Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 24

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

The result of the debate was rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:West Texas A&M University alumni, to match West Texas A&M University. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. This seems to be a very questionable collection of categories, perhaps worthy of deletion as has been suggested. If the categories themselves are likely to be nominated for deletion, I am more likely to close a debate on renaming as "no consensus". It is not worth everyone's effort to clean up categories that may not last long. If these survive a deletion attempt, you can try renaming. --

uel Wantman 07:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Category:Fictional characters with the power to fly → Category:Fictional characters with the ability to fly

Category:Anime and manga characters who can fly → Category:Anime and manga characters with the ability to fly

Category:DC Comics characters who can fly → Category:DC Comics characters with the ability to fly

Category:Marvel Comics characters who can fly → Category:Marvel Comics characters with the ability to fly

• Rename, as I've already explained on
  fictional characters have the "power" to fly (e.g., magic usage, inner energy usage, levitational mutant powers, etc.) while others that have wings (e.g., the Gargoyles in the animated series, Angel from X-Men, Tambourine from Dragon Ball, etc.) don't use the "power" to fly because using wings to take flight does not require using "power" or any form of fictional energy usage, as far as I know. Make sense? The only way for the categories to make complete sense, I think, is to have it changed to "with the ability to fly" instead of the former. I hope I explained it well. Power level (Dragon Ball) 22:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Rename at least the first one. "Who can fly" is just as good as "With the ability to fly", so whichever one of those happens is fine with me. "With the power to fly" doesn't work, though, because some characters have wings and that isn't really a "power". --Masamage 22:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all. Masamage's logic makes sense, and I was about to completely agree, but since the other three categories are sub-cats of the first one named, it would be more appropriate to have them all share similar names. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 22:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mildly oppose on the basis that pilots have "the ability to fly" (planes and helicopters and such) and the difference between having the superhuman "power" to fly and the superhuman "ability" to fly strikes me as too trivial to worry about. Is anyone going to look at Archangel or Superman and say to themselves "hmm, now is his flying a power or an ability?" Otto4711 23:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment - the categories seem to make no distinction between characters who fly under their own power or innate ability and those who fly through artificial means (such as jet packs or powered armor), which leads me to oppose the renames of the last three more strongly and to suggest a rename of the first to Category:Fictional characters who can fly. This removes any question as to whether the characters have the "power" to fly, the "ability" to fly or just "can" fly. Otto4711 23:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. --Masamage 23:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per Otto4711. It may come down to the category criteria needing to be tighten up so that there is an explicit difference between personal use equipment (jet packs, flight rings, etc) and vehicles (planes, hovercraft, spaceships, etc). — J Greb 23:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. These are some ridiculous categories. They'll have to include almost every fictional bird and pilot. It doesn't say, "ability to fly unaided," does it? Doczilla 10:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well yeah, thy're a little silly, but the kids seem to like them. Otto4711 15:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As loathed as some may be to the idea, it may be time for the "super-power" cats to be listified and deleted en mass. — J Greb 20:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - I had been pondering voting to delete all before J greb's comments. Categorization by superpower is unwieldly in practice. In many cases (such as this one), a huge debate can develop over the definition of "fly". Similar debates were held when categories for "fictional people who can manipulate energy" and "fictional people who can manipulate radiation" were nominated for deletion. Moreover, the average superhero or anime/manga character either has a wide range of powers or can use their superpowers in multiple creative ways. Hence, someone like Swamp Thing will accumulate multiple categories for all of their superpowers. Rather than trying to deal with both this categorization mess and these strange interpretation debates, it would be better just to delete these categories. Dr. Submillimeter 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah well, the people who voted to delete my radiation category were just jerks so don't listen to them. I keed, I keed... Otto4711 03:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please maintain

