Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 2 July 4 >

July 3

Category:Examples of Lilypond source code

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. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Examples of Lilypond source code to Category:GNU LilyPond images
Nominator's rationale: Rename - This category contains images produced by the GNU LilyPond software, not source code for the GNU LilyPond software (although the image pages may contain the source code). The category should probably be renamed using "images". At the very least, the phrase "examples of" is not needed in the category title. Dr. Submillimeter 23:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Fair enough -- although it would be useful to distinguish from images produced from Lilypond that don't contain source code. Grover cleveland 04:56, 4 July 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:Soap opera characters crossovers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Soap opera characters crossovers to Category:Soap opera crossover characters
Nominator's rationale: Rename, More accurate (the articles are foremost about the characters; their crossovers are secondary) and grammatically correct. Doesn't quite technically meet speedy criteria. Sohelpme 21:55, 3 July 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:Trumpet players

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Trumpet players to Category:Trumpeters
Nominator's rationale: see below

The other categories that I propose for renaming (or in one case, merging) are:

Rename all. When it comes to sub-categories of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Musicians by instrument, Wikipedia tends not to the form "Foo players" when another term is available - e.g. ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Violinists, ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Flautists and ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Tubists rather than "Violin players", etc. However, when it comes to the trumpet, we unfortunately have both forms in use: the sub-categories of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Trumpet players include ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Jazz trumpeters and thereafter there is a mix of "Trumpeters" and "Trumpet players". In the interests of standardization, I propose that the form "trumpeters" be applied to the lead category and its subcategories. This would also fit with List of trumpeters and List of jazz trumpeters. However, if people think that "Trumpet players" is the way forward, I won't mind much - just as long as we get consensus on one form of words to replace the current use of two forms of words. (I should mention that I mentioned this at three WikiProject/sub-projects here, here and here and left a message on the talk page of Trumpet; 2 comments in favour of trumpeters, 1 for trumpet players. No sign of a over-heated discussion in the offing just yet...) Bencherlite Talk 21:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Rename all per nom. Consistency is good, especially in categories, so we should definitely standardize on one name for all persons-who-play-trumpet categories, and I think the consistency of "trumpeters" with other by-instrument categories (flautists, violinists, guitarists, etc.) is a good reason for selecting that one from our valid options. note that the "1 for trumpet players" that Bencherlite mentions actually seems more like a neutral opinion leaning towards "trumpet players", rather than an unconditional endorsement of that name. Xtifr tälk 21:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

and rename all these whilst we're at it

(missed them first time round!) Bencherlite Talk 22:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Rename all I was actually naming them all trumpeters originally, until for some reason I began thinking I was in error for doing so. So I have no opposition to this. Sounds like a good idea. ( Mind meal 22:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)) reply
  • Rename all "Trumpeter" is a commonly used term. Piccadilly 22:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Concerns. 1) This"Trumpeters" vs "Trumpet player" seems to involve American English vs British English differences, which in general don't get "corrected" from one form to the other, and 2) "Trumpet player" is much less ambiguous than " trumpeter" [1]. For the record, the number of cats with 'foo player' is more than a third-25 of 66. Sohelpme 23:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename all per nom but I think I will stick at "viola players" and some others. Which is supposed to be which of the British/US English versions? Johnbod 23:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I see it is already "violists" in fact, with a rather suspicious absence of a category for viol players... Put it this way, I won't stick Chapman stickists. Johnbod 23:59, 3 July 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:English centre-forwards

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep, but suggest RFC and/or wikiproject dialogue about organizing this particular category tree. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:English centre-forwards ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation for already heavily categorised footballers; category by intersection. ArtVandelay13 21:15, 3 July 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:Comic foils

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, this essentially groups unrelated people. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Comic foils ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: It really doesn't make sense to group together all comedians who play comic foils (the straight man). Anyone who doesn't laugh at their own jokes could qualify. What would be the yardstick? Clerks. 18:46, 3 July 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:American politicans with criminal records

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:American politicans with criminal records ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as trivial intersection. However I could see some justification for it if their conviction had to be related to their office. -- Prove It (talk) 18:05, 3 July 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:Transportation and material moving occupations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Transportation and material moving occupations to Category:Transportation occupations
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Everything in this underpopulated duplicate also belongs in the main category. AshbyJnr 17:06, 3 July 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:Television narrators

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 merge. There may be some point to Otto's suggested deletion, but please make a new nomination for that if desired. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Television narrators to Category:Television presenters
Nominator's rationale: The terms narrator and presenter are two names for the same job. T@nn 16:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment is that so? I would think that a presenter would be the talking head on the BBC news or the host of a music, video, talent, variety, or "reality" show (like maybe Dick Clark or John Walsh), while a narrator is the unseen voice in documentaries or docudramas (like David Attenborough in the Planet Earth (TV series)). Is this sufficient distinction? One is part of the on-screen experience, the other a disembodied voice that seems omnipresent and omniscient. Carlossuarez46 20:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the term presenter is the same thing as host (i.e. Alex Trebek), while a narrator is something different. I believe there is enough of a distinctions. However, I have some concern with "Television narrators". Often celebrities narrate nature shows and documentries, and I do not believe such celebrities should have this category added based on one performance. Narrators should be limited to those who are professional narrators, or those who are notable because of their work as a narrator. - Andrew c  [talk] 22:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I believe that the uses here are different. We also need to be careful about any US/UK language uses here since the UK use of presenter is not used in the US. Vegaswikian 22:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Television narrators - for one, it draws no distinction between fictional characters who narrate shows (e.g. Veronica Mars (character), actual people who provide narration (a.k.a. voiceovers, e.g. Ben Patrick Johnson) and announcers. For another, there is already an extensive categorization scheme for people who do announcing work on TV, voiceover work, voice acting and so on. There is no need for this hair-splitting yet ambiguous category. Otto4711 00:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
So why are some hair-splitting categories acceptable and others aren't? Double-standard, methinks. Not all voiceover actors are narrators. Not all announcers have done narration work. Voiceover includes voices in an animated television series (or film). I suppose you'd like to have a Category:Fictional television narrators too? Now that's a hair-splitting category! ∞ ΣɛÞ² ( τ| c) 04:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Um, no, actually I want this category deleted as unnecessary, poorly constructed and redundant to existing superior categorization structures. I can't for the life of me imagine how you would translate that into a desire for additional unnecessary poorly constructed redundant categories. Otto4711 16:01, 4 July 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:American singers by style

