Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 30 February 1 >

January 31

Category:Burials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park Cemetery

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Burials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park Cemetery to Category:Forest Lawn Memorial-Parks & Mortuaries
  • Rename - This category is for people buried in any of the related Forest Lawn Memorial Park Cemetaries, but the title fails to communicate that more than one cemetery exists. The name should be changed to the name of the actual company that operates the cemeteries, Forest Lane Memorial-Parks & Mortuaries, which is also used in the Wikipedia article on the company. (Note that the company uses an ampersand in their title.) Dr. Submillimeter 23:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment This category is for burials at the Glendale Forest Lawn. There may be a couple of people that are from other Forest Lawns, but not too many. I agree that the naming of the Forest Lawn categories is wrong (along with the articles), but I don't agree with your suggestion as to how to fix it. Mike Dillon 07:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Glendale) and sort with (Hollywood Hills). Is a parent cat for these two needed? ~ Bigr Tex 18:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • At this point, I don't think we need to create the parent. Vegaswikian 06:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment - I am ambivalent as to whether this category treated as a parent or as a category specifically for the Glendale cemetery (although reorganization is needed if the category is renamed for the Glendale location). Regardless, the category is dysfunctional and needs to be fixed. Dr. Submillimeter 09:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Burials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Burials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park to Category:Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Hollywood Hills)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional characters with eating disorders

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: yes, it's very ironic to give salt to people with eating disorders. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Fictional characters with eating disorders ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Speedy delete and salt - This was on WP:CFD on 2007 January 19. The debate was closed on 2007 January 28 with a decision to delete. The category was recreated on 2007 January 29. Dr. Submillimeter 22:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete and salt per nom. -- Xdamr talk 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete and Salt per nom, and previous CfD. — mikedk9109 SIGN 23:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete and salt recreation. Doczilla 03:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - How long does it take to delete an obvious recreation like this? Shouldn't WP:CFD have a speedy deletion criteria for categories like this one? Dr. Submillimeter 15:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Swedish regents

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Swedish regents to Category:Regents of Sweden
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Swedish Governors-General

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Swedish Governors-General to Category:Governors-General of Sweden
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Swedish Privy Councillors

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Swedish Privy Councillors to Category:Members of the Privy Council of Sweden
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Italian air marshal

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Italian air marshal into Category:Marshals of the air force
  • Merge, There has only ever been one Marshal of the Italian Air Force ( Italo Balbo) and, at present, there is no prospect of any more being created. I propose that this cat be deleted and Italo Balbo added to Category:Marshals of the air force which is for 5-star air force officers who are titled as marshals. (Note, Category:Air marshals would not be appropriate for Italo Balbo as this cat is for 2, 3 and 4 star officers in commonwealth air forces). Greenshed 22:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom—no real need for single-member categories like this. -- Xdamr talk 23:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I have create the category Italian air marshal and I'm agree with the idea of merging this category into Category:Marshals of the air force.Italo Balbo was the only five star general in the history of italian air firce

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

Category:Swedish County Governors

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: als0 rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Swedish County Governors to Category:County governors of Sweden
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Members of the Cabinet of Sweden

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: als0 als0 rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Members of the Cabinet of Sweden to Category:Government ministers of Sweden
Xdamr talk 23:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Computerization

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Computerization ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, one-man show. There was an article computerization, which I deleted last night through PROD. Chick Bowen 21:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete and move article Since there is apparently no longer a main article for Computerization, and there's only one article in this category, it seems safe to delete the category and move the only existing article into a different appropriate category for the company's industry. Dugwiki 22:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:African Female rappers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Created yesterday and no contains a whopping 4 entries... all of whom were curiously enough born in the United States. This simply isn't a necessary category.-- Isotope23 21:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete First, Wiki tries to avoid categorizing by gender. Second, we normally categorize people by nationality, not by continent. So this category fails on both counts. Dugwiki 22:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Dugwiki. -- Xdamr talk 23:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This category should be named African-American female rappers since all the people in this category were born in America, but since we don't categorize by gender, then I will go delete. — mikedk9109 SIGN 23:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Category:Female rappers. For whatever reason, we do categorize vocalists by sex (see Category:Female singers and Category:Male singers) and, absent a reconsideration of that consensus, deleting on the basis of this being a sex-based category is problematic. We don't categorize vocalists by race or ethnicity, so this should be merged to the existing accepted category. Should the female rappers category expand to the point of needing subdivision then it should be done by nationality. Otto4711 00:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Good point about Female singers, Otto. Assuming Male Singers and Female singers aren't merged, I agree with your suggestion. Dugwiki 20:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as per Otto4711. User:Dimadick
  • comment - the reason people separate vocalists by gender is because gender affects voice types, which significantly affects performance within many types of music. -- lquilter 23:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Category:Female rappers per standards within singer categories. -- lquilter 23:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New York Mets second round draft picks

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge into Category:New York Mets players, trivia. -- Prove It (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge per nom. TonyTheTiger 19:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Media in Scotland

