< October 27	October 29 >

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 (ok, good catch, upmerge) (parent not tagged for renaming, please nominate it if that is desired . Kbdank71 15:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Academy Award Winners for Best Actor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Prime example of over-classification, this is redundant in part to Category:Best Actor Academy Award winners and adds nothing to the information already contained in numerous other categories in which the actor is already placed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – we have Category:Best Actor Academy Award winners and one 'people' subcat Category:American Academy Award Winners for Best Actor (known generally as Oscars). I personally read the latter as 'Winners of the American Academy Award for Best Actor' whereas it is for 'American winners of the Academy Award for Best Actor'. I'm not sure why Americans should get their own subcat. Also the intro to Category:American Academy Award Winners for Best Actor mentions nominations as well as winners. So there is some confusion. I would suggest upmerge Category:American Academy Award Winners for Best Actor to Category:Best Actor Academy Award winners (and exclude any non-winners). I would also prefer the name Category:Winners of the Academy Award for Best Actor per Academy Award for Best Actor. Occuli (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete / Rename Parent I see no reason to subdivide Best Actors by nationality, though I could reconsider if one was offered. The lists and categories do not make clear that this is for Americans who have won the Best Actor Academy Award and not Best Actor winners at something called the American Academy Awards (perhaps other nations have their own Academy Awards). While I support Occuli's suggestion, as I see it, every actor in Category:American Academy Award Winners for Best Actor is already in Category:Best Actor Academy Award winners, so there's nothing to merge. I agree with Occuli's suggestion to rename to Category:Winners of the Academy Award for Best Actor, which avoids most of the possible ambiguity in the title of the parent article and also matches the corresponding list. Alansohn (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I generally say upmerge as it avoids the need to check all the articles (I am assuming the bot is bright enough to do nothing if the target is already present). Occuli (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the subcat. If the parent is to be renamed my preferences is for Category:Academy Award for Best Actor winners, which is shorter and more in keeping with the naming formats adopted (albeit not uniformly) through much of Category:Award winners. Otto4711 (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Academy Award for Best Actor winners would also be fine. ('Winners of' is a reflex UK-preference, cf 'Alumni of', and this is a US award.) Occuli (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with everything that's been said previously. The parent cat seems to be better and I can't see a good reason for this to be further broken down by nationality, but I'm not suggesting that a good reason doesn't exist just because I haven't thought of it. This seems redundant and excessive. Rossrs (talk) 08:03, 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 3rd. Kbdank71 15:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Gubernatorial titles
• Category:Heads of settlement

Suggest merging both to Category:Positions of subnational authority

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, the existing categories are unsuccessfully split between different tiers of sub-national administration, and one country is too different from another in size and organisation to have a consistent approach. This is a wider re-nomination following no consensus at CFD on October 9. Fayenatic (talk) 20:11, 28 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: relisted on 3rd. Kbdank71 15:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Two-lane freeways to Category:Two-lane freeways in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All but one of these are in the US. That one road can be removed if this rename goes through. This better aligns this category with the limited access rename to break out these roads by county since the various names mean different things in different parts of the world. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 28 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) 02:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Extremely heavy people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is an ambiguously named category which deals with WP:BLP subjects (although some of them are deceased). The original category Category:Obese people has already been deleted once through CFD for the same reasons. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_18#Category:Obese_people for prior discussion. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See Category talk:Extremely heavy people for a discussion about this. --Amalthea^Talk 18:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or rename along the lines of "record holders".

First, let me recap as to why I created a similar category. Category:Obesity has various articles about medical techniques and experts, but the largest distinct group of articles in the category was record-holding heavy people. I thought it would make the head category more useful if the latter group of articles were moved into a sub-category.

This was then deleted as a re-creation, referring to the CFD linked above. A week later, User:Jnestorius created category:Extremely heavy people.

As for recreation, it sounds from CFD:Obese people as if the original category was populated with numerous unsourced and dubious cases. This one is more specifically defined.

"Extremely heavy" is so far being used for people who were one of the heaviest people of their nationality or other significant category (e.g. occupation). This is documented, verifiable, and a defining characteristic for the individuals.