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. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:American singers by style to Category:American singers by genre
Nominator's rationale: Rename, Following the recent discussion/decision to merge Category:Singers by style into Category:Singers by genre, I am nominating the categories with similar names for renaming to match. Bencherlite Talk 16:48, 3 July 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:American Republicanists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:American Republicanists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The complementary cat to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:American Federalists below; with the additional problem of being misnamed. (I would oppose a rename; it was hard enough to name the article, with room to explain the naming question.) The Democratic Republicans had many names, but Republicanist is not one of them. Fundamentally ill-defined; the shifting tides of the early United States would leave many men in both cats, or neither, depending on where the boundaries of "party membership" (an anachronism) are drawn. Patrick Henry, for example, is now in the cat; but his article explains that he was an Anti-Federalist in 1788 (not the same thing); and a "staunch Federalist" in 1799. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:51, 3 July 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:American Federalists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:American Federalists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A ill-conceived category, presently with a single member. The question of who was a Federalist, in the sense "opposed to the Democratic Republicans", (which is distinct from supporting the ratification of the American Constitution) was unclear at the time, and remains so. Also, the Federalist Party lasted a relatively short time; many of those who were unquestioned members, like Roger Taney or Daniel Webster, became leaders of other parties; even Alexander Hamilton, the sole member of the cat, was on his own after his conduct in 1800. This is the sort of thing a list, or even Federalist Party, is better for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:37, 3 July 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.

AFI

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep as-is. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

expand abbreviations. Otto4711 22:37, 29 June 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 obese characters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Yes, in real life it has a strict medical definition, but in fiction it is essentially a synonym for "fat", especially as the height/weight of fictional characters is often not given and/or variable over the story. Note that we don't use Category:Obese people either. Hence, subjective inclusion criterion, and overcategorization. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Fictional obese characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unless the weights of "fictional obese characters" are known and referenced, it doesn't make much sense to have this category. It seems like WP:NOT#IINFO should be applied to this category, too. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Most of these are characters who are expressly described as fat in the fiction; for some characters, like Billy Bunter, obesity is defining. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per PMA; Bunter & Falstaff are now added, but where are the fat ladies? Johnbod 16:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Unlike real people fictional characters are often defined by simple characteristics such as this one. Choalbaton 18:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not defined and not defining; how overweight is "obese" and even if the author describes the character with the word "obese" how is that more or less defining than the author's use of "rotund", "overweight", or "fat"? Even if we could agree on what magical words or statistics would merit inclusion on that score, lots of characters are only incidentally obese which has little to do with the story-line or their character development. Carlossuarez46 20:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Determining whether a character is obese generally requires making subjective judgments about the characters. The technical definition of obese would require knowledge of these characters' heights and weights, which usually is not published (and which is flawed). Therefore, individual editors would need to use their own judgments about whether characters are fat enough to be placed into this category, thus leading to possible original research problems. Furthermore, as body weight is variable for real-life people, it may also be variable for fictional characters as well. This type of category would not be acceptable for real people, and it certainly should not be used for fictional people. Dr. Submillimeter 21:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
They are obese if their authors keep telling you they are obese. I'm not sure you've quite got the hang of this fiction thing frankly. It is important to realize it is all made up. I get a bit worried when I see comments like "require knowledge of these characters' heights and weights, which usually is not published (and which is flawed)." Are you suggesting that Frank Richards is exaggerating the weight of the real Billy Bunter? Johnbod 23:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Various authors probably do not use the term "obese" in the same way. Some probably use it as a synonym for fat or overweight, while others probably use it in the medical sense of the word. So, even using the authors' assessments of their characters, this category's contents would not necessarily be well-defined. However, many editors will probably just guess at whether characters are obese and will then choose to add the characters to this category, even if the characters really are not obese but just overweight. (Also, please ignore the parenthetical phrase from my last comment; it was an incomplete thought.) Dr. Submillimeter 23:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Obese is not subjective. It is not a slang term for fat or overweight, it is a medical term. The objections that would apply for real people - libel and hurting feelings - don't apply. Fluctuations are not relevant. Categories are timeless, eg Abraham Lincoln is classified as a President of the United States even though he held that office for less than 10% of his life. Piccadilly 22:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for subjective criteria. These fictional characters have generally not stood on a scale, gotten weighed and compared to the American Medical Association's obesity definition. Doczilla 18:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a key characteristic, and there is rarely any doubt. If there is, just leave the character out. Problem solved. OrchWyn 19:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. While obese may be well defined, that definition can not be applied to non-humans. If we are talking about a character for a race where the everyone is 300 lbs or more as an adult, are they obese? What if everyone is 7' tall? Or 3' tall? As a fictional character we don't know what obese really means. This category is not restricted to human characters but even if it was, how do we get from fat to obese? That would require knowing for every entry in this category their weight and height? Is that information always made available? How about characters who change over time? Is that an issue? Obese may be used in some cases as a slur or slang for overweight, but that use may not match the definition of obese and therefor should not be a criteria for including in this category. Bottom line, there are too many issues and no clear need for this level of categorization. If you look at the characters included some are clearly not obese. In fact one is even described as not really fat. Clearly this category has issues that can best be dealt with by deletion Vegaswikian 20:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Obese may be well-defined by medicine, but it's not always used in its technically correct sense in casual speech, let along fiction. This must be in many cases a judgment call. And what to do about characters such as Jack Aubrey who is sometimes called "obese" and sometimes not? TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 8 July 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:I Dream of Jeannie

