Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 6

< January 5	January 7 >

January 6[edit]

Category:Fictional masochists[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 18:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Flip side of the fictional sadists category which was deleted. Otto4711 22:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy due to strong precedent.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV cat --- Safemariner 07:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective cat per precedent. Doczilla 10:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, POV issues Dugwiki 17:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Warfare by era[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 18:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current naming convention for categories using the major eras of warfare has unfortunately resulted in some rather bizarre (and likely ambiguous) names, such as Category:Industrial battles. Hence, WP:MILHIST proposes that this series of categories be renamed to a more natural form, matching the normal convetion for categories that cover shorter periods (e.g. specific wars). Kirill Lokshin 22:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nomination. Carom 05:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportMakes perfect sense. --Darkƒire Rules All!!! 23:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes sense --- Safemariner 07:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The current names are natural English. The only problem is with the "Industrial" categories, but the real problem is that the word "Industrial" should probably not be used at all. Chicheley 07:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not really workable, though; the Industrial era is actually one of the major eras into which military history is divided, so we can't very well not use it here. Kirill Lokshin 17:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there some reason 'Medieval era' is prefered over 'Middle Ages' (which is the name of the article, and what is used in the defintion at medieval warfare)? Also, given that the articles are at Foo warfare (e.g. Ancient warfare), I'm less clear on the need to rename the warfare categories (e.g. Category:Ancient warfare), other than attempted consistency. Mairi 05:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as "Medieval" goes, it's mostly consistency; the two terms are used pretty interchangeably in discussing warfare, so we thought that the more consistent one would be better here. As for the warfare categories: the articles themselves should probably be moved, for largely the same reason ("Industrial warfare" being a concept of doctrine that needs an article in its own right, separate from the discussion of the Industrial era), but nobody has gotten to this yet. Kirill Lokshin 05:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The proposed new names are not better. For example, define "Ancient era" -- and why is "Ancient" capitalized? The word "Ancient" is used in the category name as an adjective, not as the name of an era. Doczilla 12:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, see Ancient era; the intent here is, in fact, to use the term as an era name, not as merely an adjective of relative time. Kirill Lokshin 14:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, it's not perfect but it's better. >Radiant< 12:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks pretty good to me. --Rindis 18:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per ambiguity re "Ancient" and "Industrial" warfare discussed above. David Kernow (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate pure energy[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. the wub "?!" 13:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, was previously deleted. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This would include almost every comic book character and almost every fantasy/sf novel character. --- Safemariner 07:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - shortly ago deleted, I doubt the arguments changed. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Too vague and broad; applies to thousands of characters. Also: "Pure" energy? As opposed to what -- modified-cornstarch energy? --Tenebrae 22:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nearly meaningless category. Doczilla 10:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Recreated category. Dugwiki 17:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films which explore libertarian themes[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 18:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Inherently WP:POV category definition. How would we decide which films are contained here and which are not. Who decides what a "libertarian theme" is, who decides what "explores" means? This could contain anything from every movie ever made to just the remakes of The Fountainhead Gwernol 21:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Any film that shows aggresive government, or which expounds support for individualism, clearly express or exlpor libertarian themes. Allixpeeke 21:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Counter example: The Battleship Potemkin a Communist propaganda film showing the aggressive forces of the Tsarist government. You are interpreting films to say that they explore libertarian themes, in other words its your WP:POV that determines what fits into this category. I'm afraid it doesn't comply with our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view Gwernol 21:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- Could be done if you can cite that a director, screenwriter or author had libertarian ideas... I think the people who watch the films will notice if this category is added and that should keep it within reason. --futurebird 21:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Inherently PoV. Atlant 22:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Determining if a film "explores libertarian themes" can be highly subjective, which just plain violates WP:NPOV. Seeing as the CAT: creator just tagged Star Wars with this one, I'm pretty skeptical of this CAT's value. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 22:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- How is a movie about a group of rebels fighting a tyrannical empire not inherently libertarian? Come on. Allixpeeke 00:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment when they're trying to install a monarchy? You see, this right here is the heart of the problem. What you see as a glorious libertarian call to arms, I see as a reactionary anti-democratic rant. I'm not saying my view is any more worthy than yours. My point is they're both points of view and that means they're both an unsuitable basis for a catgeory. Gwernol 01:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- That's not a matter of perspective, that is, by fact, inaccurate. The fact is that they were trying to take down a monarchy, a monarchy headed by the Empirer. At best, you might be able to argue that the Empirer wasn't, despite my claim, a tyrant, and that this tiny aspect (i.e. whether he is a tyrant of not) is merely a point of view; but in no way could you argue that his rule was of a democratic nature. We can state objectively that it was not.

