The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:musicians who died between 6:03 AM and 7:12 AM. No, I'm kidding. Delete. >Radiant< 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Musical artists who died at the age of 27 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

27 is an arbitrary age cutoff. We might as well have one for every profession at every age if this were allowable. There is an article titled 27 Club to try and substantiate the need for such a category, but that has virtually no sources for the supposed phenomenon, and even if it did all the names are already listed on that page, so no need for a category. VegaDark 23:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete Variants of this have been deleted before. Honbicot 23:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete as category with arbitrary inclusion criteria. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - This is a silly way to categorize musicians. The cutoff is purely arbitrary. Dr. Submillimeter 08:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Tim! 10:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Replace it with a category of musicians who died between 6:03 AM and 7:12 AM. DVdm 10:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Replace with red-haired bearded musicians who were murdered at the age of 42. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. ~ I'm anonymous
• Delete as arbitrary. Doczilla 20:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete - before anyone dies of laughter at this random over categorisation! Rgds, -- Trident13 21:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (re: above) - if someone did die of laughter, and was 27, can we have a category for them... Lugnuts 14:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Would Category:Wikipedians who died of laughter aged 27 whilst reading a CfD debate on a monday be specific enough? ;) -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep or rename to Category:27 Club. I looked for the Janis Joplin article specifically because I wanted to find more about this "phenomenon" but didn't know where to look. 27 is not arbitrary, this age and as far as I can tell only this age has a reputation for untimely deaths of musicians. While the article may be poorly sourced I expect multiple reliable sources could be found. Certainly it would make no sense to create categories for every death age, but this particular category helps organize subjects around another topic. —dgies ^t _c 05:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete 27 Club has all this information in a better form. The article needs to be sourced. Since the article already exists, the category does more harm than good. -- Samuel Wantman 05:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following 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< 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Child abuse victims ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Fictional child abuse victims ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (subcat)

Category:Fictional incest victims ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (subcat of fictional abuse victims cat)

