Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 22 September 24 >

September 23[edit]

Category:Fictional witches[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. I think that overall those arguing for deletion have presented a stronger argument. They have highlighted the problems with inclusion criteria, which is worsened by the fact—amply demonstrated in the discussion—that most everyone thinks they intuitively "know" what a witch is, even though this may vary considerably from person to person depending on the character in question. On the other hand, those arguing to keep are maintaining that this is a fairly straightforward issue of simply limiting or pruning the category to those who have been positively identified as witches in reliable sources; and of course as one commenter pointed out, there are bound to be examples that fairly unambiguously qualify for the category regardless of how strictly it is defined (I don't know why, but I'm thinking of Broom-Hilda here). So perhaps the answer is, as Otto4711 succinctly states, to "keep and patrol". Based on this discussion, I suggest that it would be appropriate for someone to define the category, then prune and patrol the category—let's see how that goes. But as Kbdank71 states, whenever "keep and patrol" is suggested and the category is not deleted, "nobody steps up to do it." I'm hoping someone will in this case, but because I have some fairly realistic doubts as to how this will go, this close is without prejudice to a future nomination of the type mentioned by jc37 late in the discussion. Despite the lack of consensus, we can probably all agree that the discussion has been useful and may have laid some groundwork for future action. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional witches

The problem with witch as the inclusion criteria, is that it's apparently causing editors to make a subjective determination to include any female magic user in the category. That's quite clearly WP:OR. And if kept, would likely continue. However, I'm not opposed to these being listified to List of fictional witches. (While noting that it has the same problem.) Some examples: Amethyst, Princess of Gemworld is decidedly not a witch. Same for Rose Psychic, Zatanna, and others. - jc37 23:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Listify/Delete as nominator. - jc37 23:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Fictional female magic users" it could then be placed under Category:Fictional mages. I can see the use of this category but it might be worth wrestling it under control. It could also be worth looking at Category: Fictional wizards which one would assume would have the same problems. With the discussion below perhaps Category:Fictional mages needs sorting with things like "Fictional magic users by type" (for necromancers and shamans), "fictional magic users by sex" (for wizards and witches) and "fictional magic users by media" (into which would go the comics categories and any books and film equivalents). Sorry this has got a bit beyond the scope but I suspect a rejig of the structure would help. (Emperor (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    I suppose that most of those cats should be listified, per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_12#Category:Fictional_magic_users. And your comments probably add a nail in the coffin : ) - jc37 00:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and patrol. If a character is identified in the literature as a witch, then put him or her here. If not, then don't. Strongly oppose renaming to a gendered category as in many instances "witch" is used for male, female and characters without a discernable sex. Otto4711 (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)"Wizard" should also not be considered a gendered category. Otto4711 (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't the difficulty in defining witch and wizard then suggest we are on rocky ground using them> Or should we go for "witch"/"warlock"? What about magic users who aren't specifically described as a witch but are obviously so? The more I think about this the more I think we'd be better off getting rid of both, or having one category but then "Fictional magic users" was deleted so we are back at square one. It may be another case highlighting the problems with classifying fictional characters in some areas. (Emperor (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    (ec and I closed the window. D'oh. So trying to reformulate my thoughts.) - I agree that this shouldn't be renamed to gender-based name.
    And I think it's a tough sell that this category will be patrolled, when the list is obviously WP:OR-ridden. And since the category members rely on the individual articles and lists for referencing, if those are in such a state, then the categories should probably be deleted. Inclusion criteria seems to demand the use of primary sources, and the inclusion of most of these requires judgements which would be in violation of WP:OR's conditions for primary source usage.
    Also since the main category has been listified/deleted, this should be too for those same reasons. After all, look at how editors confuse the word "witch" with "female user of magic" or even "anyone who uses magic". The Harry Potter series may only be partially culpable in this, but whatever the case, the name itself doesn't provide clear inclusion criteria, and indeed is rather vague. So this should pribably be deleted. At least with a list, what is meant by "witch" in each case can be explained. - jc37 01:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep inclusion criteria seems quite clear. If they are indentified in the book, film etc. as a witch then they count as a witch, if not they belong in some other category. There may be a case for a broader category like Category:Fictional female magic users. There are many many fictional characters which fix anambiguiously in this category and being a witch seems like a defining characteristic. --Salix alba 18:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I assume that there are very few non-fictional witches, so the inclusion criteria of anyone in fiction who is described as a witch seems rather clear. List of fictional witches is a wonderful supplement to the category per WP:CLN, and the two should be better synchronized with each other. Alansohn (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "...anyone in fiction who is described as a witch..." - At one point in The Lord of the Rings, a character calls Gandalf "you old conjurer". Does that mean that Gandalf should be grouped under a cat of "Fictional conjurors"? Obviously not. Same here.
    Also, the term has become so broadly defined that it's nearly useless for inclusion criteria. In Harry Potter, it's any female character who can utilise magic. Look at the Wizard of Oz usage. What a "witch" is, depends on whether you look at the book, the film, or even the more recent The Wiz, or Wicked? (Not to mention the seeming differences between "good witches" and "evil witches".) And that's just one set of stories. Once we start in on cultural issues, such as turn of the 19th century well-meaning translators (similar to the situation with dragons), where people from folklore were called "witches" by the translators, when, in truth they merely were creatures or people who use magic. (An example might be the Witch doctor.)
    Read this for additional information: Magician_(fantasy)#Names_and_terminology. - jc37 23:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have this same problem with terminology. "Witch" has rather clear definition in the minds of most readers that "magic user" will never have. Using descriptions of a character's primary background from the source work or in references in reliable sources will satisfy the inclusion criteria. There is no need to distinguish between good or bad witches, any more than a category of obstetricians need rate their quality or demeanor. The term "magic user" is not only unfamiliar, but would be even more overbroad, including anyone who pulls a rabbit out of a hat or does a card trick. With "witch" we can look for a rather specific word; with "magic user" we're making completely subjective interpretations. Alansohn (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "I don't have this same problem with terminology. "Witch" has rather clear definition in the minds of most readers that "magic user" will never have." - The problem with that statement is it's your opinion. According to the article, you're incorrect in your opinion. As for "magic user", in this case, it doesn't matter, since I'm not suggesting a merge with magic user here.
    I appreciate that you have an opinion about how things mean to you, but that obviously isn't how everyone else may see the term. The proof? The current state of both the list and the category. - jc37 18:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion is incorrect?!?! I appreciate that you are utterly convinced of your complete and total correctness, but the current state of this CfD shows the opposite, and I am clearly not the only editor who has no issue with the current title. You have made your case in the nomination, which I read and reviewed, and I have explained why I believe this title is appropriate and why your proposed title is no improvement. I think that this CfD process would benefit tremendously if the repeated badgering of any editor who disagrees with someone's opinion would end. Alansohn (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First, you may wish to re-read my comments for content, rather than taking them out of context.
    That said, note that this is a discussion. If you're not interested in discussing, don't comment.
    In the meantime, to further clarify, note that the framing of my comments were: Here's a statement, and here's the suggested proof of that statement.
    If you can prove otherwise, I'm all ears (eyes? since this is a text-based interface...). - jc37 05:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When I first came to this CfD, I reviewed your argument and explained why I disagree with it. Given that we have a list of witches -- which you have no objection to -- there seems to be no underlying issue with classifying a character as a witch, despite all of the ontological issues that arise with its use. I have reviewed your suggested term "magic user" and found it to be even more problematic than "witch". You are more than entitled to your opinion. I, in turn, have disagreed with your opinion, which does not make your position wrong; I hope you will accord my opinion the same courtesy, and stating "you're incorrect in your opinion" is inappropriate, no matter the lead in. I am happy to discuss anything, as long as your discussion is not an endless repetition of your same argument, which has so far only helped confirm that I have thought this through correctly. Given that being classified as a witch is a strong defining characteristic, I will not agree to deletion of the category, as you originally proposed. One of the things that you or others could do which might have a prayer (or magic spell) of convincing me otherwise would be to concisely and succinctly state the inclusion criteria if the title were changed. Alansohn (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zatanna is a witch, primary source defines her as such, see Books of Magic for starters, so am therefore minded to keep as deletion nomination appears to amount to original research or POV. Hiding T 10:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's true in the source, great. Let's notate that. But of course, we can't in a category. Per WP:CAT:
    "Categories appear without annotations, so be aware of NPOV when creating or filling categories. An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories. For example, avoid placing a category for a profession or award unless the article provides some verification that the placement is accurate. Use the {{Category unsourced}} tag if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate. If the composition of a category is likely to be controversial, a list (which can be annotated) may be more appropriate."
    If a primary source indicates that the character is a witch, great. But even if we decided to "keep and prune" based on that, the term itself is controversial in usage. How one defines what a "witch" is, varies by who is using the term. And in fiction incredibly so. (As noted in some of the discussion above.) Hence listification is approrpiate. - jc37 16:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, on the basis that the term witch means different things to different people, listify and delete, and on the basis that we shouldn't categorise fictional characters by in universe detail because of issues of original research listify and delete, but I don't see a consensus here. But you seem to misunderstand the guidance when you say we can't notate in a category. The guidance states that the place to notate is in the article, which should make it unambiguous why the character is there. If primary source describes a character as a witch, should we not so categorise it? I'm also curious as to what definition you're using to define witch? I mean, Amethyst, Princess of Gemworld is, from memory mind, described as a witch in the Magic Wars arc of the Legion of Super-Heroes volume three. I wonder if the issue isn't with the category but with your attempt to define it? Or maybe it is with the approach we take in categorising things which don;t exist except in fiction and imagination? YMMV. I think teh original research point is a very valid one and perhaps the one that applies most, but it has two sides. If primary source describes Zatanna as a witch, is she a witch? We can't make interpret that claim, can we, per WP:OR. Now go further. Does it make a difference whether it is Batman or The Joker who calls her a witch. It's a minefield. Alansohn makes the point that we should use reliable secondary sourcing to decide inclusion. That's admirable, but calls us into conflict with WP:NPOV; what happens when sources disagree? Based on policy, we have a category which should only be used when reliable secondary sources consensually describe a character as a witch. I think in that case a list is called for per WP:CLN. Hiding T 10:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with the primary sources in this case is that they can be (and often are) contradictory. For example, if I were to refer to primary sources, AFAICT, the only "witch" (though even this may have been in name only) in the original mini series and ongoing series was Citrina. Though she did "help" Amethyst (re-)create Gemworld just prior to her death.
    But if after that, let's say some other author decides to classify Amethyst a witch. Does that make her one in just that story or in all stories (past and future)? How many things in the original Man of Steel mini-series still apply to Superman? How many new things do? How many thing prior to that mini now apply, even though they were intended to be deprecated by the mini? (Not even going into the question of the mess of the LSH, and it being the "future".) And in Zatanna's case, does being "Homo Magi" make her a witch? Or something else? How do we, as editors, understand what the author means when that term is used? (Even if we were to discount hyperbole.) All of these things are things which editors take for granted when adding information.
    And yes, I agree that a list is called for.
    I dunno how the closer will close this, but I wouldn't be opposed to a "no consensus" closure, since I think we've learned some things, and a new discussion following this (with a hopefully clearer nomination developed from this discussion), may bring better understanding, and thus may be more likely to elicit consensus. - jc37 11:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it should be relisted, we should go through the membership and work out who is in and who is out under the umbrella of this discussion, and see where that leads us. See what a category which categorises only when reliable secondary sources consensually describe a character as a witch looks like, and how useful that is. Hiding T 12:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really not seeing this whole "oh noes, someone might change something" argument. Look at comics character articles where the character's undergone a reboot. There are generally sections that detail each iteration and the categories for each iteration happily co-exist on the category list. Same holds true when there are multiple characters under the same name from the same company. Each iteration has its section and categories appropriate to that iteration are included. Otto4711 (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inclusion criteria is quite clear: If she weighs the same as a duck, she's a witch. Oh wait, there is no inclusion criteria. Hence, if kept, someone would need to determine what a witch is, and someone would have to prune. Which is fine, except every time some says keep an eye on things and remove the non-witches, nobody steps up to do it. You can't watchlist the inclusion of every article into a category. So we're back to square one. Plus, per CAT, a list would be more appropriate in this case (which can be watchlisted). --Kbdank71 15:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:DC Comics Witches[edit]