If someone is documented in WP:RS as the heaviest person in their country, they objectively occupy an extreme of heaviness. This is a useful sub-cat of category:Obesity and Category:People by medical or psychological condition.

Some people are/were only the second heaviest person in a large country, but if they are at the extremity by reason of some relevant classification other than nationality, documented in the article, e.g. the heaviest boxer or other profession for which their weight was relevant, then they should stay here.

As for WP:Overcategorization: the intro to that policy does not make a case against this category. Nationality, dates and just one more enormously :-) relevant category on these articles do not amount to "category clutter".

Occupying an extreme of heaviness is objective and documented, overcoming WP:OC#Subjective inclusion criterion. The category does not include any stated threshold for inclusion and is therefore not in breach of WP:OC#Arbitrary inclusion criterion.

Note that other editors have suggested a wider membership than just record-holders i.e. people who were notable for being obese, but this is problematic and I don't have a proposal to implement it.

As for keeping only the list: I acknowledge that the list has the potential to be more informative than the category. However, it is normal to categorise biographies according to what the person was notable for. Otherwise, the biographies might only be categorised according to origin and dates, which seems a bit pointless. I don't accept that this category is similar to "fictional blondes".

I suggest that the options for categorising these articles are:

1. Just uncategorise the articles, leaving them "orphaned" as described above. However, unlike some other listified categories, in this case they could all justifiably have a link to the List of the heaviest people, under "See also".
2. Merge this category back up into Category:Obesity which is a defining characteristic for these individuals.
3. Replace this cat with a sub-cat of Category:Guinness World Record holders e.g. Category:Holders of Guiness World Records for obesity and weight-loss -- GWR have already taken the decision that those are especially notable in this field. De-categorise the others (but they may stay on the List)
4. WP:Ignore all rules and keep the category if there is a consensus that it makes sense. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename (tbd) We do have categories like Category:People with gigantism; if extreme obesity could be recast as a verifiable medical condition, it could be permitted. Those persons who are record holders should be listed accordingly in that branch as well. If extreme obesity is not a singular medical condition, I think it should be done away with in favor of such categories. For instance, there is no Category:Shortest people, but List of shortest people includes people categorized in both Category:People with dwarfism and Category:People with osteogenesis imperfecta. -choster (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a recreation of the previously deleted fat people category, the deleted overweight people category, and the deleted obese people category. Otherwise delete per POV, subjectivity WP:OR and WP:BLP concerns. Otto4711 (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first of those was deleted for being empty.

• Delete - Either speedy, due to G4, or due to WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Otto's right on target here. Incidentally, is there a related list? A list would at least be able to describe/explain everything noted in this nom. - jc37 03:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. Now bolded above. Fayenatic (talk)

• Speedy delete as a re-creation of a previously discussed and deleted category. Ironically, the category under this title, "Extremely heavy people", is actually WORSE because it is even more subjective, potentially affects WP:BLP subjects, and is otherwise completely full of fail. Wow, just wow. JBsupreme (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: HOW is it more subjective? It seems a lot less subjective to me, and sufficiently objective to be kept. Rather than asserting "Fails X criterion", please demonstrate how/why it fails. I know my contribution above is long, but it is meant to be a helpful summary of the arguments on the category talk page. Please engage with applying the policies to the case here, rather than adding votes in a hit-and-run way. Please can we also have an advance verdict on whether Category:Holders of Guiness World Records for obesity and weight-loss would be allowable? - Fayenatic (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the medical definition of "extremely heavy"?
• As for splitting up the GWR holders category by subject area, I see little need for it. Otto4711 (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- inclusion in category is wholly subjective, since there is no measn of distinguishing (at the borderline) who should or should not be included. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Disgustingly fat people. No, I'm just kidding, delete of course. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE - the guideline even uses obesity and size as examples of what should not be used as a criterion for a category. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per previous discussions and consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:04, 2 November 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 all. Kbdank71 15:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American Football Clubs in Wales to Category:American football teams in Wales

Nominator's rationale: Per convention with Category:American football teams in Northern Ireland. The England and Scotland categories might also need standardising, as apparently American football organisations are referred to as "teams" rather than "clubs". In any case, some consistency is needed here. Also included in this discussion:

• Category:American football clubs in England
• Category:American football clubs in Scotland the skomorokh 16:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – there is also Category:American football clubs in the United Kingdom, subcat of Category:American football teams by country. I agree with the nom that it should be teams throughout (and most of the articles use the word team - I haven't checked them all). Occuli (talk) 17:19, 28 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) 02:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Big-bust models and performers

The list was deleted (here) due to WP:BLP concerns.

