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

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 12:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Banks in Illinois to Category:Banks based in Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Banks in Indiana to Category:Banks based in Indiana

Propose renaming Category:Banks in Missouri to Category:Banks based in Missouri

Propose renaming Category:Banks in Nebraska to Category:Banks based in Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Banks in Omaha, Nebraska to Category:Banks based in Omaha, Nebraska

Nominator's rationale: Rename. We list companies by the state they are based in and not all of the states that they do business in. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename all, but leave Banks of the Ohio where it is :) Grutness... wha? 23:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • -; Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename all - I created the cats for Missouri & Illinois after seeing the other two, but I stopped there when it dawned on me that they probably should use the "based in" formulation. Four states down, 46 to go! Cgingold ( talk) 01:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom. gidonb ( talk) 16:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename all - Excellent rationale by the nominator. AdjustShift ( talk) 03:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename all except merge the Omaha category to the Nebraska category. It's the only city-level category in the structure and it seems a bit premature to start splitting categories that finely at this point. Otto4711 ( talk) 16:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Actually NYC also has a category. Vegaswikian ( talk) 01:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• That should probably be renamed to a state-level category. Otto4711 ( talk) 21:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Not every city needs/should have a category, but both Omaha and certainly NYC are banking centers in their respective states. Upmerging them to the parent cats would make it harder to locate the smaller number of banks that are located outside of those cities. Cgingold ( talk) 10:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 13:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Giftedness to Category:Intellectual giftedness

Nominator's rationale: Rename - for clarity and to match lead article Intellectual giftedness. Otto4711 ( talk) 21:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• no problem Freek Verkerk ( talk) 21:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Oppose this particular proposal - but I'm open to an other possible rename. I'm concerned that specifying intellectual giftedness would make this category overly narrow because it leaves out other forms of giftedness (artistic, creative, etc.). Cgingold ( talk) 01:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Articles on other forms of giftedness are not included in this category, so it appears that editors are limiting its contents to intellectual giftedness on their own. The rename simply reflects the reality of how the category is being used. Otto4711 ( talk) 02:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• To begin with, I just took a quick look and found a number of articles that deal with other forms of giftedness (eg. Child prodigy, List of music prodigies). The article about Gifted Rating Scales explains how children are assessed for a range of different forms of giftedness. And the main article has a section on Definitions of giftedness which discusses this issue at some length. All of which supports my contention that we shouldn't arbitrarily narrow this category by specifying intellectual giftedness. I really don't see what purpose would be served by narrowing it, which would thereby exclude articles about the other forms. Cgingold ( talk) 11:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Oppose -- child prodigies clearly have giftedness, but it is not necessarily intellectual. The problem is that the specified main article is either misnamed or not comprehensive in coverign the subject. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - Renaming the cat to Category:Intellectual giftedness will make the cat narrow. AdjustShift ( talk) 04:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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. Kbdank71 13:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:People with outstanding memory ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - "outstanding" is subjective and this is also a small category with little room for exansion. If appropriate sourcing can be found, this could be merged to Category:People with eidetic memory as based on the definition at that category these two people appear to qualify. Otto4711 ( talk) 21:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Category:Mnemonists is another possible merge target. Otto4711 ( talk) 21:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete for exactly the same concerns editors wrote in the discussion for Category:Gifted people. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 07:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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. Kbdank71 13:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Churches in Tonga to Category:Christian denominations in Tonga

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category contains only pages on Christian denominations and no pages on church buildings, per the parent: Category:Churches. -- Carlaude ^{( talk)} 20:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Category:Churches in Tonga should contain Nuku alofa Tonga Temple, now in its subcategory Category:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Tonga. This subcategory should be under Category:Christian denominations in Tonga. All changes can and should be made without a CfD! gidonb ( talk) 16:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - even then it may need changing - see discussion below on changing Category:Churches types to Category:Church buildings. Grutness... wha? 23:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Possibly, depending on the outcomes of the other discussion. Thank you for drawing our attention, Grutness! As for this CfD, Carlaude is welcome to withdraw and go ahead and make the changes as suggested. If he wants to, that is. gidonb ( talk) 23:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Nuku alofa Tonga Temple is not a church, so you'd probably find resistance from the LDS WikiProject to move it there. It would appropriately be in Category:Places of worship in Tonga; other LDS Church temples are consistently in "places of worship" categories, not "churches" categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
        • Thank you, Good Ol’factory! That would leave the church (building) category empty. Hence I am changing my opinion to delete. gidonb ( talk) 01:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename or delete and create new category. Either one; same result. Category:Churches in Tonga can be deleted. Or just rename it as nominated, since all current contents are Christian denominations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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. Kbdank71 13:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Beauty and the Beast ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper performer by project overcategorization. With the performers removed, there would be two articles left, making it a small category with little to no likelihood of expansion. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. If kept make name more specific to Disney film. Why we don't have a general B&tB cat for the millions of other versions ..... Johnbod ( talk) 19:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Keep I agree with removing the performers but we could instead list its spin-offs like Beauty and the Beast (musical), Sing Me a Story with Belle, Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas and Belle's Magical World. Dimadick ( talk) 04:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete Blatant overcategorization. Cast shouldn't be in this category, and if they're removed, there's almost nothing left. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Nomination does not discuss the subcategories. If we merge Category:Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas into Category:Beauty and the Beast, keep the character subcategory, add the articles as suggested by Dimadick (thanks!), remove the performers as suggested by the nominator (thanks!), we remain with a populated and deserving category (with one subcategory). gidonb ( talk) 01:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep this parent category, but upmerge all its subcategories. This is an iconic story. We do not categorise performer by performance; performers should (if necessary) be listed in the articles on the film in which they performed. If I remember rightly, this originated in a Fairy Story, so that there is some potential for expansion. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep Demand for deletion based on overcategorization again goes over the top. The ludicrous overapplication of overcategorization to remove iconic actors from the iconic roles they have played only makes the categorization system useless for its intended purpose. If a reader can't find the articles they're looking for, what's the point of having a category? Alansohn ( talk) 23:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Every single actor in this category has had other roles for which they're far better known than this. Bearcat ( talk) 04:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment - if kept specifically for the Disney iteration, the category should be renamed to reflect that. If kept for purposes of capturing all iterations of the story, it should be renamed to Category:Adaptations of Beauty and the Beast. Otto4711 ( talk) 23:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Agreed, although in the former case I suppose it could be a sub-cat of a general category. Johnbod ( talk) 00:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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/rename per nom. Kbdank71 13:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Innovation Waikato Limited ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Waikato Innovation Park ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Dairy Research ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Clearly a case of over categorization for a single article. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename Dairy Research and delete the other two. Category:Dairy Research is applicable to many other articles and has a scope comparable to related categories such as Category:Agricultural soil science. However, it needs to be renamed to Category:Dairy research. - Stepheng3 ( talk) 19:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Are there more articles that should be in that category? As a single entry category, it is still OCAT. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • If not, there should be - it could be upmerged into Category:Agricultural research for now. Grutness... wha? 23:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Further comment - American Dairy Science Association would count under that category. Grutness... wha? 00:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I support the upmerge to Category:Agricultural research. Nomination so modified. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't think one can conclude overcategorization based on the number of articles in the category, particularly when the category is only three weeks old and no serious attempt has been made to populate it. I took a few minutes this morning and added four more entries. It still overcategorization? What if I find four more articles? - Stepheng3 ( talk) 17:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete the first two, created for a single article and with little possibility of expansion. No vote on the Dairy Research cat.- gadfium 07:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete both Waikato items. Keep "Dairy Research". The latter is a legitmiate category dealing with one branch of agricultiral research, and now better populated. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Even if consensus was to keep it as a category, it would need renaming to Category:Dairy research. Grutness... wha? 00:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Delete the two Waikato categories, rename Dairy Research to the standard capitalisation per Peterkingiron, Grutness. Dsp13 ( talk) 23:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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. Kbdank71 13:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:People with heterochromia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Suggest Deletion