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:I Dream of Jeannie ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization of material that does not warrant a category. Otto4711 13:45, 3 July 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:Arthur (TV series)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Arthur (TV series) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization, not needed for the material. Otto4711 13:41, 3 July 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:The Angry Beavers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:The Angry Beavers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous category not needed for show article and character/episode subcats, per dozens of precedents. Otto4711 13:36, 3 July 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:Cast Of The Class

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Cast Of The Class ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as performers by performance, see January 25th discussion. -- Prove It (talk) 13:35, 3 July 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:All in the Family

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:All in the Family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category for old cancelled series, unlikely to expand. Articles are interlinked and the category isn't needed for navigation. Otto4711 13:31, 3 July 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:7th Heaven

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:7th Heaven ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - another eponymous TV show category. The small amount of material is easily navigable from the main article and the navtemplate. Otto4711 13:30, 3 July 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:Weakest Link

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, as with many other cats on TV shows. Why exactly are internal links considered unacceptable? >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Weakest Link ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - as with many other eponymous TV show categories, this one isn't needed. The three articles for national versions of the show can all easily be interlinked. Otto4711 13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep: no way. A cat is necessary to have easy links to each articles and there are not many article there because many other game shows are all cluttered into one single article. RaNdOm26 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, the sentence or two in the main article on the various international versions, if split into separate articles, would be small uninformative stubs which would likely be merged back into the main article. And under no circumstances should the hosts of the shows be categorized here, per the very strong consensus against categorizing people based on the projects in which they appear. Otto4711 17:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Where is the consensus that says so? I feel that this idea of no categories for people is unjustified because I have seen several categories that do include the people in the show. RaNdOm26 21:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The consensus against categorizing people by the TV shows on which they appear is found in this January 25 discussion. Discussion of the general guideline against such categorization is found here. That some people have project categories on their articles against consensus and guideline doesn't mean that others should as well. Otto4711 13:52, 5 July 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:Hoe

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Hoe ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: category contains one cooking-related article. If not a hoax/joke/prank, unclear what this term means, if not a gardening implement. Exploding Boy 06:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The first three letters suggested otherwise. I suspect the Korean distinctions are less fine than the Japanese, and anything involving raw fish is included. Johnbod 23:18, 3 July 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:Romantischen Opern

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 result of the debate was withdrawn -- Kbdank71 17:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Romantischen Opern to Category:German Romantic opera
Nominator's rationale: Rename: This is English WP. There is no reason or justification for using a German-language title when there is a perfectly acceptable and appropriate English title. Moreover the proposed English name for the category is already used in an English WP article German_opera#German_Romantic_opera. To use German discriminates against non-German speaking users of English WP (and frankly smacks of intellectual snobbery). Smerus 06:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you for posting up these previous discussions. One was to delete - and is therefore not relevant to this proposal. The other discussion, of which I was not aware, seems to have centred on whether or not it was a bad faith nomination. It did not address the issue I have raised. I am not seeking to delete the category, only to make it intelligible to English WP users. I adduce, once more, the existence of the article/article section German_opera#German_Romantic_opera, and the absence of any article or article section Romantische opera. (Unlike , for example, Category:Opéras-ballets, where there is indeed an article Opéra-ballet, a less simply translatable term).
I am not aware of any other categories which use as their title a translation into a foreign language of a term which, in English, is the title of an existing WP article or section (and if there are any they would be subject to the same criticism as this one). I believe we need to have a discussion specifically on this issue. WP should be consistent within itself wherever possible. Hence my move to rename. -- Smerus 06:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose renaming: The 20 April discussion, and the preceding discussion on the Opera Project Talk Page (archived here) is actually much more relevant than the 1 May discussion. The category Romantic Operas was (correctly) used by some editors because that was how some German librettists and/or composers during the Romantic period described some of their operas (they used the German term Romantische Opern, of course), and that term can be found in articles on specific operas such as Der Vampyr in reference works such as Grove, the Viking Guide, the Oxford Dictionary of Opera, etc. But once you have a category called "Romantic operas", anyone can put all sorts of operas that are romantic (which many operas, such as Roméo et Juliette are) into that category, and it loses its rather specific meaning.

So let's suppose there is a category called "German Romantic opera". How many people will be able to work out that this only refers to German operas composed during a particular period in the early-to-mid C19? Sooner or later, someone will add Strauss's Arabella to the category on the basis that it is German and Romantic (and, yes, there are other possible examples).

Moving on to categories that don't have English names, the section on categories on the Opera Project page says that operas are to be categorised (inter alia) "by genre (which should be plural and in the original language to avoid confusion)" [my emphasis]. Most of the genres with foreign-language names, like "Opéra-ballets" mentioned above (but not all of them), do indeed have their own, usually short, articles, and there is no reason why there shouldn't be a Romantischen Opern article, plural and in the original language. Indeed, I volunteer to create one. -- GuillaumeTell 00:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose renaming: per GuillaumeTell. Once we start translating foreign terms we introduce ambiguities, once we have ambiguities we have miscategorization. -- Kleinzach 05:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the above contributions (especially that of GuillaumeTell). In the light of this I withdraw my nomination. I will just point out that, contrary to the spirit of GuillaumeTell's response, the present header to Category:Romantischen Opern, defining what should be listed there, gives a direct link to German_opera#German_Romantic_opera - so perhaps someone should edit that, in case the catastrophic eventuality of the inclusion of Arabella actually takes place......... -- Smerus 09:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I tend to think that using German cat names on an English wiki is not very useful, and would support a rename unless there's significant more input from the wikiproject on this. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 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:Port cities