Category:Marvel Comics Witches[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus per nomination, rename Category:Marvel Comics Witches to Category:Marvel Comics witches to fix capitalization. Kbdank71 17:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:DC Comics witches to Category:Magic users in DC Comics
Rename Category:Marvel Comics Witches to Category:Magic users in Marvel Comics

Both per Category:Magic users in comics. See nom above for the issue with "witch" as the inclusion criteria. - jc37 23:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename both - as nominator. - jc37 23:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but should it be to "fictional magic users in comics" and variations thereof? I suppose people like Merlin would be tricky to place anyway but if one did a comic based on... Jack Parsons (there is quite a good, historically accurate web comic) would it still be a fictionalised account? Perhaps keep it simple but otherwise we'd be able to plut into Category: Fictional mages (see discussion in the section above too). (Emperor (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Per WP:NCC, the convention for lists (and presumably categories) is generally "X in comics" if it's content, and "Comics x" if it's "RL" information. (Noting that exceptions either case may be used in cases of confusion.) - jc37 00:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both as "witches" with a rename to correct the capitalization of the Marvel category. Since "fictional magic users" was deleted, it seems odd to rename these categories, which appear to be capturing articles appropriately, to a name that is likely to decrease their utility and get them deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The target names were to match the already existing Category:Magic users in comics.
    Another way to look at this would be to create the target categories, diffuse from the parent as appropriate, then to suggest merging these two to those, for the same reasons.
    I went to look for related lists, and when looking at Category:Lists of comics characters, and its subcats, I'm not seeing any. Though List of fictional witches obviously has quite a few comics characters listed. (And rather inappropriately at that.) - jc37 01:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - absolutely! and then go through the "Magic users in comics" category and sort out the DC and Marvel characters into these new cats. BOZ (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems bizarre that the Category:Fictional witches seems to be headed towards a consensus of retention, while there is a tighter debate here. These two categories should have been considered together with the parent above. As with the parent category, the attribution of "witch" seems to be the rather clear term in common usage, while "magic user" comes off as a rather forced and arbitrary usage. Alansohn (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mention above, "witch" has a vague usage in fiction. "Magic user" is definitely clearer. However, perhaps the best plan would be to drop the names, and instead have: DC Comics characters that use magic and Marvel Comics characters that use magic. - jc37 23:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How many times do characters have to use magic to be considered "characters that [sic] use magic"? Otto4711 (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Waves hello to another good reason for listification : )
    That aside, they "use magic", if the reliable sources clearly indicate as such, I suppose. - jc37 05:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minded to oppose simply because not all witches are magic users. But I think this is a bottom of the page category rather than an attempt to classify, it's trading card definition rather than based on sourced analysis. I really think we are inviting speculation and original research into the category structure with categories such as these. Magic is hard to quantify and define in shared fictive universes, since each writer has a different definition of what is and isn't magical. Some DC writers have even speculated that magic is merely a form of science, to further muddy the waters. Hiding T 09:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lists of fictional characters by species[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 15:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Lists of fictional characters by species to Category:Lists of fictional characters by nature

Inaccurate name. (Since when are cyborgs a species?) And to match Category:Fictional characters by nature. - jc37 21:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as nominator. - jc37 21:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge none of the members are species based lists 70.55.203.112 (talk) 04:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge based on current small & incorrect membership of this category. In 2007 the nominator made the Species category a sub-cat of the Nature category, but this was reversed by User:Radiant! with a concise edit summary that I think means "species is different from nature". If its existence was justified, the Species category would belongs in the head category Category:Fictional life forms (renamed from category:Fictional species), but unless it can be better populated during this discussion then I agree that the proposed merger is best. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge the naming of the category in question is unclear and would be better served by the proposed merge target. Alansohn (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Categories by role[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Categories by role

While apparently well-meant, this has great potential for category bloat. Indeed, it could potentially include nearly any subcat of any category. By the "role" that the sub-topic plays in the topic.

I thought about a rename to "by function", but that has inherently the same problem. - jc37 21:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lists of fictional characters by role[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 15:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lists of fictional characters by role

Lists of good guys (supporters) and bad guys (opponents). Probably not a good idea for a cat. - jc37 21:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 21:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep where else would you house the lists? 70.55.203.112 (talk) 04:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They're already otherwise categorised. - jc37 06:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer pending outcome of Category:Characters by role in the narrative structure. If that goes, then OK to delete (as category creator). - Fayenatic (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are many more "roles" than merely good/bad guys. Current lists appear to be relevant. DionysosProteus (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but a.) they're not categorised here, and b.) every "role" would include all of the members of Category:Fictional characters by type, and quite a bit more. This is unnecessarily duplicative. - jc37 23:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the members of Category:Fictional characters by role rather than that category, if there are lists within them.
    If this was duplicative, the logical action would be merger, not deletion. I don't see how it is duplicative -- where else is there a category for lists by role? - Fayenatic (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Lists of fictional characters. And including nearly every subcat. And I'll also note that every member of this category is already in another subcat of that category. So yes, duplicative. And while that may or may not have been tolerable, the vagueness in naming means that this has the potential of being completely duplicative of the parent. - jc37 13:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is entirely proper for lists and articles to be entered in multiple categories, e.g. by medium, franchise etc. In the case of these lists that are specifically lists of e.g. antagonists or sidekicks, it seems relevant to categorise them accordingly, i.e. by role. Nobody else seems to be interpreting "role" in the same way as you are e.g. deity/martial arts master. Rather, here it refers to the relationship to the lead character. The head category "Characters by role in the narrative structure" makes the meaning more explicit, and I would have no objection to renaming the category accordingly. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Categories are (generally) intended for organisational grouping in order to foster navigation for readers. Duplication, and excessive subcatting gets in the way of that. And a "role in the narrative structure" could be just about anything. For example, the character was the daisy-picker (or the nose-picker, for that matter). It's simply too broad to be useful. And further, that "role" is subjective. Who decides what "roles" to categorise by? You? Me? Of course not. Verifiable reliable sources. And if the inclusion criteria isn't explictly referenced in each member's article, then the page can't be categorised. And (again), more specific categories already exist, which do what you're suggesting, with less of the problems. - jc37 17:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reset) I've restructured the contents with new sub-categories Category:Lists of fictional villains and Category:Lists of fictional sidekicks which should make things clearer, whether this category survives or not. If listification of allies/enemies is allowed, why not allow these lists to be categorised by the same characteristics? - Fayenatic (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on your intent, I would guess that Category:Lists of fictional villains should be renamed to Category:Lists of supervillains, making it reciprocal of Category:Lists of superheroes. Not sure about "sidekicks", especially since the ones you've added at the moment (Dr Who companions, and Bond girls) are more "associates" than "sidekicks" (Robin (comics) being the archetype.) And inclusion for that would grow to include anyone who's been associated with anyone.
    That said, the attempt for more specific cats would indeed seem to be the best way forward. - jc37 00:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. To explain my names for the new sub-cats: the category for lists of sidekicks and allies is named after its other parent, Category:Fictional sidekicks, and its family of sub-cats in Category:Fictional sidekicks by medium. Category:Lists of fictional villains is not only for supervillains, but enemies, henchmen, monsters and plain vanilla villains; its other parent category is Category:Opponents of the hero (stock character), which is already rather a long name before adding "Lists of".
    As for Category:Lists of superheroes, I'm not sure whether it should stay in this category, as it doesn't fit "role" in the narrowest sense that I was proposing earlier. However, it's a very strong example of the wider meaning that you were pointing to. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well (at the moment at least) "superhero" and "supervillain" seem to have a fairly large tree of categorisation (which may or may not be appropriate). And I'm currently somewhat dubious that the villains cat won't become bloated with any list which has someone who has been adversarial to someone else. And Category:Fictional sidekicks should probably be deleted too. It's just too broad. (I may nominate in the near future.) - jc37 07:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Lists of fictional villains should only include lists that contain only villains, not lists that include one or more villains among others. If that's what you mean, would it be helpful to add a note to that effect on the category page? As for Category:Fictional sidekicks, this has now been made a parent category and most articles are sub-categorised by medium. - Fayenatic 10:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this has a specificity which "lists of fictional characters" lacks, characterising by a character's role in the narrative rather than a character's fictive abilities, profession, birthplace, hair color or shoe size. Hiding T 10:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Characters by role in the narrative structure[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 15:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Characters by role in the narrative structure to Category:Stock characters or to its parent Category:Fictional characters by type

