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 - This category strikes me as rather nonsensical, especially considering the explanation provided and the articles that have been placed in it. Notified creator with {{
cfd-notify}}Cgingold (
talk)
00:00, 28 December 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:Phytosanitary
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 - The purpose of this category is entirely unclear, as it is lacking explanatory info. Currently, it has no articles and a single sub-category (which is already well-parented). Notified creator with {{
cfd-notify}}Cgingold (
talk)
23:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - does not seem like it will ever be a widely-used category. (For what it's worth, Wiktionary defines Phytosanitary as 'concerning the health of plants'.)
Terraxos (
talk)
01:45, 29 December 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:Wellbeing ministries
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 - There is, of course, no such thing as a "Wellbeing ministry". This term was devised by the category's creator strictly for this category, which was created for the sole purpose of holding that single article. (The article belongs in the relevant existing categories.) Notified creator with {{
cfd-notify}}Cgingold (
talk)
23:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete and clean up per Stormie. Cgingold notified me, but I am not the category's creator: I merely had it speedily moved because it was mis-capitalised—its creator was
Brz7 (
talk·contribs). --
RobertG ♬
talk08:56, 29 December 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:Bhutto
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.
Rename, per nom. This at least alleviates the current lengthy "See also" lists that are on some Bhutto family member's articles.
Qwerty (
talk)
15:09, 28 December 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:Football Freestylers
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:Madonna books
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:Conspiracy theorists
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: If this category isn't a
BLP violation, then nothing is. Furthermore, it's difficult to see how it could be consistent with
WP:NPOV. If someone has been called a conspiracy theorist in a
reliable source, or this is a part of their public persona, it can be discussed in the article in a neutral and sourced manner. But, by putting someone in this category, we are declaring in the encyclopedic voice that they are conspiracy theorists, which violates Wikipedia policies on neutrality.
*** Crotalus ***18:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep Category clearly states inclusion criteria. Nominator is assuming that a 'conspiracy theorist' is a bad label; it looks to me like a factual label and one that listed people might be proud to identify with. They, after all, believe the conspiracy is true and want to convince others of its existence.
Hmains (
talk)
04:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)reply
The category justifies a derogatory label by citing yet another Wikipedia category. This is not a
reliable source as required by
WP:BLP. Are you seriously going to tell me that, for instance,
Rosie O'Donnell and
Pat Robertson would not object to being described as "conspiracy theorists"? Can you seriously maintain that officially branding them as "conspiracy theorists" in a category — with no context — is consistent with
WP:NPOV? It also violates
WP:NOR by coming up with a novel synthesis that may not be justified in published sources.
*** Crotalus ***05:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep and Rename to
Category:Proponents of conspiracy theories. The current title is clearly very problematic because the term is generally considered to be pejorative. The inclusion criteria need to be overhauled; in particular, they should state that the category is restricted to individuals whose articles establish that they are notably active as a proponent of one or more conspiracy theories (as defined here), whether through published writing or through public presentations on the subject (i.e. speaking tours). Notified creator with {{
cfd-notify}}Cgingold (
talk)
21:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete subjective criteria, does a conspiracy theorist have only to buy into one "conspiracy theory" to be in here? And what if the conspiracy theory is widely held is it still a conspiracy theory? UFOs? Existence of God? Life after death? yadda yadda.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
00:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)reply
UFOs might be a conspiracy theory, but I don't see how any of the others you refer to could possibly considered such by a rational person. Delusions, perhaps, but there's no conspiracy. —
Arthur Rubin |
(talk)16:34, 1 January 2008 (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:CPCA bishops
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:Bangladeshi Nobel laureates
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.
keep Per above rationales. I suppose the 'limited potential for growth' remark is an ethnic insult against Bangladeshis. They certainly have continuing chances to win more prizes.
