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:Archivist associations after removing National Archival Services of Norway. I double-checked the remaining entries, and they all seem to qualify with the possible exception of the International Council on Archives, which should be recategorized if it is not an archivist association. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Archival bodies and institutions to Category:Archivist organizations

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match and clarify contents. I was struggling to figure out how this wasn't just a duplicate of Category:Archives by country, as it currently includes governmental and non-governmental agencies, professional associations and national archives. The only way I can figure out to separate it is to reserve it for organizations for archivists (regardless of whether those organizations also maintain archives). Most of the entries qualify, though a few would have to be pruned (such as National Archival Services of Norway). postdlf (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename -- The core of this category is the professional bodies for archivists. Prune out National Archival Services of Norway, which appears to be a Record Office. However, I think the target should be something like Category:Archivists' Associations. "Organisations" is unsatisfactory, since some archive offices will be organisations in their own right, but concerned with preserving archives, rathe than with the theory of how to do so. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not picky on the target name; it seems like we're intending the same thing here. But Category:Archivist associations would be a cleaner name. There appear to be a few different forms used in Category:Professional associations, such as Foo associations, Fooing organizations, and Foo professional associations. postdlf (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Archivist associations per postdlf, for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Student societies in Germany. The categories for Kösener Senioren-Convents-Verband and Weinheimer Senioren-Convent may be proposed for renaming in a separate nomination, though I do want to note that they seem to reflect the official names of those organizations. In general, the fact of being an official name is more significant than the fact of being a non-English name, though case-by-case evaluation may be warranted. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Senioren-Convent to Category:Student societies in Germany

Nominator's rationale: This is a questionable intermediate category layer, grouping together two major German student societies which are somewhat tied together but still separate associations. We should abandon this in favor of the new separate categories Category:Kösener Senioren-Convents-Verband and Category:Weinheimer Senioren-Convent. PanchoS (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Also, is it even in English? Maurreen (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, sorry, I'm not sure I got your question. "Senioren-Convent" is German and not even a name. The two other categories are names, so it doesn't matter they are in German. Did that answer your question? :)
  As an alternative to deletion we could rename the category to the generic name Category:Student corps in Germany. This way the intermediate category layer could make some more sense as it would then have a main article German Student Corps plus the two subcategories. I leave it to you. PanchoS (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, that is my point. Category names should be in English, so I do agree that Category:Senioren-Convent needs to go, along with Category:Kösener Senioren-Convents-Verband and Category:Weinheimer Senioren-Convent. I don't have an opinion on how many of these categories there should be, but they should all be in English. Maurreen (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Hockey players from Piteå to Category:People from Piteå

Nominator's rationale: Too detailed a split when both categories are so small. DJSasso (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nomination Mayumashu (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, also ensuring that they are in Category:Swedish ice hockey players. Resolute 22:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, noting that Category:People from Piteå and Category:Swedish ice hockey players are not similarly split by any other locality. Occuli (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think I'm the one that split it a while back. At the time we it appeared there would be a large proportion, based on what I was seeing when sorting Piteå, and I thought Sweden had so many hockey players that splitting out cities would be useful across the board. Perhaps it's only appropriate for large cities (Stockholm) or to split by counties or historic provinces. There are 544 people in Category:Swedish ice hockey players now, but I think subcategorizing the hockey players would help more for Stockholm than for Piteå at this point. --Closeapple (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I visit Piteå frequently and love the city and respect the history of producing some great players. But truth be told, it is a smaller city and the players of note to come out of Piteå are Persson, Holmström, Öhlund, and Renberg. There are a few other pro hockey players originally from Piteå, but they are fine to be in the Category:People from Piteå as there are small numbers of either. And the Piteå Wall of Fame is an article that is solid in its own right (and more functional than Category:Hockey players from Piteå). A separate category is unneeded. Agreed that players from Stockholm (perhaps sorted by municipalities) would be of better use. Captain Courageous (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2010 (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:Ice hockey personnel from Minnesota. The objection that "personnel" is an incorrect or inferior term may, if desired, be raised at a higher-level discussion regarding Category:Ice hockey personnel. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ice hockey players from Minnesota to Category:Ice hockey personnel from Minnesota