Excessively duplicative. - jc37 21:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Please update the category redirect Category:Fictional characters by role according to the outcome. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (Leaning towards the parent, since there are several subcats for appropriate diffusion.) - jc37 21:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment did someone inform WP:LIT? 70.55.203.112 (talk) 04:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - some members in this category would be at home in Stock characters, but I'm unconvinced about other articles and sub-categories. Unlike Stock characters, Characters by Role is not about stereotyping. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the parent cat, it includes more than just the Stock characters. - jc37 23:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I missed the parent cat suggestion. But why would "by type" be better than "by role" for Category:Protagonists by role, Category:Counterparts to the protagonist and Category:Opponents of the hero (stock character) (which could be renamed "antagonists")? - Fayenatic (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Types, and Category:Categories by type.
    Category:Categories by role (which is nominated above) is simply duplication. And in looking over the categories' members, most of the "by role" would be more accurately categorised in categories of other names. Further, how is a "role" different than a genre or a stock character or an archtype? We already have cats for these. Why do we need another duplicative tree, branching from the same places, and going to the same places, needlessly splitting cats which hinders rather than helps, navigation. - jc37 13:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, get rid of the parent Category:Categories by role, but I don't see why this has to be deleted with it. "Role" here refers not to to the character's nature or occupation, but to their position in the narrative, especially the relationship vis-s-vis the lead character, e.g. antagonists or sidekicks. It seems distinct to me, but I'll accept the majority view. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A category based on a relationship with the "lead character"? And that may include different types of relationships? Even if it were only a parent cat, it would still be too broad to group that diverse of subject under a single cat. (How would one discern which were the adversaries and which the sidekicks, for example? Look at the article? That defeats the purpose of the category grouping.) Also, wouldn't a list be better for this, since the nature of the relationship could then be explained clearly, and in context (and with references)? - jc37 07:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Fictional characters by type, although the "fictional" in that category is redundant. DionysosProteus (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as restructured by Fayenatic, there is an organization and group of categories that differs from the stock character structure, with minimal overlap. A merge would retain these subcategories, while losing the obvious parent. Alansohn (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fayenatic london. Stefanomione (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fayenatic, this is an established literary and scholarly distinction and exactly the way we should be classifying. Listifying would seem redundant, as where would you then place Protagonist? Hiding T 10:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional characters by origin[edit]