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. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Port cities to Category:Ports and harbours
Suggest merging Category:Coastal cities to Category:Ports and harbours
Nominator's rationale: There is growing confusion regarding the usage of Category:Port cities of xxxx. There needs to be clarity as to when each of these 3 cats should and should not be used. There is no need for 3 such cats. We can certainly get away a maximum of 2, but one would be preferable. See expanded argument below Frelke 05:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • comment Before we get a flame war going can I make the point that the main reason for this nom was to find a single place to discuss the overlap on the categories. I am quite prepared for the actual nom to fail, so long as we come to a consensus regarding the way forward.
  • At present there are 3 major parent categories, two of which have regional (Europe, North America, etc) subcats, with country and sub-country cats below them. The definition for Port cities was changed recently to include towns which led to a number of farcical categorisations. Coastal cities needs work on its sub-cats. Its becoming unmanageable.
  • There has been some suggestion that Ports and harbours should be on articles which are solely about the port/harbour itself whilst the cities cat is for those cities which have a port. I disagree. Having a port is an attribute of a city. We have Category:Cities in ... which defines whether a place is a city and we have Category:Ports and harbo(u)rs in ... which defines if it has a seaborne cargo transportation facility. We don't need to combine the 2 into a "new" category. If this nom succeeds then we will, at worst, be no worse off. At best we will have clarified that there is no need for 3 categories defining essentially the same attribute of a place, the fact that it has a seaborne-cargo-transfer-facility, IOW a port. Frelke 06:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • question Do I need to tag all the subcats of all 3?
    • No, because a rename or merge shouldn't affect them in any way. If you were nominating the cat for deletion, and the subcats would go too, then yes (seen that happen. It's a big peeve of mine). - Freekee 01:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Frelke 06:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • comment I happen to think that perhaps the wrong decision was made in January. Frelke 06:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment; I agree with this proposal; the overlap/confusion between what is a city/town and what is a port facility/'place with a port' leads to numerous permutations and could trigger numerous rows. Simple "category:ports", defined as both ports and places (of any size) with a harbour or port should do. Maybe try to deal with clearly defined sub-categories (like port infrastructure) with sub-categories. Though that could as easily be a sub-cat of "transportation" or several other things. I feel the proposal here before us is probably the best option. ( Sarah777 07:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)) reply
  • Oppose The two systems are both necessary. Harbours are primarily natural features, so they should be placed in a set of categories appropriate to that. While one can get on a boat from any coastal city, many of them aren't actually port cities, ie no specific facilities are provided for embarkation and disembarkation. Wimstead 13:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I have to disagree. Harbours are generally manmade structures. So much so, that in our language we have evolved phraseology to describe the contrary - the natural harbo(u)r. We don't have a general usage equivalent for manmade harbours, because they are generally described as harbours. Natural harbours are noteworthy and are few and far between. And even if they were primarily natural features, how would you define "categories appropriate to that".
    • I'd also like an example of a coastal city that isn't a port city, because I know a few port companies who would be delighted to build a port there. If its a city, and its on a coast, I can pretty much guarantee there is a port of some description there. Thats what humans did for the last umpteenth million years. We migrated to coastal areas, built ships, ports and cities, and explored/conquered the world. I'll swallow my words if anyone can produce an example of a coastal city without a port. Frelke 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Looking at the categories, I see the "dual" system works well in many countries (USA, Russia, Belgium, Poland etc), less well in some (Greece), but only for the UK is it turned on its head. Keep the system, in which case the other nom should clearly be supported, and clean up the UK. Johnbod 14:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose The dual system works well. London and Port of London should not be categorised in the same way. Piccadilly 22:35, 3 July 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:Hair metal musicians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Hair metal musicians to Category:Glam metal musicians
Nominator's rationale: the term "hair metal" is considered derogatory (sp?) and glam metal is more correct. FMAFan1990 05:23, 3 July 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:Cult film

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Cult film ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Arbitrary, unclear criteria for inclusion. -- EEMeltonIV 05:04, 3 July 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:V for Vendetta characters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:V for Vendetta characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete for consistency with other comic book title categories. There are too many comic book series for this to practical. Doczilla 04:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This one's a complete box, though. No characters from other series get in, and none of these get out. It's not a problem child. Also, V for Vendetta is published by multiple companies, so it's not as simple as just dropping these into Category:DC Comics characters.-- Mike Selinker 13:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The category isn't needed for navigating the character articles. The V for Vendetta article itself already sufficiently serves that purpose. Dugwiki 16:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Upmerge. Self contained on the same level as Category:Characters in The Lord of the Rings. I do not believe we should unilaterally make decisions solely based on the medium of print. Yes, superhero comics do not make sense to be grouped in this manner because of so many cross over and guest appearances and superteams. However, for self-contained comics that are on the level of other forms of literature, categorizing by character can make sense. That said, I feel we may have too few articles on characters for this graphic novel and it isn't foreseeably expandable, so an upmerge may make more sense. However, keeping these characters in a category related to the work is an important categorization characteristic for these 'V' articles.- Andrew c [talk] 18:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep it's also a novel and a movie, and it's self-contained, unlike most other comics. 132.205.44.5 22:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the self-containment and cross-media issues mentioned above, esp. the LOTR comparison. ThuranX 20:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep: I'm not really sure that V really needs a separate article for each character. I tend to think that a detailed List of V for Vendetta characters would work better. But as long as there are separate articles for each character, this category seems like a reasonable way to organize them. And it's a small category, yes, but not small enough to qualify under WP:OCAT#Small with no potential for growth, which mentions "two or three members". (Plus, it could be argued to be a part of a fairly standard schema; characters by work.) Xtifr tälk 05:27, 5 July 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:Notable table tennis players

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: make into an article. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Notable table tennis players ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Convert, to article or just Delete. This certainly isn't a category. -- Prove It (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Convert - Flubeca Talk 04:34, 3 July 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:Orthodox vestments

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. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Orthodox vestments to Category:Eastern Christian vestments
Nominator's rationale: This was previously nominated as part of a group on September 14 as not distinct from other Orthodox religions. This one, however, needs to be renamed. The name was chosen poorly initially, and all or nearly all of the items in the category are also used by Eastern Catholics. The "solution" at the time was to create Category:Eastern Catholic vestments as a category redirect, however over time the uses of this other category were deleted as a "repeated category," until eventually it was empty and itself deleted. A name which encompasses both traditions would be ideal. Gimmetrow 01:21, 3 July 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_3&oldid=1138388252"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 2 July 4 >