Nominator's rationale - To begin with, this "condition" strikes me as being rather too trivial to categorize people with: it's basically about individuals who happen to be known to have eyes of different colors (eg. one brown & one blue, etc.). Given that it's mostly being used for celebrities whose eye-coloration has been noted simply because they are in the public eye (so to speak), it seems rather out of place as a sub-cat of Category:People by medical or psychological condition. At the same time, the use of this term for categorization is problematic because the term actually encompasses a range of issues/conditions: heterochromia can be "complete" or "partial", genetic or acquired, and so forth. In some cases, there's an associated medical condition, more typically it's simply the aforementioned difference in eye coloration. All in all, I just don't think it makes sense as a Category -- by my lights, it's better dealt with in list form (see List of people with heterochromia - which really should be annotated, with separate sections for the different varieties of heterochromia). (Category creator unknown due to change of name) Cgingold ( talk) 18:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - non-defining, trivial characteristic. Otto4711 ( talk) 21:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom; very well set out and convincing; it's non-defining and (relatively) trivial. Could be converted to existing list, if helpful. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Aside from the list, there is also a sublist in the main article so I think the cat is redundant.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 01:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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. Kbdank71 13:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Fotheringhay, Northamptonshire ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Sure, the castle makes Fotheringhay important as English villages go, but it doesn't warrant a category to itself. HeartofaDog ( talk) 15:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom - and the present set-up makes Cecily Neville a village in Northampton. Occuli ( talk) 23:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fotheringay is a village. I really do not think that villages need categories. Towns may, but not necessarily. The article on the village will provide all the links that may be needed. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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. "Problems" is POV, but there isn't direction as to a fix. Recommend renomoination. Kbdank71 13:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Health problems in India to Category:Health issues in India

Nominator's rationale: I am indecisive as to the intrinsic value of this category at all. All health issues are generally related to "problems".

Current category is POV-loaded. "issues" is more neutral. "problems" requires judgement that an issue is problematic, and this may be disputable, and it may be argued as to what exactly problem pertains to. ZayZayEM ( talk) 13:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Remove general topics like Tuberculosis, move the remaining few items into parent. Pavel Vozenilek ( talk) 21:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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: Snowball Keep. Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 04:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is intended for editors, not for readers (quite useless for readers, with over 300,000 articles), and therefor belongs on the talk page of the articles. It was needed to enforce WP:BLP, but its function has been taken over by Category:Biography articles of living people (with over 250,000 articles), which is added to talk pages of articles, not to the articles themselves (through the WPBiography template). Earlier discussions were closed by edict from Jimbo, and a new CFD was prohibited at the category (hidden text). I have permission from Jimbo to start this discussion [1], although he has not endorsed (or condemned) the deletion itself.

I would support, if technically possible, to keep this category until a bot has added all articles in this category which are not yet in Category:Biography articles of living people to the latter one, so that all articles currently tagged as BLP risks are transferred properly (most are, but there is still a substantial difference between the two).

Note: three earlier discussions are linked to from Category talk:Living people, but I believe that the situation has changed and that these earlier discussions are unrelated to the current proposal.