Nominator's rationale: To match the naming scheme already set up and used for years such as Category:Ice hockey personnel from Ontario. DJSasso (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Category:Ice hockey players is a branch of Category:Ice hockey personnel, but Category:American ice hockey players is not subdivided by state. Many other sports are, however, from the looks of Category:American sportspeople by state.- choster (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly Category:Ice hockey personnel from Ontario is a subcat of Category:Sportspeople from Ontario (it used to be named Ice hockey people from Ontario but personnel was deemed at cfd to be better terminology). So this would be along the same line. Category:Ice hockey personnel from Minnesota would be a subcat of Category:Sportspeople from Minnesota which is what I believe the intent of the category was when created. I think they just didn't think to use the word personnel when creating it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a subcat of Category:American sportspeople by state. 'personnel' is the wrong term - it means 'members of an organization' Mayumashu (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The definition of personnel is "The body of persons employed by or active in an organization, business, or service." These people are employed in or active in hockey as a business or amateur organization. -DJSasso (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  they are active in hockey as a sport. A sport is not an organization, business, or service. a hockey team or club is Mayumashu (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  A hockey team is an organization. In order to be active in hockey you would be a member of the team which is an organization. Depending on if it is an amateur team or a professional team you would be part of a business as well. -DJSasso (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Ice hockey personnel means people who are/were employed by or active in ice hockey. I am not sure why this is hard to understand. Just like we say things like medical personnel which means anyone employed in the medical field. -DJSasso (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It depends entirely on whether it is a subcat of Category:American ice hockey personnel or its subcat Category:American ice hockey players. Occuli (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There is Category:Ice hockey in the United States by state but not as yet a developed 'players from' or 'personnel from' sub-tree. Occuli (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well it would be a subcat of for example "American ice hockey personnel by state | Ice hockey in Minnesota | Skating people from Minnesota | Sportspeople from Minnesota" to use the example of Ontario above switched to Minnesota. Not even Canada tries to split its players by province specifically apart from doing so this way. -DJSasso (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There were by state categories in the past for the US. But they fell at cfd because people felt what state a hockey player was from wasn't defining for Americans unlike Canadians. This was about 3 years ago now though I think. Things have changed in the number of articles since then. -DJSasso (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There are also Category:Ice hockey people from Michigan and Category:Ice hockey players from Maine (and some more in the ALL PAGES index under people, personnel or players). Occuli (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Part of the reason for using personnel rather than players is because several members of the category become notable within the sport for reasons other than playing - i.e.: coaching, ownership, managing, officiating, or any combination of these. Using this name has worked well for the Canadian hockey personnel by province, and will work just as well for the American equivalent as it is developed. Resolute 22:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The top category is Category:Ice hockey personnel so start with Category:Ice hockey personnel from Minnesota. IMO there is no need to split off players - see the Canadian example. Occuli (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy close Nominator agreed to let me tag for speedy deletion since categories are empty. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Librarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. All content has been moved from WikiProject Librarians to WikiProject Libraries to more closely reflect the project's content. This deletion will remove the old, empty categories. Clifflandis (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2010 (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, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 4#Category:Country albums. The argument against renaming has not been addressed (or even discussed), so I am relisting the nomination so that discussion can take place. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Country albums to Category:Country music albums

• Category:Lists of country albums->Category:Lists of country music albums
• Category:Country albums by genre->Category:Country music albums by genre
• Category:American country albums->Category:American country music albums
• Category:Australian country albums->Category:Australian country music albums
• Category:Canadian country albums->Category:Canadian country music albums
• Category:German country albums->Category:German country music albums
• Category:Irish country albums->Category:Irish country music albums
• Category:Norwegian country albums->Category:Norwegian country music albums
• Category:Russian country albums->Category:Russian country music albums
• Category:Swedish country albums->Category:Swedish country music albums