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Media in Scotland to Category:Scottish media
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Far-left Youth Organisations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge into Category:Youth organizations as subjective, or at least Rename to Category:Far-left youth organisations. -- Prove It (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge 'Left' and 'Right' are difficult terms to define. Perhaps there is some scope for defining groups by ideology ie fascist, communist, concerned with animal rights, etc, but category is too subjective.
Xdamr talk 23:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional mutates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge to Category:Fictional mutants. The difference between "mutants" and "mutates" is that the former were mutated from birth, and the latter became mutated through something else (e.g. radioactive spider bite). This distinction is not found in biology, it is only made in the Marvel universe, and there only barely. However, many universes have their own terminology ("metahumans", "metamutates", basically everything in Category:Human-derived fictional species) and it does not follow that we should categorize Mutants by whatever they're called in that setting. >Radiant< 16:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename To "Marvel Comics mutates" or something similar. The Fictional mutants category has a sub category for Marvel Comics mutants, so why not people who are mutated? As you said there is a diffrence between people who are born mutants and those who were mutated later in life. ( Animedude 23:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)) reply
  • Oppose the rename as worded. Spider-Man is not a mutant by Marvel definition. If the distinction is indeed made only in the Marvel Universe, we must use a name consistent with Marvel's naming conventions. If they define their mutates and mutants, we can't dub Spider-Man a mutant. "Marvel Comics mutates" makes some sense, although to be honest, it seems unnecessary. Doczilla 07:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a very clear definition and merging would only lead to further confusion. User:Dimadick
  • Keep since a definition is given. If keep fails, rename Category:Fictional characters who have been mutated although I LOATHE the excessive wording.~ Zythe Talk to me! 14:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This term only exists in Marvel, and we should not use Marvel's terminology as the basis for categorization. In theory, for example, Aquaman is a mutate, but he's not in Marvel, and thus would never gain this term. (In DC, Aquaman's a metahuman, which in theory Spider-Man would be, except Marvel doesn't use that term either.)-- Mike Selinker 03:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Wasnt Aquaman born with his powers? He gets his powers from being a hybrid atlantian/human. This would make him Mutant, not a mutate. ( Animedude 01:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Super Bowl champions

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Discuss -- it seems to me that all of the subcats here really ought to be articles, not categories. If this were fully implemented it could add many new categories to hundreds of football players. Clearly there's some interest in this kind of information, but I don't think categories are the best way to do it. What do people think? -- Prove It (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think a typical pre-millenium Super Bowl team should have about 5 or 6 players notable enough for articles. However, each post millenium team may have about 20-30 if not more wikinotable players. I think these categories are valid and useful. TonyTheTiger 19:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment P.S. each team should also have a template as opposed to a list. TonyTheTiger 19:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment for now. This would seem to be over categorization. I'm thinking listify or a template would be a better solution. Vegaswikian 19:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now until clarified and discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League What is the intent of this category? If it is to categorize the football teams that won the Super Bowl, then delete all the subcategories and clarify, possibly renaming this to "Category:Super Bowl champion teams". If the intent is to categorize individual football players who happened to play on a Super Bowl championship winning team, then I'm undecided on whether the category is a good idea or if this is a good way to handle it. Either way, the category appears to be prematurely implemented and not clearly defined. I say delete it and discuss a draft proposal on how best to do this, if desired, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League since they're probably the editors with the most experience on football related articles and categories. Dugwiki 23:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • If I'm understanding correctly, it would add at least one new category to every player who had had a superbowl victory. If they had had several victories, it could be many more. -- Prove It (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment With the emerging of separate team pages such as: 1989 Green Bay Packers season or 1969 Kansas City Chiefs season, I think as all of these pages become available, this should fill the category.++ aviper2k7++ 01:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I'd say delete all the Category:1999 St. Louis Rams Super Bowl XXXIV Championship Team pages, but leave the category for pages like 1996 Green Bay Packers season.++ aviper2k7++ 03:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all Categories for single games create clutter, so use templates instead. Carina22 14:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Categories by match are over the top. Osomec 22:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films with a Best Cinematographer Academy Award nomination

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete as recreated content. -- Prove It (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Taiwanese baseball

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:WikiProject Taiwanese Baseball to match Wikipedia:WikiProject Taiwanese Baseball. -- Prove It (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was mistaken nomination. The {{ cfd}} tag was placed on a section of the article Brian Gilbert; I have removed the offending section. Chick Bowen 21:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Virginia Gilbert

Category:Virginia Gilbert ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Theatre productions mentioned are mostly college theatre. Theatre company totally unknown. Second film not filmed yet - only one real film production. 81.158.202.199 14:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Chanel reply

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

Category:Rivers named for women

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Rivers named for women ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, indiscriminate category cluttering up the categories, and encouraging further categories such as rivers named after dogs, rivers named for men, boys named for rivers, dogs named for chairs, cats named for kings. Possible POVPUSH. Bards 11:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Cloachland 13:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This is categorization by name, a form of overcategorization. The rivers otherwise have little in common and should not be grouped together. Dr. Submillimeter 14:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and listify - Categorization by name, a bad idea. Where interesting and relevant lists are appropriate. (And I don't know what the POV is supposed to be (rivers named after women are better? worse? than rivers named after geographical features or men?), but honorary naming patterns are of interest--buildings for instance are largely named after men; Venusian craters after women; and so on. There's often some historical or cultural reason for naming patterns that is, actually, of use to scholars.) -- lquilter 15:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Every other article in every other category only really has one thing in common. Thats the point of a category. So, I'll go with delete because of WP:OC. — mikedk9109 SIGN 23:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Native fauna of Texas