Note to closing admin: if this gets a "delete" result (which is far from certain of course), please check with developers to see if the removal of a category from 300,000 pages won't cause any problems technically. Fram ( talk) 12:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Additional note to closing admin: I would also ask that the 50,000+ discrepancy between the two systems be fully explained and listed and tackled with a bot before one or the other system is removed. Having 50,000 articles in one and not the other is not an insignificant discrepancy, and that assumes that the 250,000 'living people' are all tagged with WPBiography (which is not the case). Carcharoth ( talk) 07:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• I would strongly oppose creating a new talk page just to add a category to it. If "living people" is useless to readers the best approach would be to make it a hidden category. — CharlotteWebb 12:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Also, if we did move the category to the talk page of every living person it eliminate the utility of Special:Relatedchanges/Category:Living people for no actual gain. If articles about living people are being vandalized it is unlikely anyone will notice it based on talk page traffic. — CharlotteWebb 12:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • "I would strongly oppose creating a new talk page just to add a category to it.". This is being done all the time, actually, when adding articles to wikiprojects. Articles with redlinked talk pages are getting inclreasingly rare, in my experience. As for the special:relatedchanges; I hadn't thought about that, I never use it (I just use "recent changes" in general), so would like some more input to see if people browse BLP's in this regard often or if this is a minor point. Fram ( talk) 13:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep: While I agree that non-editor readers are unlikely to browse the category, I think it's useful to even these readers to have a quick way to see at a glance if someone is living or not. For editorial purposes, I strongly oppose moving the category to the talk page: subcats of Category:Deaths by year (to which it is related) are on the page itself, and having things split between the page and the talk page would invite confusion, & make pages much more difficult to monitor in this regard. Dsp13 ( talk) 13:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

What do you think about making it a hidden category (in which case it will only be seen by logged-in users who have selected "[x] Show hidden categories" in Special:Preferences)? I believe this would be much better than deleting it or moving it to the talk page. — CharlotteWebb 13:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree that this is a better option than deletion or moving to the talk page. (Though my personal preference would be not to hide it, either.) Dsp13 ( talk) 13:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

"quick way to see at a glance if someone is living or not" ← Shrug, infoboxes, pronouns ("is"/"was"), and the presence or absence of a death date in the lead sentence are usually a dead giveaway strong hint. — CharlotteWebb 13:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment: At present Category:Biography articles of living people contains bands with living members (e.g. Talk:5th Man Down (band)), whereas Category:Living people doesn't. I don't know how important it is for BLP purposes to distinguish between individual living people and groups of people which have living members, but for other purposes it is useful. Birth and death categories, taken together with the living people category, currently provide the most robust way of singling out pages which are about individuals. Dsp13 ( talk) 13:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• • Why would you want to single out these pages? Medieval people with unknown birth and death years will still not be included anyway, and otherwise (if you would add year of birth unknown) the year of birth category alone is sufficient to single out individuals (living and dead). Fram ( talk) 13:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, if all people were fully categorised, the year of birth category (including unknown & missing) would indeed be sufficient! Any help in supplying these missing categories is welcome: e.g. in March there were 26,000 living people lacking categorization by year of birth. Dsp13 ( talk) 13:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Keep (weak): A minor side issue is that the category is sometimes misused, such as when someone adds articles on groups of people to the "Living people" category. It's actually pretty common with low notability band articles, e.g. Old_School_Freight_Train and Nothin'_Fancy. Making it a hidden category, or talk page category would, I think, make it less likely to be abused, but also less likely to be corrected. Studerby ( talk) 19:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Delete Fram made a good point.-- Parthian Scribe 20:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Delete; it's redundant with the BLP category as far as policy is concerned (it needs one, or the other, but not both) and it's impossible to maintain (I'm willing to bet there are dozens of articles at least of people who are no longer alive in it), even if it was correct to begin with. —  Coren  ^(talk) 22:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC) (Changed, see below) reply

dozens of errors in a quarter million would seem to be exceptionally good accuracy, & is hardly a reason for deletion-- DGG ( talk) 00:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree that one is redundant to the other, but I'd rather we delete the one used on talk pages (as it is decidedly the less useful). See my comments above viz. Special:Relatedchanges. — CharlotteWebb 00:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep Often it is the only indication in an article of if a subject is supposed to be alive or not. Dimadick ( talk) 04:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete It's made redundant by the BLP category, which is ultimately better-worded. Category:Biography articles of living people's wording suggests that it encompasses everyone notable enough to have a Wikipedia article; Category:Living people's wording may suggest that anyone and everyone who has a breath can be included - the mailman may also fall into this category. Master&Expert ( Talk) 04:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • That's a blatant straw-man argument. Articles cannot be categorized unless they exist, plus everybody knows Category:French people will never contain all French people (unlike Category:Mayors of Paris, which will eventually contain all Mayors of Paris). Finite categories tend to be a minority in most subject areas. The title of the talk page category is misleading, however; Something along the lines of Category:Talk pages of living people would be more accurate. There may be some utility in patrolling the talk page category for situations where the article subject is defamed for the sake of argument, but there is much more to be gained by patrolling the actual articles. — CharlotteWebb 16:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - there are huge differences between the {{ WPBiography}} talk page system and the Category:Living people article system. I'll list just four of these here.

