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 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:All pages needing completion
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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete, Wikipedia is a constantly growing encyclopedia. What is the definition of "completion"? The way I see it, no article is ever truly complete, so every single article would belong in the category. --
musicpvm05:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)reply
There's no need to nominate this separately; when {{finish}} is deleted (it currently has an overwhelming consensus for deletion, see
here), this will go as well. Melsaran14:20, 14 August 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 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:Greek shooters
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 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge per nom. or simply delete. This is overcategorization and happens to be incorrectly capitalized. Category has only one member article, which appears to have been written by the subject of the article (autobiography) and lacks notability.
Wryspy18:31, 13 August 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 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:Star Trek soundtracks
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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete - created following the
deletion of Category:Star Trek music. With the exception of the theme song itself, the entire category consists of people who have composed music for Star Trek. This is improper performer by performanceovercategorization. The theme song article can sit under the main category and there is no need for this one.
Otto471112:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong keep. Star Trek is an extremely diverse and multi-faceted work, spanning decades, and numerous works of film, books, and television. There are categories for books, games, and other items related to Star Trek, including fictitious items like equipments and official ranks. to delete the category for a real work of art like soundtracks seems a bit excessive, and does not to me seem to help Wikipedia at all. There are numerous people seeking information about the range of Star trek music over decades. this category is a good start. --
Steve, Sm890013:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Again, this category doesn't contain articles about the Star Trek soundtracks. It contains articles about the composers which per strong consensus is overcategorization.
Otto471114:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
It would be over-categorization, in my opinion, if we were dealing with a work of music which one did not need to find over the decades. No one is claiming that this should be the main categorization for these composers. However, this is one of the only ways to trace Star Trek music over the decades, and it is worthwhile to have some useful means to do so. That's my opinion on this.
It sounds like wht you want is an article on music written for Star Trek over the years. An article on this topic would be the best resource for people interested in the topic, not a category of composers. There is no reason why the composers can't be in a list instead of a category, the way
production staff,
Enterprise cast members,
Next Gen cast members,
TOS writers and
script writers are. Consensus is loud and clear on categorizing people by the projects they work on and no reson has been offered here for deviating from that consensus.
Otto471116:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. I second Steve, Sm8900. Either keep it or rename it Star Trek Composers. There needs to be a way to connect all these composers in a category, and they should not be just lumped into the broader Star Trek category.
Awbeal16:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete Even the category description says it's for "any individuals, items, or information pertaining to music or sound effects for any Star Trek series, movies, or other works." That is clearly categorization of a performer/composer by performance, as described in
WP:OCAT. At the very least the category should at best be only for articles about actual soundtracks, of which there are no such articles included, but even that is questionable.
Dugwiki15:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
What is the benefit of deleting this category? Exactly who does that help? Conversely, there are many who might benefit from retaining this category.
You're correct in your description of the current scope, but I said this is a categorization, not the main one, for any of those composers. --
Steve, Sm890015:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Listify and delete, for same reasons as actors, writers etc. Keep the information by creating a new
List of Star Trek composers and music; this might later be fleshed out into an article. If it would be right to make a connection visible in the articles on the composers, Sm8900, you might consider adding a new template. -
Fayenatic london(talk)16:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete: obsession about the minute details of Star Trek belongs on StarTrekipedia. This violates our basic guidelines. All the information can be found through links at the relevant articles. Obvious overcategorization, non-defining characteristic. I have no objection to listification, but for most of these individuals, to define them by their connection to Star Trek is simply ridiculous. We've
seen what happens in the past when we allow this sort of categorization by tenuous connection, and the result is not pretty; that's why we have overcategorization guidelines.
Xtifrtälk20:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:OCAT performer by performance, though it should be speedy if indeed recreated material. I don't think a list of 5-6 people fits with content-space policies, and so there is no need to go that route. TewfikTalk08:59, 17 August 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 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:Administrative Reforms
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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete This is not a global category about administrative reforms (and isn't that too vague to be useful anyway?). It was created to hold two articles about the Indian state of Kerala, which have been relocated to
Category:Government of Kerala.
Talalpa12:04, 13 August 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 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:Martial arts of Malay archipelago
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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I'm offering this category for renaming as well (see also the listing below). However there is some doubt as the appropriate name, given that the Malay ethnic group, Malaysia and the Malay archipelago cover very different regions. I don't know which it is appropriate to use in the martial arts field.
Talalpa11:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose the Malay achipelago is usually a reference to parts of Indonesia. Indonesians usually don't self-identify as Malay regardless of what some ethnologists want to say.
Carlossuarez4605:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)reply
So what should be done? The next item down is about the Indonesian category. Are both needed? If they are, how should the scope of this one be defined?