personal attacks at other users. Comment on content, not on the contributors. Power level (Dragon Ball) 20:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Sense of humor - see the words "I keed, I keed"? It's a joke. Otto4711 22:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete all per above. Whether it's "power to fly" or "ability to fly" or "can fly", it is too broad to be useful. Categorization by specific super power has too many problems. Exactly how many power categories would, say, Superman belong to? Too many. Doczilla 06:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per previous CfDs, and rename with "who can fly" ending.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This would appear to be a natural subcategory of Category:Fictional characters by superhuman power. However, it doesn't look like that parent category has ever been discussed at cfd, and I'm guessing that if it were nominated as part of a broader umbrella nomination there might be some consensus to delete the whole scheme as having some POV and maintainence problems. Therefore, my recommendation would be to close this particular debate without prejudice one way or another, and instead look at nominating Category:Fictional characters by superhuman power and all its subcategories for review. That way we can take a look at this whole sorting scheme at once. Dugwiki 18:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - When this debate closes, I plan on introducing the umbrella nomination for the deletion of people by superpower. Dr. Submillimeter 23:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There seems to be confusion about what the names of the categories should be. Renaming it to "with the ability to fly" can have several meanings, however. A pilot that uses a helicopter or a plane to fly does not necessarily have "the ability/skill/technique to fly". Ergo, the categories are pertaining to fictional characters who fly without the use of any sort of technology, although there may be exceptions (e.g., using a rocket/turbo booster backpack, a magic carpet that is controlled with the mind, etc.,) In this case, having the ability to fly or hover in the air has more to do with a fictional character that utilises some other means of taking flight such as: magic-related usage, levitational techniques, psionic powers, or just having a pair of wings on themselves, regardless. Is this understandable? If anything, there is still a Category:Fictional pilots and Category:Fictional air force personnel which may serve as a category for a fictional character that flies with the use of planes and helicopters and whatnot. Power level (Dragon Ball) 20:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename The categories are useful, but the new names are better. The "pilot" thing isn't a problem - it's the plane's ability to fly, not the pilot's. Cosmetor 22:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep Tim! 18:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Czech vegetarians to Category:Vegetarians

• Merge, This is very unlikely to have enough entries to make sense as a separate category. Runcorn 21:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - all other vegetarians are categorized by nationality, no reason not to maintain this national cat. Otto4711 22:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Ditto, if everything else is sorted out, this should be as well. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 22:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. This is overcategorization with trivial intersection of variables. Doczilla 10:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Part of a larger scheme. Should not have been singled out. Wimstead 16:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep When a category is part of a broader scheme to subdivide a category, such as dividing by nation, it's important that the scheme be completed, even if that means some of the subcategories only have one or two members. Dugwiki 18:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The small size of this category may reflect systemic bias, but it doesn't actually matter why it is small as even one article categories are a good thing. CalJW

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

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

The result of the debate was rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tall Buildings in Glasgow to Category:Skyscrapers in Glasgow

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. This category documents a trivial and ambiguous detail about buildings in Glasgow, Scotland. There are only two pages in this category (aside from

WP:CRYSTAL in sections. NOTE: Nomination has been changed as described in discussion below. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 21:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename Merge per Vegaswikian and remove the article from the category. "Tall" is entirely subjective. Otto4711 21:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename The category as it stands is too narrow and would cover more subjects if renamed. In addition the current category has been mistaken for an article by the category creator. Fraslet 21:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - directly contrary to Category specifications that a category not be subjective in criteria. 64.178.98.57 21:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The standard is "buildings and structures". Postlebury 01:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Buildings and structures in Glasgow. Vegaswikian 03:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Skyscrapers in Glasgow per convention of category:Skyscrapers by city. Wimstead 16:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename to Category:Skyscrapers in Glasgow. All the arguments for other actions are irrelevant now that this option has been identified. It seems to be beyond reasonable doubt that the nominator would not have suggested Category:Buildings in Glasgow if he had been aware of category:Buildings and structures in Glasgow. Postlebury 18:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Change nomination to speedy renaming to Category:Skyscrapers in Glasgow. Yes, I forgot to check if that was already a category, I only checked "Buildings". I defeinitely support the Skyscraper renaming now that that has been pointed out. Sorry for the mistake. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 18:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename to
  Craig.Scott 13:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy rename I would agree with renaming it Category:Skyscrapers in Glasgow.
• Rename to
  Skyscrapers in Glasgow.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• See also Category:Tall buildings and structures in London. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at that and it needs to go. However, I'm not convinced that those are skyscrapers in most cases, so maybe a proposal to merge into Category:Buildings and structures in London would be correct. Someone who is more familiar with London architecture should make the proposal for the best merge target. Might need some cleanup before a merge. Vegaswikian 21:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename per nom. (Unless "Oklahoma" is the name of a prominent settlement somewhere, suggest disambiguation unnecessary.) David Kernow (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Oklahoma actors to Category:Actors from Oklahoma