July 3

Category:Examples of Lilypond source code

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. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Examples of Lilypond source code to Category:GNU LilyPond images
Nominator's rationale: Rename - This category contains images produced by the GNU LilyPond software, not source code for the GNU LilyPond software (although the image pages may contain the source code). The category should probably be renamed using "images". At the very least, the phrase "examples of" is not needed in the category title. Dr. Submillimeter 23:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Fair enough -- although it would be useful to distinguish from images produced from Lilypond that don't contain source code. Grover cleveland 04:56, 4 July 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:Soap opera characters crossovers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Soap opera characters crossovers to Category:Soap opera crossover characters
Nominator's rationale: Rename, More accurate (the articles are foremost about the characters; their crossovers are secondary) and grammatically correct. Doesn't quite technically meet speedy criteria. Sohelpme 21:55, 3 July 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:Trumpet players

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Trumpet players to Category:Trumpeters
Nominator's rationale: see below

The other categories that I propose for renaming (or in one case, merging) are:

Rename all. When it comes to sub-categories of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Musicians by instrument, Wikipedia tends not to the form "Foo players" when another term is available - e.g. ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Violinists, ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Flautists and ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Tubists rather than "Violin players", etc. However, when it comes to the trumpet, we unfortunately have both forms in use: the sub-categories of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Trumpet players include ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Jazz trumpeters and thereafter there is a mix of "Trumpeters" and "Trumpet players". In the interests of standardization, I propose that the form "trumpeters" be applied to the lead category and its subcategories. This would also fit with List of trumpeters and List of jazz trumpeters. However, if people think that "Trumpet players" is the way forward, I won't mind much - just as long as we get consensus on one form of words to replace the current use of two forms of words. (I should mention that I mentioned this at three WikiProject/sub-projects here, here and here and left a message on the talk page of Trumpet; 2 comments in favour of trumpeters, 1 for trumpet players. No sign of a over-heated discussion in the offing just yet...) Bencherlite Talk 21:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Rename all per nom. Consistency is good, especially in categories, so we should definitely standardize on one name for all persons-who-play-trumpet categories, and I think the consistency of "trumpeters" with other by-instrument categories (flautists, violinists, guitarists, etc.) is a good reason for selecting that one from our valid options. note that the "1 for trumpet players" that Bencherlite mentions actually seems more like a neutral opinion leaning towards "trumpet players", rather than an unconditional endorsement of that name. Xtifr tälk 21:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

and rename all these whilst we're at it

(missed them first time round!) Bencherlite Talk 22:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Rename all I was actually naming them all trumpeters originally, until for some reason I began thinking I was in error for doing so. So I have no opposition to this. Sounds like a good idea. ( Mind meal 22:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)) reply
  • Rename all "Trumpeter" is a commonly used term. Piccadilly 22:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Concerns. 1) This"Trumpeters" vs "Trumpet player" seems to involve American English vs British English differences, which in general don't get "corrected" from one form to the other, and 2) "Trumpet player" is much less ambiguous than " trumpeter" [1]. For the record, the number of cats with 'foo player' is more than a third-25 of 66. Sohelpme 23:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename all per nom but I think I will stick at "viola players" and some others. Which is supposed to be which of the British/US English versions? Johnbod 23:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I see it is already "violists" in fact, with a rather suspicious absence of a category for viol players... Put it this way, I won't stick Chapman stickists. Johnbod 23:59, 3 July 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:English centre-forwards

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep, but suggest RFC and/or wikiproject dialogue about organizing this particular category tree. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:English centre-forwards ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation for already heavily categorised footballers; category by intersection. ArtVandelay13 21:15, 3 July 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:Comic foils

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, this essentially groups unrelated people. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Comic foils ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: It really doesn't make sense to group together all comedians who play comic foils (the straight man). Anyone who doesn't laugh at their own jokes could qualify. What would be the yardstick? Clerks. 18:46, 3 July 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:American politicans with criminal records

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:American politicans with criminal records ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as trivial intersection. However I could see some justification for it if their conviction had to be related to their office. -- Prove It (talk) 18:05, 3 July 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:Transportation and material moving occupations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Transportation and material moving occupations to Category:Transportation occupations
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Everything in this underpopulated duplicate also belongs in the main category. AshbyJnr 17:06, 3 July 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:Television narrators

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 merge. There may be some point to Otto's suggested deletion, but please make a new nomination for that if desired. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Television narrators to Category:Television presenters
Nominator's rationale: The terms narrator and presenter are two names for the same job. T@nn 16:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment is that so? I would think that a presenter would be the talking head on the BBC news or the host of a music, video, talent, variety, or "reality" show (like maybe Dick Clark or John Walsh), while a narrator is the unseen voice in documentaries or docudramas (like David Attenborough in the Planet Earth (TV series)). Is this sufficient distinction? One is part of the on-screen experience, the other a disembodied voice that seems omnipresent and omniscient. Carlossuarez46 20:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the term presenter is the same thing as host (i.e. Alex Trebek), while a narrator is something different. I believe there is enough of a distinctions. However, I have some concern with "Television narrators". Often celebrities narrate nature shows and documentries, and I do not believe such celebrities should have this category added based on one performance. Narrators should be limited to those who are professional narrators, or those who are notable because of their work as a narrator. - Andrew c  [talk] 22:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I believe that the uses here are different. We also need to be careful about any US/UK language uses here since the UK use of presenter is not used in the US. Vegaswikian 22:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Television narrators - for one, it draws no distinction between fictional characters who narrate shows (e.g. Veronica Mars (character), actual people who provide narration (a.k.a. voiceovers, e.g. Ben Patrick Johnson) and announcers. For another, there is already an extensive categorization scheme for people who do announcing work on TV, voiceover work, voice acting and so on. There is no need for this hair-splitting yet ambiguous category. Otto4711 00:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
So why are some hair-splitting categories acceptable and others aren't? Double-standard, methinks. Not all voiceover actors are narrators. Not all announcers have done narration work. Voiceover includes voices in an animated television series (or film). I suppose you'd like to have a Category:Fictional television narrators too? Now that's a hair-splitting category! ∞ ΣɛÞ² ( τ| c) 04:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Um, no, actually I want this category deleted as unnecessary, poorly constructed and redundant to existing superior categorization structures. I can't for the life of me imagine how you would translate that into a desire for additional unnecessary poorly constructed redundant categories. Otto4711 16:01, 4 July 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:American singers by style