Nominator's rationale: To clarify that it's country music we're talking about; see rationale in CFD below. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per clarity. Occuli (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as more clear. Orderinchaos 06:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Does it really clarify ? It seems to say that these are "music albims", but so are most albums. It does not seem necessary, as per below. Cjc13 (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per comments in the discussion below. "Music albums" is an unnecessary tautology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:55, 29 March 2010 (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, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 4#Category:Country singers. The argument against renaming has not been addressed (or even discussed), so I am relisting the nomination so that discussion can take place. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Country singers to Category:Country music singers

• Category:American country singers->Category:American country music singers
  • Category:American country singer-songwriters->Category:American country music singer-songwriters
• Category:Australian country singers->Category:Australian country music singers
  • Category:Australian country singer-songwriters->Category:Australian country music singer-songwriters
• Category:Canadian country singers->Category:Canadian country music singers
  • Category:Canadian country singer-songwriters->Category:Canadian country music singer-songwriters
• Category:English country singers->Category:English country music singers
• Category:Irish country singers->Category:Irish country music singers
• Category:Italian country singers->Category:Italian country music singers
• Category:Jamaican country singers->Category:Jamaican country music singers
• Category:New Zealand country singers->Category:New Zealand country music singers
• Category:Norwegian country singers->Category:Norwegian country music singers
• Category:Swedish country singers->Category:Swedish country music singers
• Category:Country singers templates->Category:Country music singers templates

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article country music and corresponding category tree Category:Country music groups, and make it clearer that all categories pertain to country music. (Also, there has got to be an easier way to bundle CFDs.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. That it matches the parent article is incidental - the meaning of 'country music' is clearer Mayumashu (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per clarity. Occuli (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as more clear. Orderinchaos 06:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for clarity. I suppose the same reasoning would apply to Rock singers, wouldn't it? Jafeluv (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I see the logic, and I see the scope for ambiguity in "Country singers", which could also mean singers from the countryside. But how far are we going to go down this road? Jafeluv points to Category:Rock singers, but Category:Classical musicians is also potentially ambiguous (does it mean popstars in ancient Greece?). And does Category:Electronic musicians refer to a box of wires performing on stage or a musician with an electronic instrument? Are Category:Traditional musicians performers of trad msuic or people who conform to some old stereotype of a musician?
  I really suggest that we need to take a wider look at the consequences of renaming musicians-by-genre in this way. Category:Musicians by genre and Category:Singers by genre have a lot of sub-cats which would be renamed if we continue this, and I don't see why the nominator has singled-out country music. In practice, these theoretically-ambiguous genre names don't seem to be causing problems in categorising articles, so why the rush to create ugly tautological category names of "foo music singers"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per BHG. "Music singers" seems wrong, as what other types of singers are there? Country is an established genre of music and should not need clarification, as for instance Category:Folk singers and Category:Pop singers. Cjc13 (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. "Country singer" is much more widely-used. See 272,000 ghits for "country music singer", but 1,120,000 ghits for "country singer" ... and trying the plurals, I get 39,600 ghits for "country music singers" against 226,000 ghits for "country singers". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 22 March 2010 (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, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 4#Category:Compact Disc and DVD copy protection. There is consensus to rename, but it is not clear whether Category:Optical disc copy protection or Category:Copy protection would be a better name. Additional discussion of the topic would be helpful. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Compact Disc and DVD copy protection to Category:Optical disc copy protection

