< October 19 October 21 >

October 20

Category:Banks in Illinois

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 all. Kbdank71 12:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Banks in Illinois to Category:Banks based in Illinois
Propose renaming Category:Banks in Indiana to Category:Banks based in Indiana
Propose renaming Category:Banks in Missouri to Category:Banks based in Missouri
Propose renaming Category:Banks in Nebraska to Category:Banks based in Nebraska
Propose renaming Category:Banks in Omaha, Nebraska to Category:Banks based in Omaha, Nebraska
Nominator's rationale: Rename. We list companies by the state they are based in and not all of the states that they do business in. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That should probably be renamed to a state-level category. Otto4711 (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not every city needs/should have a category, but both Omaha and certainly NYC are banking centers in their respective states. Upmerging them to the parent cats would make it harder to locate the smaller number of banks that are located outside of those cities. Cgingold (talk) 10:26, 26 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.

Category:Giftedness

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 13:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Giftedness to Category:Intellectual giftedness
Nominator's rationale: Rename - for clarity and to match lead article Intellectual giftedness. Otto4711 (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles on other forms of giftedness are not included in this category, so it appears that editors are limiting its contents to intellectual giftedness on their own. The rename simply reflects the reality of how the category is being used. Otto4711 (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To begin with, I just took a quick look and found a number of articles that deal with other forms of giftedness (eg. Child prodigy, List of music prodigies). The article about Gifted Rating Scales explains how children are assessed for a range of different forms of giftedness. And the main article has a section on Definitions of giftedness which discusses this issue at some length. All of which supports my contention that we shouldn't arbitrarily narrow this category by specifying intellectual giftedness. I really don't see what purpose would be served by narrowing it, which would thereby exclude articles about the other forms. Cgingold (talk) 11:18, 21 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.

Category:People with outstanding memory

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 13:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People with outstanding memory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - "outstanding" is subjective and this is also a small category with little room for exansion. If appropriate sourcing can be found, this could be merged to Category:People with eidetic memory as based on the definition at that category these two people appear to qualify. Otto4711 (talk) 21:03, 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.

Category:Churches in Tonga

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 13:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Tonga to Category:Christian denominations in Tonga
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category contains only pages on Christian denominations and no pages on church buildings, per the parent: Category:Churches. --Carlaude (talk) 20:21, 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.

Category:Beauty and the Beast

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 13:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Beauty and the Beast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper performer by project overcategorization. With the performers removed, there would be two articles left, making it a small category with little to no likelihood of expansion. Otto4711 (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If kept make name more specific to Disney film. Why we don't have a general B&tB cat for the millions of other versions ..... Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with removing the performers but we could instead list its spin-offs like Beauty and the Beast (musical), Sing Me a Story with Belle, Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas and Belle's Magical World. Dimadick (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every single actor in this category has had other roles for which they're far better known than this. Bearcat (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, although in the former case I suppose it could be a sub-cat of a general category. Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 24 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.

Category:Innovation Waikato Limited

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/rename per nom. Kbdank71 13:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Innovation Waikato Limited (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Waikato Innovation Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Dairy Research (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Clearly a case of over categorization for a single article. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think one can conclude overcategorization based on the number of articles in the category, particularly when the category is only three weeks old and no serious attempt has been made to populate it. I took a few minutes this morning and added four more entries. It still overcategorization? What if I find four more articles? - Stepheng3 (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the two Waikato categories, rename Dairy Research to the standard capitalisation per Peterkingiron, Grutness.Dsp13 (talk) 23:25, 25 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.