• (1) Lack of synchronisation - There is not 100% overlap between the two sets of articles. Some articles in Category:Living people are not in the {{ WPBiography}} talk page category, and some in the {{ WPBiography}} category are not in Category:Living people. This can be seen by an examination of the numbers. As someone said above, the overlap is things such as music bands and other 'group' articles, which for historical reasons were tagged with the WPBiography tag, but unfortunately no 'group' parameter was put in place at the beginning to mark these 'group' articles out from the others. Unless someone can confirm (by providing a full listing of each) that the overlap is 100%, then no switch-over or deletion can take place. The listing and sychronisation must take place before any deletion, and will almost certainly be out-of-date before any such synchronisation is finished. But at least an attempt to reduce the discrepancies to the hundreds, and not the thousands, is needed.
• (2) Tracking changes - Even if there was 100% overlap, Special:Relatedchanges works on categories containing the articles but not categories containing the talk pages, so that's almost certainly a deal breaker. This strikes directly to the heart of why the system was set up in the first place.
• (3) Less accurate - I've long suspected, but been unable to prove, that Category:Living people is a more accurate tracker of living people than the {{ WPBiography}} system. If anything, it is the {{ WPBiography}} that should be removed, not the Category:Living people, but first, it should be determined who uses which system, and why, and which is more comprehensive. If the answer is neither or both, then full and complete synchronisation (which I've been commenting on the need for, for over a year) is needed first.
• (4) Category index-sorting - Sorting, as seen in categories, doesn't work well on categories containing talk pages due to extensive use of talk page banners (this one is complicated, please, please ask if you don't understand what I've said here). Many talk page templates use the magic word {{PAGENAME}} to strip the 'Talk:' bit from the page title. Unfortunately, this overrides any DEFAULTSORT index-sorting that has been applied in other templates, such as {{ WPBiography}} (which uses DEFAULTSORT in its 'listas' parameter). Also, if more than one talk page banner uses DEFAULTSORT, it is the last one on the page that is used. I came to conclusion long ago that category index-sorting on talk pages for biographical articles is broken, because while it is possible to track which articles lack 'listas' on the talk page, it has proven difficult to accurately synchronise this with the DEFAULTSORT values used on the main page. Unless it is possible to get the talk pages to sort according to the DEFAULTSORT value used on the main article, then removing Category:Living people would separate the DEFAULTSORT data from the category data, as the category is the closest thing we have to an overall list.

Further comments - It is possible to use the Category:Births by year system with bots and computers and AWB-users, to generate a list of all living people, but for most people, it is difficult to generate a comprehensive list because it is extensively and heavily subcategorised. This is similar to the situation for Category:People (currently, there is no easy way to get an accurate and easy listing of all our articles on people, whether alive or dead - this is astonishing if you stop and think about it, and shows how categorisation is certainly not tagging or keywording, and how Wikipedia needs a tagging or keywording system. A similar situation is the lack of gender information. Try getting a list of all our biographical articles about men (e.g. Isaac Newton), and all our biographical articles about women (e.g. Marie Curie). Finally, there is a bot proposal here that is relevant (it is effectively a proposal to re-synchronise the two systems), along with User:Kingbotk/Plugin, which was used previously (and maybe still is by some) to do the synchronisation. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

See also User:D6. — CharlotteWebb 16:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Carcharoth. Hut 8.5 07:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Notifications of this discussion - I've left a notice here (WP:AN) requesting further notifications of this discussion be made in the appropriate places. This is a far-reaching change, affecting hundreds of thousands of articles, and needs a lot of input. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• I dropped a note (based on yours) at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Dsp has dropped a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. The only way to get even more attention would be a note at the VPP, but I guess that we have covered most interested editors this way. Fram ( talk) 08:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Failures to tag for BLP - Not strictly relevant, but there are also significant numbers (hundreds) of biography articles on living people with no 'living people' tag and no 'WPBiography' tag. A quick look through Category:People stubs found: Abdul Makim Khalisadar, Alicia Haydock Munnell, David Allen (Royal Navy officer) - and that is only the first three stubs in that category (with 186 articles). There may be hundreds more articles with no stub templates. I had a quick look at Special:UncategorizedPages and found Ajahn Munindo, AVS Raju, Adel bin Mohammed bin Faisal I, Alberto Lucio, Aleksandar Novaković. Sure, some of these are very new, and need cleaning up, but some have been around for months. Even if most such articles get cleaned up and tagged for BLP, a few always seem to slip through the net. This doesn't even apply to living people. Take a look at Harry Middleton. That was insufficiently reverted after vandalism and was left in a sorry state. It still seems a bit dodgy, so if someone could look at that, please? Another uncategorised article with no tags (but in a much better state) is Donna Hilbert. There are many more examples of this. Carcharoth ( talk) 08:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep talk page categories are lower profile and can get removed. Having a unique category on the article itself reminds everyone of the unique status of BLPs. Besides which, one of the useful ways of searching for problematic articles is to do a google seach for wikipedia article pages that include the words "living people" the tag "does not cite" [any sources] and then problematic keywords (see me for details)- that rather useful device which I've used to identify dozens of BLP problems would be wrecked. See here substitute "allegations" for other trigger phrases and you'll find a high proportion of hits are problem articles.-- Scott MacDonald ( talk) 08:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Carcharoth-- FeanorStar7 ( talk) 09:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep, no good reason to delete and doesn't do any harm. Stifle ( talk) 11:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Having two massive categories whose ultimate aim is to be almost exact duplicates of one another is a good reason to delete either of them. My reasoning was that, as a maintenance template of no use to most readers, it belongs on the talk page. Since, good arguments have been made that the category has a purpose on the article page as well (special:recentchanges and a few others), although all of this apparently can be achieved while making it a "hidden" category. Many pages are already cluttered with categories (Sarah Palin has 21 categories, Madonna (entertainer) has 38 categories, Sergey Bubka has 16 categories, ...), so removing (or hiding) one of those makes it a bit easier to read the categories. Having read the arguments thus far, I can imagine a case being made to keep this category and remmove the talk page category instead (after synchronization and so on), but I have not seen a reason yet to have both. Fram ( talk) 12:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep, this nomination is absolutely ridicuous. You can't check the changes to articles of living people by checking the related changes of Category:Biography articles of living people. Since that category is placed on talk pages, it only shows the recent changes to the talk pages of living people. Fram, are you suggesting BLP patrollers add 307,000 articles to their watchlists? If "category clutter" bothers you, here's my suggestion: ignore it. -- Pixelface ( talk) 13:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for the very friendly post... As I said above, I didn't realize people used it to check the special/recentchanges for living people only, I use the general "recent changes" button instead(and yes, I know that that gives many moreresults not related to BLPs). Furthermore, in the post just above your one, I continued the discussion about what maybe solutions for this duplication of massive categories. This is supposed to be a discussion, so taking into account everything said before you post usually gives better results. Fram ( talk) 14:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Most "clutter" can be made invisible yet still functional. This is no exception. — CharlotteWebb 16:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Carcharoth's masterly defence. Occuli ( talk) 14:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep as is for now, since the category is useful. gidonb ( talk) 16:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep; (changed from above) I find the argument that the distinction for article vs. talk page usage to be persuasive. —  Coren  ^(talk) 16:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above comments, especially Carcharoth. It would be a waste of my time to write a rationale with one so detailed there already. -- How do you turn this on ( talk) 17:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The value of the category has been established. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - this is certainly an encyclopedic category, just a very high-level one. As its based on facts about the article subject rather than the state of the article, its not just a category for editors. If it is decided that its an "editors only" category, it could be made into a hidden category. Mr. Z-man 22:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Snow Keep per User:Carcharoth above and all the other keep votes since then. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 12:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC). reply
• Make hidden - as an irregular editor, I cannot speak for the utility of the category from the standpoint of an editor, but others in the discussion seem to believe it to be useful. Having no personal stake in that regard, I will defer to their judgement. However, for readers, the category is not only useless, but laughable. The purpose of a category from a reader's perspective is to find similar articles. For example, I was just reading the article on Pope Benedict XVI and was curious about other popes by the name. The infobox is categorized chronologically, so I clicked on the appropriate category link and was immediately presented with an alphabetical list of what I was looking for. However, I would never read an article and think, gee, I wonder if there is anyone else that is currently alive. I wouldn't even be inclined to search the category of living people as the full search would doubtless come up with the person I was looking for, or a (hopefully clear) disambiguation page for more generic names. Quite apart from being useless, I believe the category reflects badly on the incredible usefulness of the category system. To see "living people" listed at the bottom of an article makes me feel that all categories would be similarly broad and useless, while also adding trash preventing me from finding the category I am looking for in a large and well-categorized article. Remember, like many on the internet, I have a short attention span. — INTRIGUEBLUE ( talk| contribs) 09:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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. And so I don't get accused of "ignoring" the arguments for "keep/rename" by issuing a one-word closing result: for any given topic, WP:CLN is fairly open to the existence of a category, a list, or both. As an editing guideline, it doesn't attempt to set down hard and fast rules about these issues, but rather, it provides suggestions for consideration in deciding the issue and then leaves it up to consensus to determine which of the two are preferrable, or if having both are preferred. Here, consensus is that a having a list but no category is preferrable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Multiple planetary systems to Category:?