Hmains (
talk)
04:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - A Nobel prize is a very exceptional honour and deserves a national category. The one person in it
Muhammad Yunus (with his bank) does belong. There is a problem with the Bengali category: one of its members died before partition and the other is an Indian national. Bangladesh was East Bengal. The other two are from West Bengal or pre-partition Inida. I would suggest (to provide duplication) that Bengali categories should relate to pre-partition India or modern West Bengal. However perhaps there are some Bangladeshi Wikipedians who would like to express a view on this. This is an issue that cannot be resolved in this debate.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
23:10, 30 December 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:Recent books
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.
Nominator's rationale: Created along with {{recent book}} despite the template currently being up for deletion. Purely arbitrary and unnecessary category that does nothing but increase the work load for editors. Yet another attempt to get around the deletion of the current fiction and spoiler templates.
Collectonian (
talk)
04:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't think it will as this category seems to have been made separately, unlike the recent death category which is set with the inclusion of the template.
Collectonian (
talk)
16:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep I created this category to go along with the {{recent book}} template, but I think it stands on its own. There's no "despite" here — I didn't create this category after {{recent book}} was listed for deletion. I don't think it's arbitrary or unnecessary or increases the workload for editors. It's like
Category:Recent deaths but for books instead of people. And this category is most certainly not an "attempt to get around the deletion of the current fiction and spoiler templates." This category has nothing to do with spoiler warnings. And not all books are fiction.
Category:2007 books has 230 articles in it, but this category is meant to narrow it down further. If a book was released yesterday, it's recent. For guidance on when it stops being recent, we should look to
Category:Recent deaths. --
Pixelface (
talk)
00:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete recent changes daily, and few recent books are notable so the greatest value in this cat is raising red flags to place prod and afd tags, but on the whole not needed.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
00:30, 1 January 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:Recent films
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.
Nominator's rationale: Created along with the {{recent film}} template which is up for
deletion. Completely useless category that would serve no purpose other than to up the work load and is far to arbitrary (define "recent" film).
Collectonian (
talk)
04:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete since such a category would require extraneous maintenance as films come and go throughout the months and years, not to mention the overly flexible definition of what constitutes "recent" in terms of international releases, re-releases, home media releases, et cetera. In addition, the category's purpose seems to detract from Wikipedia's goal by being a form of
news -- there are plenty of websites that indicate the film of the week, and there's no encyclopedic benefit on Wikipedia from such a task. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib) -
06:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't think it's a useless category. It's as useful as
Category:Recent deaths, which I think is quite useful. I can define "recent" for you: was the film released last Friday? Then it's recent.
Category:2007 films has 1323 articles in it — it's too big. This category narrows that down, letting editors find articles to work on that many readers will be looking at. I don't see a problem with maintenance. It's no more a form of news than
Category:Recent deaths. If you look at the category page, when a film is no longer in
Category:Upcoming films, it should be put into
Category:Recent films. This CFD is not the place to define "recent", although I think the category would be fine for 4 weeks after a film's first wide release. We have
Category:2007 deathsandCategory:Recent deaths, so I don't see why we shouldn't do the same for films. I suppose the nominator will be nominating
Category:Recent deaths next? --
Pixelface (
talk)
02:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. So, "Recent" means it was released last Friday? Well, who is going to do the weekly update of the 1000+ films that come out every year? Even if a film is considered recent for three months, who is going to update the films that should be removed from the recent category every week? And which country's release date do we go by? I wouldn't be in favor of this unless a bot could automatically switch the category from "Upcoming" to "Recent" and then finally, remove "Recent" after a specified time. If not, then this will be an unhelpful mess. --
Melty girl (
talk)
22:25, 31 December 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.
Category:Fictional comics
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.
Oppose - fictional and metafictional are not the same. Every fictional foo is not automatically a metafictional foo. We recently rightly cleaned up some metafictional categories because none of their contents were metafictional. There is also an entire
Category:Fictional media structure and there is no justification for considering a single subcategory of that structure in isolation.