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It's kind of a messy category name to begin with, and seems arbitrary. I think this category can be extended to articles relating to Blu-ray and other forms of optical disc without any harm to the intended context. Ham Pastrami (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Since there is an article Copy protection, would a Category:Copy protection be sufficient? Cjc13 (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems suitable to me. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator to allow inclusion of other types of optical disc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of cities in Chile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I can really only see one page ever populating this category, List of cities in Chile, which is already the main article for its parent, Category:Cities, towns and villages in Chile. Ruodyssey (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Single-article category with no evidence of any scope for expansion. The swole article is alredy categorised in all the appropriate ways, such as Category:Chile-related lists, Category:Lists of cities by country and Category:Cities, towns and villages in Chile, so I see no need for any upmerger.
  At some point in the future the may be scope for a wider category of lists of any size or type of human settlement in Chile, but so at this point I can see only one other list which coukd be included in this category: List of towns in Chile. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Police procedural comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unneeded fine grain splitting of Category:Crime comics. J Greb (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Superhero crime comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unneeded split within the parent categories of Category:Superhero comics and Category:Crime comics. J Greb (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black-and-white comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. As named and defined category of limited use. Looking at the current inclusions, what constitutes "originally published", "black and white", and "comic book" is being applied loosely. It also seems to rely on WP:OR as to the percentage of the published material that needs to be without color. J Greb (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Painted comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Improper sub-category where inclusion can be driven by WP:OR as to what constituted "painted" and how much od a comic needs to be in that style for inclusion. J Greb (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2010 (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, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 4#Category:Prestige format comics. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prestige format comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unneeded split of the category Category:Graphic novels using a term generally used as a marketing term by a single company. J Greb (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2010 (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, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 4#Category:Motion comics. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Motion comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. 1) Small category covering animation crated from static comic book panels. While it is possible this will expand, it is not needed "right now." Also, the category name is a relatively new marketing term for a process that has been around for decades. J Greb (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I added two more, so it's a little bigger. You are correct that the term is a bit of a neologism and it's not strictly necessary to have it now, but if this catches on it's a bit silly to delete it in March and recreate it in July. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that is crystal balling - if it's invalid or improper now, that is all that matters. If it were to be come common with many, many more articles on notable titles in 4 or 6 months time, then it would be reasonable to create, or recreate, it at that time. The deletion proposed does not include salting, and it can be overturned/reversed at a later time when the category may be valid or appropriate. - J Greb (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is what these things are. They're not comics and they're not cartoons. It is appropriate to categorize them by the name they have.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Comics artists Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comics painters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too fine grained a splitting of Category:Comics artists relying on WP:OR or the inclusion of artists that work in a transitory style. J Greb (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Comics artists. Inappropriate term surely, or OR split? Line is the essence of most comics work. Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Comics artists per Johnbod. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:05, 29 March 2010 (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:Judeo-Christian mythology in comics. Consensus was against deletion. However there was a consensus to rename. While there where various opinions expressed, I believe that the last one meets the intent of what was proposed. If there is a need to reopen the discussion solely on the basis of the name after this move, go ahead. But I'd suggest trying to work out a consensus on the talk page first. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Judeo-Christianity in comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. As a category this lends itself to WP:OR without a corresponding article to clearly define the scope and provided sourced examples.. J Greb (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Against This category is no different than Category:Greco-Roman mythology in comics or Category:Norse mythology in comics.--Marcus Brute (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That does seem to be how it is used. But its name does not clarify that; at present, it could presumably include any depiction of Jewish or Christian religion. Perhaps it should be renamed to Category:Judeo-Christian mythology in comics, notwithstanding the feathers that would ruffle in some quarters. postdlf (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Judeo-Christian topics in comics to match Category:Judeo-Christian topics. What the category contains could be arguably based on Category:Christian cosmology or Category:Christian narrative, but Christian mythology appears to be somewhat orthogonal. I will note that according to Judeo-Christian, the meaning of the term has shifted many times.