Category:People with heterochromia

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 13:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with heterochromia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale - To begin with, this "condition" strikes me as being rather too trivial to categorize people with: it's basically about individuals who happen to be known to have eyes of different colors (eg. one brown & one blue, etc.). Given that it's mostly being used for celebrities whose eye-coloration has been noted simply because they are in the public eye (so to speak), it seems rather out of place as a sub-cat of Category:People by medical or psychological condition. At the same time, the use of this term for categorization is problematic because the term actually encompasses a range of issues/conditions: heterochromia can be "complete" or "partial", genetic or acquired, and so forth. In some cases, there's an associated medical condition, more typically it's simply the aforementioned difference in eye coloration. All in all, I just don't think it makes sense as a Category -- by my lights, it's better dealt with in list form (see List of people with heterochromia - which really should be annotated, with separate sections for the different varieties of heterochromia). (Category creator unknown due to change of name) Cgingold (talk) 18:38, 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.

Category:Fotheringhay, Northamptonshire

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 13:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fotheringhay, Northamptonshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Sure, the castle makes Fotheringhay important as English villages go, but it doesn't warrant a category to itself.HeartofaDog (talk) 15:51, 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.

Category:Health problems in India

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. "Problems" is POV, but there isn't direction as to a fix. Recommend renomoination. Kbdank71 13:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Health problems in India to Category:Health issues in India
Nominator's rationale: I am indecisive as to the intrinsic value of this category at all. All health issues are generally related to "problems".

Current category is POV-loaded. "issues" is more neutral. "problems" requires judgement that an issue is problematic, and this may be disputable, and it may be argued as to what exactly problem pertains to. ZayZayEM (talk) 13:29, 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.