Nominator's Rationale: Rename to avoid the ambiguity that the category might be for actors who appeared in a stage or film version of Oklahoma!, as "Chicago actors" was renamed Category:Actors from Chicago. Otto4711 20:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename I agree, this should be done to avoid possible confusion. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. (OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOklahoma where the...) Doczilla 21:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. --Masamage 22:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename with suggestion - This still could lead some people to confusion. Perhaps rename it to Category:Actors from Oklahoma (state) instead? (Ditto for the Chicago example if this gets agreed on, but that's another discussion for another time) Hersfold ^(talk/work) 22:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Big Read Books (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Big Read Authors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as trivial, just the result of a poll. There were probably hundreds of polls about the "best" authors and "best" books and we don't have categories for each of them. I don't see why we should have a category for this one, a list is enough. bogdan 19:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The
  Talk Contrib 20:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep This is not just another poll, but an exceptionally prestigious one.--Runcorn 22:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is categorization by appearance on a published list, a form of
  overcategorization. Many of these books have already won many other prestigious awards and accolades, and they have appeared at the top of other surveys that may be just as prestigious as the BBC's. Moreover, since the BBC's survey was apparently a survey within the UK, the Big Read represents a UK-centric point-of-view that is not representative of the rest of the world. On this basis, the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 22:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment - I know that

Talk Contrib 01:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - The reason why that argument does not work (at least with me) is because the other examples often get nominated for deletion as well. I just nominated Category:Time Magazine 100 best novels for deletion. Please find more examples. Dr. Submillimeter 08:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Dr. Submillimeter Postlebury 01:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. I also concur with deleting the Time Magazine category. --DrGaellon | Talk 14:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. The Time category has now been nominated. Wimstead 16:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per the reasoning in Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Published list Dugwiki 18:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overcat per nom. --Stormie 23:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Married... with Children cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy delete in favor of

• Speedy delete as there is a list and as per "Listify" tag. — J Greb 23:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above Dugwiki 18:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as actors-by-series category and per 'listify ' tag. --Xdamr^talk 17:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Tim! 18:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic Houses in Monmouthshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete,Misspelling alternative now created Uneirlys 18:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Tim! 18:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings and Structures in Monmouthshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Mis spelling in title alternative created Uneirlys 18:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Internet pioneers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, What constitutes an "Internet pioneer"? People like

I'd be a lot happier if the category were renamed to something implying that it only includes engineers who were involved in the design of core Internet protocols (and maybe there's a cat like that already, I don't know). I don't know what the new name should be, though, and given the number of questionable people in it already, it would probably be best to start over with a new category.

This category doesn't seem useful, as it invites editors to add everyone who ever had anything to do with the Internet. Why should people waste their time deciding who is and isn't "pioneering"? SparsityProblem 17:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 17:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Too subjective. Prolog 01:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The word got owned by marketeers and media (like "evangelist") and lost most of its original value and precision. Pavel Vozenilek 21:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; hopelessly POV and not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 22:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Arguments regarding "encyclopedic" not valid as this is used to categorize the talk pages. No support provided for vanity arguments. Enough supportable reasons to keep offered to balance in favor of keeping over the few remaining reasons to delete. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Notable Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category was created to keep track of Wikipedians who have biograhphical articles written about them; it is completely unreliable and unverifiable, and is therefore useless and should be deleted. It is impossible to know whether a Wikipedian really is a celebrity or not. I'm also nominating