Dominictimms21:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)reply
A quick look at a few of the articles shows that these include martial arts from all over East and South East Asia and the Philippines. To the extent that origins can be placed in one country, the articles should be moved to its category. If a mixed martial art then either put a new cat for the mix, or categorize it where its popularity started (some of these articles are more essays than not) or just leave no cat for its "origins" - many things a sui generis and we just have to live with it.
Carlossuarez4601:11, 15 August 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 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:Martial arts of Indonesia
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 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 stabbing victims
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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete, another overly broad category which can basically include anyone who's been involved in a knife fight or suffered a flesh would from a knife or other sharp implement. The seems to run in the same line as the "Fictional murder victims", "Deceased fictional characters", etc. --
HuntsterT •
@ •
C10:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. Every superhero has gotten stabbed at least once, rendering the category non-defining for them, and this is only one example of what's wrong with this category.
Wryspy18:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete this can include thousands and thousands of fictional characters, and serves little or no purpose. Who would visit this category just to see which fictional characters have once been stabbed? It's also quite difficult to maintain. Melsaran14:17, 14 August 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 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:DeviantART
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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Small without potential for growth; deviantART is one of the few art websites considered notable/verifiable enough to justify its own article, but certainly nowhere near large nor notable enough to justify its own category. --Stratadrake03:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: the guideline.
Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth. actually specifies no more than "two or three members", while this already has four. Further (and far more significant in my opinion), this category has extremely limited potential for growth, but that's not the same as no potential for growth. The site is growing, gaining new members, getting better known, and I know from my own involvement with the
Open source software community that people from DeviantART have gotten involved with some open source software projects (like the very popular
Battle for Wesnoth). While none of that has reached the point where it could be considered notable, I certainly feel it has potential. But I freely admit that this is a really borderline case.
Xtifrtälk11:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Change to Delete now that Otto has pointed out the most of the articles have only a tenuous connection to the subject at best, which actually gives it more potential for shrinkage than growth. :)
Xtifrtälk14:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - four is not a magic number of articles to preserve a category and even if it were,
Hollywood Palladium doesn't belong categorized here anyway because its only apparent connection to DeviantART is that DeviantART held an event there two years ago. Absent that article there are only three. I don't see any pressing need to categorize Flash games by the website on which they originally appeared.
Otto471112:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete the articles in this category actually have very little to do with deviantART, e.g.
Hollywood Palladium is in the category just because it did once host a "deviantART summit". This has very little potential for expansion. Melsaran14:15, 14 August 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 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 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:All pages needing completion
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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete, Wikipedia is a constantly growing encyclopedia. What is the definition of "completion"? The way I see it, no article is ever truly complete, so every single article would belong in the category. --
musicpvm05:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)reply
There's no need to nominate this separately; when {{finish}} is deleted (it currently has an overwhelming consensus for deletion, see
here), this will go as well. Melsaran14:20, 14 August 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 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:Greek shooters
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 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge per nom. or simply delete. This is overcategorization and happens to be incorrectly capitalized. Category has only one member article, which appears to have been written by the subject of the article (autobiography) and lacks notability.
Wryspy18:31, 13 August 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 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:Star Trek soundtracks
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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete - created following the
deletion of Category:Star Trek music. With the exception of the theme song itself, the entire category consists of people who have composed music for Star Trek. This is improper performer by performanceovercategorization. The theme song article can sit under the main category and there is no need for this one.
Otto471112:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong keep. Star Trek is an extremely diverse and multi-faceted work, spanning decades, and numerous works of film, books, and television. There are categories for books, games, and other items related to Star Trek, including fictitious items like equipments and official ranks. to delete the category for a real work of art like soundtracks seems a bit excessive, and does not to me seem to help Wikipedia at all. There are numerous people seeking information about the range of Star trek music over decades. this category is a good start. --
Steve, Sm890013:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Again, this category doesn't contain articles about the Star Trek soundtracks. It contains articles about the composers which per strong consensus is overcategorization.
Otto471114:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
It would be over-categorization, in my opinion, if we were dealing with a work of music which one did not need to find over the decades. No one is claiming that this should be the main categorization for these composers. However, this is one of the only ways to trace Star Trek music over the decades, and it is worthwhile to have some useful means to do so. That's my opinion on this.
It sounds like wht you want is an article on music written for Star Trek over the years. An article on this topic would be the best resource for people interested in the topic, not a category of composers. There is no reason why the composers can't be in a list instead of a category, the way
production staff,
Enterprise cast members,
Next Gen cast members,
TOS writers and
script writers are. Consensus is loud and clear on categorizing people by the projects they work on and no reson has been offered here for deviating from that consensus.
Otto471116:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. I second Steve, Sm8900. Either keep it or rename it Star Trek Composers. There needs to be a way to connect all these composers in a category, and they should not be just lumped into the broader Star Trek category.