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is badly named, it implies several "planetary systems", but is used for systems with multiple planets. Suggested rename targets:

Category:Multi-planet planetary systems

Category:Multiple planet planetary systems

Category:Multiple planet systems

70.55.200.131 ( talk) 12:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Anything along these lines needs to be hyphenated ("Multiple-planet"). Cgingold ( talk) 18:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Category:Planetary systems with multiple planets?? Agree renaming is called for.-- ZayZayEM ( talk) 13:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Whatever name we choose we should factor in the need to set up a parallel category for planetary systems that have just a single known planet, i.e. Category:Uni-planet planetary systems or Category:Single-planet systems or Category:Planetary systems with one planet (or whatever). Cgingold ( talk) 17:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Category:Planetary systems with multiple planets and Category:Planetary systems with a single planet seems like a reasonable name for a paired set of categories. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Making clear of course that this is known planets. I would be prepared to bet that the ones with only one discovered planet actually have other planets as well, especially as people argue over how many planets are in this system... And if someone puts the Solar system in this category... It might also be worth making clear that this these categories are for extrasolar planetary systems. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply
      • • A very interesting point -- and it crossed my mind, too, but I wasn't sure other editors would go for Category:Planetary systems with one known planet. Now that you've made the case for it, let's see what they think. Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold ( talk) 12:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
      • In fact, List of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets seems much more useful than the category. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The logic by Carcharoth to just use the list seems perfect here. No need to listify since we have the list. Vegaswikian ( talk) 01:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Carcharoth didn't say anything about favoring deletion, VW - s/he merely opined that the list seemed "more useful". As you know, categories and lists are considered to be complementary, not mutually exclusive. I presume you would want the 32 articles to be upmerged into the parent, Category:Planetary systems -- which would raise the total there to 150 articles. Not helpful. I see no compelling reason to delete this instead of renaming it. To the contrary, we're much better served by keeping/renaming it, and creating the sibling category that I've proposed, which would result in Category:Planetary systems being far more usable & useful for readers, since the articles about specific planetary systems would no longer swamp the much smaller number of articles that deal with the subject of planetary systems. Cgingold ( talk) 23:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename I'd support Vegaswikian's proposal, with the addition of the options of Category:Extrasolar planetary systems with multiple planets and Category:Extrasolar planetary systems with a single planet as rename options. The word "known" could also be inserted before "planet(s)" to address concerns that we are stating a degree of certainty that does not exist. Undoubtedly, these categories will grow and change as new systems are found and additional planets detected in these systems. Claims of the supposed superiority of lists over categories (or the rarer vice versa) should be ignored, despite their repeated mention. The multiple benefits of keeping both the list AND categories included here, as strongly recommended by WP:CLN, provides improved navigation choices and allows the categories to be maintained in conjunction with the articles for each star/system, without necessitating separate maintenance of a list. Alansohn ( talk) 23:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Vegaswikian. The list works much better than the category in this case. As per CLN, The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods. CLN also states A category is probably inappropriate if the answer to the following questions is "no": * Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it? * If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article? Seeing as those are both no in this case, I agree with deletion of the category. -- Kbdank71 13:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• CLN states A category is probably inappropriate if the answer to the following questions is "no": "Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it?" Both Extrasolar planet and List of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets already exist, and both more than satisfy the More-than-a-few-paragraphs standard"; "If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?" Are you seriously suggesting that someone who is at the article List of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets will not deem it obvious as to what the category includes? As the answer to both of these questions from WP:CLN is clearly "yes", there is no policy argument for deletion. Simply misinterpreting the facts and misconstruing Wikipedia policy is a rather poor basis for deleting categories. Alansohn ( talk) 16:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Falsely trotting CLN around as policy ad nauseum, with emphasis on nauseum, with no concern as to whether or not a list and category should exist, is a poor basis to keep categories.
• List of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets is not in Category:Multiple planetary systems, nor is it mentioned in the category text, so you won't be able to go from that article to the category. So yes, I am saying that. Let's go with an example that actually works, yes? 14 Herculis is in Category:Multiple planetary systems. But before you even get to the category, you get to the "See also" section, which points you to a clear titled List of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets. As nominated above, Category:Multiple planetary systems could be "Multiple planetary" systems, or Multiple "planetary systems". It's not clear from the three words at the bottom of the article. So is it clear? No. -- Kbdank71 20:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• I would give you credit for mimicry, but you only add further evidence to your persistent abuse and misinterpretation of policy. I have gone out and gathered evidence from multiple editors at WT:RS and WP:RSN showing that your interpretation of WP:RS is completely and totally false. It's not even wrong. If you believe that my interpretation of WP:CLN is incorrect, you have every opportunity to do so, yet all you have done is to mimic. Even you can do better. As to the clarity issue, all that's missing is to add the entries you believe are missing. I'll be happy to do it as it, if you refuse to do so. Alansohn ( talk) 05:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• RS is just a WP:DEADHORSE from another discussion, and is not applicable here, as