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Native fauna of Texas into Category:Fauna of the United States
  • Merge - See the discussion on Fauna of the United States by State below. Unlike Category:Native fauna of Hawaii, which contains animals that are only found in Hawaii, Category:Native fauna of Texas contains animals that are found both in Texas and outside of Texas. In other words, this category is redundant with Category:Fauna of Texas. If Category:Fauna of Texas is merged into Category:Fauna of the United States, then Category:Native fauna of Texas should be merged into Category:Fauna of the United States as well. If Category:Fauna of Texas is kept, then Category:Native fauna of Texas should be merged into Category:Fauna of Texas. Dr. Submillimeter 10:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename and merge if appropriate to "Native fauna of southwest United States or Native fauna of southwest region, North America". As for "native" versus just "fauna", this is an important distinction; I'm not sure whether it's appropriate for a category, but I would be loath to eliminate it at this point without specific discussion about the "native" aspect. "Native ... Hawaii" for instance is not, actually, things just found in Hawaii, but things found in Hawaii prior to introduction of European & African species starting in 16th century. -- lquilter 15:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - My book on the birds of Hawaii uses the word endemic to describe species originating from and found only within Hawaii. That may be more appropriate. (Note that most of the animals in Category:Native fauna of Texas may not be considered endemic by zoologists, as they naturally occur outside of Texas.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment - obviously that's also an important distinction. i wouldn't want to rename the category until we had a report from someone about how it is currently being used -- native (in hawaii prior to modern colonization); endemic (only in hawaii); actual/current fauna (in hawaii regardless of nativity or endemicity (?)). -- lquilter 17:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Comment - I am very familiar with Hawaiian animals. Except for one, the animals are all endemic. The one non-endemic species is the Black-winged Stilt; however, a subspecies of this stilt is endemic to Hawaii. Dr. Submillimeter 17:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Category:Fauna of Southwestern United States, I agree categorization by states does not work, but the American southwest does make sense. -- Prove It (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Much of the fauna in the American Southwest is also found in Northern Mexico, mainly because some of the ecological zones (specifically the Chihuahua Desert and Sonora Desert) cross the U.S.-Mexico border. While Category:Fauna of Southwestern United States is better, does it still work? Another point: some of the fauna are not Southwestern U.S. species but are instead species found in the South Central United States (East Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Arkansas). These animals include the Strecker's Chorus Frog and Pallid Spiny Softshell Turtle. These animals should not be in a Southwest U.S. category. Dr. Submillimeter 16:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • that's why there's an east texas & west texas subcat, right? i think if the distinction is not yet made in this fauna category then we should not upmerge to "US" because then we lose the value of the work already done to place those species in texas (southeast or southwest US). -- lquilter 17:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Regardless, classifying things as "from Texas" clearly does not work here. Dr. Submillimeter 17:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
          • We're in complete accord that "from Texas" doesn't work for fauna/flora. Just trying to figure out a) what's ideal (I think bio/ecoregions is best); and b) do we go for ideal now, or some intermediate step; and if intermediate, which is best as an intermediate? -- upmerge to US, leave with Texas, or rename to a perhaps not quite right attempt at a bioregion? I have no really firm opinions, but feel that upmerging could lose whatever fine gradations are presently embodied in the category. -- lquilter 21:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Fauna by state subcategories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Vertebrates of Connecticut
Category:Amphibians of Connecticut
Category:Fish of Connecticut
Category:Mammals of Connecticut
Category:Reptiles of Connecticut
Category:Invertebrates of Connecticut
Category:Frogs-Toads-Salamanders of New Mexico
Category:Fish of Utah
  • Merge into Category:Fauna of the United States - See the Fanua of the United States by state discussion below; this merge should only take place if that one proceeds. Currently, most animals except for birds in Category:Fauna of the United States are not divided by type (e.g. no subcategories exist for mammals, amphibians, etc.). If that merge proceeds, then these subcategories should also be merged into Category:Fauna of the United States. If that nomination fails, then these categories should be left alone. Dr. Submillimeter 10:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename & merge into appropriate bioregions: X of northeast United States, or X of northeast North America; southwest US or southwest NA; western North America. -- lquilter 15:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per Dr. Submillimeter. — mikedk9109 SIGN 23:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. Sumahoy 02:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lists of video game music

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 per AFD. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Lists of video game music ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All articles in this category are facing deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_8-bit_Atari_game_music. Shawnc 10:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)}} reply

  • Comment. Facing deletion does not mean they'll be deleted, though. Doczilla 10:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep pending AfD results. -- Dweller 12:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep pending afd results If any of the list articles end up getting kept, then this is probably an ok way to categorize them. However, if all of the articles end up getting deleted, then the category would be empty and can be safely deleted. Dugwiki 23:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: I anticipate deletion for all these lists. The AfD currently has 10/12 votes for deletion. Shawnc 08:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Update: The category is now empty. Suggested speedy deletion. Shawnc 06:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Fauna of the United States by state

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 the lot of them. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Fauna of the United States by state
Category:Fauna of Alabama
Category:Fauna of Alaska
Category:Fauna of Arizona
Category:Fauna of Arkansas
Category:Fauna of California
Category:Fauna of the San Francisco Bay Area
Category:Fauna of Colorado
Category:Fauna of Connecticut
Category:Fauna of Delaware
Category:Fauna of Florida
Category:Fauna of Georgia (U.S. state)
Category:Fauna of Idaho
Category:Fauna of Illinois
Category:Fauna of Indiana
Category:Fauna of Iowa
Category:Fauna of Kansas
Category:Fauna of Kentucky
Category:Fauna of Louisiana
Category:Fauna of Maine
Category:Fauna of Maryland
Category:Fauna of Massachusetts
Category:Fauna of Michigan
Category:Fauna of Minnesota
Category:Fauna of Mississippi
Category:Fauna of Missouri
Category:Fauna of Montana
Category:Fauna of Nebraska
Category:Fauna of Nevada
Category:Fauna of New Hampshire
Category:Fauna of New Jersey
Category:Fauna of New Mexico
Category:Fauna of New York
Category:Fauna of North Carolina
Category:Fauna of North Dakota
Category:Fauna of Ohio
Category:Fauna of Oklahoma
Category:Fauna of Oregon
Category:Fauna of Pennsylvania
Category:Fauna of Rhode Island
Category:Fauna of South Carolina
Category:Fauna of South Dakota
Category:Fauna of Tennessee
Category:Fauna of Texas
Category:Fauna of Eastern Texas
Category:Fauna of Western Texas
Category:Fauna of Utah
Category:Fauna of Vermont
Category:Fauna of Virginia
Category:Fauna of Washington
Category:Fauna of West Virginia
Category:Fauna of Wisconsin
Category:Fauna of Wyoming
  • Merge all into Category:Fauna of the United States - Although categorization of animals by country is questionable (since animals' ranges have little to do with political boundaries), categorization of animals by U.S. state is infeasible. Most North American animals are found in multiple U.S. states, and some (such as the prolific coyote and the almighty house sparrow) are found in every state in the Continental U.S. These two animals as well as others could easily be placed into almost all of the above categories. If the appropriate categories were added to animals' articles, the categories would quickly become an unusable mass of wikilinks. Given that the categorization system plainly is not practical, the entire category tree should be merged into Category:Fauna of the United States. However, an exception should be made for Category:Native fauna of Hawaii. This category will only include animals that occur in Hawaii and can therefore be used more realistically. (Additionally, note that additional debate on subdividing animals according to political boundaries instead of natural boundaries may require additional debate. Also note that a similar category tree exists for birds. However, the parent category is currently the subject of a rename debate, so to avoid confusion, any merge proposal on the bird categories should wait for the debate on the parent category to close.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all per nom. Cloachland 13:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename and merge into regional variants of Category:Fauna of North America. If you just upmerge now you'll lose whatever regionality is currently included by proxy of states/state regions. In particular, E./W. Texas & SFBA do have unique fauna and if they're in there, then it would be a real disservice to readers to suddenly have to scan through the "US" or "North America" categories to get them. -- lquilter 15:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Could you post a more specific suggestion on how to sort these state categories into regional categories? I am uncertain if I like the proposal (as many animals would fall within multiple regions), but it would help discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 16:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment: As for fauna that fall within multiple regions : By categorization standards we do the most specific cat, so if it's multiple regions (like pigeons) then it should be in only the most specific bioregion cat, e.g., "Fauna of Earth", maybe.
  • Strongly Oppose. This is one of the most damaging suggestions I've ever seen. This will completely destroy the work that went in to the effort that went in to forming these regional variations.-- DaveOinSF 16:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I agree that categorization by state cleary doesn't work. However, I don't think merging all the north american animals into one big category is the right thing either. -- Prove It (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If you agree that categorization by state doesn't work, and one big category doesn't either, then what other option is there? — mikedk9109 SIGN 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strongly oppose. Although some state animal lists are more complete than others (i.e. Minnesota). State lists can be valuable information to those state residents wishing to see what wildlife occurs in their respective states or regions. I live in New England, where the states are small. Someone in NH, ME,etc. may want to take a peek at the wildlife occurring in their own state, despite the duplicative nature of the lists. The State Fauna category allows for a further breakdown into more manageable categories, again see Minnesota. I do agree that listing each species across all animal Classes could get burdensome if listed in this manner under Fauna, but there is value in the Fauna List linking the Animal Classes or regions together, and this far outweighs the bursensome nature of people linking each species to the Faunal lists (any way to limit the Faunal lists to only include regional lists without confusing people?) The American Society of Mammalogists are devising their own state mammal lists for each state, and many organizations have their own state bird, butterfly, herp, fish which shows the interest in these types of lists. Wikipedia is in a unique position since we have the state wikis to link any verifiable state animal lists together to each state. It is a nice learning tool. My strong vote is to keep. Pmeleski 00:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Horrible category clutter. If it is important (which is doubtful) write an article for each state instead. Piccadilly 01:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - See Category:Fauna of Europe. This seems like a fairly reasonable way to organize animals. On the other hand, some of the national subcategories (e.g. Category:Mammals of Estonia) appear to replicate many of the animals in a "Europe" parent category. Dr. Submillimeter 18:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for pointing this out -- It looks good at a continent & type-of-animal level. But I wouldn't put too much weight on the lack of subdivisions, though; the fact that Fauna of Europe is not divided beyond continent is probably at least as much due to English/North American bias as it is to any decisions based on the best category structure. -- lquilter 18:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    On the other hand, how many categories are needed to indicate the range of something like the Eurasian Badger? Shouldn't two ( Category:Mammals of Asia and Category:Mammals of Europe) be sufficient? This and other animals do not need categories saying that they live in virtually every country between France and Sakhalin. Similarly, we do not need a category system that indicates that the coyote lives in every state and province between California and New Brunswick. Dr. Submillimeter 18:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    Yes, the Eurasian Badger should only be placed in two (or one--Eurasia) categories, because those would be the most specific categories for that particular critter. But the category system needs to also accommodate critters that live in smaller and more specific regions. Fauna should be placed in the most specific category appropriate to that creature, per Wikipedia:Categorization; in some instances the most specific appropriate category is continent-sized; in other instances it might be as small as a particular bay, lake, forest, or mountain. -- lquilter 03:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge This system has some use top down, but not enough to justify the damage it does bottom up (ie. from the articles). It also sets an alarming precedent as if these are categories are kept they will promote use of similar local categories in other countries. Some animals might end up in a thousand categories. Sumahoy 02:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • oppose we just had this discussion 4 months ago. Trying to delete things without first having useful alternatives is of no value to WP. The problem I saw then and still see is that the contents of the articles do not generally have sufficient information to categorize them by bioregion or really in any other way. Is anyone going to fix these articles so they have sufficient facts? Where are the biologists to do this. I think categories should always based on article facts. Hmains 04:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all These categories are unrelated to habitat conditions. AshbyJnr 16:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • comment - If we upmerge to Category:Fauna of the United States (or better yet, Category:Fauna of North America), could we include the category name information within the text of the article, in a section called "Regions found"; and note on the Talk: page that this is a temporary fix until there is a full bio solution? Would that satisfy the other folks who are concerned about losing any informational content contained by the state-based categorization, as a temporary solution? -- lquilter 23:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all State boundaries are irrelevant to science. Carina22 14:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:High schools in Orange County, Florida

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge into Category:High schools in Florida, convention of Category:High schools in the United States. -- Prove It (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per convention. -- Dweller 12:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Per the convention. — mikedk9109 SIGN 22:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Florida is far too big to have just one category. AshbyJnr 16:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

México (state)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:State of México to Category:México (state)
Propose renaming Category:Cities in México State to Category:Cities in México (state)
Propose renaming Category:Governors of the State of México to Category:Governors of México (state)
Propose renaming Category:Municipalities in State of México to Category:Municipalities of México (state)
  • Rename all, so that all categories relating to México (state) (Estado de México) use the same term in their titles to refer to the political entity (ie the Mexican state which also happens to be called México). Presently they refer to it in several different ways, which is confusing as well as inconsistent. The proposed renames reflect the nomimal form of the article on the state itself. The rename of the municipalities subcat is also consistent with the way other municipalities by Mexican state cats are formed, ie uses the of not in construction. Note also that the use of the accented char in the titles is entirely consistent with usage employed when naming other Mexican states' articles and categories (eg Yucatán, San Luis Potosí, etc. cjllw | TALK 05:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy rename - The categories should automatically be renamed to match the parent article, especially when the name of the parent article is generally accepted by consensus or is otherwise non-controversial. I had proposed a speedy rename criteria like this on the talk page for this page, but I received no comments, and so I never pushed it forward. Dr. Submillimeter 09:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy rename per Dr. Submillimeter. — mikedk9109 SIGN 22:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy rename to match article name. -- Xdamr talk 23:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:African American criminals

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete, whats the need to create Criminals by ethnicity? See also discussion of July 19th. -- Prove It (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 05:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It's well-known I support many occupation/identity categories, but that doesn't mean I want them to proliferate without reason. The existence of this would seem to necessitate a bunch of "Blank-American criminals" and I don't think that's helpful. Lastly the only name in it seems to be a rapper and that makes me think some kind of agenda is intended.-- T. Anthony 06:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - although criminality & ethnicity is an important & studied topic, categories of criminals by ethnicity are definitively not going to be helpful in studying it. The study of criminality & ethnicity/gender/nationality/religion/etc is statistical and quantitative, and the use of categories in wikipedia lends nothing to that. Moreover, while other identity & occupation categories are useful because they serve as barometers of notable persons in those professions, and can reflect social barriers to success based on race/gender/etc; that reasoning completely breaks down for the "occupation: criminals" category -- because what is a "notable" or successful criminal? More crimes? More punishment for fewer crimes? Less punishment per crime? Criminals are notable for all sorts of reasons; often because they are notable for non-criminal activities. So this category is not only not helpful, it is actually, actively, confusing. Delete all "Criminals by ethnicity" categories. -- lquilter 17:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can't put it any better than T. Anthony... this is completely useless.-- Isotope23 20:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per WP:OV by ethnicity. — mikedk9109 SIGN 22:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Not only is this over-categorization, it's wildly offensive that African-Americans are the only people categorized like this. -- Colage 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Obviously some crimes are racially motivated, but articles about those crimes already can be categorized under, for example, Category:Racially motivated violence in the United States. Likewise, for cases where a criminal's ethnicity led to unfair treatment by the judicial system or by vigilante groups, there exist racism related categories you can use to sort those articles. And obviously for criminals where ethnicity played no notable role in either the crime or the aftermath, there is no need to categorize those people by race. Thus it seems unlikely this particular category is actually needed and there is sufficient overlap with existing racism-related categories to cover the articles where ethnicity made a difference. Dugwiki 23:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep unless all other African American categories are deleted. Singling this out for deletion is an obvious breach of Wikipedia:Neutrality. Piccadilly 01:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
How so? You have to handle categories one at a time, and we frequently delete African American categories as being a random intersection of ethnicity and occupation/status. If you have other similar categories that you think should be considered for deletion, I'm sure we'll consider them equally. Dugwiki 20:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mayors of places in Sweden

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Mayors of places in Sweden to Category:Municipal commissioners of Sweden
  • Rename, The title of mayor doesn't exist in Sweden, which is divided into municipalities led by a municipal commissioner ( Swedish: kommunalråd). Slarre 03:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename, makes sense to avoid inaccurate 'translations'.-- cjllw | TALK 05:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - well, if we are talking about "inaccurate translations" then I must point out that translating the Swedish "kommuner" to the word "municipalities" is a debateable point! The English language already has a perfectly good translation of the word "kommun" - it is "commune". Why do we use the awkward "municipalities" for Swedish articles, but the standard "communes" for our French ones? -- Mais oui! 08:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename Let's be precise as per nom. TonyTheTiger 19:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename To match the title in Sweden. — mikedk9109 SIGN 22:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Australian Gaming conventions

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Australian Gaming conventions to Category:Role playing conventions
  • Rename. Gaming in this case is totally ambiguous. Role playing makes it clear what this category is for. Vegaswikian 03:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename. "Gaming" in many legal terms refers to gambling. Doczilla 10:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per Doczilla. — mikedk9109 SIGN 22:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Is this a necessary category? It seems to me it should be deleted per small with no potential for growth, and possibly even Wikipedia is not a directory.
    • The problem I have with deleting this is that the whole area for games needed to be looked at and cleaned up to understand what belongs. I tried a little work on Category:Games today to see what could be moved down to see if there was a logical way to organize these conventions. Part of the problem is the name for the parent, Category:Gaming conventions, which is also ambiguous. Vegaswikian 01:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Another option here is to rename to Category:Role playing conventions which would increase the scope of the category and allow more members. The by country designation could be added later if needed. I think this makes more sense, so I'm going to modify the nomination to reflect this. Vegaswikian 01:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Rename - Probably the most reasonable thing to do with the category. -- Colage 01:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to category:Game conventions per the discussion above on category:Gaming conventions.-- Mike Selinker 03:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Conflicts

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: do not merge. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Conflicts into Category:Conflict
  • Merge, There is already a larger Category:Conflict. I changed everything that was categorized as Conflicts to Conflict since there is no need for two similar categories. -- Jagz 02:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • There should not be a category named Conflict and another Conflicts, it is too confusing. -- Jagz 07:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • I will remove the merge proposal template from the Category but will add a description of the Category to prevent confusion. -- Jagz 17:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose The 'Conflict' category should be reserved for articles on the sociological theory of conflict. The 'Conflicts' should be the overarching category for articles on conflicts that have occurred in history. Look at the categories to which these two categories belong to see the difference. Hmains 04:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Why not just create a new category called Sociological Conflict or Theory of Conflict, etc.? It can be a subcategory of Category:Conflict. -- Jagz 05:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Unmerge and Rename Category:Conflict to prevent future confusion. ~ Bigr Tex 04:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I am against the name Conflicts because it implies that it is for articles with more than one conflict. A category with the name Conflict could represent articles with one or more conflicts. -- Jagz 05:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. This is a perfectly standard distinction between a category that covers everything related to a topic and a category that includes specific instances of it; c.f. Category:Fire (general topic) versus Category:Fires (specific instances). Kirill Lokshin 14:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose and unmerge per Kirill Lokshin. TonyTheTiger 19:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose merge; Comment - Clearly these should not be merged; "conflicts" is for examples of particular conflicts; and "conflict" is for the theory/study of. However, we might consider possibilities of renaming " Category:Conflict to render things less confusing. (Even though I agree it is standard to have Topic (singular) / Topics (plural) to distinguish between theory & examples, if there's a sensible way to distinguish, I think we should. In this case we could move Category:Conflict to Category:Conflict theory (my #1 choice) or Category:Conflict studies (my #2 choice), and retain Category:Conflicts the way it is. (Although conflicts should list as a subset of Conflict, also.) -- lquilter 20:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Kirill Lokshin put it perfect. — mikedk9109 SIGN 22:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American English-language writers

Category:Canadian writers in English

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:American English-language writers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Canadian writers in English ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pure time-wasting category clutter. There are something like ten thousand plus articles about American writers, of which this contains one. A vast amount of effort has been put into subcategorizing category:American writers, but it is a huge task and there is still a long way to go. All this would do is recreate that category. It is far more rational to make this category, and others for mainly English speaking countries, subcategories of category:English-language writers and add a qualifying note that those subcategories may contain a few non-English language writers. Sumahoy 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Not necessarily; are there no American writers who write in Spanish? Native American languages? Bearcat 23:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
They are rare exceptions. What do we gain by adding this category to thousands and thousands of categories. Pinoakcourt 21:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is an unneeded intersection of American writers and English-language writers. It makes more sense to fully populate both parents and delete the intersection. I don't think that American writers should be a subcategory of English-language writers. -- Samuel Wantman 21:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and apply the same approach as Category:English-language poets. Pinoakcourt 21:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Now done. I am also adding a nomination for Category:Canadian writers in English. I know the exceptions are rather greater in that case, but I think an English-language category is clutter on the articles just the same, and there is no need to have it when there is an easy workaround. The tiny number of articles in both categories suggests that there simply isn't much demand for them and that there is little chance of them ever being fully populated (though full-population would be undesirable). Pinoakcourt 21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Another point to keep in mind is that if this system was extended some people would end up in not one extra category, but six or eight, eg an American novelist/short story writer/poet/dramatist and playwright/literary critic/travel writer could also be categorised in an English-language category for each of those genres. Pinoakcourt 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both per Pinoakcourt. Hawkestone 14:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both for being almost totally useless. AshbyJnr 16:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_31&oldid=1138388149"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 30 February 1 >

January 31

Category:Burials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park Cemetery

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Burials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park Cemetery to Category:Forest Lawn Memorial-Parks & Mortuaries
  • Rename - This category is for people buried in any of the related Forest Lawn Memorial Park Cemetaries, but the title fails to communicate that more than one cemetery exists. The name should be changed to the name of the actual company that operates the cemeteries, Forest Lane Memorial-Parks & Mortuaries, which is also used in the Wikipedia article on the company. (Note that the company uses an ampersand in their title.) Dr. Submillimeter 23:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment This category is for burials at the Glendale Forest Lawn. There may be a couple of people that are from other Forest Lawns, but not too many. I agree that the naming of the Forest Lawn categories is wrong (along with the articles), but I don't agree with your suggestion as to how to fix it. Mike Dillon 07:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Glendale) and sort with (Hollywood Hills). Is a parent cat for these two needed? ~ Bigr Tex 18:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • At this point, I don't think we need to create the parent. Vegaswikian 06:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment - I am ambivalent as to whether this category treated as a parent or as a category specifically for the Glendale cemetery (although reorganization is needed if the category is renamed for the Glendale location). Regardless, the category is dysfunctional and needs to be fixed. Dr. Submillimeter 09:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Burials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Burials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park to Category:Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Hollywood Hills)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional characters with eating disorders

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: yes, it's very ironic to give salt to people with eating disorders. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Fictional characters with eating disorders ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Speedy delete and salt - This was on WP:CFD on 2007 January 19. The debate was closed on 2007 January 28 with a decision to delete. The category was recreated on 2007 January 29. Dr. Submillimeter 22:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete and salt per nom. -- Xdamr talk 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete and Salt per nom, and previous CfD. — mikedk9109 SIGN 23:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete and salt recreation. Doczilla 03:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - How long does it take to delete an obvious recreation like this? Shouldn't WP:CFD have a speedy deletion criteria for categories like this one? Dr. Submillimeter 15:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Swedish regents

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Swedish regents to Category:Regents of Sweden
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Swedish Governors-General

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Swedish Governors-General to Category:Governors-General of Sweden
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Swedish Privy Councillors

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Swedish Privy Councillors to Category:Members of the Privy Council of Sweden
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Italian air marshal

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Italian air marshal into Category:Marshals of the air force
  • Merge, There has only ever been one Marshal of the Italian Air Force ( Italo Balbo) and, at present, there is no prospect of any more being created. I propose that this cat be deleted and Italo Balbo added to Category:Marshals of the air force which is for 5-star air force officers who are titled as marshals. (Note, Category:Air marshals would not be appropriate for Italo Balbo as this cat is for 2, 3 and 4 star officers in commonwealth air forces). Greenshed 22:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom—no real need for single-member categories like this. -- Xdamr talk 23:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I have create the category Italian air marshal and I'm agree with the idea of merging this category into Category:Marshals of the air force.Italo Balbo was the only five star general in the history of italian air firce

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

Category:Swedish County Governors

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: als0 rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Swedish County Governors to Category:County governors of Sweden
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Members of the Cabinet of Sweden

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: als0 als0 rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Members of the Cabinet of Sweden to Category:Government ministers of Sweden
Xdamr talk 23:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Computerization

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Computerization ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, one-man show. There was an article computerization, which I deleted last night through PROD. Chick Bowen 21:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete and move article Since there is apparently no longer a main article for Computerization, and there's only one article in this category, it seems safe to delete the category and move the only existing article into a different appropriate category for the company's industry. Dugwiki 22:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:African Female rappers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Created yesterday and no contains a whopping 4 entries... all of whom were curiously enough born in the United States. This simply isn't a necessary category.-- Isotope23 21:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete First, Wiki tries to avoid categorizing by gender. Second, we normally categorize people by nationality, not by continent. So this category fails on both counts. Dugwiki 22:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Dugwiki. -- Xdamr talk 23:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This category should be named African-American female rappers since all the people in this category were born in America, but since we don't categorize by gender, then I will go delete. — mikedk9109 SIGN 23:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Category:Female rappers. For whatever reason, we do categorize vocalists by sex (see Category:Female singers and Category:Male singers) and, absent a reconsideration of that consensus, deleting on the basis of this being a sex-based category is problematic. We don't categorize vocalists by race or ethnicity, so this should be merged to the existing accepted category. Should the female rappers category expand to the point of needing subdivision then it should be done by nationality. Otto4711 00:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Good point about Female singers, Otto. Assuming Male Singers and Female singers aren't merged, I agree with your suggestion. Dugwiki 20:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as per Otto4711. User:Dimadick
  • comment - the reason people separate vocalists by gender is because gender affects voice types, which significantly affects performance within many types of music. -- lquilter 23:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Category:Female rappers per standards within singer categories. -- lquilter 23:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New York Mets second round draft picks

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge into Category:New York Mets players, trivia. -- Prove It (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge per nom. TonyTheTiger 19:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Media in Scotland

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Media in Scotland to Category:Scottish media
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Far-left Youth Organisations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge into Category:Youth organizations as subjective, or at least Rename to Category:Far-left youth organisations. -- Prove It (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge 'Left' and 'Right' are difficult terms to define. Perhaps there is some scope for defining groups by ideology ie fascist, communist, concerned with animal rights, etc, but category is too subjective.
Xdamr talk 23:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional mutates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge to Category:Fictional mutants. The difference between "mutants" and "mutates" is that the former were mutated from birth, and the latter became mutated through something else (e.g. radioactive spider bite). This distinction is not found in biology, it is only made in the Marvel universe, and there only barely. However, many universes have their own terminology ("metahumans", "metamutates", basically everything in Category:Human-derived fictional species) and it does not follow that we should categorize Mutants by whatever they're called in that setting. >Radiant< 16:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename To "Marvel Comics mutates" or something similar. The Fictional mutants category has a sub category for Marvel Comics mutants, so why not people who are mutated? As you said there is a diffrence between people who are born mutants and those who were mutated later in life. ( Animedude 23:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)) reply
  • Oppose the rename as worded. Spider-Man is not a mutant by Marvel definition. If the distinction is indeed made only in the Marvel Universe, we must use a name consistent with Marvel's naming conventions. If they define their mutates and mutants, we can't dub Spider-Man a mutant. "Marvel Comics mutates" makes some sense, although to be honest, it seems unnecessary. Doczilla 07:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a very clear definition and merging would only lead to further confusion. User:Dimadick
  • Keep since a definition is given. If keep fails, rename Category:Fictional characters who have been mutated although I LOATHE the excessive wording.~ Zythe Talk to me! 14:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This term only exists in Marvel, and we should not use Marvel's terminology as the basis for categorization. In theory, for example, Aquaman is a mutate, but he's not in Marvel, and thus would never gain this term. (In DC, Aquaman's a metahuman, which in theory Spider-Man would be, except Marvel doesn't use that term either.)-- Mike Selinker 03:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Wasnt Aquaman born with his powers? He gets his powers from being a hybrid atlantian/human. This would make him Mutant, not a mutate. ( Animedude 01:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Super Bowl champions

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Discuss -- it seems to me that all of the subcats here really ought to be articles, not categories. If this were fully implemented it could add many new categories to hundreds of football players. Clearly there's some interest in this kind of information, but I don't think categories are the best way to do it. What do people think? -- Prove It (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think a typical pre-millenium Super Bowl team should have about 5 or 6 players notable enough for articles. However, each post millenium team may have about 20-30 if not more wikinotable players. I think these categories are valid and useful. TonyTheTiger 19:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment P.S. each team should also have a template as opposed to a list. TonyTheTiger 19:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment for now. This would seem to be over categorization. I'm thinking listify or a template would be a better solution. Vegaswikian 19:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now until clarified and discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League What is the intent of this category? If it is to categorize the football teams that won the Super Bowl, then delete all the subcategories and clarify, possibly renaming this to "Category:Super Bowl champion teams". If the intent is to categorize individual football players who happened to play on a Super Bowl championship winning team, then I'm undecided on whether the category is a good idea or if this is a good way to handle it. Either way, the category appears to be prematurely implemented and not clearly defined. I say delete it and discuss a draft proposal on how best to do this, if desired, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League since they're probably the editors with the most experience on football related articles and categories. Dugwiki 23:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • If I'm understanding correctly, it would add at least one new category to every player who had had a superbowl victory. If they had had several victories, it could be many more. -- Prove It (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment With the emerging of separate team pages such as: 1989 Green Bay Packers season or 1969 Kansas City Chiefs season, I think as all of these pages become available, this should fill the category.++ aviper2k7++ 01:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I'd say delete all the Category:1999 St. Louis Rams Super Bowl XXXIV Championship Team pages, but leave the category for pages like 1996 Green Bay Packers season.++ aviper2k7++ 03:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all Categories for single games create clutter, so use templates instead. Carina22 14:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Categories by match are over the top. Osomec 22:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films with a Best Cinematographer Academy Award nomination

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete as recreated content. -- Prove It (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Taiwanese baseball

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:WikiProject Taiwanese Baseball to match Wikipedia:WikiProject Taiwanese Baseball. -- Prove It (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was mistaken nomination. The {{ cfd}} tag was placed on a section of the article Brian Gilbert; I have removed the offending section. Chick Bowen 21:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Virginia Gilbert