Delete as WP:OCAT. Being a victim of child abuse is not a defining characteristic. This nomination also includes the subcategory Category:Fictional child abuse victims, and its subcat Category:Fictional incest victims. Listifying one or both cats may be a good option. szyslak 22:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete all per nom. Honbicot 23:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The nomination is wrong to say that being a victim of child abuse is not a defining characteristic: for many of the articles in this category, such as Victoria Climbié, it is the main reason for their notability. There may be a case for restricting the category's membership, but deleting the category would leave many articles from the most defining category they could be in. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• I would say most of Victoria Climbié's notability comes from her murder, which places her in Category:British murdered children. If she'd never been mistreated in her life up until her killing, she'd still be notable as a young victim of murder whose case drew a lot of attention. There's no doubt that her history of abuse, along with the numerous missed opportunities to save her life, played a key role in the outrage surrounding her case. Nonetheless, she'd still be notable otherwise. szyslak 19:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Reply Sure, the murder was the main event that brought her to public attention. But the reasons that Climbié's murder became so notorious were centred on the stunning savagery of her treatment while alive, and the failure of the child protection services to adequately protect her; that sets her apart from other murdered children such as Holly Wells. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete fictional incest victims. No opinion on the child abuse cats. Otto4711 15:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete all per nom. Unfortunately it's far too common to be defining. Doczilla 20:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete fictional incest victims, Keep real. I don't understand the comment that says its not a defeining characteristic - may be too common in USA, not in UK. Rgds, -- Trident13 21:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep To say that having been a victim of child abuse is not a defining characteristic is, frankly, pretty insensitive. Treybien 21:31 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not the significance that characteristic had for individuals' that is relevant when deciding whether a category should exist, but their relevance to what those individuals did in their public lives. Brandon97 22:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete save it for imdb keywords Sleep On It 20:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per my comment above. Brandon97 22:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep real and Delete fictional. For real people this is absolutely a defining characteristic. As noted, these articles need to be properly sourced to address any BLP concerns, but that is not reason to delete, rather it is a reason to watch for violations. -- After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete It is not a "defining characteristic". Most child abuse victims are not notable in the wider world. People have articles for other reasons. If anything it is the fictional ones that should be kept, as those fictional characters that have articles and suffered child abuse, will much more often be defined primarily by that characteristic. 21:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following 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.-- Mike Selinker 18:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:The Quarrymen ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - small category, little or no potential for growth. Its subcats belong in the appropriate band member and song trees and the articles themselves are for such things as a club where they performed and another band that had shared members, all of which can easily be linked to the main Quarryment article. Otto4711 20:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete Looks like the eponymous category isn't actually needed here. Band members and song list are accessible from the main article. Dugwiki 21:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep sufficient material for category. Tim! 10:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete unnecessary category without room for growth. Doczilla 20:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep but remove categories Quarrymen members and Quarrymen songs. Pontificake 21:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete, small with no potential for growth, per WP:OC. >Radiant< 11:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. But keep the subcats. Vegaswikian 21:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following 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< 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Muppet people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Pretty ludicrous category; only applies to one person ( David Holman) who does not fit into the categories of Muppet designer or Muppet performer. - Hobbesy3 20:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment - remember to put a CFD tag on the category as you're nominating it. I added one for you. Otto4711 20:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete - categorization of person by project. Otto4711 20:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep sufficient material for category. Tim! 10:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't understand that comment. This has exactly three items - an article and two subcategories. Neither subcategory needs "Muppet people", and it's not obvious to me why David Homan needs his own unique category. Dugwiki 20:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete vaguely named category per many, many precedents. Doczilla 20:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete As per my comment above and per nom's comments. Dugwiki 20:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following 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: deferred to the AFD. If the AFD results in deletion, this cat can be deleted as empty. If not, keep it per this debate. >Radiant< 08:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Paul is dead ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - small category that, given the articles in it, I pray has no potential for growth. The articles in it were all forked off from the main Paul is dead article and they can be linked to that article through its text and categorized in the same conspiracy