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. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:American singers by style to Category:American singers by genre
Nominator's rationale: Rename, Following the recent discussion/decision to merge Category:Singers by style into Category:Singers by genre, I am nominating the categories with similar names for renaming to match. Bencherlite Talk 16:48, 3 July 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:American Republicanists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:American Republicanists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The complementary cat to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:American Federalists below; with the additional problem of being misnamed. (I would oppose a rename; it was hard enough to name the article, with room to explain the naming question.) The Democratic Republicans had many names, but Republicanist is not one of them. Fundamentally ill-defined; the shifting tides of the early United States would leave many men in both cats, or neither, depending on where the boundaries of "party membership" (an anachronism) are drawn. Patrick Henry, for example, is now in the cat; but his article explains that he was an Anti-Federalist in 1788 (not the same thing); and a "staunch Federalist" in 1799. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:51, 3 July 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:American Federalists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:American Federalists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A ill-conceived category, presently with a single member. The question of who was a Federalist, in the sense "opposed to the Democratic Republicans", (which is distinct from supporting the ratification of the American Constitution) was unclear at the time, and remains so. Also, the Federalist Party lasted a relatively short time; many of those who were unquestioned members, like Roger Taney or Daniel Webster, became leaders of other parties; even Alexander Hamilton, the sole member of the cat, was on his own after his conduct in 1800. This is the sort of thing a list, or even Federalist Party, is better for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:37, 3 July 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.

AFI

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep as-is. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

expand abbreviations. Otto4711 22:37, 29 June 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 obese characters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Yes, in real life it has a strict medical definition, but in fiction it is essentially a synonym for "fat", especially as the height/weight of fictional characters is often not given and/or variable over the story. Note that we don't use Category:Obese people either. Hence, subjective inclusion criterion, and overcategorization. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Fictional obese characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unless the weights of "fictional obese characters" are known and referenced, it doesn't make much sense to have this category. It seems like WP:NOT#IINFO should be applied to this category, too. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Most of these are characters who are expressly described as fat in the fiction; for some characters, like Billy Bunter, obesity is defining. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per PMA; Bunter & Falstaff are now added, but where are the fat ladies? Johnbod 16:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Unlike real people fictional characters are often defined by simple characteristics such as this one. Choalbaton 18:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not defined and not defining; how overweight is "obese" and even if the author describes the character with the word "obese" how is that more or less defining than the author's use of "rotund", "overweight", or "fat"? Even if we could agree on what magical words or statistics would merit inclusion on that score, lots of characters are only incidentally obese which has little to do with the story-line or their character development. Carlossuarez46 20:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Determining whether a character is obese generally requires making subjective judgments about the characters. The technical definition of obese would require knowledge of these characters' heights and weights, which usually is not published (and which is flawed). Therefore, individual editors would need to use their own judgments about whether characters are fat enough to be placed into this category, thus leading to possible original research problems. Furthermore, as body weight is variable for real-life people, it may also be variable for fictional characters as well. This type of category would not be acceptable for real people, and it certainly should not be used for fictional people. Dr. Submillimeter 21:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
They are obese if their authors keep telling you they are obese. I'm not sure you've quite got the hang of this fiction thing frankly. It is important to realize it is all made up. I get a bit worried when I see comments like "require knowledge of these characters' heights and weights, which usually is not published (and which is flawed)." Are you suggesting that Frank Richards is exaggerating the weight of the real Billy Bunter? Johnbod 23:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Various authors probably do not use the term "obese" in the same way. Some probably use it as a synonym for fat or overweight, while others probably use it in the medical sense of the word. So, even using the authors' assessments of their characters, this category's contents would not necessarily be well-defined. However, many editors will probably just guess at whether characters are obese and will then choose to add the characters to this category, even if the characters really are not obese but just overweight. (Also, please ignore the parenthetical phrase from my last comment; it was an incomplete thought.) Dr. Submillimeter 23:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Obese is not subjective. It is not a slang term for fat or overweight, it is a medical term. The objections that would apply for real people - libel and hurting feelings - don't apply. Fluctuations are not relevant. Categories are timeless, eg Abraham Lincoln is classified as a President of the United States even though he held that office for less than 10% of his life. Piccadilly 22:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for subjective criteria. These fictional characters have generally not stood on a scale, gotten weighed and compared to the American Medical Association's obesity definition. Doczilla 18:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a key characteristic, and there is rarely any doubt. If there is, just leave the character out. Problem solved. OrchWyn 19:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. While obese may be well defined, that definition can not be applied to non-humans. If we are talking about a character for a race where the everyone is 300 lbs or more as an adult, are they obese? What if everyone is 7' tall? Or 3' tall? As a fictional character we don't know what obese really means. This category is not restricted to human characters but even if it was, how do we get from fat to obese? That would require knowing for every entry in this category their weight and height? Is that information always made available? How about characters who change over time? Is that an issue? Obese may be used in some cases as a slur or slang for overweight, but that use may not match the definition of obese and therefor should not be a criteria for including in this category. Bottom line, there are too many issues and no clear need for this level of categorization. If you look at the characters included some are clearly not obese. In fact one is even described as not really fat. Clearly this category has issues that can best be dealt with by deletion Vegaswikian 20:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Obese may be well-defined by medicine, but it's not always used in its technically correct sense in casual speech, let along fiction. This must be in many cases a judgment call. And what to do about characters such as Jack Aubrey who is sometimes called "obese" and sometimes not? TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 8 July 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:I Dream of Jeannie