• Speedy close and take it to
  Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. Otto4711 17:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Moved. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. What's the harm in the category (and article)? The article may be useful in determining whether someone is violating
  Notable Wikipedian}} may be adequate for that, even without the category. (Note: I'm listed in the category, but that's not my primary reason for my argument.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Useful to keep track of possible conflicts of interest. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; for me, this category and its related template are extremely useful for pinpointing a history of COI actions (if one exists; after all, many notable Wikipedians edit with good faith).
  Gracenotes^T § 04:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. A fine tool for keeping people like me in line.--Mike Selinker 09:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, noting Mike Selinker's fine argument. --Bduke 22:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not really useful when notable wikipedians do not necessarily advertise the fact. Metamagician3000 23:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikivanity.
  Craig.Scott 13:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep Aside from keepings reasons by Gracenotes, Mike and Arthur, there are other reasons for the cat as well. As an informal PR matter, it is sometimes nice to be able to point to famous people who have edited Wikipedia and this cat helps out with that. JoshuaZ 20:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity and not encyclopedic; being a "Wikipedian" is not notable as much as being a licensed driver, being constipated or being partial to vanilla over chocolate. Since "anyone can edit" our standards for admission are low. Carlossuarez46 22:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also noted this guideline: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining or trivial characteristic I think that being a Wikipedian is not defining and is trivial. Carlossuarez46 22:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Being a wikipedian is not trivial.Bakaman 23:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep so that it is possible to keep track of
  our conflict of interest policies in articles. Andy Saunders 10:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 U.S. categories, don't rename the Canadian ones. --

uel Wantman

Category:People by university in the United States to Category:People by university or college in the United States

Category:Alumni by university in the United States to Category:Alumni by university or college in the United States

Category:Faculty by university in the United States to Category:Faculty by university or college in the United States

Category:People by university in Canada to Category:People by university or college in Canada

Category:Alumni by university in Canada to Category:Alumni by university or college in Canada

Category:Faculty by university in Canada to Category:Faculty by university or college in Canada

Rename - Articles generally don't distinguish between college and university designations. --Vbd