I'm not basing my argument on it. I have shown how I disagree with you on your application of CLN (neither requires nor forbids, renenmer? I did take the opportunity above) and how you continually base your arguments on it as if it were policy, which it is not. If you have something new to present in your argument, I'll consider it, but if it's just more of the same ole Alan, I'll stick with my delete. -- Kbdank71 13:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - User:Kbdank71 said it clearly enough, I think. Also per User:Carcharoth, and User:Vegaswikian. Essentially, this should be listified. That would allow for explanation and clarification of the information. And since the list already exists, this cat may be deleted. - jc37 12:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Vegaswikian and other above comments. As Carcharoth noted above, it isn't that we know that certain stars only have one planet; it's that we just haven't to date discovered or confirmed more than one for those systems. The current category does not make clear that its classification depends upon such qualifiers, but more importantly I don't know why we'd want a category whose only purpose is to exclude all extrasolar planetary systems for which only one planet has, to date, been discovered (or conversely, why Category:Planetary systems with one known planet would be useful). The division line would be less about an intrinsic shared feature of those systems than it would about how much or how well we can study those systems. Further, new discoveries would make the contents shift as time goes on, more studies are done, and methods of study and observation improve. Postdlf ( talk) 05:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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. Kbdank71 13:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Current female United States Senators to Category:Female United States Senators

Nominator's rationale: Merge - per this recent CFD. Same reasons apply. Otto4711 ( talk) 10:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Merge - per faultless logic of nom. Occuli ( talk) 12:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge - per nom - and per sly humor of Occuli. Cgingold ( talk) 18:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Dimadick ( talk) 04:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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. Kbdank71 13:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:VfB Leipzig players to Category:Lokomotive Leipzig players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The club has been known as VfB or Lokomotive for roughly equal parts of their history, but Lokomotive is their current name. ArtVandelay13 ( talk) 10:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. ArtVandelay13 ( talk) 10:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support - Categories should be named after the club's current name. – Pee Jay 18:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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:American television series based on non-American television series, though the preference for "non-American" over "foreign" doesn't appear to be all that strong. The "based on" vs. "adapted from" issue could be pursued in a new nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:American programs based on foreign programs to Category:American television series based on foreign television series

Nominator's rationale: Rename - per recent CFD that resulted in the similarly-named American/British category being renamed. This clarifies what sort of programs and, since this is for American series, uses American terminology. Otto4711 ( talk) 06:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment I suggest that it be renamed to "adapted from", as it reduces ambiguity. And I'm not sure about the word "foreign". Is there another way you might suggest phrasing this? - jc37 06:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  I'm not sure about "adapted from" but am leaning toward opposed. We tend to use "adaptations" when talking about specific works ( Category:Adaptations of Les Misérables) or authors ( Category:Adaptations of Shakespeare), and it is not in line with such top-level categories as Category:Media based on media and Category:Films based on works. Otto4711 ( talk) 06:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  (To reduce copy/pasting) - Responded at American TV series based on telenovelas.

  And your thoughts about "foreign"? - jc37 07:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Can't say as I have a problem with it but if "series from other countries" is preferred I don't have strong feelings. Otto4711 ( talk) 15:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• "foreign" is usually based upon the readers perspective. How about the more wordy but non-confusing Category:American television series based on non-American television series? Just a thought, feel free to ignore if it's going to muck with consensus. -- Kbdank71 13:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• I don't really have strong feelings about this in any direction. I think it's clear when there's a country mentioned by name in the category name that "foreign" means "countries other than the named one" but if it's truly going to result in confusion then I have no objection to wording the name however people think best. Otto4711 ( talk) 17:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Admin relisting note: It seems to have come down to either Category:American television series based on foreign television series or Category:American television series based on non-American television series. (In other similar discussions from the same day, it has been decided in closing to put aside the "based on" vs. "adapted from" issue to a future CfD in order to implement consensus on the entirely different naming issues; I suggest the same approach would probably be useful here in order to first reach consensus on the other naming issue of "foreign" vs. "non-American". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Rename with mild preference for "non-American". Johnbod ( talk) 19:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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. Kbdank71 13:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:British supervillains ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Its parent category was deleted via CFD of 2008 September 1. The same arguments appear to apply to this category, now orphaned. Stepheng3 ( talk) 04:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete Orphan cat. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete as unnecessary. Jclemens ( talk) 03:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep and restore parent category. We seem to have no issue determining nationality and role, and consensus on the corresponding series of US categories appears to be turning. Alansohn ( talk) 23:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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: weakish keep; I relisted to try to gain a stronger consensus for this position but no other opinions were forthcoming; this could be seen as somewhere between a "no consensus" and a "clear keep". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:People movers to Category:???

