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 merge. Kbdank71 14:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:European Wars to Category:Wars involving the states and peoples of Europe

Nominator's rationale: Merge, new category is redundant to an already existing one. Kirill 21:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Speed merge per nom-- Victor falk 21:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 03:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom - much better name. Johnbod 18:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. As was pointed out, if the articles are suspect, deal with them at WP:AFD, not here. If/when they get deleted, then renominate the category (or speedy it as empty). Kbdank71 14:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose deleting Category:1971-72 South African cricket season

Nominator's rationale: Delete, All articles lack sources though it is clear that the material has been copied verbatim from a single source book, probably an annual published in South Africa in 1972. The category adds no value to the project and can only be described as someone's "hobby-horse". BlackJack 20:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep Lack of sources in the articles is irrelevant. Though I'm no fan of such hobby-horsing ("All science is physics. The rest is stamp collecting" as Schrödinger said:), it does is a meaningful category-- Victor falk 20:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment "(quote) Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted". Ever seen that before? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)-- reply

You'v got the process back-to-front. That quite is v useful, but it refers to articles. If and when the articles are deleted, then delete the category, but until then it's needed to group them. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep as part of wider scheme, & per Victor falk. Johnbod 12:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC). reply

Comment It is not part of the "wider scheme" of WP:CRIC. Where else is there a category like this? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)-- reply

Comment I agree it is not part of any "wider scheme" but there is another category like it at category:2005 English cricket season. Personally, I think that category is a waste of space. Fiddlers Three 06:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Immediate delete due to there being no sources at all, let alone authoritative sources. Incidentally, this stuff did not come from Wisden Cricketers' Almanack and I suspect (as per the nominator) that it was lifted direct from some contemporary magazine, so hardly authoritative and in all probability a breach of copyright too! The topic of sources was recently discussed by WT:CRIC and the project will henceforward try and ensure the use of authoritative sources in all cricket articles. Fiddlers Three 06:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This a well-populated category which groups related articles. The nominator should use {{ prod}} or {{ afd}} if they want the articles removed, but CfD is not the place for deleting articles. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Kbdank71 13:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Asteroid discoverers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose renaming Category:Asteroid discoverers (observatories) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:Minor planet discoverers (observatories)

Nominator's rationale: The original sources for these lists specify "minor planets" so if there's a difference, we're currently using the wrong one. Sapphic 18:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Creating Category:Minor planet discoverers as a parent category is probably a better idea. -- Sapphic 00:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep asteroids are a kind of minor planets. Haven't you heard about poor Pluto transformed into a chilled asteroid!?!?-- Victor falk 20:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep pending opinions from some professionals. Don't we now have both asteroids and minor planets? If so, then we probably need a split into two categories rather then a rename. Vegaswikian 21:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • We have minor planets, asteroids, dwarf planets (of which Pluto is one) and more. It would be nice to have some informed opinions in the mix, but at the very least shouldn't we have the category match the source used to create it in the first place? I'm thinking also of the list page I'd like to create that can briefly summarize the less notable observatories that don't warrant an article of their own and hence can't be members of the category (though many red links will cause them to keep showing up at the top of the "Most wanted articles" list, so something should be the target of those red links.) -- Sapphic 00:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC) reply
    • If these are really misclassified and it is simply creating new categories to correctly reclassify some of these articles then we don't need to discuss that here. Someone who understands this can simply create the new categories, move in the correct articles and be done with it. The same would apply to the parents for these various categories. I'm not sure if they would be under one parent or what. I'll wait for the experts to sort that out. Vegaswikian 00:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC) reply
      • That sounds good. I've been researching this on my own (and know very little about Astronomy otherwise) and judging from List of minor planets and other cases, I'd say that "minor planet" is the parent category here, and "asteroid" is a subcategory (along with "trans-neptunian object" and "comet" and "centaur" and others.) So I think you're probably right that a new category is in order rather than a renaming. -- Sapphic 00:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Merge Category:Asteroid discoverers (observatories) as a subcategory of Category:Asteroid discoverers-- Victor falk 00:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• A comment What's the difference between a large sandgrain and a small pebble?-- Victor falk 00:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment wasn't minor planet deprecated by the IAU? 132.205.99.122 21:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment — Yes. Per 2006 definition of planet, it was proposed that "minor planet" be abandoned and replaced by " Small Solar System body". [1] — RJH ( talk) 20:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• keep there are dozens of categories, lists, etc named 'asteroid'; there is no reason to just rename these two to something else. Hmains 03:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 13:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Takarazuka related to Category:Takarazuka Revue

Nominator's rationale: Rename as more grammatically correct. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom-- Victor falk 20:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename, more encylopedic---- MChew 14:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply

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

Nominator's rationale: overcategorization Rtphokie 15:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom-- Victor falk 20:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete apart from the main article, it is not clear why the only other one, Carolina_Panthers is there. Johnbod 12:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply

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

Nominator's rationale: Category based upon a rarely used term for which verification is usually not possible. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hectomillionaires for related discussion. Allen3  ^talk 15:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Oppose The argument that "hectomillionaires" is a rarely used term is grounds for possibly renaming the category, not deleting it. Inclusion in this category (having wealth over one hundred million USD) is notable and verifiable, making the category useful. Forbes lists and Canadian Business magazines for example provide lists to this level ^[2]. Lastly, as a category, users will not include articles in it unless sufficient proof and references are provided in the article in question itself. I acknowledge that the category may be able to be improved by refining its title (to replace the 'hectomillionaire' term) or by creating sub-categories based on nationality/currencies as is done for Category:Billionaires by nationality. Kurieeto 16:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Wealth is a fluid thing, and as such such a category would need to be constantly revised. Also, net worth over 100M is not as notable as it once was; "billionaire" is a much more notable level. And breaking down the sub-categories is problematic at best (the argument that similar subcategories exist for billionaires, to be honest, is an example of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and if someone were to nominate such categories I would probably vote to delete) -- I mean, under what nationality would you list Conrad Black, for example? 23skidoo 17:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete as 23skidoo says, exchange, property, stock market, inflation fluctuations make categorising hectomillionaires (or decamillionaires or millimillionaires (hey! I'm one!))too much of a moving target. Also "billionaires" is more a way of say "very rich people" than "personfortune≥$1000000000" for wikipedia's purposes, and category:Very Rich People would look a bit unencyclopedic...-- Victor falk 20:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I essentially agree with 23skidoo's arguments. I find it to be a laughably obscure term for one, and secondly, I don't think once a person crosses the threshold of $100 million (USD) in personal wealth their level of wealth becomes one bit "more defining" than it was when they had $99 million. (Side point if category is kept: shouldn't Category:Billionaires be a sub-category of this category, rather that the other way around, as it is now?) Snocrates 20:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

That's true! Billionaires are multidecahectomillionaires!-- Victor falk 20:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

And if is deleted, can't we rename "billionaire" to "kilomillionaire"? Per rationale: "It is WP:NPOV in relation with English and American differences bewteen 'milliardaire' and 'billionaire' and it sounds more Serious and Scientific and Formal and Encyclopedic per WP:STYLE". And nobody pull a WP:NAME on me, a WP:NPOV and a WP:STYLE beat a wp:name any time of the day-- Victor falk 21:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete this unnecessary and arbitrary division. Doczilla 21:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, Doczilla, and why US dollars and not Zimbabwean dollars? Carlossuarez46 03:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Kbdank71 13:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose deleting Category:1947 video games

Nominator's rationale: Since there is only one 1947 video game, I don't think that this category is needed. -- Ixfd64 02:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep as part of a series. Vegaswikian 05:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This article First video game isn't about one particular video game. It's about the debate over which one is the first.-- Mike Selinker 08:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • So the objection is the lack of a specific article. This would clearly be a notable article and I'll try and create this from the article and other sources if I can find any. Vegaswikian 19:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply
    • If that article existed, it would certainly need this category.-- Mike Selinker 22:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Missile simulator video game now exists. I have also started a discussion on the talk page for First video game about a rename of that article. Vegaswikian 22:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Changing my recommendation to Keep. First video game should not have any "(year) video games" categories, though.-- Mike Selinker 02:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC) reply
          • Agreed about removing the categories. I did remove them, but they were restored maybe someone else can edit the article as required. Vegaswikian 05:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Mike Selinker. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep not about a particular game, but about articles about mentioning video games in 1947. Anyways, there existed several video games. Several tic tac toes, primitive "wargames" (more game theoritical simulations, but it might be more fun than you think!), and mathematical stuff that Turing would find "amusing". -- Victor falk 20:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 13:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:National Medal of Science recipients to Category:National Medal of Science laureates

Nominator's rationale: correcting nomenclature emerson7 02:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• rename (at least; neutral on delete) - correct terminology. -- lquilter 15:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• rename per nom and above-- Victor falk 20:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Listify and delete as overcategorization by award. Eddie's Teddy 02:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • comment - I am generally disfavor "x award winner/laureate" categories at all, but am ambivalent about this one. NMS is arguably one of the more defining awards, but if consensus is towards deleting I wouldn't argue. -- lquilter 15:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 13:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Healthcare companies to Category:Health care companies

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Could be a speedy, but I think we need to leave a cat redirect. Vegaswikian 02:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 13:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Category:Flatworms to Category:Platyhelminthes
• Category:Roundworms to Category:Nematodes
• Category:Velvet worms to Category:Onychophorans
• Support Rename: All of the subcategories of Animals by Scientific Classification use their scientific name as the category name, with exception to these three. For better conformity, it makes more sense for all the categories to match. J. Hall • ^{( Talk)} 01:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment Are you proposing a rename of Category:Flatworms to Category:Platyhelminthes? Vegaswikian 01:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, I'm suggesting all three be categorized by the plural of their scientific name, as is the case with all of the rest of the subcategories under Category:Animals. Platyhelminthes is both the singular and plural form so, yes, I'm suggesting Category:Flatworms be moved to Category:Platyhelminthes. J. Hall • ^{( Talk)} 16:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I have modified the nomination above to indicate the targets. If I got one wrong, please correct it. The proposed names need to be listed on the nomination here. Vegaswikian 19:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Support Rename Scientific classification standard. Don't forget to redirect.-- Victor falk 20:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename and leave a cat redirect. Vegaswikian 21:37, 10 October 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.