• Rename per nom, as the words "college" and "university" are used interchangeably in North America. Walton monarchist89 17:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment There may good reason to rename these categories, but college and university are not used interchangably in the U.S. A college as a standalone institution generally is a single school that grants undergraduate ('4-year') BA or BS degrees or a 'community college' granting 2 year AA degrees. A university is a collection of schools, generally including an undergraduate school and one to many graduate schools granting graduate degrees, any of which may be named 'colleges' or 'schools'. Hmains 19:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Response per nom. Technically, you are right, Hmains. But in common usage, the terms are used interchangeably, as well as on WP. See, for example, Category:Harvard University alumni (a subcat of one of the nom cats), which makes no distinction between alums from Harvard College, Radcliffe College, or the university as a collection of graduate and undergraduate schools. I must confess that, in putting these cats up for Cfr, I had not given much thought to two-year community colleges, which perhaps should be separated out.--Vbd | (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not rename the Canadian categories. I think college and university are used less interchangeably here in Canada. Every single school in the Canadian categories is a university, not a college, which has different connotations, most notably community college. Even though some universities comprise of colleges, adding 'college' to the category name does not express this and adds confusion. On the other hand,
  Pomte 13:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Do not rename Canadian portion as per User:Pomte Mayumashu 23:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not rename Canada per pomte and etc.Bakaman 23:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename US. Don't know enough about the Canadian systems to give an opinion. Kolindigo 20:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 10:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star Wars directors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as inappropriate director by series categorization. Each director's article already notes his direction of the film and undoubtedly each film article links back to the director. Otto4711 16:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Outmerge Genndy Tartakovsky to Category:Film directors or the appropriate "Nationality film directors" and Delete as "Profession by Project". The others already reside in various "Nationality film directors" cats. — J Greb 23:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Tartakovsky is now categorized as an American film director. Otto4711 01:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Then "Outmerge" is unneeded, just the "Delete" (also fixed typo in previous statement,) — J Greb 02:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The information is more useful in the articles as text and there is no need for a category. Prolog 01:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as 'director by series'—far better, like actors, to have this in the relevant articles. --Xdamr^talk 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 10:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star Wars-related people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - categorizing people based on project is inappropriate and leads to clutter. The participation of these individuals can be noted and interlinked amongst their various articles. Otto4711 16:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - category is too broad and subjective; "Star Wars-related" is not a clearly defined term. Walton monarchist89 17:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete, gah, "X-related" is a bad, bad notion for a category, far too vague. I saw a couple of the movies; does that make me "Star Wars-related"? Does this include cousins of the actors? Unless someone is so directly related that they can go on/in one of the more specific categories or lists, their article shouldn't be cluttered with this nonsense. And just look at the stuff in there! I'm sorry, but while Joseph Campbell may have influenced George Lucas, that doesn't make the former "Star Wars-related"; it makes the latter Campbell-related (if anything). Sheesh! Xtifr _tälk 20:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete any vague "-related" category. I saw Star Wars. Does that make me Star Wars-related? Doczilla 21:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This doesn't even meet the criteria of "Professional by Project". The category is an "Answer to Trivia Questions" linkage. — J Greb 23:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.
  Craig.Scott 13:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom, per precedent (all the cast and crew deletions) and per Doczilla - although I may be Star Wars' love child so I am really related ;-). Carlossuarez46 22:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and arguments above. 'Related' is far, far to vague to establish a meaningful and relevant relationship between the categorised articles. --Xdamr^talk 17:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 10:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dallas (TV series) cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy delete per previous mass nomination. The main Dallas (TV series) contains a cast listing of some 70 actors whom subject matter experts have determined are the main cast and the important secondary cast. This listing appears to be sufficient to allow for speedy deletion of the category. Otto4711 16:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There needs to be some clarification on the "Listify" tag. Is it meant as "List those 'experts' deem important" or "List all" before deleting that cat? If it's the former, I'd like to see citations as to where the list was drawn from for
  WP:RS reasons. If it's the later, then are we assuming that the 160+ additional actors are one-shot guest stars and/or cameos? If not a full list article needs to be put in place before a "Speedy Delete". — J Greb 23:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• See for example Alias cast CFD where it was determined that the existing lists containing 48 names were sufficient to replace a category with 99 members. I'm willing to accept the work of the people who maintain the Dallas article in creating the cast list. Otto4711 01:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair point. Just a concern about the possibility of jumping the gun. Best to have the reasons why put up before a post pops decrying the loss of more than 2/3 of the cast, even if a large chunk of it is cruff. If this is in line with the previous CfD and clean up precedents, then by all means Spedy Delete. — J Greb 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above, cast list is easily accessible for readers from main article. The category isn't needed. Dugwiki 18:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A prominent cast list already exists. Whether this is right or wrong is something for the article maintainers to work with. The fact that an appropriate list exists is prima facie justification of being rid of the category, unless it can be shown that the list is somehow flawed. --Xdamr^talk 17:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 10:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MTV Movie Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This award generally is not a major award for anyone or anything who wins it. The people and films that win this award also tend to win many other awards as well. Categorization by award, especially for popular actors and films, leads to category clutter, rendering the categories much more difficult to read and use within individual articles' pages. Therefore, I propose deleting this category. (Note that award winners are already listed in multiple pages within Category:MTV Movie Awards.) Dr. Submillimeter 14:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm gonna disagree on this one. This award is akin to the People's Choice Awards in that it's based on the general public rather than on an elite body the way the Oscars or Emmys are. A cursory look at the articles for a half-dozen or so winners, both people and films, doesn't indicate that this particular category is leading to clutter, nor do a number of them seem to be in line for any other major awards (we're not gonna be seeing Molly Ringwald or Alicia Silverstone or Godzilla accepting any Oscars or Emmys anytime soon, I don't think). Otto4711 16:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Trivial award. Haddiscoe 17:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia style guidelines regarding award winners. Doczilla 21:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  overcategorization. Not a major award enough to merit a category. Prolog 01:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, overcategorisation. Could be topic for a hypothetical secondary categories. Pavel Vozenilek 21:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award winners, most awards should only use list articles and not categories. Doesn't seem to meet the extremely high bar needed to be an exception. Dugwiki 18:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. the wub "?!" 10:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Category:People from Adams County, Pennsylvania as it is an empty category.