If that is true of a list (which at least had the potential for sources for the individual members), then it's doubly true of a category, which, as noted at WP:CAT and WP:CLN, cannot provide such sources. - jc37 15:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator - jc37 15:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree that if a list cannot be sustained without quibble then a category stands no chance. 'Arbitrary inclusion criteria' seems an insuperable objection. Occuli (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hasn't this category been previously nominated? It also was mentioned in a deletion discussion of a category of men with large penises. __meco (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator, the list has been deleted so we should remove the category on the same grounds. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The AFD saga is a sorry one (7 attempts!) but now that the list is gone, there is no way that the category can survive WP:Overcategorization#Subjective inclusion criterion. (Not arbitrary, but subjective.) - Fayenatic (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is irredeemable as a category. Postdlf (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- this is a subjective category, based on a subjective criterion. How BIG is big? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:51, 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Fictional characters who use magic and Category:Fictional characters in comics who use magic. Kbdank71 15:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Fictional mages to Category:Fictional characters who can use magic

Rename Category:Magic users in comics to Category:Fictional characters in comics who can use magic

(Alternate options possible, such as "...with the ability to...".)

To begin with, the category is effectively a recreation. First, Category:Fictional magicians was renamed to Category:Fictional magic users. And then that was listifed per this CfD discussion. But rather than G4, let's move away from labels, and look to making this a subcat of Category:Fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability.

In previous nominations concerning these and other cats, one of the concerns is that while a character may be noted to use magic, a particular label, name, appelation, etc. may or may not have actually been applied to the character. (Such as "mage" or "magician" or "magic user".)

While I do think that these should be listified (per the previous CfD); for now, let's just focus on the rename. - jc37 14:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both - as nominator. - jc37 14:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I recreated this category because Fictional magic users was senselessly deleted. Personally I don't think there's any need for a re-naming but if you do rename it then I would recommend Fictional magic users because that's sooo much less clumsy than "Fictional characters who can use magic." --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both per nom. Wouldn't the creation of Category:Fictional sorcerers be useful? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both, but remove the word "can" from the titles proposed by the nominator. If the person uses magic there's no issue, and there's no point of including someone who can use magic, but doesn't. Rename to Category:Fictional characters who use magic and Category:Fictional characters in comics who use magic. Alansohn (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The suggested name follows the convention of Category:Fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability. And I think it's more a point of whether they have the ability, rather than merely if they use the ability. That said, I don't necessarily oppose your alternative, if it gains consensus. - jc37 03:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename but I prefer Alansohn's suggestion--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:17, 30 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 15:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Online Companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category. Already have Category:Dot-com and others that are more specific, like Category:Online brokerages. ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Put all online companies in this category and make other relevant categories sub categories. "Online company" is a better, more intelligible, expression than "Dot Com" and more inclusive. Not all online companies are of the dot com domain. "Online brokerages" is a perfect example of what would make a good sub category for "Online companies". -Duribald (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - but what defines an "online company"? A company who happens to also be online (virtually all), or a company whose primary business activity takes place online? This category, presumably, is meant to address the latter, which is why getting more specific makes more sense, ie, Category:Online booksellers. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This category actually makes more sense to me than Category:Dot-com, since the scope of the "Dot-com" category is not defined, and it might appropriately be interpreted as dealing only with "dot com" domain names. However, the Dot-com category includes some topics, such as Dot-com bubble that don't obviously fit under "Online Companies." Why not merge this into the existing well-developed category Category:Electronic commerce? (It seems to be a parent category for all online business.) I note that Category:Online retailers is well-developed. As Duribald suggests, it might make sense to create Category:Online brokerages -- or, even better, the more inclusive category Category:Online financial services. --Orlady (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC) Sonuvagun, it turns out that "Online brokerages" already exists (I'm not paying close enough attention); I just now added it to Category:Electronic commerce. --Orlady (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an excellent suggestion. I support a merge with Category:Electronic commerce both for "Dot Com" and "Online Companies". -Duribald (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what to do with Category:Dot-com at this time. Most of these will probably wind up in Category:Online retailers which seems to be the correct place. I have already reclassified some of these but they all need to be looked at. In addition two of the subcategories are nominated for separate actions. If anyone wants to help by cleaning up Category:Dot-com as appropriate, then feel free to jump in. If we are going to do something with what remains in Category:Dot-com then Category:Dot-com people will also need to be addressed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Well Dot-com is simply a company that does most of its business on the Internet. This is an unsourced definition in the main article. What exactly defines most? 51%? 99%? I would say that if you need to put a number on this it is arbitrary and therefore should not be used to populate a category. So that would argue for the deletion of Category:Dot-com. Then we don't have a main article for Online company. So unless a case is made why these categories need to exist, I don't see how we can keep either. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Commerce websites. If they are in this category for their website, then Category:Commerce websites is a bit more specific and is under Category:Electronic commerce which does not seem like a good place for most of the affected articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:43, 28 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 15:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Number-one singles in Argentina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Argentina doesn't seem to have an official chart; the Argentina Top 40 was deleted and i can't find proof of an official Argentine chart. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I hate saying "per nom", but TenPoundHammer raises a valid point. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read, it was deleted because it wasn't a national chart when I read the reasons at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Argentina_Top_40 However I think they should re-install it but specify then it's a regional chart --Sd-100 (talk) 14:03, 1 November 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: reverse merge. Kbdank71 15:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Great West Conference to Category:Great West Football Conference