- choster (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose rename. That's not how this category is being used; the rename would imply that it's about comics on the subjects of salvation, prayer, a personal God, the view of the Catholic Church on the death penalty, etc. Instead it's for fictional adaptations/uses of figures from Judeo-Christian mythology, such as angels and demons. Category:Judeo-Christian topics was never a proper parent for this category; the analog category, Category:Greco-Roman mythology in comics, is parented by Category:Greco-Roman mythology in popular culture. The closest existing category that would apply to this one is instead Category:Christianity in popular culture. postdlf (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Judeo-Christian mythology in comics per postdlf to match the parent category, Category:Mythology in comics, and related categories Category:Greco-Roman mythology in comics and Category:Norse mythology in comics. I think that renaming in this manner will partially address J Greb's concern. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:40, 4 April 2010 (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. Although only two editors participated in this discussion, I am closing as 'delete' rather than relisting because the nomination was unopposed and per postdlf's detailed analysis. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Horror superheroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Mythology-based superheroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Technology-based superheroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Cosmic superheroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Speedster superheroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Martial arts-based superheroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The above are intersections of the "Superhero" characters and various genres, plot elements, or character aspects. None of the parent categories need to be trimmed by these creations. Also most of the cases require a degree of WP:OR to "fit" the articles into the categories. J Greb (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My first thought was that these might merit separate discussion, but just because we can think of "clear" examples doesn't mean these are useful or meaningful as categories, and I think that all of these (with one exception, noted at the end of my comment) are ultimately dependent on OR and do not have meaningful boundaries. A superhero based on mythology seems a rather clear idea to me: Thor, Hercules... But then we get into characters like Wonder Woman or Hawkman, who are not based on mythological figures, but whose origin stories were tied to mythology...and even presumably sci-fi characters like Superman, whose foundling backstory is arguably straight out of ancient myth. So those may be the borderline cases that break the category's back.
• There would also seem to be superheroes who are clearly martial arts-based: Shang-Chi, Iron Fist... But then I see it's being used for characters that aren't remotely "based" in martial arts, apparently because they may have at some point during their long publication history been depicted as knowing some form of martial arts (Batman, Captain America, etc.). This ultimately would include just about every superhero, as it's extremely common for them to be shown training (in team comics at least), or to have their official bio (in the Marvel Official Handbook or DC's Who's Who) say that they know judo, whatever, just because they have no other way to describe their pugilistic crimefighting abilities. And anyway, we have categories like Category:Marvel Comics martial artists that cover all of that without purporting to tell us the primary basis for a character.
• The same with technology-based superheroes...Iron Man is an easy one. What about the Punisher, who relies upon guns? Or characters whose permanent powers result from a technology-related accident, such as Spider-Man (who also has self-invented web shooters) or the Flash? Green Lantern would be both "cosmic" (interstellar policeman) and tech-based (his ring is a crafted device)... And "cosmic" then slides into science-fiction, to include any alien or space-traveling character.
• Only the "speedster" category seems realistically definable, but it's just redundant to power-specific categories like Category:DC Comics characters who can move at superhuman speeds. postdlf (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. If anyone would benefit from having a list of articles in these categories in order to write an article or annotated list, I will provide it upon request. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Teenage superheroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Teenage superhero teams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. As currently constituted relies on original research and lumps together characters that may be notably identified as "teenage characters" with those that may not. J Greb (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- "Teenage" has clear boundaries. Maurreen (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, in a real world sense, that it covers the period in a person's life from 13 to 19, inclusive. It's a bit harder to do that with characters in works of fiction. - J Greb (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There's no doubt that many superhero teams were conceptualized as teen groups, such as the Teen Titans or the original LSH. But the original Teen Titans grew up to become the New Titans, and with the exception of Dick Grayson those characters have now been portrayed as adults in comics for longer than they were teens. And the New Mutants, which was introduced as a junior X-Men team, included much older members, such as Cable, by the end of its run (by which time the original members were probably adults too). Then there's a group like Power Pack, which consisted of children, but at least one of which was depicted as a teenager by the end of the first series. Individual teenage superheroes, the same thing. Speedy starts out as the teen sidekick of the Green Arrow, but eventually was an adult heroin addict and single father. So I'm thinking that this information could only be properly presented as an annotated list, or as an article on the concept of teen superheroes. postdlf (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wind turbines in New Zealand The standard (and already existing) category for particular installations is Category:Wind farms in New Zealand and a new category for Wind turbines (by country) is not needed; the only entry in "Wind turbines in New Zealand" is in the earlier category also. Hugo999 (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The category structure already exists in Category:Wind farms in New Zealand. Category:Wind turbines in New Zealand is a duplication. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Category:Wind farms in New Zealand exists and the article in Category:Wind turbines in New Zealand is a wind farm, not a turbine. Occuli (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2010 (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.