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is ambiguous when restricted to a single type of people mover. The question is, what to do the contents of this category. And if reusing this category as a parent for the various types of people movers. I believe that the current entries are might be better classified as Category:Automated fixed guideway systems. What is interesting is that Category:Monorails is not included here and yet it is an automated fixed guideway system. Maybe this is just a case of a cleanup being needed. Moving walkways at some airports really meet the definition since they are 'fully automated, grade-separated mass transit systems' when they cross over roadways. I'll note that Category:Automated guideway transport exists and again Category:Monorails is also not included there. So bringing this here for a discussion. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment: I have not found a corresponding Wikipedia article for "automated guideway transport" to assist in providing a definition of what "automated guideway transport" might be. Do you know of any definitions? — Sladen ( talk) 20:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

How about Automated guideway transit? Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The second line of the Automated guideway transit article currently states [2] "AGT is normally used to implement either limited people mover systems, or more complex mass transit systems." Based on that, could AGT be moved to be a sub-category of both Category:people movers and Category:Public transport? (There is no Category:Mass transit, and Mass transit in article space leads to Public transport. Whilst WP:GHITS should be taken is a drop of salt, "people mover" results one-hundred times as many results as "automated guideway *". I'm wondering if the relative frequency in use (and/or obscurity) of the terms reflects in the size of Category:Automated guideway transport and the automated guideway transit articles. — Sladen ( talk) 21:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep. As in keep it simple. Category:Automated fixed guideway systems is a) just going to confuse readers, and b) by definition, is not limited to people. That could include the systems used to route your luggage from check-in to plane at the airport. Besides, people mover has this nice description: the term "people mover" is generic, and may use technologies such as monorail, duorail, automated guideway transit or maglev. -- Kbdank71 13:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:ALWEG people movers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Over categorization. If kept, the name should be something like Category:Monorails based on ALWEG technology. This is functionally equivalent to having a category like Category:Products based on technology of Thomas Edison. Vegaswikian ( talk) 01:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment, on the whole I have tried to avoid having the company name in the people-mover/monorail system type for the categories. Unlike railways, people mover technology tends to be highly proprietary and each (type of) system is only compatible with other systems installed/constructed by the same manufacturer—or ones to the same specification, as a result of licensing or later sale of the company. Unfortunately, ALWEG (being effectively a single-product company) didn't seem to differentiate the product from the company, so I have had difficulty in avoiding the the use of their company name for the system type in this case. For example, cars from one of the Disneyland people movers were used on the Las Vagas monorail (manufactured by Bombardier); this is because they used the same specification of track—and not because any of the components necessarily came from the (defunct) ALWEG.

If the category could benefit from renaming, then the full matching set (see Category:People movers) could also do with shuffling. — Sladen ( talk) 02:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually the Disney cars were not used on the LVM. They were used on the MGM shuttle that ran from the MGM Grand to Bally. Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, the Las Vegas Monorail is an extension of the original (shorter) MGM shuttle guideway. — Sladen ( talk) 07:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Admin relisting note: Category also wasn't tagged before; it is now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge to Category:Monorails. This is a change in my position. The problem is that classifying these by manufacturer is of use only to rail geeks. Users don't know or care who made these systems. If it is of importance that that fact can be included in the manufacturer's article. When upmerged, then Category:People movers can be split into more useful sub categories like Category:Monorails or Category:Fixed guideway systems. Vegaswikian ( talk) 01:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your enthusiastic unilateral edits undertaken before this process has run its course. For the moment I have reverted those of today's edits that assumed that all monorails were People Movers (see Kbdank71's example above of a baggage handling system) and restored the indexing by a ' ' space, per WP:CAT#Priority.

1. In this particular case the ALWEG specification uses a monorail design, so up-merging would be technical okay. However, upmerging 18 articles and 1 sub-category into a parent sub-category of (currently) 45 unsorted entries (total 60+) would be counter productive, and in-turn lose the association that exists between these eighteen articles.
2. About the only feature that an ALWEG specification people mover and an (eg.) Cable Liner people mover system share is that they both move people, the propulsion system and track are totally different and incompatible. One would have to add the further category to those 18 covered articles to make up for removing that inclusion via Category:ALWEG people movers.
3. As noted before, Category:ALWEG people movers is not a "classifying these by manufacturer", but by specification ( Bombardier Transportation and Hitachi Monorail are current manufacturers. People movers, are not like traditional railway systems. The style of propulsion, the "track" style and control system are compatible only with those using the same specifications.
   • (A "[r]ail geek" equivalent might be suggest up-merging "narrow-gauge diesel railcars" and "standard-gauge steam freight locomotives" to "wheeled transport" based on a claim that Deutsch Bahn were manufacturers of both, despite the obvious differences they have incompatible track systems, don't share a propulsion system and aren't used for the same purpose.