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 all. This was a large nomination that was open for a long time, which I think was good, considering the size of the nomination. Being open for over a month now with all of the categories appropriately tagged, editors have had plenty of notice. Anyway, jc37's original rationale for deletion—that classing fictional characters by nationality is a process almost always fraught with original research risks—is well taken and was never really refuted by any other arguments. By itself, this could possibly be enough to justify listification of these categories. Add to this argument the other problems highlighted by other users—particularly those mentioned by Hiding and Black Falcon—reminding us that the nationality (if any) of a fictional character is an entirely mutable characteristic within an in-universe, and these start to look more untenable. On the other hand, the best argument presented in favour of keeping the categories was that they could be helpful in "researching the depiction in fiction of a certain nationality". While this statement is probably true, it is an unconvincing argument that we should keep a category because it might be useful to some researcher at some time. The reason it is unconvincing is because such a standard can probably apply to any category (apart from those which are just nonsense), many of which are deleted for various reasons. Finally, although I see a relatively clear consensus to delete the categories, I'm not seeing the same consensus or enthusiasm for listification, so I'm not going to close these with a listification requirement before deletion. Nevertheless, and if I may prognosticate a bit, I would venture to guess that some of these categories will be re-created in good faith by editors in the future. Thus, I think it would be helpful to everyone for any editors who are interested to begin creation of well-referenced lists so that the urge to re-create these may be diminished. If we get some lists developing, then obviously we may need some categories to contain the lists, which may have similar names to some of those deleted (e.g., Category:Lists of comics characters by nationality), so this close is obviously without prejudice to that kind of creation in the future, if needed. (The previous contents of the categories may be easily discovered by reference to the removing bot's contributions, so no, the information is not gone forever to a place where it can never be retrieved, but that is probably where your patience has gone if you've made it through this long closing comment.) Finally, and this time I mean it—also note that this nomination was not 100% exhaustive of all the "Fictional Fooians" categories; e.g., I see there is Category:Fictional English Americans, which was not included in the nomination. It will be worthwhile for someone to do some looking around and try to clean these up, and nominate them for deletion if these same considerations apply (i.e., with a new nomination). Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 31. -Black Falcon (Talk) 01:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters by origin to Category:Fictional characters by nationality
Category:Comics characters by origin to Category:Comics characters by nationality
Category:Anime and manga characters by origin to Category:Anime and manga characters by nationality
Category:Video game characters by origin to Category:Video game characters by nationality
Added Category:Superheroes by nationality and Category:Supervillains by origin and subcategories per request. -Black Falcon (Talk) 15:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. With a couple of odd exceptions which can be dealt with separately, these categories are for fictional characters by nationality. They aren't being used to categorize for example fictional aliens. For fictional characters, especially comics characters, "origin" has a specific meaning very separate from country of birth. In line with a number of child/sibling categories. Otto4711 (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Weak listify) - First of all there's a question of whether some of those categorised are categorised by ethnicity, rather than nationality. Second, typically, if a character is "active" at a location, that character is presumed to be of that nationality or ethnicity. This is clearly WP:OR. This is something that just simply requires clear references. And that means a list. - jc37 22:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, over-categorisation and flawed schemata. How do we define nationality for a fictional character? A work set in the US may not describe the protagonist's birth or nationality, so would we then include the character in an American nationality category? Is Superman American? Christ, I don't even want to get into the ins and outs of how the Kents got a birth certificate in this day and age. Look at the character Psylocke, a character initially depicted as the classic English rose, and now depicted as oriental. What nationality does she have? She likely may have an American passport too, based on residence, I don;t know how long you have to remain the States to be eligible for American citizenship. Wolverine too is a good example, Canadian but I think can claim Japanese nationality through marriage. Where will it end? Yes, we could categorise only where the nationality is asserted in the primary source material, but how will this convolute our articles. From one perspective Wolverine is an American character, the copyright owned by an American corporation which tends to be how nationality is defined for companies; example Burger King was for a time considered British based on being owned by Diageo. So on that standard Wolverine is an American character, but within the fiction he is Canadian. Is he then an American owned fictional Canadian superhero? And how so do we categorise. I think this is pushing the category tool beyond its intended use. Hiding T 22:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's pretty clear that these categories are in-universe and that no one is suggesting that characters be categorized by the country/ies in which they are copyrighted. Spider-Man is published (and presumably copyrighted) in India, for instance, but no one has rushed to add Peter Parker to the Indian comics characters category. As for how we determine the nationality of a fictional character, we do so the same way we determine the nationality of a real person - reliable sources. We have reliable sourcing that Wolverine is Canadian, so he is categorized there. I have no idea if he has a claim to Japanese citizenship through marriage; if there's a reliable source that says he does and has claimed it, categorize him there too. Psylocke was and AFAIK remains a British citizen. She became Asian in appearance through some plot contrivance but her change in appearance did not change her nationality to the best of my knowledge. If there's a RS that says her nationality changed, fine, categorize her under that nationality too.
  • As for Superman, if you really want to know, after they found Kal-El they were snowed in on their farm for several months. Come the spring, they presented him as their natural child and presumably got him a birth certifiacte through the usual means. Otto4711 (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, that version is only one version of Superman's history (The Byrne one. The "classic" origin has them placing him at an orphanage, and adopting him later. So much for "clear" categorisation... (Which is another reason why categorising fictional characters by origin/nationality/ethnicity isn't helpful, and may be confusing.) - jc37 14:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I helped write the article on Superman. It was a humorous aside meant to reflect global warming and the growing bureaucracy in obtaining official documents based on fears of abuse by terrorists. As to the clearness of the categories, have a look at Category:British comics characters which contradicts your assertion. There is no clarity in how to use these categories, and the consensus at WP:COMICS has been the opposite of what you aver. As to reliable sources, what constitutes a reliable source? Primary source, which is subject to change and to error? No, it is better, since no-one can agree how to use this tree, to fell it. Hiding T 13:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing the problem with the category. It's categorizing British characters, it's parented in Fictional British people and Comics characters by origin. The only issue is the descriptor, which should be changed to match the function that the category is actually serving. Otto4711 (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't amend the category to suit your POV whilst the debate is ongoing. This has been discussed at WP:COMICS and the consensus is that the description is right. The categories, if you note, were added later. And the category is not serving the purpose you assert, as a simple glance at all the pages so categorised should tell you. It is performing the purpose I assert, and I would appreciate it if that fact is not changed during this debate. That's out of process. Hiding T 15:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What characters currently in the category (other than Bacchus (comics)) are not of British nationality? And while this category may or may not be serving to hold characters created in Britain, other categories are definitely being used to categorize characters by the nationality of the character. A number of them specifically say so in the descriptors (which I trust you will not modify to suit your POV). Perhaps you need to create something like Category:Characters created for Fooian comics instead of relying on these ambiguously-named and confusing categories. Otto4711 (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a sub-category full of them. Oh, and I don't change nothing to gain the upper hand in a debate, but thanks for checking. You could well be right that we need to create something like Category:Characters created for Fooian comics. Given