. They do not "choose" to be amputated. They are the work of their authors and creators, who have endowed them with a set of characteristics that are quite often intended to be defining. While an author's choice of first name or hair color for characters may not be defining, authors will define characteristics as unusual as being an amputee as defining. The question is if we can find sources that support the description, say as "one-armed". I will also remind CfD participants that the world of fiction does not revolve around comic books, Sure I love Richie Rich and Jughead Jones as mush as the next guy, but the fact that these characters may hypothetically change some characteristics has little to do with the essential characteristics of the character, not does it have anything to do with the world of fiction at large, where things like books set a fairly limited opportunity for the character to change. Given that the Retcon argument applies to a narrow part of the comic book world, which is in turn the smallest part of the world of fiction, the hypothetical possibility of changes to a character not only can be ignored, but it offers no relevance to the category as a whole, only the possible inclusion of particular entires within the category. The argument that "Categorisation should simply not be due to some fictional event in the history of a fictional character" is intended as an argument that the entire category system should be dismantled for fictional characters. It would make more sense to try to do this in one fell swoop rather than to make piecemeal efforts at disassembling the system one category at a time, and save lots of wasted time and effort either way. Alansohn (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Jc37's arguments are that certain traits are not "essential characteristics" of those characters when it can be seen that writers add or subtract those over the publication history of the characters. My own stance is that any characteristic of a fictional character may be just a transient and inconsistent depiction for certain characters in certain instances, so we must try to determine which characteristics are typically essential and defining. I think this is largely an editorial judgment along the lines of what information to include in the introductory paragraphs of an article, so I don't think this is always a case-by-case judgment as to what categories we consider useful or necessary. But I do think Jc37's arguments, taken to their logical conclusion, would end up dismantling the entire fictional character category scheme. On this particular category, I'm tentatively at weak keep, while mindful of the borderline cases Jc37 notes about which inclusion may be argued. Postdlf (talk) 16:41, 17 October 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; categories specific to McCain and Palin were also deleted in 2008 OCT 13&14 CfDs. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - as a container category it's unnecessary. As a category for content it's duplicative. Either we we don't need it. Otto4711 (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Is Category:Sarah Palin controversies more significant than McCain/Obama (cfd'd recently) and why is Biden left out? Occuli (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Sarah Palin Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Hagee and the McCain lobbyist article don't belong in Palin's category and the others are already there. Otto4711 (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and per comments at related CFD. Postdlf (talk) 15:43, 15 October 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.

October 14

Category:Pearls Before Swine (comic strip)

Category:Chilean deputies

Category:Argentine deputies

Category:List of current and former Navy JROTC members

Category:Current female members of the United States House of Representatives

Category:Sarah Palin controversies

Category:Tamil film actors

Category:Royal Rumble winners

Category:King of the Ring winners

Category:Artillery ordnance operation

Category:Ordnance components

Category:Lancashire County League cricket clubs

Category:Public domain characters

Category:Open source fictional characters

Category:Fictional slaves

Category:Fictional characters with disabilities

Category:Fictional characters with mental retardation

Category:Fictional characters with spinal disabilities

Category:Fictional amputees

Category:McCain-Palin controversies