Category:Living people

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: Snowball Keep. Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Living people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is intended for editors, not for readers (quite useless for readers, with over 300,000 articles), and therefor belongs on the talk page of the articles. It was needed to enforce WP:BLP, but its function has been taken over by Category:Biography articles of living people (with over 250,000 articles), which is added to talk pages of articles, not to the articles themselves (through the WPBiography template). Earlier discussions were closed by edict from Jimbo, and a new CFD was prohibited at the category (hidden text). I have permission from Jimbo to start this discussion[1], although he has not endorsed (or condemned) the deletion itself.
I would support, if technically possible, to keep this category until a bot has added all articles in this category which are not yet in Category:Biography articles of living people to the latter one, so that all articles currently tagged as BLP risks are transferred properly (most are, but there is still a substantial difference between the two).
Note: three earlier discussions are linked to from Category talk:Living people, but I believe that the situation has changed and that these earlier discussions are unrelated to the current proposal.
Note to closing admin: if this gets a "delete" result (which is far from certain of course), please check with developers to see if the removal of a category from 300,000 pages won't cause any problems technically. Fram (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note to closing admin: I would also ask that the 50,000+ discrepancy between the two systems be fully explained and listed and tackled with a bot before one or the other system is removed. Having 50,000 articles in one and not the other is not an insignificant discrepancy, and that assumes that the 250,000 'living people' are all tagged with WPBiography (which is not the case). Carcharoth (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about making it a hidden category (in which case it will only be seen by logged-in users who have selected "[x] Show hidden categories" in Special:Preferences)? I believe this would be much better than deleting it or moving it to the talk page. — CharlotteWebb 13:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a better option than deletion or moving to the talk page. (Though my personal preference would be not to hide it, either.) Dsp13 (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"quick way to see at a glance if someone is living or not" ← Shrug, infoboxes, pronouns ("is"/"was"), and the presence or absence of a death date in the lead sentence are usually a dead giveaway strong hint. — CharlotteWebb 13:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At present Category:Biography articles of living people contains bands with living members (e.g. Talk:5th Man Down (band)), whereas Category:Living people doesn't. I don't know how important it is for BLP purposes to distinguish between individual living people and groups of people which have living members, but for other purposes it is useful. Birth and death categories, taken together with the living people category, currently provide the most robust way of singling out pages which are about individuals. Dsp13 (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if all people were fully categorised, the year of birth category (including unknown & missing) would indeed be sufficient! Any help in supplying these missing categories is welcome: e.g. in March there were 26,000 living people lacking categorization by year of birth. Dsp13 (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (weak): A minor side issue is that the category is sometimes misused, such as when someone adds articles on groups of people to the "Living people" category. It's actually pretty common with low notability band articles, e.g. Old_School_Freight_Train and Nothin'_Fancy. Making it a hidden category, or talk page category would, I think, make it less likely to be abused, but also less likely to be corrected. Studerby (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fram made a good point.--Parthian Scribe 20:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it's redundant with the BLP category as far as policy is concerned (it needs one, or the other, but not both) and it's impossible to maintain (I'm willing to bet there are dozens of articles at least of people who are no longer alive in it), even if it was correct to begin with. — Coren (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC) (Changed, see below)[reply]
dozens of errors in a quarter million would seem to be exceptionally good accuracy, & is hardly a reason for deletion--DGG (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that one is redundant to the other, but I'd rather we delete the one used on talk pages (as it is decidedly the less useful). See my comments above viz. Special:Relatedchanges. — CharlotteWebb 00:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) Lack of synchronisation - There is not 100% overlap between the two sets of articles. Some articles in Category:Living people are not in the ((WPBiography)) talk page category, and some in the ((WPBiography)) category are not in Category:Living people. This can be seen by an examination of the numbers. As someone said above, the overlap is things such as music bands and other 'group' articles, which for historical reasons were tagged with the WPBiography tag, but unfortunately no 'group' parameter was put in place at the beginning to mark these 'group' articles out from the others. Unless someone can confirm (by providing a full listing of each) that the overlap is 100%, then no switch-over or deletion can take place. The listing and sychronisation must take place before any deletion, and will almost certainly be out-of-date before any such synchronisation is finished. But at least an attempt to reduce the discrepancies to the hundreds, and not the thousands, is needed.
  • (2) Tracking changes - Even if there was 100% overlap, Special:Relatedchanges works on categories containing the articles but not categories containing the talk pages, so that's almost certainly a deal breaker. This strikes directly to the heart of why the system was set up in the first place.
  • (3) Less accurate - I've long suspected, but been unable to prove, that Category:Living people is a more accurate tracker of living people than the ((WPBiography)) system. If anything, it is the ((WPBiography)) that should be removed, not the Category:Living people, but first, it should be determined who uses which system, and why, and which is more comprehensive. If the answer is neither or both, then full and complete synchronisation (which I've been commenting on the need for, for over a year) is needed first.
  • (4) Category index-sorting - Sorting, as seen in categories, doesn't work well on categories containing talk pages due to extensive use of talk page banners (this one is complicated, please, please ask if you don't understand what I've said here). Many talk page templates use the magic word ((PAGENAME)) to strip the 'Talk:' bit from the page title. Unfortunately, this overrides any DEFAULTSORT index-sorting that has been applied in other templates, such as ((WPBiography)) (which uses DEFAULTSORT in its 'listas' parameter). Also, if more than one talk page banner uses DEFAULTSORT, it is the last one on the page that is used. I came to conclusion long ago that category index-sorting on talk pages for biographical articles is broken, because while it is possible to track which articles lack 'listas' on the talk page, it has proven difficult to accurately synchronise this with the DEFAULTSORT values used on the main page. Unless it is possible to get the talk pages to sort according to the DEFAULTSORT value used on the main article, then removing Category:Living people would separate the DEFAULTSORT data from the category data, as the category is the closest thing we have to an overall list.
Further comments - It is possible to use the Category:Births by year system with bots and computers and AWB-users, to generate a list of all living people, but for most people, it is difficult to generate a comprehensive list because it is extensively and heavily subcategorised. This is similar to the situation for Category:People (currently, there is no easy way to get an accurate and easy listing of all our articles on people, whether alive or dead - this is astonishing if you stop and think about it, and shows how categorisation is certainly not tagging or keywording, and how Wikipedia needs a tagging or keywording system. A similar situation is the lack of gender information. Try getting a list of all our biographical articles about men (e.g. Isaac Newton), and all our biographical articles about women (e.g. Marie Curie). Finally, there is a bot proposal here that is relevant (it is effectively a proposal to re-synchronise the two systems), along with User:Kingbotk/Plugin, which was used previously (and maybe still is by some) to do the synchronisation. Carcharoth (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also User:D6. — CharlotteWebb 16:07, 21 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.