we're discussing our category structure at the minute, or trying to whilst putting out fires at various cfd's, I'll certainly bring your suggestion up. Hiding T 22:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what subcategory is that? And how is the problem not solved by simply removing the subcat? Otto4711 (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which problem is that? Seems like you can only see or desire one solution. If that's the case, time to move on, since consensus cannot be achieved. Hiding T 08:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - What are you planning to do about the hundreds of subcategories of these parent categories? I appreciate the points being made here but given the existence of all of the subcats deleting the parent cats seems like a bad idea. If someone wants to go through and nominate all of the Fooian characters subcats I'll withdraw this nomination but in the absence of a mass nomination I can't see how deleting these categories does any good. Otto4711 (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you list all the categories in one nomination, it tends to cause issues, witness Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_20#Intersections_of_fictional_characters_and_occupations. So there's no right way of doing it. How do we square the circle? No idea. We could list each category one by one, and by that process work out what the consensus is, but that might take forever. There needs to be a way of generating discussion about how to use the category tool and how best to structure categories, and what categories are intended for than simply creating them and deleting them. But that's would involve wide input from a large number of Wikipedians which hasn't to date happened on more than a few small instances. This discussion is currently all we've got. I'd say delete all the sub-cats too, unless any of them look to be useful, but that doesn't help either. Maybe the best bet is to keep Category:Lists of fictional characters by nationality and listify the other categories and sub-cats. As an aside, do we have a template for putting on talk pages of lists when the list is created as a result of an afd? Hiding T 23:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otto, if you don't mind the nom expanded, I'll ask someone if they would be willing to tag all the sub-cats which are specific to this intersection. Else, we can just nominate them in a separate nom, or in a group of smaller noms, or whatever. My main concern is clarity. Without clarity (and sometimes even with it), such a nom will devolve into confusion, and no consensus, when there is likely consensus, but not everyone understood the proposition. (Not to mention that a larger group nom often draws more IWANTMINE "voters".) - jc37 23:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever people think best. Clearly, these nationality categories need to be handled in a consistent manner. If that means expanding this nom to include all of the subcats that's fine. I'f there's a better way to do it that's good too. Otto4711 (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All subcategories are in the process of being tagged. -Black Falcon (Talk) 01:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you : ) - jc37 02:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otto, would you mind if the "Lists of..." cat is split to a separate nomination? - jc37 02:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As a rule, the approach that is generally favored is to set up a CFD for a small but representative sample of sub-cats as a "test case", in order to explore the issues that various editors think are pertinent and see if there is a concensus on how to proceed. Cgingold (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I agree with Cgingold. Sometimes I wish we'd just have the debate rather than the debate on how to have the debate. Look, we all know the problem. What do people think the solution is? Hiding T 08:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    AFAIK, there is no general "rule" or practice, and such noms are done "every-which-way". At this point, I agree with Hiding, let's just figure this out. - jc37 09:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously there's no "rule" that's been spelled out somewhere. I was simply making an observation that I think fairly reflects what has come to be regarded among the more regular participants here as an approach that generally makes sense. Cgingold (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this comes down to a point that has become blurred over the years. My understanding is that Category: British comics characters is for characters who have appeared in British comics not for comic characters who are British. So Judge Dredd is a child of that category but is a fictional American. Equally Captain Britain is a fictional Brit but is under Marvel Comics characters, itself a child of American comics characters. If you want a category for their fictional nationality then you need a separate structure. I am unsure the name change solves this though. The only way you'd be able to do it is have something like "Fictional characters from British comics" and "Fictional comics characters who are British" (or some form of that - not sure what the parent of the former would be - "Fictional characters from national comics"? Doesn't sound right). However, I'm pretty sure the latter has been deemed A Bad Idea because things like nationality are so easy to change if it suits the writer and the story. I think it could be potential useful but policing it would be a headache so it is probably best dealt with as a list. (Emperor (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • I think the formulation to accomplish this succinctly and with clarity would be: "Fictional Xyz characters in Zyx comics". Cgingold (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of Fictional Xyz in Zyx comics. : ) - jc37 14:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: these categories may assist someone researching the depiction in fiction of a certain nationality, etc. Even for the cases that could be made into a more informative list, there's an advantage to also keeping the categories, namely that one can navigate to it by seeing that the category is there. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think that the above response makes the case for not having these categories. Wikipedia is not a research tool. First and foremost it is an encyclopedia. If someone whats to search they would do so on the Internet with all of their criteria and the wikipedia articles will likely appear near the top of their results. Categories do not really help in searches. They are mostly a navigation aid. In fact I wonder if the best solution to all of these fictional character discussions is to listify and put all of this into a single sortable table. Then readers can cut this any way they like. So sort by origin first and them by romans or what ever. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Glad that I could help you with your thoughts. Unfortunately, I don't entirely follow you. Yes, categories are a navigation aid -- but once you remove them, they won't be there. Lists and tables are a one-way navigation aid. Categories are two-way, i.e. they are visible on the page of each article that is included. That's what makes them so useful. They are also more self-maintaining than lists as new articles are created. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are no more "self-maintaining" than lists in that way. Either an edit a page to to add a link to a list page, or to add a category link to an article page. Either way, one needs to "add a link". And lists aren't "one-way". Multiple links to multiple targets. And also allow for "supportive" links, which a category could/would not. And references/explanations/etc. As a navigation aid, lists are simply better in this case. - jc37 21:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All but perhaps better quantify. I find lists and categories fantastic when looking at items and people, even fictional ones. I would say that there is room more more categorization. Their great for cross referencing stuff. Some of the less populated categories perhaps could be consolidated. Bdelisle (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Where shall I begin? The categories are vaguely defined and attempt to fix mutable characteristics about fictional characters. Concerning the larger issue, I am leaning toward the practice on German Wikipedia of avoiding all nationality- or origin-based categories, as they're of little utility but a frequent source of confusion or POV content. We English speakers seem obsessed with "identity" cats. Larger question aside, though, these categories seem untenable. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 22:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As noted above, defining the nationality of a fictional character is often problematic and/or requires original research (see esp. the comments by jc37 and Hiding). Moreover, these categories group fictional characters on the basis of an in-universe characteristic that ultimately lies at the whim of the character's creator, and the creator may deliberately or inadvertently change this characteristic over time and/or across works. Lists are a viable alternative, but even they should be limited to significant intersections (e.g. "Russian supervillains in American comics" may be a distinct subject of academic or popular interest, but "Thai supervillains in Colombian comics" probably is not.) –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 19:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom across the board. Ford MF (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Any thoughts concerning listification? - jc37 00:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you care to expand on that? Any reasons why these should not be deleted? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hiding's points above. --Kbdank71 16:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:License tags[edit]