Thanks.Veronica Mars fanatic 12:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Empty cat. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Provincial symbols of Canada to Category:Provincial and territorial symbols of Canada

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, I created this a few minutes ago to hold the six categories for individual provinces which have been created so far, but when I found the related list it reminded me that some of Canada's first tier administrative divisions are territories. Haddiscoe 11:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: Request by creator.Veronica Mars fanatic 22:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 10:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polish Academy Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This is the only ethnic or national division within Category:Academy Award winners. It adds little in terms of navigation while contributing to category clutter (see Roman Polanski, for example). The Academy Award winners do not need to be divided like this; the category should be deleted. (Note that this was nominated for deletion on 2006 Aug 23, with no consensus reached int he discussion.) Dr. Submillimeter 10:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nathanian 11:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Academy Award winners. If all are already so categorized, delete. Otto4711 17:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete As above, merge as necessary then delete. Dugwiki 19:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom.Veronica Mars fanatic 22:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Oklahoma Wine to Category:Oklahoma wineries

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. To match form of other siblings. Also the capitalization needs to be fixed on the second word. Vegaswikian 06:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Nathanian 11:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Vegaswikian 22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Naive art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy. There's nothing in the category. [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 06:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per nom,
  Naive Art suggests no articles that would fit in it. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete empty, meaningless category. Doczilla 21:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: per nom. Makes no sense. Veronica Mars fanatic 22:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename both. the wub "?!" 10:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States wine to Category:American wine

Propose renaming Category:United States wines to Category:American wines

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Apparently an editor decided to move the entries from Category:American wine to Category:United States wine without a discussion here. The parent category Category:Wine by country had all children listed as Category:Fooian wine so this last rename is clearly out of place. Found this when the old, and likely correctly named cat, was listed for speedy deletion. Vegaswikian 02:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I left both rename/merges above. However we probably need to consider merging Category:American wine into Category:American wines. I'm not sure if we need both categories. Vegaswikian 02:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The semantics here are too subtle and too confusing. No one is going to be able to tell the difference between what should go in the "wine" category and what should go in the "wines" category. The "wine" category should probably be renamed, although I do not have a good suggestion. Dr. Submillimeter 09:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between the wine and wines categories is clear. The latter is for beverages and the former for terms particular to wine making/culture etc. Gotox 11:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. The distinction is perfectly clear. Nathanian 11:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom. 'American' is the form generally used to describe objects of the Untied States; the distinction between having categories for instances/brands of objects themselves and categories for facts about the type of object in general is long standing in WP. Hmains 19:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 18:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 10:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Yale College alumni to Category:Yale University alumni

• Merge, Although the intent may have been to distinuish between alumni of Yale's graduate schools versus the undergraduate "College," the distinction is often overlooked. Many of those categorised in Category:Yale University alumni were undergrads there. (George W. Bush is listed in both categories, which is an inappropriate redundancy.) Compare with Category:Harvard University alumni, which does not have subcatergories for Harvard College or even Radcliffe College. Vbd | (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge overly subtle distinction, which would have no generic equivalent for most universities anyway.
  Derex 01:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 10:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete vague, opinionated, potentially libelous category. Isn't this a recreation? Doczilla 08:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - subjective and essentially POV. Doesn't draw distinction between those who criticise the fundamental tenets of Islam and those who criticise the actions of Muslims, for example. Walton monarchist89 17:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Walton monarchist89. SparsityProblem 17:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete way too much possibility for POV problems. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wimstead 16:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Ludicrous; subjective; POV. Veronica Mars fanatic 22:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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