Nominator's rationale: Merge, These appear to be two different names for the same thing. The article is at Great West Conference and Great West Football Conference is a redirect thereto. Stepheng3 (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge - if the article is at Great West Conference then the category name should match it. Otto4711 (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge - Otto's logic is again impeccable (it seems now not to be an all-football conference). Occuli (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - as nominator, I'm fine with the reverse merge. - Stepheng3 (talk) 05:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: relisted because Category:Great West Football Conference wasn't tagged for reverse merge. --Kbdank71 14:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Good catch! - Stepheng3 (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge as above.-choster (talk) 00:54, 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: listify. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters who can fly

Category:DC Comics characters who can fly

Category:Marvel Comics characters who can fly

Category:Anime and manga characters who can fly

The problem here is the mode/method of flight.

See List_of_comic_book_superpowers#Flight.

There are quite a few separate methods. Everything from shapeshifting into a creature which can fly, to telekinesis, to magic use, and beyond.

And then there are all those characters which use an "object" in order to fly, such as a Legion flight belt/ring, a Green Lantern ring, Hawkman's wings (due to Nth metal), a broomstick, a jetpack, repulsor boots/discs, etc. (Noting that there is repeated past consensus to not categorise a character based upon some object they may have, since objects are not "inherent" to a character, as they may be transferred/lost/stolen/destroyed/etc.)

At best, this should be a list so that the methods/modes for each character may be explained. (See also List of fictional characters who can fly - though it looks like it may need cleanup and expansion.) - jc37 12:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify/Delete - as nominator. - jc37 12:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Change or Delete. The current labeling is bad. Either delete the lot of them or a better method might be to rename the categorization to [[:Category:xxx characters with the supernatural flight powers]], [[:Category:xxx characters with the teleketic flight powers]] where xxx is one of the above variables. This removes any use of devices.Jinnai (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  See my comments to Seeshomaru below. - jc37 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Break it down to something like Category:Fictional characters with energy propulsion flight and Category:Fictional characters with physical propulsion flight. Sorry, don't know how to say it better. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  If we're going to "break it down", then perhaps a set of lists would be better? Then we could have the cat: Category:Lists of fictional characters who can fly, or some such.

  And if put in a table format, this would allow for sorting by publisher, method/mode, etc. - jc37 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Thought about that. If we're gonna listify this, what name(s) do you have in mind? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well the easy answer is to just add "List of..." to the start of each of your suggestions.