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: There is support for a rename, but not exactly for what. Seeing as no change 'round here is ever written in stone, I'm going to rename Category:License tags to Category:Wikipedia copyright templates to add "wikipedia" and change "tags" to "templates" (when I first saw "License tags", I thought of something I put on my car). If need be, and everyone hates that, we can reopen the discussion (or renominate it). Not changing Category:Image copyright tags because it wasn't tagged for renaming. Feel free to nominate it for renaming if desired. Kbdank71 17:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The renaming of Category:Image copyright tags to Category:Wikipedia image copyright templates has now been formally suggested. See this entry. --David Göthberg (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:License tags to Category:Image copyright tags
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be duplicating Category:Image copyright tags. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Tags for non-image works are hard to find when intermixed with images. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - As SEWilco kind of points out and the text at "Category:License tags" mentions, "Image copyright tags" are a subgroup of "License tags" and can't cover non-image licenses. So merging in the suggested direction is not possible. (The other direction is possible but as SEWilco says that would make the non-image tags drown among the huge amount of image tags.) But while we are at it I suggest renaming Category:License tags to Category:Wikipedia license tags or Category:Wikipedia copyright tags since non-article related categories should begin with "Wikipedia" nowadays, and renaming Category:Image copyright tags to Category:Wikipedia image copyright tags or Category:Wikipedia image license tags, and making the Category:Wikipedia image license tags a subcategory of the Category:Wikipedia license tags. (Note: I don't know if I prefer "license" or "copyright".) --David Göthberg (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I must be missing something. Where do we use or need copyright tags for non-image works? All the templates currently in "License tags" are apparently used only on Image pages. The legal provisions may well apply to "works" in general, but for us in Wikipedia, only the Image: namespace is the relevant place for them. (Which may of course contain non-image media, like sound files, but they typically get the same kinds of tags.) In any case, templates in both categories currently seem to be of the same type. For instance, {{GFDL-self}} is in the one category but {{GFDL-user}} is in the other; {{PD-USGov}} is in the one but {{PD-US-no notice}} in the other. I note somebody must have re-tagged a lot of templates since yesterday, because the cat is currently populated differently from what it was when I nominated it, but this seems still to be the case. If a difference between two types of licensing cases is truly needed, I'd alternatively suggest rename to Category:Non-image copyright tags or something like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Another matter to be considered in renaming is that PD- tags aren't really "licenses" at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's a danger of things getting "drowned" in the many "Image copyright tags", we should consider structuring the category with more subcategories. Like: "Public domain tags", "US public domain tags", "Non-US public domain tags", "Country-specific copyright tags", "Free license tags". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We use 'works' tags on articles which incorporate freely reusable text, to refer to the original work (book, article, report, etc). They're not legally required and may vanish after text is edited for a while. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both to Category:Media copyright tags (or possibly to Category:Wikipedia media copyright tags per David; the guidelines seem somewhat vague here). "Media" is the conventional term we've settled on for "stuff in the image namespace that might not actually be an image". As Fut.Perf. points out above, "copyright" is more appropriate than "license" for a category that includes tags for public domain works. Also endorse Fut.Perf.'s suggestion to split the category into subcategories by type. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    'Media' is not quite proper when text is being used; a photo of text would be media, but is text in an article media? -- SEWilco (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in the sense we usually use the word on Wikipedia; but I don't see at a glance any tags in either category that would apply to article text. Or have I missed something? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Try the bottom of Native American use of fire. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article text tags like {{1911}} seem to be mostly in Category:Attribution templates, which, however, does confusingly also include some image/media tags. That category might well do with some sorting. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 19:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Muslim Comics Characters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Muslim Comics Characters to Category:Muslim characters in comics
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Paulley proposed this for speedy rename, but it involves multiple changes, so I am relisting it here. Stepheng3 (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the discussion so far:

While I support the rename, I fail to see how this qualifies for speedy rename. Stepheng3 (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: Sorry about putting it under speedy, i had originally suggest just correcting the mis-capitalization.. but an afterthought made me suggest the format correction which of course made it ineligible for speedy. Thanxs Stepheng3 for moving the listing. --- Paulley (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as routine correction. -- ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 22:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a sub-variant of Category:Fictional Muslims, which was deleted in a 2008 FEB 24 CfD. If kept, rename per nom. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete, if kept, rename per nom. I think we're better off limiting our fictional character categories to out of universe details rather than in universe detail, to be honest, since continuity is subject to change. Article space is the best place to comment on this, through recourse to independent reliable sources. Hiding T 09:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while I opposed the original deletion of the various fictional characters by religion categories I recognize that consensus is against them and so for consistency this should be deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 18:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per discussion. If anyone wants, they can listify but that should not be a condition for deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per discussion. No prejudice against listifying if appropriate. - jc37 21:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:UNHCR Goodwill Ambassadors[edit]