It might be useful to add the style (not specification) of track (eg. monorail, duorail) used different operational people movers systems; something that I believe is (was) already done, by sub-categorising groups of systems with a common feature ("built to ALWEG specification"). However if not all "automated guideway systems" (whatever that is—the phrase/abbreviation AGV mostly occurs in association with VAL) are people movers, then the AGV classification cannot replace the Category:People movers classification as AGV is not fully encompassing, or accurate.

— Sladen ( talk) 01:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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, though no one seems really satisfied with the status quo. I relisted in an attempt to get further input, but no further opinions were forthcoming. (What is it with people today?—nobody cares about puppets anymore ...) This muddle shouldn't be a bar to a future nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:British comedy puppets ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete, unnecessary and somewhat arbitrary subcategory. Based on the category description page, this was intended to classify puppets featured in British television, but there are no other subcategories of Category:Puppets that are specific to nationality, genre, or medium, and this seems like a strange way to start doing that. The "comedy" classification also seems a bit off in that these are mostly from children's television programs, which always contain humorous elements, but aren't really properly termed as "comedy" except in the way that most puppets are comedic. Note also that there is Category:Television programs featuring puppetry, which has no nationality subcategories. Upmerge as needed, but most are also in the parent Category:Puppets, which is in no danger of overflowing. Postdlf ( talk) 02:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Listify to List of puppets on British television (or something similar). I think that the information is likely worthwhile, but that a category is probably not the way to do it, for several of the reasons laid out above. Alternatively, Rename to Category:Puppets in children's television (which can be later split by nationality if appropriate), and prune. - jc37 02:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Slight repurpose & name to Category:British television puppets, but certainly don't delete. There are few if any international puppets, so there is every reason for national cats if people want to set them up - obviously this feeds into the British television tree, although with my proposal it should do so one level up. The Muppets puppets have their own cat, so if one American series can have its own cat, I fail to see why the whole of British tv should not? That Category:Television programs featuring puppetry has no national cats is a reason for keeping, not deleting, this one. As said, "comedy" is not really right - the flowerpotmen are only comic in retrospect. Some of these, like Emu, were on "family" programming. Johnbod ( talk) 19:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Wouldn't Category:Puppets in British television series be better? Postdlf ( talk) 19:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Maybe, though some like Emu are best known for one-off appearances, and only got series in their declining years. I have just added Monkey (advertising character) to the cat, but will hold off on the Tracy family, all 5 of whose articles should be added if we rename without "comedy". Johnbod ( talk) 01:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment - In looking through the various cats, other than the Muppets, I'm not finding any category of puppet characters. (Not by nationality or genre.) Now this in itself isn't necesarily bad, if this is a standard that is worth starting. But I'm honestly not sure that it is. I really think listification is probably the better way to go here. For one thing it would allow for a sortable table, and things such as the television appearance (and frequency thereof) of the puppet could be noted. - jc37 04:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

There are 13, potentially 18 puppets here. The main cat has 70 puppets, which would be drastically cleared down if US tv & movie categories were established. Who exactly is going to spend the time creating this wondeful list? If such a list existed, I might be readier to see deletion, but it doesn't. Johnbod ( talk) 19:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply

If the discussion is closed as "Listify", there is actually a "working" page just for it. (See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual.) I help out there somewhat myself. - jc37 21:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Dutch Children's musical groups ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty category; it only ever had one item in it at most ( Kinderen voor Kinderen), and that is not really a musical group Soap ^Talk/ _{Contributions} 00:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete. - Stepheng3 ( talk) 05:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Created by me. In retrospect no need, hence delete. gidonb ( talk) 16:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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 Category:Video game weapons to Category:Video game items. Kbdank71 13:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging

• Category:Video game weapons to Category:Video game weapons and items
• Category:Video game items to Category:Video game weapons and items

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Unnecessarily small category. All video game weapons are video game items, so categories are highly related. Would provide more centralized organization. Randomran ( talk) 00:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• I agree with the reasoning, but not the conclusion. You've made a stronger case for merging the "weapons" category into the existing Category:Video game items (rather than creating a less intuitive category with a longer title). — CharlotteWebb 01:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • What Charlotte said works for me. Weapons are very much still items, so it's inclusive still.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 05:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• I'm okay with merging them to simply "video game items", although I probably oversimplified the case. There are some weapons like the "Halo" from Halo, or "Metal Gear" from Metal Gear that are not items but huge gigantic megaweapons. I would still prefer "weapons and items" as it makes the wide scope explicit, as opposed to just "items". Thinking out loud. Randomran ( talk) 06:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Well there is a Fictional weapons category if that helps any...the reason including weapons in the title bugs me a bit is then you get into an odd argument "why not include videogame armor in the name?" and so forth.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 08:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Well, we wouldn't have a category called "vehicles and really big trucks", because trucks are still vehicles regardless of their size. — CharlotteWebb 12:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Like I said, just thinking out loud. A merge to video game items is fine by me, so long as we can avoid an underpopulated "weapons" category from popping up again. Randomran ( talk) 01:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment: As a video gamer, I know that often, especially in RPG's, the word "item" means something that is by definition not a weapon ... but I think that in this case I would recommend we not limit ourselves to that specific sense, and instead go along with CharlotteWebb's suggestion, and call the merged category simply Video game items. Soap ^Talk/ _{Contributions} 10:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment if it's not an item, I don't think it needs to be more specific than the fictional weapons category. 70.55.200.131 ( talk) 12:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support merge, defer what to actually call it to whoever can nail it down. Better to have one category, but whether or not to call it 'items' is up to global preference. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^{( talk)} 00:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Category:Video game items rather than Category:Video game weapons and items per CharlotteWebb.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 01:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment as the nominator, I just want to point out there's a consensus here, even if it isn't the one I want. Merging them all to Category:Video game items or even Video game objects would be fine. Randomran ( talk) 15:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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