Category:Multiple planetary systems

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. And so I don't get accused of "ignoring" the arguments for "keep/rename" by issuing a one-word closing result: for any given topic, WP:CLN is fairly open to the existence of a category, a list, or both. As an editing guideline, it doesn't attempt to set down hard and fast rules about these issues, but rather, it provides suggestions for consideration in deciding the issue and then leaves it up to consensus to determine which of the two are preferrable, or if having both are preferred. Here, consensus is that a having a list but no category is preferrable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Multiple planetary systems to Category:?
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is badly named, it implies several "planetary systems", but is used for systems with multiple planets. Suggested rename targets:
Category:Multi-planet planetary systems
Category:Multiple planet planetary systems
Category:Multiple planet systems

70.55.200.131 (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything along these lines needs to be hyphenated ("Multiple-planet"). Cgingold (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carcharoth didn't say anything about favoring deletion, VW - s/he merely opined that the list seemed "more useful". As you know, categories and lists are considered to be complementary, not mutually exclusive. I presume you would want the 32 articles to be upmerged into the parent, Category:Planetary systems -- which would raise the total there to 150 articles. Not helpful. I see no compelling reason to delete this instead of renaming it. To the contrary, we're much better served by keeping/renaming it, and creating the sibling category that I've proposed, which would result in Category:Planetary systems being far more usable & useful for readers, since the articles about specific planetary systems would no longer swamp the much smaller number of articles that deal with the subject of planetary systems. Cgingold (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CLN states A category is probably inappropriate if the answer to the following questions is "no": "Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it?" Both Extrasolar planet and List of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets already exist, and both more than satisfy the More-than-a-few-paragraphs standard"; "If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?" Are you seriously suggesting that someone who is at the article List of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets will not deem it obvious as to what the category includes? As the answer to both of these questions from WP:CLN is clearly "yes", there is no policy argument for deletion. Simply misinterpreting the facts and misconstruing Wikipedia policy is a rather poor basis for deleting categories. Alansohn (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Falsely trotting CLN around as policy ad nauseum, with emphasis on nauseum, with no concern as to whether or not a list and category should exist, is a poor basis to keep categories.
  • List of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets is not in Category:Multiple planetary systems, nor is it mentioned in the category text, so you won't be able to go from that article to the category. So yes, I am saying that. Let's go with an example that actually works, yes? 14 Herculis is in Category:Multiple planetary systems. But before you even get to the category, you get to the "See also" section, which points you to a clear titled List of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets. As nominated above, Category:Multiple planetary systems could be "Multiple planetary" systems, or Multiple "planetary systems". It's not clear from the three words at the bottom of the article. So is it clear? No. --Kbdank71 20:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would give you credit for mimicry, but you only add further evidence to your persistent abuse and misinterpretation of policy. I have gone out and gathered evidence from multiple editors at WT:RS and WP:RSN showing that your interpretation of WP:RS is completely and totally false. It's not even wrong. If you believe that my interpretation of WP:CLN is incorrect, you have every opportunity to do so, yet all you have done is to mimic. Even you can do better. As to the clarity issue, all that's missing is to add the entries you believe are missing. I'll be happy to do it as it, if you refuse to do so. Alansohn (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • RS is just a WP:DEADHORSE from another discussion, and is not applicable here, as I'm not basing my argument on it. I have shown how I disagree with you on your application of CLN (neither requires nor forbids, renenmer? I did take the opportunity above) and how you continually base your arguments on it as if it were policy, which it is not. If you have something new to present in your argument, I'll consider it, but if it's just more of the same ole Alan, I'll stick with my delete. --Kbdank71 13:59, 29 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.

Category:Current female United States Senators

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 13:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Current female United States Senators to Category:Female United States Senators
Nominator's rationale: Merge - per this recent CFD. Same reasons apply. Otto4711 (talk) 10:38, 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.