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:United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Goodwill Ambassadors. Kbdank71 15:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:UNHCR Goodwill Ambassadors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by non-defining characteristic. There is a list in the lead article but I don't know whether it's complete. Otto4711 (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 18:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Speech-language pathology[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 30th. Kbdank71 16:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Speech-language pathology to Category:Speech and language pathology
Nominator's rationale: Exact same topics; miscoordinated creation thereof. Timurite (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hollywood Walk of Fame[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hollywood Walk of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by what is ultimately a minor honor. Anyone can nominate any celebrity with the celebrity's permission and a $2500 fee. People associated with the recipient often buy the stars as part of a publicity or promotion campaign. Otto4711 (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom, and as List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame seems to do the job better. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and because the list exists. It's a trivial category. -- ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 22:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the actual details of earning a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame may be more trivial than assumed, the general public perception of the honor among the public at large is fairly high and non-trivial, and receipt of a star is often covered heavily by the media, our ultimate arbiters of notability. Tourists walking through Hollywood would also take issue with the decision that the award is "trivial". There is no explanation of why the award, even if trivial, would justify an article and a list but would require deletion of this category. Nor is there any explanation of how this qualifies as "overcategorization", yet another generic justification for deleting a category without any legitimate cause based on policy. Again, we are presented with the false option that there is a binary choice of either presenting this information as a category or a list. Per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, the relevant Wikipedia policy on the matter, describes how categories and lists "should not [emphasis in original] be considered to be in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others". There is no policy justification that would require deletion. Alansohn (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is the standard for articles, not categories. Definingness is the standard for categories. Are the people with stars defined by having them? For that matter, if notability were the standard, would having the star particularly add to their notability the way that, for instance, an Oscar or a Nobel would? Please also see Wikipedia:OC#Award_recipients which advises that most awards should be presented in list format rather than as categories. Otto4711 (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame may not be the defining award in one's career, it's clear that the media treats it as a strong defining characteristic, with a Google News Archive search turning up over 14,000 references, most of them to an individual receiving their star. Yes, these stars are defined by this recognition, which appears to confirm ones status as a celebrity. As such, the overcategorization argument does not apply here. Alansohn (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Alansohn, the general public recognizes the Hollywood Walk of Fame as an institution which legitimizes the celebrity of those in the entertainment industry, and those who have received the honor (whatever the mechanism for it may be) truly do constitute some of the most notable people in the industry. When people walk the Hall of Fame, they go "Oh yeah!" not "Who's that." I see no reason for deleting this category. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've walked the Walk of Fame and have said "Who's that?" quite often. Another common comment is "Why him (or her)?" --Wolfer68 (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 18:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto - not a defining characteristic. Getting a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame is incidental to becoming a celebrity. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not defining. This is similar to many award categories, most of which should be deleted as overcategorizations. Notable people will receive many awards and recognitions during their life. Creating categories for all of them clutters articles, and dilutes the usefulness of categories. There are very few awards that are defining. In the past, there was a consensus to limit them to awards like the Nobel Prize. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – seems similar to honorary degrees, or 'people who were obituarised in the Times'. Occuli (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:French noble jurisdictions/Marquisates of France[edit]

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: articleise? article-ify? you get the hint. See List of marquisates in France. Kbdank71 14:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:French noble jurisdictions/Marquisates of France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Convert to a list article and move to article namespace (with a more appropriate title per WP:NC); this does not appear to be intended as a category for articles to be placed in. Russ (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Psychedelics[edit]

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 first to per nom, third to Category:Psychedelic drug advocates. Kbdank71 14:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Psychedelics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Dissociatives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Psychedelic advocates and proponents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Cgingold (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey man, I know what you mean -- I mean, wow... if you think about, they probably are "psychedelic"! :) All the same, as a Wiki Editor in good standing, I felt obliged to add an "s" to the first option there. Cgingold (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mysterious people[edit]

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 resorting is desired, I can provide a list of the articles that were in the category. Kbdank71 14:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mysterious people to Category:People with indeterminate origins & Category:Unidentified people
Nominator's rationale: As is, this is a catch-all category with too broad a scope that is self-defined as being subjective and vague. I suggest deletion, followed by resorting the applicable members to well-defined subsets of the "mysterious" category. Category:Unidentified serial killers and Category:Disappeared people are a good start. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 11:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recategorise articles, then delete: I agree with the outcome of the above proposal. In particular, the theme is too weak to hold the present sub-categories together, e.g. Category:Disappeared people does not belong in either of the proposed categories.
    However, the work needs to be done in reverse order, as the info will be lost from Wikipedia once the category is deleted. If other people express support, then I suggest you start adding the proposed categories now and ensure that each member article is in a suitable category. - Fayenatic (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete as per Anetode. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kings of Leon (band)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Kings of Leon (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Nothing in this category except the songs and albums categories for the band that most artists have without the equivalent parent category. Wolfer68 (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no prejudice to re-creation if/when there are sufficient additional contents to warrant a category. Two sub-cats just isn't enough. Cgingold (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:21st century facelifts[edit]

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: close, already deleted. Kbdank71 15:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:21st century facelifts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not really needed category, very few people want to know when facelift has occured to car, usually after couple of years, the info should be in the articles, there is huge amount of different categories to car articles and this is not really needed, more discussion can be found on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Facelift_categories. Ill propose deletion for this and all its sub categories — Typ932T | C  07:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, sensible project discussion, unclear name & so on. Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the discussion at Wikiproject Automobiles. Zunaid 11:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:LGBT Democrats (United States)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:LGBT Democrats (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:LGBT Republicans (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Special subcategories: "Dedicated group-subject subcategories ... should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created."
These categories were discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 18#LGBT Democrats, and there was unanimous agreement (not counting the sockpuppet of an indef-blocked user) that categorisation by sexuality and political party affiliation is unnecessary, at least in the case of the LGBT Democrats category. For politicians, for whom party affiliation is relevant, there is Category:LGBT politicians from the United States (and subcats). While the discussion did involve consideration of a category for Log Cabin Republicans, it appears that the idea was rejected in favour of the list within the article.
  • Delete both as nominator - every article seems to already be otherwise categorised in the LGBT people category tree. –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Over-categorization. Also, the LGBT Democrats category was created as a diversion by a sock puppet of a banned editor.David in DC (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Membership specifically in the Log Cabin Republicans merits inclusion in a list, because it's an actual organization, and if there are actual organizations of LGBT Democrats which are notable enough for their own articles, then their notable members should certainly be listed in their articles too. But general political party affiliation isn't inherently linked to sexual orientation at all, so these are just WP:OCAT. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Yukon[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 15:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming all from "the Yukon" to "Yukon" (see categories in drop-down):