  Though perhaps having a single list, and only splitting the list by publisher per WP:SIZE. So, for example, List of fictional characters who can fly, which would have a "see also" to List of anime and manga characters who can fly and List of comics characters who can fly, the latter of which would likely split off: List of DC Comics characters who can fly and List of Marvel Comics characters who can fly. And then just having a column in the table on each page which describes the method for each character. Which means that the table would be sortable based upon that column (and the other columns, of course).

  As noted above, this then allows for sources, and just better clarity and understanding of what is rather a diverse thing. - jc37 02:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and consider rename Category:Fictional characters who can fly provides a rather clear definition that "This is a listing of fictional characters who can fly by force of will (for example, by possession of wings or with magical powers)." For all the obfuscation offered in the nomination as to the exact method by which these characters fly, and despite the laundry list of possible methods of flight using devices, such characters who lack an inherent ability to fly without external assistance from some device are already excluded by the rather specific definition provided. While a character's home city or hair color might be arbitrary, the choice of the creator of a fictional character to endow the individual with the ability to fly is a rather strong defining characteristic. Readers with any common sense and the most trivial understanding of the characters recognize that Superman can fly, and that Batman and Spiderman can't. There is little difficulty understanding that Batman and Spiderman don't belong in these categories, even if they can and have used such devices as jet planes or webs to allow them to travel through the air. Given the fact that this is a strong defining characteristic, there is no argument for deletion. I am sure that there might be alternative titles for these categories that might be clear enough for the nominator, but any alternative will likely be even more confusing than the titles already in use. Alansohn (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Which are all excellent reasons to have one or more lists. Also, you may wish to look over the current membership of the categories. it isn't as "clear" or "common sense" as you note. - jc37 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I fully support the creation of lists to accompany these categories, allowing each to be expanded from the other in synergistic fashion and wish you best of luck with the effort. These categories meet all definitions provided by WP:CLN for the existence of both lists AND categories. The distinction on the inherent ability to fly is rather clear. If your issue is that there are entries in these categories that don't belong, the solution is cleanup, not deletion.Alansohn (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. To me, this seems like a pretty useless category - It's much too specific. Do we make one for those who can jump very high, but not fly? Those who can make other stuff fly? Do we really need to categorise the abilities of many, very different fictional characters? Going along such lines, each character could have numerous quite pointless categories, detailing ANY special characteristics of them. Unless we can have these categories very well defined, with some criteria about what should and should not be formed as a category, I think this should be deleted. -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 01:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify so that better descriptions of each mode can be incorporated. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify'. This seems to be the only logical way to deal with the material. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: listify. Kbdank71 15:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Last survivors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category inclusion is defined as "last known survivor of significant historical events". This comes across as WP:OR in defining what a significant event is. The category title also sounds clumsy as well. I'd also welcome any better renaming suggestions, if the discussion leans towards keep Lugnuts (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (and listify) - The likelihood of WP:OR here seems nearly inescapable, regardless of any improvement to the name. Equally important, apart from the two List articles -- which are clearly named -- it's impossible to discern just what any of the people represented here may have survived, since all the reader has to go by is their names. That renders the category pretty much useless, in my estimation, given the highly disparate sorts of things that someone can survive. At least in a List (if one were created) those basic facts could be easily supplied in connection with each entry. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and consider rename Ted Briggs, the last survivor of the sinking of the HMS Hood died recently, and The Economist was one of many publications that recognized Briggs as the "last survivor of the sinking of HMS Hood" in the subtitle of the newspaper's obituary (see "Ted Briggs"). Adella Wotherspoon, described in her article as "the youngest and last living survivor of the General Slocum ship disaster" is rather clearly supported by an obituary in The New York Times that describes her in the title of the article as "Adella Wotherspoon, Last Survivor of General Slocum Disaster, Is Dead at 100". It's not just that I and other editors find this to be an interesting characteristic. It is clear from these and many other reliable and verifiable sources that the media treats being the last survivor of a major historical event as a strong defining characteristic, without any shred of WP:OR involved. While Briggs was one of only three survivors of a major disaster and Wotherspoon the youngest of hers, for many of the individuals listed, their status as the last survivor is their only claim of notability. I do agree that "last survivors" may not be adequately clear and something that captures the "last known survivor of significant historical events" described in the category itself would be appropriate. Alansohn (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify as List of last survivors of historical events. The category can't list what these people were last survivors of - a list can. It does have a faint whiff of OR, and also of "disparate people tenuously linked who otherwise have little in common", but as a list at least there will be a connection to the actual events they were survivors of, and it can be instantly checked to ensure that there are good references for each claim. Grutness...wha? 22:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify per Grutness. By the end of these people's lives it probably was a defining characteristic, for some of them at least. Worth recording, and a list will be better. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify -- I know that this is not to do with an award, but it seems to raise similar issues. For awards the ususal answer is 'listfy and delete'. The information is worth retaining in WP in some form, but I am not sure that it needs a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify per Grutness; meaningless grouping without explaining of what they are the last survivors. Postdlf (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify but also keep category. Personally, I think this is an interesting category and worth keeping, but a list would be useful too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Parent category of real-life polygamists were deleted in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_3#Category:Polygamists, with reasoning that also applies for this category. Andjam (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only a hand-full of characters included and none of them seems to have polygamy as a defining characteristic. Dimadick (talk) 15:57, 30 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:SOCOM (series). Kbdank71 15:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SOCOM to Category:SOCOM (game series)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is too likely to be confused with USSOCOM, which is the primary use of the term "SOCOM" 70.55.86.100 (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - that seems fair enough. I am not sure which use is the primary one, but this renamimg would clarify the situation nonetheless. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the related article is currently entitled SOCOM (series); I have now created a SOCOM (game series) redirect, but do we think that the article should be moved to "SOCOM (game series)", or should Category:SOCOM be renamed "Category:SOCOM (series)" instead? It Is Me Here (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:SOCOM (series) to match the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Special Operations Command to Category:Special Operations Command (Singapore)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are many SOC/SOCOM around the world. NOTE: the related Commons category also needs to be renamed... how'd you do that? (It's already mixed up with USSOCOM) 70.55.86.100 (talk) 06:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• REname to match article. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:57, 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 3rd. Kbdank71 15:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of female movie actors by name to Category:Lists of film actresses by name