Category:VfB Leipzig players

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 13:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:VfB Leipzig players to Category:Lokomotive Leipzig players
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The club has been known as VfB or Lokomotive for roughly equal parts of their history, but Lokomotive is their current name. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:15, 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.

Category:American programs based on foreign programs

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:American television series based on non-American television series, though the preference for "non-American" over "foreign" doesn't appear to be all that strong. The "based on" vs. "adapted from" issue could be pursued in a new nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American programs based on foreign programs to Category:American television series based on foreign television series
Nominator's rationale: Rename - per recent CFD that resulted in the similarly-named American/British category being renamed. This clarifies what sort of programs and, since this is for American series, uses American terminology. Otto4711 (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't say as I have a problem with it but if "series from other countries" is preferred I don't have strong feelings. Otto4711 (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really have strong feelings about this in any direction. I think it's clear when there's a country mentioned by name in the category name that "foreign" means "countries other than the named one" but if it's truly going to result in confusion then I have no objection to wording the name however people think best. Otto4711 (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename with mild preference for "non-American". Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 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.

Category:British supervillains

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 13:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:British supervillains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Its parent category was deleted via CFD of 2008 September 1. The same arguments appear to apply to this category, now orphaned. Stepheng3 (talk) 04:20, 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.

Category:People movers

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: weakish keep; I relisted to try to gain a stronger consensus for this position but no other opinions were forthcoming; this could be seen as somewhere between a "no consensus" and a "clear keep". Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People movers to Category:???
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is ambiguous when restricted to a single type of people mover. The question is, what to do the contents of this category. And if reusing this category as a parent for the various types of people movers. I believe that the current entries are might be better classified as Category:Automated fixed guideway systems. What is interesting is that Category:Monorails is not included here and yet it is an automated fixed guideway system. Maybe this is just a case of a cleanup being needed. Moving walkways at some airports really meet the definition since they are 'fully automated, grade-separated mass transit systems' when they cross over roadways. I'll note that Category:Automated guideway transport exists and again Category:Monorails is also not included there. So bringing this here for a discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have not found a corresponding Wikipedia article for "automated guideway transport" to assist in providing a definition of what "automated guideway transport" might be. Do you know of any definitions? —Sladen (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about Automated guideway transit? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The second line of the Automated guideway transit article currently states[2] "AGT is normally used to implement either limited people mover systems, or more complex mass transit systems." Based on that, could AGT be moved to be a sub-category of both Category:people movers and Category:Public transport? (There is no Category:Mass transit, and Mass transit in article space leads to Public transport. Whilst WP:GHITS should be taken is a drop of salt, "people mover" results one-hundred times as many results as "automated guideway *". I'm wondering if the relative frequency in use (and/or obscurity) of the terms reflects in the size of Category:Automated guideway transport and the automated guideway transit articles. —Sladen (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:11, 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.