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:I Dream of Jeannie ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization of material that does not warrant a category. Otto4711 13:45, 3 July 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:Arthur (TV series)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Arthur (TV series) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization, not needed for the material. Otto4711 13:41, 3 July 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:The Angry Beavers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:The Angry Beavers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous category not needed for show article and character/episode subcats, per dozens of precedents. Otto4711 13:36, 3 July 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:Cast Of The Class

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Cast Of The Class ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as performers by performance, see January 25th discussion. -- Prove It (talk) 13:35, 3 July 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:All in the Family

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:All in the Family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category for old cancelled series, unlikely to expand. Articles are interlinked and the category isn't needed for navigation. Otto4711 13:31, 3 July 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:7th Heaven

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:7th Heaven ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - another eponymous TV show category. The small amount of material is easily navigable from the main article and the navtemplate. Otto4711 13:30, 3 July 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:Weakest Link

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, as with many other cats on TV shows. Why exactly are internal links considered unacceptable? >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Weakest Link ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - as with many other eponymous TV show categories, this one isn't needed. The three articles for national versions of the show can all easily be interlinked. Otto4711 13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep: no way. A cat is necessary to have easy links to each articles and there are not many article there because many other game shows are all cluttered into one single article. RaNdOm26 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, the sentence or two in the main article on the various international versions, if split into separate articles, would be small uninformative stubs which would likely be merged back into the main article. And under no circumstances should the hosts of the shows be categorized here, per the very strong consensus against categorizing people based on the projects in which they appear. Otto4711 17:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Where is the consensus that says so? I feel that this idea of no categories for people is unjustified because I have seen several categories that do include the people in the show. RaNdOm26 21:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The consensus against categorizing people by the TV shows on which they appear is found in this January 25 discussion. Discussion of the general guideline against such categorization is found here. That some people have project categories on their articles against consensus and guideline doesn't mean that others should as well. Otto4711 13:52, 5 July 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:Hoe

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Hoe ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: category contains one cooking-related article. If not a hoax/joke/prank, unclear what this term means, if not a gardening implement. Exploding Boy 06:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The first three letters suggested otherwise. I suspect the Korean distinctions are less fine than the Japanese, and anything involving raw fish is included. Johnbod 23:18, 3 July 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:Romantischen Opern

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 result of the debate was withdrawn -- Kbdank71 17:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Romantischen Opern to Category:German Romantic opera
Nominator's rationale: Rename: This is English WP. There is no reason or justification for using a German-language title when there is a perfectly acceptable and appropriate English title. Moreover the proposed English name for the category is already used in an English WP article German_opera#German_Romantic_opera. To use German discriminates against non-German speaking users of English WP (and frankly smacks of intellectual snobbery). Smerus 06:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you for posting up these previous discussions. One was to delete - and is therefore not relevant to this proposal. The other discussion, of which I was not aware, seems to have centred on whether or not it was a bad faith nomination. It did not address the issue I have raised. I am not seeking to delete the category, only to make it intelligible to English WP users. I adduce, once more, the existence of the article/article section German_opera#German_Romantic_opera, and the absence of any article or article section Romantische opera. (Unlike , for example, Category:Opéras-ballets, where there is indeed an article Opéra-ballet, a less simply translatable term).
I am not aware of any other categories which use as their title a translation into a foreign language of a term which, in English, is the title of an existing WP article or section (and if there are any they would be subject to the same criticism as this one). I believe we need to have a discussion specifically on this issue. WP should be consistent within itself wherever possible. Hence my move to rename. -- Smerus 06:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose renaming: The 20 April discussion, and the preceding discussion on the Opera Project Talk Page (archived here) is actually much more relevant than the 1 May discussion. The category Romantic Operas was (correctly) used by some editors because that was how some German librettists and/or composers during the Romantic period described some of their operas (they used the German term Romantische Opern, of course), and that term can be found in articles on specific operas such as Der Vampyr in reference works such as Grove, the Viking Guide, the Oxford Dictionary of Opera, etc. But once you have a category called "Romantic operas", anyone can put all sorts of operas that are romantic (which many operas, such as Roméo et Juliette are) into that category, and it loses its rather specific meaning.

So let's suppose there is a category called "German Romantic opera". How many people will be able to work out that this only refers to German operas composed during a particular period in the early-to-mid C19? Sooner or later, someone will add Strauss's Arabella to the category on the basis that it is German and Romantic (and, yes, there are other possible examples).

Moving on to categories that don't have English names, the section on categories on the Opera Project page says that operas are to be categorised (inter alia) "by genre (which should be plural and in the original language to avoid confusion)" [my emphasis]. Most of the genres with foreign-language names, like "Opéra-ballets" mentioned above (but not all of them), do indeed have their own, usually short, articles, and there is no reason why there shouldn't be a Romantischen Opern article, plural and in the original language. Indeed, I volunteer to create one. -- GuillaumeTell 00:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose renaming: per GuillaumeTell. Once we start translating foreign terms we introduce ambiguities, once we have ambiguities we have miscategorization. -- Kleinzach 05:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the above contributions (especially that of GuillaumeTell). In the light of this I withdraw my nomination. I will just point out that, contrary to the spirit of GuillaumeTell's response, the present header to Category:Romantischen Opern, defining what should be listed there, gives a direct link to German_opera#German_Romantic_opera - so perhaps someone should edit that, in case the catastrophic eventuality of the inclusion of Arabella actually takes place......... -- Smerus 09:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I tend to think that using German cat names on an English wiki is not very useful, and would support a rename unless there's significant more input from the wikiproject on this. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 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:Port cities