Awbeal16:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete Even the category description says it's for "any individuals, items, or information pertaining to music or sound effects for any Star Trek series, movies, or other works." That is clearly categorization of a performer/composer by performance, as described in
WP:OCAT. At the very least the category should at best be only for articles about actual soundtracks, of which there are no such articles included, but even that is questionable.
Dugwiki15:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
What is the benefit of deleting this category? Exactly who does that help? Conversely, there are many who might benefit from retaining this category.
You're correct in your description of the current scope, but I said this is a categorization, not the main one, for any of those composers. --
Steve, Sm890015:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Listify and delete, for same reasons as actors, writers etc. Keep the information by creating a new
List of Star Trek composers and music; this might later be fleshed out into an article. If it would be right to make a connection visible in the articles on the composers, Sm8900, you might consider adding a new template. -
Fayenatic london(talk)16:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete: obsession about the minute details of Star Trek belongs on StarTrekipedia. This violates our basic guidelines. All the information can be found through links at the relevant articles. Obvious overcategorization, non-defining characteristic. I have no objection to listification, but for most of these individuals, to define them by their connection to Star Trek is simply ridiculous. We've
seen what happens in the past when we allow this sort of categorization by tenuous connection, and the result is not pretty; that's why we have overcategorization guidelines.
Xtifrtälk20:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:OCAT performer by performance, though it should be speedy if indeed recreated material. I don't think a list of 5-6 people fits with content-space policies, and so there is no need to go that route. TewfikTalk08:59, 17 August 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 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:Administrative Reforms
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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete This is not a global category about administrative reforms (and isn't that too vague to be useful anyway?). It was created to hold two articles about the Indian state of Kerala, which have been relocated to
Category:Government of Kerala.
Talalpa12:04, 13 August 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 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:Martial arts of Malay archipelago
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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I'm offering this category for renaming as well (see also the listing below). However there is some doubt as the appropriate name, given that the Malay ethnic group, Malaysia and the Malay archipelago cover very different regions. I don't know which it is appropriate to use in the martial arts field.
Talalpa11:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose the Malay achipelago is usually a reference to parts of Indonesia. Indonesians usually don't self-identify as Malay regardless of what some ethnologists want to say.
Carlossuarez4605:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)reply
So what should be done? The next item down is about the Indonesian category. Are both needed? If they are, how should the scope of this one be defined?
Dominictimms21:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)reply
A quick look at a few of the articles shows that these include martial arts from all over East and South East Asia and the Philippines. To the extent that origins can be placed in one country, the articles should be moved to its category. If a mixed martial art then either put a new cat for the mix, or categorize it where its popularity started (some of these articles are more essays than not) or just leave no cat for its "origins" - many things a sui generis and we just have to live with it.
Carlossuarez4601:11, 15 August 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 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:Martial arts of Indonesia
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 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 stabbing victims
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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete, another overly broad category which can basically include anyone who's been involved in a knife fight or suffered a flesh would from a knife or other sharp implement. The seems to run in the same line as the "Fictional murder victims", "Deceased fictional characters", etc. --
HuntsterT •
@ •
C10:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. Every superhero has gotten stabbed at least once, rendering the category non-defining for them, and this is only one example of what's wrong with this category.
Wryspy18:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete this can include thousands and thousands of fictional characters, and serves little or no purpose. Who would visit this category just to see which fictional characters have once been stabbed? It's also quite difficult to maintain. Melsaran14:17, 14 August 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 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:DeviantART
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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Small without potential for growth; deviantART is one of the few art websites considered notable/verifiable enough to justify its own article, but certainly nowhere near large nor notable enough to justify its own category. --Stratadrake03:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: the guideline.
Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth. actually specifies no more than "two or three members", while this already has four. Further (and far more significant in my opinion), this category has extremely limited potential for growth, but that's not the same as no potential for growth. The site is growing, gaining new members, getting better known, and I know from my own involvement with the
Open source software community that people from DeviantART have gotten involved with some open source software projects (like the very popular
Battle for Wesnoth). While none of that has reached the point where it could be considered notable, I certainly feel it has potential. But I freely admit that this is a really borderline case.
Xtifrtälk11:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Change to Delete now that Otto has pointed out the most of the articles have only a tenuous connection to the subject at best, which actually gives it more potential for shrinkage than growth. :)
Xtifrtälk14:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - four is not a magic number of articles to preserve a category and even if it were,
Hollywood Palladium doesn't belong categorized here anyway because its only apparent connection to DeviantART is that DeviantART held an event there two years ago. Absent that article there are only three. I don't see any pressing need to categorize Flash games by the website on which they originally appeared.
Otto471112:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete the articles in this category actually have very little to do with deviantART, e.g.
Hollywood Palladium is in the category just because it did once host a "deviantART summit". This has very little potential for expansion. Melsaran14:15, 14 August 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.