Otto4711 (
talk)
05:04, 27 December 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 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 - This category strikes me as rather nonsensical, especially considering the explanation provided and the articles that have been placed in it. Notified creator with {{
cfd-notify}}Cgingold (
talk)
00:00, 28 December 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:Phytosanitary
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 - The purpose of this category is entirely unclear, as it is lacking explanatory info. Currently, it has no articles and a single sub-category (which is already well-parented). Notified creator with {{
cfd-notify}}Cgingold (
talk)
23:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - does not seem like it will ever be a widely-used category. (For what it's worth, Wiktionary defines Phytosanitary as 'concerning the health of plants'.)
Terraxos (
talk)
01:45, 29 December 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:Wellbeing ministries
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 - There is, of course, no such thing as a "Wellbeing ministry". This term was devised by the category's creator strictly for this category, which was created for the sole purpose of holding that single article. (The article belongs in the relevant existing categories.) Notified creator with {{
cfd-notify}}Cgingold (
talk)
23:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete and clean up per Stormie. Cgingold notified me, but I am not the category's creator: I merely had it speedily moved because it was mis-capitalised—its creator was
Brz7 (
talk·contribs). --
RobertG ♬
talk08:56, 29 December 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:Bhutto
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.
Rename, per nom. This at least alleviates the current lengthy "See also" lists that are on some Bhutto family member's articles.
Qwerty (
talk)
15:09, 28 December 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:Football Freestylers
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:Madonna books
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:Conspiracy theorists
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: If this category isn't a
BLP violation, then nothing is. Furthermore, it's difficult to see how it could be consistent with
WP:NPOV. If someone has been called a conspiracy theorist in a
reliable source, or this is a part of their public persona, it can be discussed in the article in a neutral and sourced manner. But, by putting someone in this category, we are declaring in the encyclopedic voice that they are conspiracy theorists, which violates Wikipedia policies on neutrality.
*** Crotalus ***18:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep Category clearly states inclusion criteria. Nominator is assuming that a 'conspiracy theorist' is a bad label; it looks to me like a factual label and one that listed people might be proud to identify with. They, after all, believe the conspiracy is true and want to convince others of its existence.
Hmains (
talk)
04:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)reply
The category justifies a derogatory label by citing yet another Wikipedia category. This is not a
reliable source as required by
WP:BLP. Are you seriously going to tell me that, for instance,
Rosie O'Donnell and
Pat Robertson would not object to being described as "conspiracy theorists"? Can you seriously maintain that officially branding them as "conspiracy theorists" in a category — with no context — is consistent with
WP:NPOV? It also violates
WP:NOR by coming up with a novel synthesis that may not be justified in published sources.
*** Crotalus ***05:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep and Rename to
Category:Proponents of conspiracy theories. The current title is clearly very problematic because the term is generally considered to be pejorative. The inclusion criteria need to be overhauled; in particular, they should state that the category is restricted to individuals whose articles establish that they are notably active as a proponent of one or more conspiracy theories (as defined here), whether through published writing or through public presentations on the subject (i.e. speaking tours). Notified creator with {{
cfd-notify}}Cgingold (
talk)
21:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete subjective criteria, does a conspiracy theorist have only to buy into one "conspiracy theory" to be in here? And what if the conspiracy theory is widely held is it still a conspiracy theory? UFOs? Existence of God? Life after death? yadda yadda.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
00:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)reply
UFOs might be a conspiracy theory, but I don't see how any of the others you refer to could possibly considered such by a rational person. Delusions, perhaps, but there's no conspiracy. —
Arthur Rubin |
(talk)16:34, 1 January 2008 (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:CPCA bishops
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:Bangladeshi Nobel laureates
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.
keep Per above rationales. I suppose the 'limited potential for growth' remark is an ethnic insult against Bangladeshis. They certainly have continuing chances to win more prizes.
Hmains (
talk)
04:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - A Nobel prize is a very exceptional honour and deserves a national category. The one person in it
Muhammad Yunus (with his bank) does belong. There is a problem with the Bengali category: one of its members died before partition and the other is an Indian national. Bangladesh was East Bengal. The other two are from West Bengal or pre-partition Inida. I would suggest (to provide duplication) that Bengali categories should relate to pre-partition India or modern West Bengal. However perhaps there are some Bangladeshi Wikipedians who would like to express a view on this. This is an issue that cannot be resolved in this debate.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
23:10, 30 December 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:Recent books
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.
Nominator's rationale: Created along with {{recent book}} despite the template currently being up for deletion. Purely arbitrary and unnecessary category that does nothing but increase the work load for editors. Yet another attempt to get around the deletion of the current fiction and spoiler templates.
Collectonian (
talk)
04:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't think it will as this category seems to have been made separately, unlike the recent death category which is set with the inclusion of the template.
Collectonian (
talk)
16:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep I created this category to go along with the {{recent book}} template, but I think it stands on its own. There's no "despite" here — I didn't create this category after {{recent book}} was listed for deletion. I don't think it's arbitrary or unnecessary or increases the workload for editors. It's like
Category:Recent deaths but for books instead of people. And this category is most certainly not an "attempt to get around the deletion of the current fiction and spoiler templates." This category has nothing to do with spoiler warnings. And not all books are fiction.
Category:2007 books has 230 articles in it, but this category is meant to narrow it down further. If a book was released yesterday, it's recent. For guidance on when it stops being recent, we should look to
Category:Recent deaths. --
Pixelface (
talk)
00:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete recent changes daily, and few recent books are notable so the greatest value in this cat is raising red flags to place prod and afd tags, but on the whole not needed.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
00:30, 1 January 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:Recent films
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.
Nominator's rationale: Created along with the {{recent film}} template which is up for
deletion. Completely useless category that would serve no purpose other than to up the work load and is far to arbitrary (define "recent" film).
Collectonian (
talk)
04:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete since such a category would require extraneous maintenance as films come and go throughout the months and years, not to mention the overly flexible definition of what constitutes "recent" in terms of international releases, re-releases, home media releases, et cetera. In addition, the category's purpose seems to detract from Wikipedia's goal by being a form of
news -- there are plenty of websites that indicate the film of the week, and there's no encyclopedic benefit on Wikipedia from such a task. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib) -
06:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't think it's a useless category. It's as useful as
Category:Recent deaths, which I think is quite useful. I can define "recent" for you: was the film released last Friday? Then it's recent.
Category:2007 films has 1323 articles in it — it's too big. This category narrows that down, letting editors find articles to work on that many readers will be looking at. I don't see a problem with maintenance. It's no more a form of news than
Category:Recent deaths. If you look at the category page, when a film is no longer in
Category:Upcoming films, it should be put into
Category:Recent films. This CFD is not the place to define "recent", although I think the category would be fine for 4 weeks after a film's first wide release. We have
Category:2007 deathsandCategory:Recent deaths, so I don't see why we shouldn't do the same for films. I suppose the nominator will be nominating
Category:Recent deaths next? --
Pixelface (
talk)
02:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. So, "Recent" means it was released last Friday? Well, who is going to do the weekly update of the 1000+ films that come out every year? Even if a film is considered recent for three months, who is going to update the films that should be removed from the recent category every week? And which country's release date do we go by? I wouldn't be in favor of this unless a bot could automatically switch the category from "Upcoming" to "Recent" and then finally, remove "Recent" after a specified time. If not, then this will be an unhelpful mess. --
Melty girl (
talk)
22:25, 31 December 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.
Category:Fictional comics
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.
Oppose - fictional and metafictional are not the same. Every fictional foo is not automatically a metafictional foo. We recently rightly cleaned up some metafictional categories because none of their contents were metafictional. There is also an entire
Category:Fictional media structure and there is no justification for considering a single subcategory of that structure in isolation.
Otto4711 (
talk)
05:04, 27 December 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.