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. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Port cities to Category:Ports and harbours
Suggest merging Category:Coastal cities to Category:Ports and harbours
Nominator's rationale: There is growing confusion regarding the usage of Category:Port cities of xxxx. There needs to be clarity as to when each of these 3 cats should and should not be used. There is no need for 3 such cats. We can certainly get away a maximum of 2, but one would be preferable. See expanded argument below Frelke 05:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • comment Before we get a flame war going can I make the point that the main reason for this nom was to find a single place to discuss the overlap on the categories. I am quite prepared for the actual nom to fail, so long as we come to a consensus regarding the way forward.
  • At present there are 3 major parent categories, two of which have regional (Europe, North America, etc) subcats, with country and sub-country cats below them. The definition for Port cities was changed recently to include towns which led to a number of farcical categorisations. Coastal cities needs work on its sub-cats. Its becoming unmanageable.
  • There has been some suggestion that Ports and harbours should be on articles which are solely about the port/harbour itself whilst the cities cat is for those cities which have a port. I disagree. Having a port is an attribute of a city. We have Category:Cities in ... which defines whether a place is a city and we have Category:Ports and harbo(u)rs in ... which defines if it has a seaborne cargo transportation facility. We don't need to combine the 2 into a "new" category. If this nom succeeds then we will, at worst, be no worse off. At best we will have clarified that there is no need for 3 categories defining essentially the same attribute of a place, the fact that it has a seaborne-cargo-transfer-facility, IOW a port. Frelke 06:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • question Do I need to tag all the subcats of all 3?
    • No, because a rename or merge shouldn't affect them in any way. If you were nominating the cat for deletion, and the subcats would go too, then yes (seen that happen. It's a big peeve of mine). - Freekee 01:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Frelke 06:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • comment I happen to think that perhaps the wrong decision was made in January. Frelke 06:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment; I agree with this proposal; the overlap/confusion between what is a city/town and what is a port facility/'place with a port' leads to numerous permutations and could trigger numerous rows. Simple "category:ports", defined as both ports and places (of any size) with a harbour or port should do. Maybe try to deal with clearly defined sub-categories (like port infrastructure) with sub-categories. Though that could as easily be a sub-cat of "transportation" or several other things. I feel the proposal here before us is probably the best option. ( Sarah777 07:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)) reply
  • Oppose The two systems are both necessary. Harbours are primarily natural features, so they should be placed in a set of categories appropriate to that. While one can get on a boat from any coastal city, many of them aren't actually port cities, ie no specific facilities are provided for embarkation and disembarkation. Wimstead 13:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I have to disagree. Harbours are generally manmade structures. So much so, that in our language we have evolved phraseology to describe the contrary - the natural harbo(u)r. We don't have a general usage equivalent for manmade harbours, because they are generally described as harbours. Natural harbours are noteworthy and are few and far between. And even if they were primarily natural features, how would you define "categories appropriate to that".
    • I'd also like an example of a coastal city that isn't a port city, because I know a few port companies who would be delighted to build a port there. If its a city, and its on a coast, I can pretty much guarantee there is a port of some description there. Thats what humans did for the last umpteenth million years. We migrated to coastal areas, built ships, ports and cities, and explored/conquered the world. I'll swallow my words if anyone can produce an example of a coastal city without a port. Frelke 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Looking at the categories, I see the "dual" system works well in many countries (USA, Russia, Belgium, Poland etc), less well in some (Greece), but only for the UK is it turned on its head. Keep the system, in which case the other nom should clearly be supported, and clean up the UK. Johnbod 14:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose The dual system works well. London and Port of London should not be categorised in the same way. Piccadilly 22:35, 3 July 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:Hair metal musicians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Hair metal musicians to Category:Glam metal musicians
Nominator's rationale: the term "hair metal" is considered derogatory (sp?) and glam metal is more correct. FMAFan1990 05:23, 3 July 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:Cult film

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Cult film ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Arbitrary, unclear criteria for inclusion. -- EEMeltonIV 05:04, 3 July 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:V for Vendetta characters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:V for Vendetta characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete for consistency with other comic book title categories. There are too many comic book series for this to practical. Doczilla 04:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This one's a complete box, though. No characters from other series get in, and none of these get out. It's not a problem child. Also, V for Vendetta is published by multiple companies, so it's not as simple as just dropping these into Category:DC Comics characters.-- Mike Selinker 13:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The category isn't needed for navigating the character articles. The V for Vendetta article itself already sufficiently serves that purpose. Dugwiki 16:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Upmerge. Self contained on the same level as Category:Characters in The Lord of the Rings. I do not believe we should unilaterally make decisions solely based on the medium of print. Yes, superhero comics do not make sense to be grouped in this manner because of so many cross over and guest appearances and superteams. However, for self-contained comics that are on the level of other forms of literature, categorizing by character can make sense. That said, I feel we may have too few articles on characters for this graphic novel and it isn't foreseeably expandable, so an upmerge may make more sense. However, keeping these characters in a category related to the work is an important categorization characteristic for these 'V' articles.- Andrew c [talk] 18:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep it's also a novel and a movie, and it's self-contained, unlike most other comics. 132.205.44.5 22:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the self-containment and cross-media issues mentioned above, esp. the LOTR comparison. ThuranX 20:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep: I'm not really sure that V really needs a separate article for each character. I tend to think that a detailed List of V for Vendetta characters would work better. But as long as there are separate articles for each character, this category seems like a reasonable way to organize them. And it's a small category, yes, but not small enough to qualify under WP:OCAT#Small with no potential for growth, which mentions "two or three members". (Plus, it could be argued to be a part of a fairly standard schema; characters by work.) Xtifr tälk 05:27, 5 July 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:Notable table tennis players

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: make into an article. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Notable table tennis players ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Convert, to article or just Delete. This certainly isn't a category. -- Prove It (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Convert - Flubeca Talk 04:34, 3 July 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:Orthodox vestments

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. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Orthodox vestments to Category:Eastern Christian vestments
Nominator's rationale: This was previously nominated as part of a group on September 14 as not distinct from other Orthodox religions. This one, however, needs to be renamed. The name was chosen poorly initially, and all or nearly all of the items in the category are also used by Eastern Catholics. The "solution" at the time was to create Category:Eastern Catholic vestments as a category redirect, however over time the uses of this other category were deleted as a "repeated category," until eventually it was empty and itself deleted. A name which encompasses both traditions would be ideal. Gimmetrow 01:21, 3 July 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_3&oldid=1138388252"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE