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 to Uzbekistani. According to Demographics of Uzbekistan, The nationality of any person from Uzbekistan is Uzbekistani, while the ethnic Uzbek majority simply call themselves Uzbeks.. These categories are subcats of "People by nationality" and "People by nationality and occupation", and not "by ethnicity", hence the rename. Kbdank71 15:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Category:Uzbekistani people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Uzbek people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Uzbekistani people by occupation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Uzbek people by occupation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge ... what is the correct name for citizens of Uzbekistan? We should find out which is correct and then use it consistently from then on ... At least one of these should become a redirect. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep and define - "Category:Uzbek ..." should refer to Uzbek people, and "Category:Uzbekistani ..." should refer to the nation of or people from the nation of Uzbekistan. Most Uzbekistanis are Uzbek, but not all Uzbek, live in Uzbekistan. Baka man 16:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep and define per Bakaman - most of my sample appeared to conform to this already. Johnbod 20:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment The emerging consensus above conflicts with the logic applied to the Afghan categories, where "Afghan" was preferred to "Afghanistan". See Afghan_politicians, Afghanistan singers and Afghanistani musicians. I don't have much preference either way, but consistency may be a virtue. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I'm happy with whatever is correct. In the case of Afghanistan, it says in the constitution that citizens are Afghan. In this case, I've seen Uzbek, Uzbeki, and Uzbekistani. I've put the question to the WikiProject and so far it's looking like Uzbekistani may be preferred. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename using Uzbekistani I think that Uzbek is ambiguous in that it is also an ethnicity to which not all Uzbekistan citizens belong - much as Czech was used interchangably but ultimately ambiguously for Czechoslovak while the union was extant. Carlossuarez46 06:35, 25 September 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/rename per nom. Thanks to Mike for doing the grunt work checking.. Kbdank71 15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete Category:Badgers in literature
• Rename Category:Bats in literature to Category:Silverwing trilogy (all part of this trilogy)
• Delete Category:Bears in literature
• Delete Category:Cats in literature
• Delete Category:Deer in literature
• Delete Category:Dogs in literature
• Delete Category:Jackals in literature
• Delete Category:Leopards in literature
• Delete Category:Lions in literature
• Rename Category:Martens in literature to Category:Fictional martens
• Rename Category:Otters in literature to Category:Fictional otters
• Rename Category:Raccoons in literature to Category:Fictional raccoons
• Delete Category:Tigers in literature
• Rename Category:Weasels in literature to Category:Fictional weasels
• Delete Category:Wolves in literature

Nominator's rationale: Proposing collapse of subcategories of deleted Category:Animals in written fiction per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_12#Category:Animals in written fiction and Category:Fictional mammals. This is a complex nomination, because it requires checking each character article (not book article) to see if it has an equivalent of category:Characters in written fiction or a character subcategory that goes into that. So the fate of some categories may be different than others. I'm moving all the Redwall characters and a few others manually, as they're the only ones that don't usually appear in "Fictional (whatever)s". I also deleted Category:Donkeys in literature and Category:Mongooses in literature, as each had only one article that needed a change. I'll add more as time permits. Or someone else can.-- Mike Selinker 15:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply

UPDATE: I've added all the rest of the categories. Where there are still articles that need "fictional (X)es" categories, there's a renaming suggestion. Where there are none, a deletion is recommended.-- Mike Selinker 23:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure I understand. Why are you suggesting outright deletion for many of these rather than merger? Have you alrady gone through Category:Bears in literature to verify that all of its character articles are also direct members of Category:Fictional bears? × Meegs 11:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply

That's exactly why. I went article by article to make sure we weren't leaving anything out of either "Fictional (x)es" or "Characters in written fiction" (if such a category was appropriate).-- Mike Selinker 15:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment Looking through what's listed to date, there seems to be a flat missaplication of the categories in some cases: the Farthing Wood characters are articles about the animated series, not the source book and "Kit Cloudkicker" is solely a creation for an animated television series.
  For most of the categories it seems more appropriate for the characters to be out-merged into the proper "Fictional <critter>" and Lit, as suggested for the Silverwing characters, categories. I do have a worry about this though, especially with the material Disney has taken a hand to. There is a stance with regard to television and comic book characters to not categorize characters by series unless it is absolutely clear that the material is self contained. Because of Disney's use of, for example, Baloo, there maybe resistance to putting the character into a "Jungle Book" category for fear of having to put it into categories for everything else Disney has used it in.
  There is also the cat category... In all honesty, given the prevalent use in lit, I can see this category, as well as "Dogs in lit" and "Horses in lit" as being valuable research tools. - J Greb 17:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • As I go through the articles, I'm watching for the misapplication you describe, which I've corrected in quite a few cases. I think the argument about comic book characters doesn't hold for animated characters. In those environments, it's a surprise when characters from different stories interact. In comics, it's the central dynamic.-- Mike Selinker 23:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply
    • As I said, I'm worried about it mainly with the character's Disney has touched given that company's penchant for reusing characters outside of their literary context. Purely based on single literary works or series, it makes more sense to apply the category. - J Greb 00:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Several of the nominated categories were emptied by 125.164.187.41. I've not reverted the IP user's changes (except his/her removal of the CfD notices) since this discussion may end in with a consensus to delete; if there is no such consensus, the emptied categories should be repopulated rather than deleted per CSD C1. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 16:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