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Film" is the accepted usage rather than "movie", and my suggestion about "actresses" v. "female actors" may be seen below. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Other lists use similar terminology.Jinnai (talk) 14:34, 28 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: relisted on 3rd. Kbdank71 15:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of female actors to Category:Lists of actresses

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Currently there is inconsistency amid the actor categories as to the use of the term "actress" v. "female actor". I don't feel strongly one way or the other, but I'm hoping to start a discussion that will solidify the use of one or the other. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Other lists use similar terminology.Jinnai (talk) 14:32, 28 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) 02:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Summer anime and manga to Category:Anime and manga that takes place in summer

Nominator's rationale: Summer anime and manga may mislead people into thinking it means anime and manga that premiered in a summer -- クラウド６６８ 02:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not sure what the benefit is for categorizing anime and manga that take place during the summer, but it does add to the problems of overcategorization. Simply take a look a the articles placed in the cat. It is essentially categorization for the sake of categorization. --Farix (Talk) 02:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete can think of no valid reason for such a category. Its over categorization and could far to easily lead to OR as not all series clearly note what season it is. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons given by others above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there's no reason to have such a categorization I can think of and you can easily look at the airdates to tell what they are.Jinnai (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it was for shows aired during the summer, but those set during the summer. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete possibility of OR aside, pretty much every series that ran for longer than a year or so is set during the summer at some point (according to my own observations - it seems to me that, quite often, mangaka follow the real-world seasons when creating their series' setting), which would make this little more than pointless overcategorization that would ultimately be too overbroad to be useful. —Dinoguy1000 01:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How exactly is a setting in summer, autumn, winter or spring defining for these series. The articles do not adress it. Dimadick (talk) 16:01, 30 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. Kbdank71 15:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Stations on the CNR in BC to Category:Canadian National Railway stations in British Columbia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This gets rid of the ambiguous initials and makes the category match others such as Category:Canadian National Railway stations in Alberta. Stepheng3 (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support using CN Rail, as CN Rail is the common name (and CNR as a not very common abbreviation) 70.55.86.100 (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, per Canadian National Railway and per British Columbia. Occuli (talk) 00:37, 30 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.