Category:ALWEG people movers

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:ALWEG people movers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Over categorization. If kept, the name should be something like Category:Monorails based on ALWEG technology. This is functionally equivalent to having a category like Category:Products based on technology of Thomas Edison. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, on the whole I have tried to avoid having the company name in the people-mover/monorail system type for the categories. Unlike railways, people mover technology tends to be highly proprietary and each (type of) system is only compatible with other systems installed/constructed by the same manufacturer—or ones to the same specification, as a result of licensing or later sale of the company. Unfortunately, ALWEG (being effectively a single-product company) didn't seem to differentiate the product from the company, so I have had difficulty in avoiding the the use of their company name for the system type in this case. For example, cars from one of the Disneyland people movers were used on the Las Vagas monorail (manufactured by Bombardier); this is because they used the same specification of track—and not because any of the components necessarily came from the (defunct) ALWEG.
If the category could benefit from renaming, then the full matching set (see Category:People movers) could also do with shuffling. —Sladen (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the Disney cars were not used on the LVM. They were used on the MGM shuttle that ran from the MGM Grand to Bally. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Las Vegas Monorail is an extension of the original (shorter) MGM shuttle guideway. —Sladen (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your enthusiastic unilateral edits undertaken before this process has run its course. For the moment I have reverted those of today's edits that assumed that all monorails were People Movers (see Kbdank71's example above of a baggage handling system) and restored the indexing by a ' ' space, per WP:CAT#Priority.
  1. In this particular case the ALWEG specification uses a monorail design, so up-merging would be technical okay. However, upmerging 18 articles and 1 sub-category into a parent sub-category of (currently) 45 unsorted entries (total 60+) would be counter productive, and in-turn lose the association that exists between these eighteen articles.
  2. About the only feature that an ALWEG specification people mover and an (eg.) Cable Liner people mover system share is that they both move people, the propulsion system and track are totally different and incompatible. One would have to add the further category to those 18 covered articles to make up for removing that inclusion via Category:ALWEG people movers.
  3. As noted before, Category:ALWEG people movers is not a "classifying these by manufacturer", but by specification (Bombardier Transportation and Hitachi Monorail are current manufacturers. People movers, are not like traditional railway systems. The style of propulsion, the "track" style and control system are compatible only with those using the same specifications.
    • (A "[r]ail geek" equivalent might be suggest up-merging "narrow-gauge diesel railcars" and "standard-gauge steam freight locomotives" to "wheeled transport" based on a claim that Deutsch Bahn were manufacturers of both, despite the obvious differences they have incompatible track systems, don't share a propulsion system and aren't used for the same purpose.
It might be useful to add the style (not specification) of track (eg. monorail, duorail) used different operational people movers systems; something that I believe is (was) already done, by sub-categorising groups of systems with a common feature ("built to ALWEG specification"). However if not all "automated guideway systems" (whatever that is—the phrase/abbreviation AGV mostly occurs in association with VAL) are people movers, then the AGV classification cannot replace the Category:People movers classification as AGV is not fully encompassing, or accurate.
—Sladen (talk) 01:02, 26 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.

Category:British comedy puppets

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, though no one seems really satisfied with the status quo. I relisted in an attempt to get further input, but no further opinions were forthcoming. (What is it with people today?—nobody cares about puppets anymore ...) This muddle shouldn't be a bar to a future nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:British comedy puppets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, unnecessary and somewhat arbitrary subcategory. Based on the category description page, this was intended to classify puppets featured in British television, but there are no other subcategories of Category:Puppets that are specific to nationality, genre, or medium, and this seems like a strange way to start doing that. The "comedy" classification also seems a bit off in that these are mostly from children's television programs, which always contain humorous elements, but aren't really properly termed as "comedy" except in the way that most puppets are comedic. Note also that there is Category:Television programs featuring puppetry, which has no nationality subcategories. Upmerge as needed, but most are also in the parent Category:Puppets, which is in no danger of overflowing. Postdlf (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, though some like Emu are best known for one-off appearances, and only got series in their declining years. I have just added Monkey (advertising character) to the cat, but will hold off on the Tracy family, all 5 of whose articles should be added if we rename without "comedy". Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are 13, potentially 18 puppets here. The main cat has 70 puppets, which would be drastically cleared down if US tv & movie categories were established. Who exactly is going to spend the time creating this wondeful list? If such a list existed, I might be readier to see deletion, but it doesn't. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the discussion is closed as "Listify", there is actually a "working" page just for it. (See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual.) I help out there somewhat myself. - jc37 21:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:05, 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.

Category:Dutch Children's musical groups

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) 07:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dutch Children's musical groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Empty category; it only ever had one item in it at most (Kinderen voor Kinderen), and that is not really a musical group Soap Talk/Contributions 00:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. - Stepheng3 (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Created by me. In retrospect no need, hence delete. gidonb (talk) 16:27, 21 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.

Category:Video game weapons and items

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:Video game weapons to Category:Video game items. Kbdank71 13:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Unnecessarily small category. All video game weapons are video game items, so categories are highly related. Would provide more centralized organization. Randomran (talk) 00:05, 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.
More