theory categories as it. Otto4711 20:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete category without room for growth. Jeepers. Doczilla 01:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep deletion would leave all articles contained therein uncategorised. Tim! 10:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep - The seven articles in this category are about the rumors of Paul McCartney's death while he was a member of the Beatles (see Paul is dead). The category links them all together appropriately. Moreover, if this category is deleted, it is unclear how to categorize articles such as "Paul is Dead" clues from Let It Be and "Paul is Dead" clues from Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Dr. Submillimeter 10:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• As noted in the nomination, they would be categorized under such things as Category:Paul McCartney, Category:Urban legends and Category:Conspiracy theories. There are homes for these articles in the absence of this category. Otto4711 15:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Why mix these closely-related articles with general urban legend and conspiracy theory articles? That would hinder navigation. This is a perfectly useful category; the category should be kept for these articles. Dr. Submillimeter 20:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• • How is navigation hindered when the main article Paul is dead has a section called "Clues" which consists of a list of links to the other articles in the category? Otto4711 21:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The unique nature of the articles in this category suggests to me that they can only be categorized in this category.-- Mike Selinker 20:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Why, if the category can be put in the urban legends category, can the individual articles not be? Otto4711 21:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep The category seems fairly harmless and keeps the fork articles from cluttering up bigger categories. It seems that there is an advantage to having a single entry point for the subject instead of many. -- Samuel Wan tman 19:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep (assuming the articles aren't deleted) I'm going to disagree with Otto on this one. It seems to me that for navigation purposes it would be better to have a single subcategory of Category:Conspiracy theories with seven articles than to have seven individual articles directly under Category:Conspiracy theories somewhat cluttering it up. On the other hand, I did notice that some of the articles are up for possible deletion, so my keep is contingent on these articles not being merged into a single article on the topic. If it's all merged into one main article then you don't need a category at that point. Dugwiki 20:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I also agree that if the articles are merged, this category can be deleted.-- Mike Selinker 05:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep - conditional on AFD survival. -- After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete article is enough. Bulldog123 08:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following 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< 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:The Beatles places ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - this is similar to categorizing places based on such things as whether specific movies were shot there (e.g. the deleted cat for Harry Potter locations). Categorizing places on the basis of some association with people is highly problematic. How many hundreds of categories might end up on an article like Ed Sullivan Theater given the number of people who had significant performances there? Otto4711 20:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following 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: listify and delete. >Radiant< 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:The Beatles films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - improper categorizing based on strong precedent against categorizing people by their films and films by their people. Otto4711 20:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep per precedent to keep Category:Laurel and Hardy (film series) etc. Tim! 10:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Films that have the Beatles in them do not constitute a series. Even if they did, there is extensive precedent for deleting film series categories, including categories for the Stuart Little films, the Poltergeist films, the film versions of Charlotte's Web, the Scary Movie film series, etc. Otto4711 15:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Also noting the deletion of Bruce Lee films and the directly on-point Elvis Presley films. Otto4711 16:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Surprisingly, I agree with this nomination. Other than the Beatles themselves, there are no common threads running through these movies: concert films, comedies, animated films, and so on.-- Mike Selinker 19:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, and discussions of categorisation by actor. Rgds, -- Trident13 21:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete and listify. The category's contents seem to be a much longer list than that at The Beatles in film. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete and listify, I agree that there are no common threads here. A Musing 15:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete and listify per comments above. Vegaswikian 02:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following 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< 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:The Beatles' children ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - overcategorization in the same way that categorizing the wives (that category nominated here) is. Otto4711 20:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete overcategorization, almost no room for growth, not useful. They're all linked together through their articles. Doczilla 01:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Not much room for growth, but it is one of the main reasons or the notability of these individuals. --07:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless. Deb 19:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Pointless is an interesting reason. Children don't inherit notability. Vegaswikian 02:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following 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 per Honbicot. >Radiant< 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Developers to Category:Real estate developers