Further, I would find it doubtful if anyone would not go so far as to claim that he was, indeed, a tyrant, and that his empire was thus inherently tyrannical. Likewise, I fail to see how anyone could claim that this thematic opposition to the empire, to essentially "big government," is not inherently libertarian. It may be up to one's point of view whether or not there were other themes present in the film as well, and what those other themes may be--to this I will readily concede. But for one to claim that, in his or her point of view, no libertarian themes are explored, whether intentionally or unintentionally, in the original Star Wars trilogy is like someone claiming that, in his or her point of view, math doesn't really exist. A claim does not negate empirical reality.

Respectfully,

Allixpeeke 22:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Defining "libertarian themes" apparently has POV problems. After that, determining whether a movie has "libertarian themes" is another POV problem. A subjective category like this is not useful. Dr. Submillimeter 23:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, deciding the "themes" (or "meaning" or anything like that) of a work of art is far too subjective a job for a category. Recury 01:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too woolly. Chicheley 07:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a hopelessly subjective category on more than one level. Redeagle688 20:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as immediately above. --Tenebrae 22:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 10:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV issues. Dugwiki 17:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The wide range of movies included is a good indication that this is a completely subjective and POV list - everything from Billy Jack to Red Dawn, The People vs Larry Flynt to some anti-Michael Moore videos. No clear criteria for inclusion makes this unmaintainable. Dragomiloff 13:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Soap Stars[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete and redirect. Timrollpickering 18:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and Redirect to Category:Soap opera actors. Is this User:EJBanks again? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant cat --- Safemariner 07:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recat current occupants of category TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant and (fans of EJBanks, take notice) incorrectly capitalized soap opera category. Doczilla 10:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Writers by audience[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 19:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a faulty premise, trying to categorize writers by intended audience, rather than by what they write. Not all readers of Christian literature are Christians, and not all readers of children's literature are children. For example, although Harry Potter is certainly children's literature, many adults (myself included) have read all the books. So really Category:Writers by genre and Category:Writers by non-fiction subject area cover it better. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ProveIt has made a compelling case that this category is redundant with other categories. Dr. Submillimeter 22:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about rename to Writers by target audience --- Safemariner 07:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, that may require making a subjective judgement for some material. Second, I do think that ProveIt has made the case the Category:Writers by genre would be just as useful but less ambiguous. Dr. Submillimeter 08:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. >Radiant< 12:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with ProveIt. Categorizing by genre is ok, but not by "intended audience". Dugwiki 17:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are books written for a specific group of audience, and there are writers writing for a specific group of audience. The same applies to films, TV programmes, and so on and so forth. - Privacy 20:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Categorize by genre, not by audience. Incidentally it does not say "intended" audience. Even if it did, that would get deleted because we cannot read authors' minds. Doczilla 06:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Two Joysticks, no buttons[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete and send to WP:DAFT. For the record, the category contained one-player computer and video games that require two joysticks, but no "fire" button. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a defining characteristic and bordering on trivia. Combination 19:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonencylopedic --- Safemariner 14:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insane. That's a category? --Tenebrae 22:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, beyond the pale of trivia. I really should keep a list of "Worthless categories I have known." Just when I thought I've found the worst... Postdlf 04:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:DAFT Grutness...wha? 05:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 11:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Korean American poets[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge per revised nom. Timrollpickering 19:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Korean American poets into Category:American poets

Merge - Currently, Category:American poets is not subdivided by ethnicity except for African American poets and this category, which contains only one person (who is actually better known as a Methodist bishop). Category:Korean American poets is underpopulated, fits into the category organization scheme awkwardly, and should be merged into the parent category. Dr. Submillimeter 15:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Modification of vote based on discussion below: Merge to Category:Asian American poets Dr. Submillimeter 17:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ I found one other person who clearly did fit and two who maybe could fit, but are better where they're at. Still Category:American poets is kind of big. I'm tempted to say we should make a Category:Asian American poets and then merge this to that.--T. Anthony 17:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Category:Asian American poets, which admittedly I just created.--T. Anthony 17:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to new Category:Asian American poets. The reason it's probably underpopulated is that it's not linked to the American poets category like African American poets is. --Wizardman 17:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to new Category:Asian American poets per Wizardman. --lquilter 17:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although this shouldn't be permanent - as the category grows it may need to be further split. --lquilter 22:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Asian American poets. Michael G. Davis 18:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Asian-American poets. Please note that per AP Stylebook and Strunk & White, which Wiki recommends as WP:MOS sources, that "Asian-American" in this case is a compound modifier of "poets" and should be hyphenated.
- I am happy with including the dash. Dr. Submillimeter 23:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! What is that I see on the horizon? Yes, it is American Poets being diffused into American Poets by ethnicity! I sure hope not. The only reason for a category of poetry by ethnicity to exist is if it is a significant sub-culture. In the case of African-Americans it is (e.g. Langston Hughes). I don't know about Korean-Americna poetry, but I suspect this not to be the case. Otherwise, ethnicity should not be categorized, and these articles should not be diffused into the smaller categories. Unless someone can make a good case for the significance of Korean-American poetry as a genre (or Asian-American poetry for that matter), I am leaning toward the original Merge. Also agree with the dash for all ethnicities. -- Samuel Wantman 11:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created some ethnic ones to keep the category from being too large. However I also tried to create ones based on poetic movement or history. In the case of Category:Mexican American poets the two kind of converged as there seems to have been a uniquely Mexican American poetry influenced by Chicano or Latino culture or issues. I'm not sure that's true of Asian Americans and I think there should be, at most, only one more of these. (As Native American poetry might constitute it's own form) Otherwise I'd be the last to make Category:German American poets or something.--T. Anthony 19:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt you wouldn't, but somebody will, and before you know it, we'll be trying to delete them. It sure seems like a slippery slope. Could we all agree that categories should NEVER be diffused into ethnicity categories unless it is a taxonomy totally devoted to ethnicity? -- Samuel Wantman 09:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Categorization by ethnicity in this case will become a POV target: Oh, how can he know what Americans do, he is Korean after all. How good can that poetry be? --- Safemariner 17:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Peel Regional Roads[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 19:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Roads in Peel Region, Rename to Category:Peel regional roads, or Keep. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, awkward title. ST47Talk 18:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge makes more sense --- Safemariner 07:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename since this is apparently the category for regional roads in the Peel region. ~ Bigr Tex 14:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge overcategorization (see also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 8#Roads in Peel Region.) ~ Bigr Tex 18:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kitchen appliance bands[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 19:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if there was a few more it might be worth keeping. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One may be able to find one or two more, but it would still end up too underpopulated. --Wizardman 17:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wizardman ST47Talk 18:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Since when is number a criterion for deletion? How many would be sufficient? Where's the rule for this? If we add Kitchenaid, Amana, GE, Whirlpool, Jenn-Air, Bosch, Monogram, Dacor, Thermador, Best, Frigidaire Maytag, Monogram,Verona, Miele, Gaggenau, Cuisinart, Five Star, Vent-A-Hood, DCS, Zephyr, Viking, Fisher & Paykel, Ducane, LG, Dualit, LL Bean, Back to Basics, Sub-Zero, and Morton will these be sufficient? Apologies to everyone for only using the American kitchen appliance brands that I have in my kitchen and within visual range of the computer I'm using, rather than thoroughly researching the hundreds of kitchen appliance brands used the world over. There are more than a "few more" there are hundreds more. KP Botany 23:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Uh ... those are brands not bands. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What useless category will people dream up next? --- Safemariner 07:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't know as much about the category, obviously, as Wizardman, so I'm not sure that it is a useless category. I've heard a kitchen appliance band, there was a minor surge in them in the mid 70s. It's not my taste in music, so I can't say with any expertise that the category will end up "too underpopluated" with as much assurance as ProveIt and Wizardman. Doesn't that require some expertise or knowledge of how many there are? I'm concerned about overdeleting based on subjective POV arguments about how many members the category will have. Can someone show some research that shows this will be the case, that this is a valid reason for deleting? Is number a criterion for keeping/deleting a category? KP Botany 18:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Categories with single articles like this are not useful. Rather than uniting articles on similar topics, they isolate articles, resulting in problems where average users cannot find information on related topics. This defeats the purpose of categories. Dr. Submillimeter 14:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question So you've done sufficient research to assure that there is only one kitchen appliance band that will ever be in Wikipedia OR the category shouldn't be created until there are more members? For example, fashion designers would be better sorted by haute couture, bridal and ready-to-wear (if they're not already), so I couldn't create these categories to reflect the reality of the fashion world unless I wanted to go do all the categorization? KP Botany 16:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My simple statement is that isolating articles in categories like this hinders the effectiveness of the category system. Now, this category has been on Wikipedia since August 2006. If this was a notable subject that even one fan wanted to expand, then the category would have acquired multiple entries. If more articles were written on such bands, then the article authors could have found this category or written a parent article (kitchen appliance bands) on the subject. If someone now could identify more articles that could be added to the category, then either the category would gain more articles or would be left open for future additions. However, I do not want to leave a category open for one article because more unidentified articles for the category might or might not exist or might or might not be created; if the articles or subjects cannot be identified, then they may not even exist or be notable enough to belong on Wikipedia. At this time, the category contains one article. It is not useful as a category. It should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 17:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This category is appropriate, once there are a few bands to put in it. With a single article, the category is not justified. If there was an article on kitchen appliance bands then it also could make sense to have this category. Vegaswikian 20:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Legend of Zelda[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as recreated material. Category salted to prevent recreation Gwernol 21:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as needed into Category:The Legend of Zelda series. And then please create about a dozen redirects to just make it stop. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, redirect, and salt - The continuous recreation of this category, while not necessarily malicious, is disruptive. Dr. Submillimeter 18:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and salt... ST47Talk 18:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Free computer and video games software[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 19:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Free computer and video games software to Category:Free computer and video games

Rename, As it stands, the category title is incorrect. It should either be Free computer and video game software (as software is both singular and plural, "games" should be singular) or the simpler "Free computer and video games". Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 14:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename This is a good, if awkwardly phrased category. Cheers, Lankybugger 13:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure about the suggested rename; ScummVM isn't a game, though it is probably "game software". Also we should avoid confusion with freeware (this is about free software), but category:Free software computer and video game software is pretty ridiculous. — brighterorange (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As mentioned, be careful not to confuse with freeware. --Alan Au 17:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cylon characters[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 19:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cylon characters to Category:Cylons

Rename, "Characters" is redundant as that there are no real Cylons to distinguish from. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 14:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. ST47Talk 18:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Doczilla 11:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Buildings and structures in Worthing[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 19:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Buildings and structures in West Sussex, or Keep; Worthing doesn't have a category. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Worthing is quite small and not famous for its architecture. Nathanian 16:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Nathanian. If in th future we really do end up with enough notable buildings in Worthing to justify a subcat, we can recreate the category. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gay anthems[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 19:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does or does not make a gay anthem is entirely POV and doesn't represent a worldwide view. Nobody would consider something like Lola's Theme by the Shapeshifters to be a "gay anthem" in the UK and yet it was tagged as one. Triangle e 13:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They were probably thinking of "Lola". -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. There's a few other house records tagged in this way too. Triangle e 16:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, POV. Budgiekiller 16:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think these things certainly can be sourced, but it would probably work best as a list at Gay anthem. --W.marsh 01:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chicheley 07:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify (with references) then delete. David Kernow (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do not listify as the existing article is all that is needed to cover this topic. A good encyclopedia should choose the best examples, not feature reams of endless unpruned lists of trivial examples, which Wikipedia does far too frequently, eg all those unilluminating lists of pop culture references. Osomec 09:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV. Categories which are based on people's perceptions of things are not a good idea. Nathanian 16:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Artists who played in family values tour[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 18:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Performers by performance category. Some bands perform at dozens of music festivals. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chicheley 07:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 11:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stop this before it spreads to other bands. This is why we have lists. -- Samuel Wantman 11:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Series of fantasy books[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 19:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Series of fantasy books into Category:Fantasy books by series

Merge, These two categories of books have exactly the same function as each other. Fayenatic london 13:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Fayenatic london. Budgiekiller 16:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - FBS is a better name for the cat. --lquilter 17:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. --Wizardman 19:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Category:Series of fantasy books says "This category is not for articles on individual books, but for articles describing a series as a whole"; Category:Fantasy books by series is for articles about books which are part of a series. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Merge Kevinalewis et al have convinced me. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But how will it hurt to put them together? If we have Category:Fantasy books by series, it will include (a) subcategories of series, in which the article for that series will go; and (b) where a series does not have a subcat and individual book entries, an unsubcatted articles about series which presumably will talk about the individual books within that series. This would only be a problem if we would sometimes want an article about a series that didn't talk about the books within the series (so inappropriate for the category), but I can't imagine such an article. Am I missing something? --lquilter 18:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What Her Pegship said. --Paul A 06:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; the distinction is confusing and not needed. >Radiant< 12:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. At present, one category (A) has articles about series. The other (B) has sub-categories by series, each containing individual books. In many other areas of categorisation, A and B would be the same head category. Merge. Fayenatic london 15:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Category:Fantasy books by series - these categories are not that same and although confusing a little thought about the semantics of each title should make it clear. The category here though different is really not necessary. The one with the series articles themselves however is and should not be confused with book articles from those series. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - upon representation from Fayenatic london I realise that the distrinctino is probably too subtle. I now change the vote to merge. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Series of fantasy novels[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 19:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Series of fantasy novels into Category:Fantasy novels by series

Merge, These two categories of Novels have exactly the same function as each other. Likewise, their parent Books categories should also be merged with each other. Fayenatic london 13:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Budgiekiller 16:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - FNS is a better name for the cat. --lquilter 17:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. --Wizardman 19:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The two categories have distinct functions: one is for articles about the series, one is for articles about the individual novels. For instance, A Song of Ice and Fire would go under Category:Series of fantasy novels, while A Game of Thrones would go under Category:Fantasy novels by series. --Paul A 06:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But how will it hurt to put them together? If we have Category:Fantasy books by series, it will include (a) subcategories of series, in which the article for that series will go; and (b) where a series does not have a subcat and individual book entries, an unsubcatted articles about series which presumably will talk about the individual books within that series. This would only be a problem if we would sometimes want an article about a series that didn't talk about the books within the series (so inappropriate for the category), but I can't imagine such an article. Am I missing something? --lquilter 18:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; the distinction is confusing and not needed. >Radiant< 12:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. At present, one category (A) has articles about series. The other (B) has sub-categories by series, each containing individual novels. In many other areas of categorisation, A and B would be the same head category. Merge. Fayenatic london 15:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - upon representation from Fayenatic london I realise that the distrinctino is probably too subtle. I now change the vote to merge. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom & consistent w/the above related nomination. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Moravian writers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep writers, delete poets. Timrollpickering 18:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Moravian writers, Merge Category:Moravian poets into Category:Poets - The categories are supposed to be used for writers who belong to the Moravian religion. Currently, Category:Moravian writers only contains one subcategory, Category:Moravian poets. Category:Moravian poets only contains one person. I doubt that Wikipedia contains enough articles on Moravian writers and poets to populate these categories; Anna Nitschmann may be the only individual in Wikipedia. Given that this category has little or no potential for growth, the categories should be deleted, and Anna Nitschmann should be moved to Category:Poets or a more appropriate subcategory of that category. Dr. Submillimeter 12:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually Category:Moravians has more writers than I expected, but I'm not sure it needs to have a subcategory for that yet. Therefore I think I'll put her in Category:Christian writers and then you can delete both Moravian deals. At the very least delete Category:Moravian poets.--T. Anthony 13:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Of the other Moravian writers listed in Category:Moravians that I could find, it was not apparent from their articles that they wrote specifically on religious topics. Therefore, placing them in a category for Moravian writers may make the category an irrelevant cross-section. Dr. Submillimeter 13:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then just ~~Delete~~ them both as I put her in Christian writers. I also switched the "blank-nationality people" categories on her article to the more specific "blank-nationality" poets categories.--T. Anthony 13:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At the time of this writing, Pastorwayne, who is the category creator, is populating the category. However, the category now includes a description saying "members of the Moravian faith who are/were known for their literary contributions". This indicates that the category is going to be used for anyone who is Moravian and writes, not people who write on topics related to the Moravian religion. On this basis, the category should still be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 13:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know, I'll have to think about it. I still think Category:Moravian poets should be axed as there's no need to get more specific when there's only 13 names to begin with.--T. Anthony 13:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought about it. The writers in category are largely writers of hymns and histories of the Moravian church's people. So I go keep Category:Moravian writers and delete Category:Moravian poets.--T. Anthony 13:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vote change: Delete Category:Moravian poets, Keep Category:Moravian writers - I looked over the category's contents and agree with T. Anthony's assessment. However, "Moravian poetry" is still not a notable-enough subcategory. Dr. Submillimeter 13:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm generally opposed to nearly all religion / occupation categories, except in a few specific cases ... but writers are one of those. In such cases I'm inclinded to give them the benefit of the doubt. Is there such a thing as Moravian literature? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly. The thing is when it's this small, and Moravians aren't among the larger denominations to begin with, it doesn't seem to make sense to separate into poets or whatever. As that's the only thing up for deletion now.--T. Anthony 14:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a lot of ambiguity here. Tomáš Masaryk is in cat Moravian; he is certainly (acc to his article) from or of Moravia (country/area/ethnic gp) and possibly of Moravian (religion). The articles we have include - Moravia (country/area/ethnic gp); Moravian (disamb page); Moravians redirects to Moravian; Moravians (ethnic group); Moravian (religion). The cat Category:Moravians (which has stated in its preamble since its creation that it is related to Moravian (religion) amongst other things such as Hussites) should be renamed to Category:Moravian (religion) (can this not be speedied - names should match), a new cat created Category:Moravians (ethnic group) (or maybe not - it looks like a very ill-defined term), and the articles distributed appropriately. I doubt if a poets cat will survive in either. (I wonder if we should just delete all categories.) roundhouse 16:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Alleged police brutality NYPD[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus to merge; rename to Category:Alleged brutality by the New York City Police Department. Timrollpickering 19:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alleged police brutality NYPD into Category:Alleged police brutality

Merge Although the people in the category were (allegedly) assaulted and killed by New York City police officers, I feel it's inappropriate to have the category single out the NYPD. As currently named, and as separated from the parent category, it gives the impression that the NYPD regularly engages in police brutality, which is denied by the NYPD, and is trying in good faith to eliminate. Right or wrong, the association of X with Y is an overcategorization. Also, this category (and not its parent) is also categorized with Category:Urban decay. I don't feel the brutality is caused by or is a result of urban decay; probably more along the lines of racial tension or profiling. If this category is kept, it should be renamed to ~~Category:Alleged brutality of the New York City Police Department~~ Category:Alleged brutality by the New York City Police Department (or a similar name that expands the abbreviation), and the police officers involved should also be added to the category (as well as its parent category). Tinlinkin 08:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge but do rename - One could easily create categories for other poliece departments as needed. The NYPD has drawn unprecedent attention from the media and from protest groups for its actions over a long period of time. This category is vaulable to people doing research. Though there is evidence of improvement, (This might be a good subject for an article that could go in the category!) the NYPD's record is exceptional and deserves its own category.futurebird 08:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Doczilla 11:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge and comment - breaking down by PD is important in this field as it grows. But I'm not sure what to rename to, because of the prohibition on acronyms & abbreviations in cat names. --lquilter 17:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "Category:Alleged brutality of the New York City Police Department" as sugested by Tinlinkin works.futurebird 18:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aside: "Alleged brutality of..." might suggest a POV that the brutality is institutionalized; suggest "Alleged brutality by...". Regards, David Kernow (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's true. How do people like "Alleged brutality by the New York City Police Department" ? I think "Alleged police brutality by the NYPD" is a little less messy but no acryonyms, right? futurebird 13:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Agree with name change to "by"; reflected in my nom. Tinlinkin 18:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No merge. The field has been growing over time, and if anyone seems to warrant a subcategory on this it'd be NYPD. 14's not a lot certainly, but I don't mind the subcategory. We're not singling out the NYPD with this category --Wizardman 17:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split Category:Alleged police brutality by country and police department. Michael G. Davis 18:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that would create too much nesting. This could be done later when there are more entries. futurebird 18:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either merge or rename per tinlinkin ST47Talk 18:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. As it stands, the category name itself is inherently POV. It seems to imply that Police brutality is common and natural for the NYPD. By categorizing an article under this category, it may legitimize the article even if article would not stand up on its own. Also, I was always under the impression that "Alleged" and Wikipedia do not go together. --- Safemariner 15:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we want facts rather than allegations. If not deleted, still merge per nom. >Radiant< 12:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per >Radiant<. If this is not going to be deleted then it should be upmerged since there is not at present a need for subcats. If kept, rename to Category:Alleged brutality by the New York City Police Department. I do wonder why we don't have Category:Police brutality. Vegaswikian 23:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be hard to resolve the contents of such a category. "Alleged" seems more diplomatic. One must read about each case to decide.futurebird 00:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But Wikipedia should not have Alleged. One other issue is deciding "Alleged by whom?" Almost every act of police to some extent is brutal as it implies the use of force against another human being. We could go on and say the category could be called Alleged unjustified brutality but then the question becomes "unjust in whose eyes?" Almost every criminal claims that they have been unjustly arrested and are being unjustly punished. The POV issues are just too big. The very act of placing an article in this category legitimizes the article to some extent as people claim a category exist, so this must happen as a matter of course. --- Safemariner 02:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The issue is not about being diplomatic. It is about being accurate. Vegaswikian 23:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then we are talking about changing the name of this category and the parent category too? I guess I can go along with that if others feel as both of you do, that the word "Alleged" leaves the boundries too fuzzy. But, I think we ought to open this as a new issue and inculde all of the categories with the word "Alleged." --futurebird 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - At the risk of throwing gremlins in the works, I'd suggest (1) making an allegation (that is recognized and/or reported) is an event that may or may not be verified, in common with other encyclopedic information; (2) the criterion of notability would (should) exclude all but the most significant instances. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't get it, David. Are you saying that it's better with the word "Alleged" because like other items in wiki an allegation can be verified (for example if it was a major news story)futurebird 05:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Northern Ireland architects[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 19:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Renaming... Category:Northern Ireland architects to Category:Northern Irish architects

Rename, in line with the convention used in Category:Northern Irish people. Chicheley 08:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom using existing convention. Budgiekiller 16:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --lquilter 16:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, irish is an adjective, ireland is a noun ST47Talk 18:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Otogi Zoshi characters[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was category has now been deleted prior to the close of discussion. Timrollpickering 15:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Category was created about 2½ months ago and is still empty. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)~~ Changed opinion now that cat is populated. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete empty category. Doczilla 11:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as empty. It may re-appear if the Otogi Zoshi characters develop sufficiently to have their own pages. Budgiekiller 16:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no-longer empty but only three articles. Perhaps this could be a keeper? The Rambling Man 22:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete C1 ST47Talk 18:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has suddenly become populated. Tim! 21:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's being used now. It still needs to be populated more, though. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:John Peel Discoveries[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 19:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Peel Sessions artists, I think this counts as a duplicate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I don't think it's a strict duplicate, but it's a subset, and one with arguable (and possibly POV) inclusion criteria. Better to avoid arguments/warring over whether Peel "discovered" such-and-such a band or merely gave their careers a boost, IMO. Also may count as overcategorization. Xtifr _tälk 10:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The concept of "discovery" in this sort of situation is a problematic one, which reminds me of a T-shirt I once saw: "1492, Columbus discovered America. When was it lost?". Peel gave Sharkey a platform on his show, but AFAIK he didn't "discover" him. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 05:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United Methodist bishops of the Florida Area[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge. Timrollpickering 19:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another UM Bishops-by-area-category, most of which have been deleted in numerous recent CFD discussions; the other stragglers are nominated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 1#United_Methodist_bishops. BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:United Methodist bishops of the Southeastern Jurisdiction. -- BrownHairedGirl 01:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice that got missed. The last few are on January 2, I believe. Upmerge per nom. --Alynna 06:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I missed that link and shoukd have included it: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 2#United_Methodist_bishops. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 04:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge given precedent. Dr. Submillimeter 09:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United Kingdom Choirs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:British choirs. Timrollpickering 19:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United Kingdom Choirs to Category:United Kingdom choirs

Rename in keeping with WP capitalization rules. --lquilter 01:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom ... and you can do speedy for ones like this ... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The correct rename is to Category:British choirs. Pinoakcourt 07:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:British choirs per Pinoakcourt, as Category:Choirs suggests "Adjectival choirs" is the format. (Alternatively, rename all to "Choirs of Country".) David Kernow (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to British choirs. Tim! 14:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per Pinoakcourt. Budgiekiller 16:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, to Category:United Kingdom choirs. The country is called the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", and the term "British" is explicitly rejected by a large section of the population of Northern Ireland. The neutral term is the technically accurate one, "United Kingdom". --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 04:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:British choirs. Refusal to use the word "British" (which is used on hundreds of other categories) would show a clear political bias on the part of Wikipedia. Chicheley 07:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think that naming it to British choirs would show a political bias in this case. I think United Kingdom is more neutral (unless there are no choirs from Northern Ireland that are ever going to be included in this category) --- Safemariner 15:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: even if we can't get consensus on the UK/British thing, I can still fix the capitalization, right? --lquilter 18:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:British choirs in line with Category:British culture and Category:British music etc. The approach we use is well established and "United Kingdom" is not widely accepted as an adjective. Nathanian 16:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American writers by audience[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 18:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unecesary intermediate category, apparently created (by PW) solely as a container for Category:American Methodist writers, which is itself up for deletion (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 5#Category:American_Methodist_writers). BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop Personal Attacks what is "apparent" about a cat's creation simply from it's population?!? What do you know of someone's intent for creating cats? Delete or maintain a cat based solely on it's merits. Intent (which cannot be discerned, anyway) has nothing to do with it! The creator of a cat has nothing to do with it!! Someone could say "yet another example of BrownHairedGirl's anxiety over having too many cats and subcats," but that would be silly because such a statement would have absolutely nothing to do with whether a cat should be deleted or not. Thanks. Pastorwayne 13:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply PW, before complaining about "personal attacks", please read WP:NPA and my reply to your message on my talk.
  If you actually read the nomination, you would see that the reason for this CFD nomination was that it is an "unnecessary intermediate category".
  When you created the category, you did not take the time to provide any explanation (other than the category name) of what it is for, so it is left to others to infer what its purpose might be, which is a very pertinent question in decding whether it should stay. When you decided to categorise writers by audience, there are appear to be two possibilities: either you had other audiences in mind, or you wanted to create a container for your new category. Your edit history is clear: American writers by audience was created less than 60 seconds after American Methodist writers. A week later, it has no other subcategories, and you appear not to have discussed it anywhere else (no incoming links). That points to it being a single-use container category, but if I am wrong, why not tell us why you created it?
  It's very unhelpful to complain about being "attacked" without making any substantive contribution to the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 04:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category that is not concrete enough. Doczilla 01:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 07:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This part of the category tree is superfluous. Dr. Submillimeter 09:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I would argue that Category:Writers by audience is itself a faulty premise, trying to categorize writers by intended audience, rather than by what they write. Not all readers of Christian literature are Christians, and not all reader of children's literature are children. For example, although Harry Potter is certainly children's literature, many adults (myself included) have read all the books. So really Category:Writers by genre and Category:Writers by non-fiction subject area cover it better. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree. The more I think about it, even if Category:American Methodist writers survives CFD, it should not be a subcat of Category:American writers by audience: the AMW category is defined so that it can include, for example, novelists and poets and writers of automotive maintenance manuals as well as writes of religious tracts; methodists who write science books or detective stories will not be targetting their work at a single christian denomination. So Category:American writers by audience should now really be empty. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 04:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with all comments above, PW's excepted (although his cats are not necessarily flawed). Moreover 'children's literature' means 'literature of children', and should be renamed, together with its subcats. (I think there was a discussion about Preacher's Kid, one of PW's earlier deleted cats, where, inter alia, the apostrophe was said to have no place in a title.) Books for children might be OK - I leave this entirely to those who have mastered the art of mass noms. roundhouse 05:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, overcat. >Radiant< 12:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Writers by audience and nationality[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 18:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary intermediate category, which does nothing to help navigation. Has two sub-cats (Category:American writers by audience and Category:Ethiopian writers by audience. The latter is nominated for deletion below, and the American writers will follow above. BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 07:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This part of the category tree is superfluous. Dr. Submillimeter 09:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Category:Writers by audience doesn't really work. --- ProveIt ^(talk)
Delete, overcat. >Radiant< 12:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ethiopian writers by audience[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge. Timrollpickering 18:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous intermediate category. It is a sub-cat of Category:Ethiopian writers, and contains no articles, just one single-article sub-cat (Category:Ethiopian children's writers, which I suggest should be kept as part of the series Category:Children's writers by nationality. BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Ethiopian writers, clarifying intention as nominator. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Pinoakcourt 07:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Ethiopian writers - The contents are not duplicated elsewhere in the category structure. Dr. Submillimeter 09:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Category:Writers by audience doesn't really work. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. So is 'Category:Ethiopian children's writers' for 'writers of Ethiopian children', or for 'Ethiopian writers of children'; or is its name flawed? roundhouse 05:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since people don't "write" children (thank God), it's for Ethiopians who write literature for children. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, overcat. >Radiant< 12:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Chicago films[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was split & rename. Timrollpickering 18:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Renaming... Category:Chicago films to Category:Films set in Chicago

Rename to conform with other "films by location" cats. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split and rename per recent similar state-level discussions. The category as it stands is meant to capture both films set in and films shot in Chicago, so sort them into Category:Films set in Chicago and Category:Films shot in Chicago. Otto4711 03:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split and rename as per Otto4711. Budgiekiller 16:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split and rename as per Otto4711. --lquilter 16:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split and rename as per Otto4711. --Wizardman 17:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename even if no-one can be bothered to do the split now as it can be sorted out later. Honbicot 18:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.