But how can we discuss categories properly if they have been emptied? Johnbod 16:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I checked the user's edits, and he/she is making sure the articles go into "Fictional (X)es" rather than deleting the category. So under the theory that this nomination is a foregone conclusion based on the results of the previous nomination, maybe we should just close it and finish out this process. I nominated it, so I'm not going to make that call. (As an unfortunate side note, this user's edits did render my SIlverwing trilogy suggestion moot, so that will have to be done manually.)-- Mike Selinker 17:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I fully support deletion of Category:Badgers in literature as there is only one entry. MelicansMatkin 03:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete how much about the animal must the fictional work be? I can get my mind around Moby Dick being about whales, and Jaws about sharks, but isn't Dracula about bats, nearly any western about horses in some sense, and where do we draw the line? If we cannot objectively know what's in and what's out, the cat ought to go. Carlossuarez46 06:39, 25 September 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 into category:Gymnastics at the Olympics. Kbdank71 15:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Artistic gymnastics at the Olympics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Artistic gymnastics at the Olympics is just a subset of the main Gymnastics competition. All of the articles in this category are doubly-categorized (and some, mis-categorized here) with Category:Gymnastics at the Olympics or one of its subcats ( Category:Gymnastics events at the 2004 Summer Olympics), except for one, and that exception currently has a mergeto tag which would eliminate that article as well. Neier 14:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Also, adding the following (the above statement is true, except for the mergeto tag on the 2008 articles)

Category:Rhythmic gymnastics at the Olympics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Trampoline gymnastics at the Olympics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete per my nom Neier 14:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge all into category:Gymnastics at the Olympics. Other multi-discipline sports (e.g. canoeing/kayaking, cycling with road/track/mountain, etc.) all use a single category for their Olympic results pages. Andrwsc 21:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge all. Same as above. I think that others at WP:OLYMPICS would tend to agree this this proposal as well, as it has been a long-standing "tradition" for us to keep multi-disciplined sports together in one article or category if possible. Jared  (t)  12:50, 23 September 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. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 13:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:British Package Holiday Resorts ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, as non defining (many are towns, not resorts), or at least Rename to Category:British package holiday resorts. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Not a defining characteristic. Vegaswikian 04:37, 24 September 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, empty and per precedent. Kbdank71 14:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Competitors for France at the 1900 Summer Olympics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Similar to previous CFD, but, was not in the parent cat; so, accidentally passed over. No need for upmerge; articles re-cat'd to intersections (sport/country, and sport/year) Neier 11:40, 21 September 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, empty and per precedent. Kbdank71 14:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Competitors for France at the 1908 Summer Olympics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Similar to previous CFD, but, was not in the parent cat; so, accidentally passed over. No need for upmerge; articles re-cat'd to intersections (sport/country, and sport/year) Neier 11:40, 21 September 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, empty and per precedent. Kbdank71 14:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Competitors at the 1908 Summer Olympics by country ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A now-empty parent cat for many categories deleted/upmerged in a previous CFD - Neier 10:58, 21 September 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 14:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Games featuring China ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very broad category that isn't likely to get expanded. RobJ1981 06:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete, not a defining characteristic. Combination 19:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Video games set in China and make sub-cat of Category:Video game locations. Nominator's confidence it won't expand seems entirely misplaced to me. Johnbod 00:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The category refers to games that include China in some form; not necessarily being set in China. -- Scottie_theNerd 17:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

True; a few would have be left out. But the category definition as it stands is too vague and broad I think. Johnbod 19:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hence its CFD. Using China as a video game location would be for a different category. -- Scottie_theNerd 01:56, 27 September 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 to Category:Conservative think tanks based in the United States. Kbdank71 14:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Prominent conservative research groups in the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The definition given for "prominent"—Limited to institutions whose programs are widely distributed, at least by media such as C-Span—is still too subjective to allow for a controversial term like "prominent" in the category name. All articles are also listed in the parent category. choster 05:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:American conservative think tanks or Category:American conservative research groups, which is really what the category seems to be. The "prominent" requirement is superfluous because that standard should already be met if the article exists in WP. Apart from a naming problem it seems to me to be a legitimate way of categorizing. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 11:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep, but perhaps rename Possibly the necessity that a subject be notable will deal with the prominent question. I just didn't want to see the major institutions lost in a forest of splinter groups. Fred Bauder 16:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename - Given that we already have a Category:Think tanks based in the United States — which I've just added as a parent category for the one we're discussing — it seems to me that the proper name for this category should be Category:Conservative think tanks based in the United States. As for the definitional info, "prominence" can be dispensed with, as already noted. However, I just had to remove two Aspen Institute articles which some anon. IP had recently added to the category. So there should be some instruction regarding use of the term "conservative". Cgingold 23:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename to one of these suggestions, preferably Category:Conservative think tanks based in the United States per all above. Johnbod 00:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per choster - Things on wikipedia should be notable and prominent. Baka man 22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment I originally suggested new names but I agree with Cgingold's renaming suggestion for the sake of consistency. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 22:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Johnbod; "prominent" is a synonym for notable and as such is superfluous. Carlossuarez46 06:51, 25 September 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. Judging by the annotation added when the category was created, it seems to have been done in a fit of pique, or else with a wink. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 13:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Articles which may be biased ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Already covered by Category:NPOV disputes. Delete Alksub 02:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per discussion of June 4th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per both. A very dubious category. Johnbod 00:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. On WP everything may be biased. Pavel Vozenilek 04:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per everyone. — xDanielx ^T/ _C 03:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete category which may be biased. Wryspy 06:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete every article may be biased - if it wasn't last time you looked, don't blink :-P, in other words, not needed. Carlossuarez46 06:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Carlossuarez46 -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:07, 26 September 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.