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, "Developers" is ambiguous -- could be software developers for example. howcheng { chat} 19:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Real estate and property developers to give equality to the different varieties of English. Honbicot 23:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to "natice Americans" which is the most commonly used form. >Radiant< 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Native American Chiefs of Pennsylvania to Category:Native American people from Pennsylvania

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Original title improperly capitalized ("Chiefs"). However, I think we can broaden the category to include Native Americans who were not chiefs (a problematic title at any rate). Indeed, the category already includes at least one non-chief. — Kevin Myers 19:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Or should it be Category:Native American people of Pennsylvania? "From" or "of", I dunno. — Kevin Myers 19:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Support any of these or how about just Category:Native Americans from Pennsylvania?

There's the category Category:Native American tribes in Pennsylvania, so I wondered if "people", which is used in many categories of individuals, is needed to distinguish between the two categories. I dunno. They all work I guess. Whoever renames this can pick any of the above as far as I'm concerned. — Kevin Myers 03:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Note that the proposed rename would change the meaning sufficiently that some category members would have to be removed. For example, Cornplanter was the chief of a Native Pennsylvanian nation, but I don't believe that he ever lived in Pennsylvania himself (like most Iroquois, he was from New York state). -- M @ r ē ino 15:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following 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< 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:BLAME! characters → Category:Blame! characters

• Rename per nom. Otto4711 06:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - reminder: this category is noted to be renamed also in case anyone didn't notice ;) ~ I'm anonymous

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

The following 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. Deletion should be discussed in a new nom, if desired. >Radiant< 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:BLAME! → Category:Blame!

• Strong Rename - I'm pretty sure this meets the criteria for a speedy on account of a rename. As far as I've read, Wikipedia articles are not titled in all caps and I'm sure this goes for categories. Have I made myself clear on this? A bot needs to move all of the given categorized pages to the proper category title. ~ I'm anonymous
• Delete - there does not appear to be the level of material that would make this category necessary for navigational purposes. The contents (an improperly categorized article on the creator, articles on prequels and sequels, a gun and a "plot device") are all easily interlinked to each other through the lead article. The characters subcat should go in the Fictional characters category tree. Otto4711 20:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - then what should the Blame! articles be categorized under if the cats. were to be deleted? ~ I'm anonymous

• Blame! is currently in the following categories: Manga series | Anime OVAs | Science fiction anime | Cyberpunk | Science fiction manga | BLAME! | Tokyopop | Seinen. I would say that this is sufficient categorization. The other articles appear to be similarly categorized. The only one that doesn't have a string of categories already is Net Terminal Genes and quite frankly that ought to be either deleted or redirected to the main article. Otto4711 20:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep/Rename per nom sufficient material for category. Tim! 10:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following 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, would suggest RFC given the scope of this suggestion. >Radiant< 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Novels by author to Category:Books by author

• Merge - all novels are books. I'm not seeing the organizational utility in maintaining a separate category structure for novels by author alongside books by author. I would like this nomination to encompass merging all of the subcats that have "books by" counterparts and renaming any that don't to the "books by" name structure. If any of that needs to be done separately, admins please advise. Otto4711 18:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

"all novels are books" - incorrect! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 14:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Strong oppose There are already 270 sub-categories here. If all the plays, poems etc are added in, it will become enormous. Johnbod 18:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• No one appears to have suggested doing anything with plays or poems. Otto4711 19:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• That's what I thought you meant when you wrote that you "would like this nomination to encompass merging all of the subcats that have 'books by' counterparts." Could you clarify for me? Thanks. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 19:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Meaning that any author who has both a "novels" subcat and a "books" subcat would have them merged by this nomination. So for example Category:Novels by Kurt Vonnegut would be merged to Category:Books by Kurt Vonnegut. Otto4711 20:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• I see. Sorry that I misunderstood. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 23:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Oppose I think it's useful to have separate sub-categories for novels, plays, poetry, etc, even though each may be a book. If they must be merged, I would suggest Category:Works by author rather than Category:Books by author; some of the categories include books while others, such as Category:Short stories by James Joyce and Category:Poetry by William Blake, include individual stories and poems, not books. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 19:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I have not suggested merging the short story, play or poetry subcats, as they are not in the "Novels by" category. Otto4711 20:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment - novels should be in "novels by", short stories in "short stories by", All of these in a super category of "works by author" super-category. Which is much how many "Books by" categories are being used at present. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 14:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• While I think it would be helpful to classify novels as a subset of "books" by a given author, a brief review of the categories as they are currently being used suggests that the categorization of novels between Category:Novels by author and Category:Books by author is often haphazard. I withdraw my opposition. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 23:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

The fact that the existing organization is haphazard is no reason to put everything into one "pot". They needs gradual untangling. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 14:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Would support merging Category:Novels by author into Category:Books by author This is an interesting nomination. I can see Otto's point that there is a great deal of redundancy between "Books by author" and "Novels by author". It also seems to me that you could probably simply categorize novels by using "Books by author" and a subcategory of Category:Novels by genre. For example, The Dead Zone (novel) would be categorized under Category:Books by author under Category:Books by Stephen King and also under Category:Horror novels. Those two categories alone would allow you to find the work by the same means as the present system. Namely you could search for it by author's name (using "Books by author") or find it by knowing it is a Horror novel. The additional category Category:Novels by Stephen King doesn't seem to add any extra search utility compared to just using the two categories I mentioned. So I would I think support the idea of merging the subcategories of "Novels by author" into the corresponding subcategories of "Books by author". Dugwiki 22:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm now very confused by what this nomination intends. You would have Books by author, which would include all the current ones in Novels, plus some poets, non-literary authors, and various other types, but you would still have many other authors only in the plays, poems, short stories etc categories. Plus the category gets hugely large. Is this what is intended, and if so, what is the supposed benefit? Johnbod 00:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't understand why you're bringing plays, poems, short stories and such into this as the category structures for plays, poems and short stories are not a part of the nomination. What is under consideration here is Category:Novels by author and the subcategories of it that follow the "Novels by" naming construction. The proposal is to merge that category to Category:Books by author. As part of that merger, any category named "Novels by" (e.g. Category:Novels by Kurt Vonnegut) would be merged to its corresponding "Books by" counterpart (e.g. Category:Books by Kurt Vonnegut). Categories called "Poetry of" or "Short stories of" or "Short story collections of" or anything else would remain exactly as they are, because they are not called "Novels of" nor are they called "Books of" and they are not nominated or in any way contemplated by this nomination. Otto4711 03:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Ok - you can see above I'm not the only one to be confused. I'm still opposed; I think the distinction is useful & don't see why what will effectively be " Category:Books (including novels but not some other forms) by author" is an improvement. Johnbod 15:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I understand why, because the scheme is working well for "short stories by", "plays by", poems by" etc. and this scheme should extend consistently across the "works by author" landscape. I agree it is not consistent for books currently as "books" is a different beast to a novel, short story, peom, play etc all of which are various literary forms which is what "should" be being used here. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 15:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose - so this would put the fiction and nonfiction books essentially in one parent category and then subcategorize books that collect poems or short stories? Or would those books go in the parent category and only the poems or short stories themselves go in the lower tier categories? I support the current approach, of subcategorizing works into separate subcategories wherever possible. To the extent a reworking of these categories is suggested, I'd recommend talking about it on the literature wikiproject pages first, as what we're talking about is a massive restructuring. I note that there are ways the current scheme is less than perfect - my major complaint is that there is not a clear way to categorize commentary on works with the works themselves - but then, just about everything is less than perfect. A Musing 19:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually it sounds like you're confused. This would not lump all books into a single category. Rather, books would be divided in two ways: by-author, and by-genre. All books regardless of genre would be divided by-author under Category:Books by author, and all books regardless of author would be divided by genre under Category:Books by genre (or a subcategory). The only thing you wouldn't do it further divide "Books by genre" into "Books by genre subgrouped by author". Dugwiki 20:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

It is a confusing nomination, since it nominates a class of categories without specifying affected categories. So let's take one affected category I found: Category:Books by Vladimir Nabokov; right now, the books by author category has two subcategories: Category:Novels by Vladimir Nabokov and Category:Short story collections by Vladimir Nabokov. In addition, the parent category of Category:Books by Vladimir Nabokov has essays, criticism, and memoirs; if this were fully built out, there is plenty of material for separate subcategories of criticism and essays, though only a bit of poetry and memoirs. As I understand, this would eliminate the Novels subcategory, but leave the short story subcat and leave the possibility of a poetry or nonfiction subcat (which exist for other authors). This strikes me as odd, since it would effectively mandate that one type of book, novels, not be subcatted, even while every other kind of book is potentially subcatted. Please correct my reading if this is incorrect. A Musing 21:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Question - Why do this? It isn't an overcategorization issue, since the categorized books will just change from having "Novels by X" to "Books by X" as a category, as they are not categorized in both now, and it seems inconsistent with the entire approach of breaking up books into subcats? Is this step 1 in eliminating all subcats? Because the subcats are useful since they then let us categorize "Novels by X" in "Novels by author" and "Poetry by X" in "Poetry by author", etc. Eliminate this and I have to weed through "Books by Karl Marx" and "Books by Stephen Hawking" when I'm looking to navigate a literature category? A Musing 21:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose, this seems too complicated a change to make with such an innocuous appearing nom. Suggest discussing this in another forum, such as an appropriate WikiProject or on a Village Pump to gain consensus of the many editors who would likely be affected by this but do not commonly find their way to this page. -- After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose, Novels are not Books - Books are not Novels. Novels are normally delivered as Books and Books often contain Novels. They are related but you are comparing Apples and Trees. Not to mention the huge additional (or at least potentially huge) non-fiction arena. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 14:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Question - could you name some novels that aren't books? Otto4711 04:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I;m not going to spend toomuch time on this - but one Tad Williams' "Shadowmarch" was for sometime available solely on the web. It has subsequenctly been published in book form. Also more so throughout publishing history that currently, novels were often published in serial form and only sometimes published later in books. If fact many never get/got as far as book publication. These of course would be the less notable which would be why we see fewer of those here. But they are a notable phenomena in the publishing world and certainly its history. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 07:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following 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< 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Sixty Years' War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. As much as I appreciate someone making a category based on my article Sixty Years' War, this category should be deleted. As far as I know, the term "Sixty Years' War" appears in only one book (except when that book is cited in the footnotes of other books). It's too obscure a term to feature so prominently in the category tree of major wars like the American Revolutionary War or the War of 1812. Rather, the article "Sixty Years' War" should simply be placed in the categories of those wars. — Kevin Myers 18:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. The article does a fine job of linking to the material that's been placed in the category. Otto4711 18:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Honbicot 23:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom; while an interesting idea, worth an article, it is at least as natural to group the war of 1741-8 with these wars as not. We should categorize by consensus of historians. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following 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< 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Western Lakes Confederacy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. This category is a collection of Native American tribes who formed the Western Confederacy, which participated in the Northwest Indian War from 1785 to 1795. This category does not make sense for a couple of reasons. First, as the article makes clear, the confederacy was not actually composed of "tribes", which were not centralized political units at the time. And secondly, this categorizes tribes under an alliance which lasted for a short time when compared to the long histories of the tribes. It would make just as much sense to put Italy into Category:Tripartite Pact or Russia into Category:League of Armed Neutrality. The article "Western Confederacy" belongs in the categories of the history of these tribes, not the other way around. — Kevin Myers 17:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• keep. Helpful grouping of participants in the war, no matter how transitory or unorganized. This is not about a grouping for the duration of history, only the duration of the war. Hmains 21:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

No, putting tribes into the category groups them for all history--that's what categories do. A category should be something fundamental to the identity of the tribe, not something transitory, like a centuries-old, short-term alliance. If we want to only group these tribes for the duration of the war, the way to do that is to list them in the article Western Confederacy, which we do. Everything in the category is listed in the article, so the category adds no new information.

And you haven't addressed the more fundamental problem: the category is factually inaccurate because these tribes were not participants in the war; members of the tribes were. As historian Richard White writes of the war:

[T]ribes in the pays d'ent haut were less meaningful as political than as ethnic units. The identity of Algonquians as Shawnees, Delawares, or Weas influenced their actions and political loyalties just as the identity of backcountry settlers as Scots-Irish, Germans, or Anglo Americans influenced their actions. But this did not mean that the Weas, Shawnees, and Delawares acted as unified political entities any more than the Scots-Irish, Germans, and Anglo Americans formed unified and independent political groups.

I hope you understand the point: it makes as little sense to categorize Delawares as participants in the Northwest Indian War as it does to categorize Scots-Irish people the same way. — Kevin Myers 22:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Other nations are not grouped by alliance and should not be grouped by alliance; the resulting list of categories would be very long for some nations with long, written histories. These Indian nations themselves have probably had many alliances and affiliations, and categories for all of these things would be impractical. I therefore recommend deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 20:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Kevin Myers speak big heap good sense (sorry) Johnbod 21:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following 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. It may be a separate genre, but as stated here the difference is really not objectively definable, per WP:OCAT. For instance, Tyrian (computer game) may or may not be considered "bullet hell" depending on whom you ask and the difficulty level they're playing at. >Radiant< 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Bullet hell ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Seemingly arbitrary and not objectively defined. The sole distinction between "Bullet Hell" and "Scrolling shooters" (its parent category) is determined by the number of projectiles present on the screen according to our article on Bullet hell - if this is found to be a defining characteristic it can discussed in the article instead. Combination 15:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep I do not play, but I think the players of these games understand the distinction and this is a definit subcategory of the larger category in that respect. Categories do not require WP:RS for distinction. In this case, the article may or may not survive an XFD, but the category should remain distinct unless the article is deleted or merged, IMO. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio) 16:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment. I don't play them, but this is apparently a specific sub-genfre. Further clarification may be needed if inclusion criteria are to be non-arbitrary. Doczilla 16:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete This category seems to have an overly subjective inclusion criteria (how do editors tell when something is a "bullet hell" game?). It also bothers me that the main article Bullet hell for the category doesn't appear to be referenced and doesn't verify whether or how the category should be defined, or even if the term is a generally accepted term in the video gaming industry. My feeling is this is one of those times that it might be ok to keep the main article to discuss the general concept of "bullet hell games", provided the article can be properly referenced, but either way a category to list specific games that might fall under that definition is too subjective. Dugwiki 22:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge (or else lose the parent category altogether). The obvious ones ( Takumi, Cave, Touhou) are preceded by their reputation; the non-obvious ones are borderline and debatable. – Unint 02:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge - the distinction is often non-obvious and POV. - Sean Curtin 06:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep - As an actual player of both these types of games, I feel this subgenre category should remain. Crithit5000 09:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Bullet hell is a defined enough genre to deserve a category. Scrolling shooters they may be, but the huge amounts of bullets being shot at you is the major difference between regular shooters, as well as the patterns they come in, which are a lot more complex. I think that it deserves a chance. -- Ralf Loire ( Annoy) 15:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following 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.-- Mike Selinker 18:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Leidsevaart ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category is nothing more than a list of places through which the canal runs. This info is already in the article itself. The Leidsevaart canal is not a defining characteristic for these places (see WP:OC). Propose deletion of category. -- P199 15:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio) 16:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep There is a broad categorization scheme for Rivers that categorizes the adjacent towns based on the riverways. It is a useful categorization scheme from several perspectives - historically, riverways were generally defining features in the development of regions and economies, currently, riverways continue to be used for transport and travel, and, in general, these are defining features. Canals are a subcat of Rivers in this scheme. Unless there is a good argument for this canal being different than all the other ones, I'd keep. A Musing 19:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Analysis of Category:Canals by country shows that in general, canals do not have an associated category that contains the townships it runs through. This looks like an article in category space, and the actual article is better. >Radiant< 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Not sure why it is relevant that categories have not been created for many canals - for those canals where categories have been created, like Category:Erie Canal or Category:Kennet and Avon Canal, the category generally includes communities through which the canal runs. It's an ideal use for a category, since in many cases the list will be too long for the main article, while the canal will often be an important item in the article about the community. Why is it relevant again that most of the minor canals on Wikipedia don't have categories? A Musing 14:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per A Musing. Canals were a defining feature of the development of most of the towns they ran through, and there is no reason to treat them differently from rivers. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following 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< 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Concert Organist ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Category empty, all organists recategorized according to WP:PipeOrgan and WP:Musicians guidelines. – MDCollins ( talk) 13:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete as empty, otherwise delete as un-needed. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following 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< 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Monastic Lineage to Category:Monasticism

Nominator's Rationale: Rename or delete This is an odd category. For a start it is miscapitalised. Then there is the question of what it is for. It seems to focus on Jainism, but not all the small group of articles are about Jainism. Either it could be renamed, and made an-all religion category about monasticism, in which case a great deal of content should be added, or perhaps it should simply be deleted. Haddiscoe 12:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Generally agree with nom. Category:Religious orders has Buddhist & Christian sub-cats - the latter in particular extremely heavily populated. The ones here are all Jain except for 1 each Xtian, Buddhist & Hindu. Suggest Rename to Category:Jain religious orders making sub-cat of the main Religious orders category, & removing the three non-Jain ones. There is room for a Hindu sub-cat as well, but that's another issue. Johnbod 14:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following 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< 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:United States elections, 1997 to Category:1997 elections in the United States

• Merge, for consistency with other (Year) elections in (Country) categories. This one should have been proposed for renaming in the group CfD on April 26, but got missed because it was not parented in Category:Elections in the United States hierarchy.
  In case anyone suggests deletion, please note that although this category is currently underpopulated, it is part of the series at Category:Elections in the United States by year, and there appears to be ongoing work creating articles on municipal elections etc (which seem in some areas be held in odd-numbered years, as are/were some guberbatorial elections). I have been trying to locate and categorise articles on elections in the U.S., and there are probably more already which I have missed. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio) 16:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Tim! 10:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following 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, as a consequence of the debate one section down. >Radiant< 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:American Internet celebrities to Category:American Internet personalities

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - a previous discussion suggested the idea of renaming to avoid the POV issues associated with the word "celebrities." No strong opinion from me so this is kind of a procedural nomination. Otto4711 03:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• rename. "Celebrities" seems a word best avoided.-- Mike Selinker 04:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Weak support renaming. "Celebrities" is clearly inappropriate per previous discussions, but "personalities" seems a bit vague, though I can't think of anything better. This category appears to consist not of people who have been involved in the technical aspects of the internet, but rather those who have been made famous through exposure on or in relation to the internet. I am not advocating deletion, but I wonder whether it is still useful to classify people in this way? It would have made some sense in 1999 when internet celebrity was still a novel concept, but essentially this is a people by the news medium which made them famous category. Would we/do we have a similar category for people made famous by print media? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Aren't categories for television actors, authors, producers, screenwriters, etc. essentially categorizing people by the medium for which they are famous? Otto4711 20:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Those seem to me to be categories by occupation, i.e. about what people do, and we subdivide occupational categories quite heavily. But once someone is a celebrity, they tend to be a celebrity across all media. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Oppose Either propose an umbrella nomination of grandparent Category:Celebrities and all subcats (including Category:Internet celebrities) and subsubcats such as this one. This cat is named correctly unless umbrella nom succeeds. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio) 16:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the grandparent Category:Celebrities only contains articles about the subject of celebrity, not a list of celebrities, and most of the subcategories that were lists of celebrities have already been deleted in previous CfDs. It would probably be appropriate to rename the parent to Category:Celebrity, but that's a completely separate discussion. Xtifr _tälk 21:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following 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. Since arguably there is a difference between a celeb and an internet celeb, it may not actually be helpful to consider the entire tree. >Radiant< 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose merge Category:Internet celebrities to Category:Internet personalities

Nominator's Rationale: Merge - in a previous discussion of the category it was suggested that the category be renamed to "personalities" rather than the more POV term "celebrities." I don;t have a really strong opinion one way or the other so I supposethis could be considered a procedural nomination. Otto4711 03:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Didn't realize that the target category already exists. So then, merge as redundant. Otto4711 03:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename. As above.-- Mike Selinker 04:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose as above. Do an umbrella nom starting at the top with Category:Celbrities and all subcats. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio) 17:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Again, that would not be appropriate, because neither Category:Celebrities nor most of its subcategories contain articles about individual celebrities. And many of the subcategories that are (inappropriately) about individuals have already been deleted individually, so the idea that we must wait for an umbrella nomination is factually wrong (and yes, the point was raised). Xtifr _tälk 21:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following 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. Would suggest dropping the pictures in Category:Linux. >Radiant< 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Tux ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - no need for this category to hold four penguin pictures. Otto4711 02:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 06:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:Tux pictures - Categories for pictures are useful, and this category has potential for growth. Where would the pictures be categorized otherwise? Dr. Submillimeter 15:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete or rename to something more specific. I thought this was about tuxedos and I needed to look and see what it was for. Vegaswikian 03:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following 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< 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional Fighters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, The category states "Fictional characters with unique ways of fighting", which is obviously subjective. It's also superfluous with Category:Fictional martial artists. JuJube 02:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete Too open-ended and subjective. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete this vague and subjective category. Any inclusion criteria would be arbitrary. Doczilla 06:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 12:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete redundant category. ~ I'm anonymous
• Delete - If the category name itself is interpreted broadly, this could encompass virtually every fictional character. Dr. Submillimeter 10:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following 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< 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:WikiProject Invader Zim members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Category for members of a now defunct Wikiproject. BillPP 02:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 06:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following 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< 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Deol family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - was tagged as part of this nomination but I somehow missed listing it in the nomination itself. The same rationale for deletion apply. The articles are easily interlinked through each other via the text and the category is not needed for navigation. Otto4711 01:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 06:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete all family categories like this Sleep On It 20:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following 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< 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Babbar family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Bachchan family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Balcon/Day-Lewis family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Band family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Bardem family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Barrymore family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Bhatt family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Bichir family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Brando family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all - as with many other categories named for families, these are not needed for navigational purposes. The articles for the family members are easily interlinked through the texts of the various articles. Articles like Barrymore family illustrate the family relationships far better than categories ever can, especially for families involving people with varied last names. Otto4711 01:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 06:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following 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< 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Articles containing the old Invader Zim banner ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This category was used only temporarily to find out quickly what pages an old template had been put into. All the articles in the category have had the template removed so this category is obselete. I suggest a speedy delete. ● BillPP ( talk

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 06:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 12:21, 4 May 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.