Category:Airports in the Yukon to Category:Airports in Yukon
Category:Canadian Forces bases in the Yukon to Category:Canadian Forces bases in Yukon
Category:Canadian senators from the Yukon to Category:Canadian senators from Yukon
Category:Commissioners of the Yukon to Category:Commissioners of Yukon
Category:Crown corporations of the Yukon to Category:Crown corporations of Yukon
Category:Curlers from the Yukon to Category:Curlers from Yukon
Category:Defunct airports in the Yukon to Category:Defunct airports in Yukon
Category:First Nations in the Yukon to Category:First Nations in Yukon
Category:First Nations governments in the Yukon to Category:First Nation governments in Yukon
Category:First Nations leaders in the Yukon to Category:First Nations leaders in Yukon
Category:Geography of the Yukon to Category:Geography of Yukon
Category:Geology of the Yukon to Category:Geology of Yukon
Category:Ghost towns in the Yukon to Category:Ghost towns in Yukon
Category:Heritage railways in the Yukon to Category:Heritage railways in Yukon
Category:Ice hockey in the Yukon to Category:Ice hockey in Yukon
Category:Ice hockey teams in the Yukon to Category:Ice hockey teams in Yukon
Category:Islands of the Yukon to Category:Islands of Yukon
Category:Lakes of the Yukon to Category:Lakes of Yukon
Category:Landforms of the Yukon to Category:Landforms of Yukon
Category:Members of the Canadian House of Commons from the Yukon to Category:Members of the Canadian House of Commons from Yukon
Category:Mountain ranges of the Yukon to Category:Mountain ranges of Yukon
Category:Mountains of the Yukon to Category:Mountains of Yukon
Category:Organizations based in the Yukon to Category:Organizations based in Yukon
Category:Passenger railways in the Yukon to Category:Passenger railways in Yukon
Category:Passenger rail transport in the Yukon to Category:Passenger rail transport in Yukon
Category:Politics of the Yukon to Category:Politics of Yukon
Category:Rail transport in the Yukon to Category:Rail transport in Yukon
Category:Rivers of the Yukon to Category:Rivers of Yukon
Category:Roads in the Yukon to Category:Roads in Yukon
Category:Sport in the Yukon to Category:Sport in Yukon
Category:Sports venues in the Yukon to Category:Sports venues in Yukon
Category:Transit agencies in the Yukon to Category:Transit agencies in Yukon
Category:Transportation in the Yukon to Category:Transportation in Yukon
Category:Volcanoes of the Yukon to Category:Volcanoes of Yukon

Nominator's rationale: Rename all. In the style guide for Canadian place names, it says, "In body text, either "Yukon" or "the Yukon" is acceptable. However, Yukon-specific article, category and list titles should always use the form Yukon without the word the." This convention has resulted from discussion; the underlying reason for it (if anyone wants to know) is that the official name of the Canadian territory is "Yukon", not "the Yukon" or "Yukon Territory". This usage is reflected in Canada's Yukon Act. (To some degree, it's somewhat similar to the "Ukraine" vs. "the Ukraine" issue.) The convention has not been very scrupulously followed or implemented up to this point—maybe a third of category names use the format right now and yes, you can still find article and list names that use "the Yukon"—but I'm trying to get a start on it here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Uh oh -- I'm in shock. This is gonna take some getting used to! Does this mean we now have to say, "Sergeant Preston of Yukon"? :) Cgingold (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's any consolation to you, even the federal Canadian government hasn't gotten around to officially changing all of the terminology in compliance with its own legislation. The federally-controlled court is still called the Court of Appeal for the Yukon Territory, for instance. You'd almost begin to suspect that Yukon (pop. 31,530) is not a priority. ... I wonder why ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as per nom and WP:CANSTYLE. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No one refers to it just as "Yukon" in any of these senses.-- Earl Andrew - talk 04:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The naming convention is clear that the reference should be to "Yukon" in these cases, not "The Yukon", and there is no evidence to support the contention that "no one refers to it just as 'Yukon' in any of these senses". Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"No one" has adopted that use? Well, governments throughout Canada have. I have. WikiProject Canada has. My uncle hasn't, though. But then again, my uncle still talks about his trip last year to Prague in "Czechoslovakia". :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While people do commonly say "the Yukon" in informal speech, it's incorrect in a formal context. Category names don't necessarily have to reflect everyday speech patterns — as witness "Georgia (U.S. state)". But they do need to be clear, unambiguous and consistent from one sibling category to another, and they should reflect proper usage rather than common-but-technically-incorrect usage in a case like this. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per CANSTYLE. "The" is no longer in fashion for Yukon. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and per CANSTYLE. DigitalC (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sports in Western Sahara[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sports in Western Sahara to Category:Sport in Western Sahara
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be the overwhelming standard (see Category:Sports by country). Dudesleeper / Talk 01:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. See also my comment on the US ones below. Grutness...wha? 23:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Grutness's comments below (standard seems to be "sport" except for current or until-recently U.S. territories). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Soman (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Sports in[edit]

Category:Sports in Puerto Rico[edit]
Category:Sports in the Marshall Islands[edit]
Category:Sports in Guam[edit]
Category:Sports in American Samoa[edit]
Category:Sports in the United States[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 16:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sports in Puerto Rico to Category:Sport in Puerto Rico
Propose renaming Category:Sports in the Marshall Islands to Category:Sport in the Marshall Islands
Propose renaming Category:Sports in Guam to Category:Sport in Guam
Propose renaming Category:Sports in American Samoa to Category:Sport in American Samoa
Propose renaming Category:Sports in the United States to Category:Sport in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be the overwhelming standard (see Category:Sports by country). Dudesleeper / Talk 01:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are you aware of the fact that the form used is based on local usage? This is a US/UK English issue. A prior discussion is here.Vegaswikian (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Oddity of the highest level, but that's the American language/Wikipedia coupling for you, I suppose. See you next year when the issue gets brought up again. - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all per Vegaswikian. The Marshall Islands was a U.S. trust territory prior to independence, so I'm guessing the use of "sports" there is correct, as it is with the U.S. territory ones. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all per Vegaswikian and Good Ol’factory. Cgingold (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all based on US language convention. Alansohn (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- No view on basic nomination, but the US and Puerto Rico targets already exist and are presumably duplicates. If the outcome is to keep the nom items as now, these should be reverse merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all of these per above, but support the one for Western Sahara mentioned above, since standard for sport seems to be US English for places using it International English for everywhere else. Grutness...wha? 23:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nominated, but create all of the proposed targets as redirects to the "sports"-titled categories to minimize any potential confusion that may arise from the usage difference between US and UK English. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_23&oldid=1142606328"