Category:Virginia Gilbert ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Theatre productions mentioned are mostly college theatre. Theatre company totally unknown. Second film not filmed yet - only one real film production. 81.158.202.199 14:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Chanel reply

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

Category:Rivers named for women

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Rivers named for women ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, indiscriminate category cluttering up the categories, and encouraging further categories such as rivers named after dogs, rivers named for men, boys named for rivers, dogs named for chairs, cats named for kings. Possible POVPUSH. Bards 11:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Cloachland 13:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This is categorization by name, a form of overcategorization. The rivers otherwise have little in common and should not be grouped together. Dr. Submillimeter 14:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and listify - Categorization by name, a bad idea. Where interesting and relevant lists are appropriate. (And I don't know what the POV is supposed to be (rivers named after women are better? worse? than rivers named after geographical features or men?), but honorary naming patterns are of interest--buildings for instance are largely named after men; Venusian craters after women; and so on. There's often some historical or cultural reason for naming patterns that is, actually, of use to scholars.) -- lquilter 15:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Every other article in every other category only really has one thing in common. Thats the point of a category. So, I'll go with delete because of WP:OC. — mikedk9109 SIGN 23:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Native fauna of Texas

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Native fauna of Texas into Category:Fauna of the United States
  • Merge - See the discussion on Fauna of the United States by State below. Unlike Category:Native fauna of Hawaii, which contains animals that are only found in Hawaii, Category:Native fauna of Texas contains animals that are found both in Texas and outside of Texas. In other words, this category is redundant with Category:Fauna of Texas. If Category:Fauna of Texas is merged into Category:Fauna of the United States, then Category:Native fauna of Texas should be merged into Category:Fauna of the United States as well. If Category:Fauna of Texas is kept, then Category:Native fauna of Texas should be merged into Category:Fauna of Texas. Dr. Submillimeter 10:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename and merge if appropriate to "Native fauna of southwest United States or Native fauna of southwest region, North America". As for "native" versus just "fauna", this is an important distinction; I'm not sure whether it's appropriate for a category, but I would be loath to eliminate it at this point without specific discussion about the "native" aspect. "Native ... Hawaii" for instance is not, actually, things just found in Hawaii, but things found in Hawaii prior to introduction of European & African species starting in 16th century. -- lquilter 15:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - My book on the birds of Hawaii uses the word endemic to describe species originating from and found only within Hawaii. That may be more appropriate. (Note that most of the animals in Category:Native fauna of Texas may not be considered endemic by zoologists, as they naturally occur outside of Texas.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment - obviously that's also an important distinction. i wouldn't want to rename the category until we had a report from someone about how it is currently being used -- native (in hawaii prior to modern colonization); endemic (only in hawaii); actual/current fauna (in hawaii regardless of nativity or endemicity (?)). -- lquilter 17:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Comment - I am very familiar with Hawaiian animals. Except for one, the animals are all endemic. The one non-endemic species is the Black-winged Stilt; however, a subspecies of this stilt is endemic to Hawaii. Dr. Submillimeter 17:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Category:Fauna of Southwestern United States, I agree categorization by states does not work, but the American southwest does make sense. -- Prove It (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Much of the fauna in the American Southwest is also found in Northern Mexico, mainly because some of the ecological zones (specifically the Chihuahua Desert and Sonora Desert) cross the U.S.-Mexico border. While Category:Fauna of Southwestern United States is better, does it still work? Another point: some of the fauna are not Southwestern U.S. species but are instead species found in the South Central United States (East Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Arkansas). These animals include the Strecker's Chorus Frog and Pallid Spiny Softshell Turtle. These animals should not be in a Southwest U.S. category. Dr. Submillimeter 16:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • that's why there's an east texas & west texas subcat, right? i think if the distinction is not yet made in this fauna category then we should not upmerge to "US" because then we lose the value of the work already done to place those species in texas (southeast or southwest US). -- lquilter 17:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Regardless, classifying things as "from Texas" clearly does not work here. Dr. Submillimeter 17:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
          • We're in complete accord that "from Texas" doesn't work for fauna/flora. Just trying to figure out a) what's ideal (I think bio/ecoregions is best); and b) do we go for ideal now, or some intermediate step; and if intermediate, which is best as an intermediate? -- upmerge to US, leave with Texas, or rename to a perhaps not quite right attempt at a bioregion? I have no really firm opinions, but feel that upmerging could lose whatever fine gradations are presently embodied in the category. -- lquilter 21:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Fauna by state subcategories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Vertebrates of Connecticut
Category:Amphibians of Connecticut
Category:Fish of Connecticut
Category:Mammals of Connecticut
Category:Reptiles of Connecticut
Category:Invertebrates of Connecticut
Category:Frogs-Toads-Salamanders of New Mexico
Category:Fish of Utah
  • Merge into Category:Fauna of the United States - See the Fanua of the United States by state discussion below; this merge should only take place if that one proceeds. Currently, most animals except for birds in Category:Fauna of the United States are not divided by type (e.g. no subcategories exist for mammals, amphibians, etc.). If that merge proceeds, then these subcategories should also be merged into Category:Fauna of the United States. If that nomination fails, then these categories should be left alone. Dr. Submillimeter 10:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename & merge into appropriate bioregions: X of northeast United States, or X of northeast North America; southwest US or southwest NA; western North America. -- lquilter 15:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per Dr. Submillimeter. — mikedk9109 SIGN 23:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. Sumahoy 02:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lists of video game music

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 per AFD. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Lists of video game music ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All articles in this category are facing deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_8-bit_Atari_game_music. Shawnc 10:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)}} reply

  • Comment. Facing deletion does not mean they'll be deleted, though. Doczilla 10:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep pending AfD results. -- Dweller 12:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep pending afd results If any of the list articles end up getting kept, then this is probably an ok way to categorize them. However, if all of the articles end up getting deleted, then the category would be empty and can be safely deleted. Dugwiki 23:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: I anticipate deletion for all these lists. The AfD currently has 10/12 votes for deletion. Shawnc 08:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Update: The category is now empty. Suggested speedy deletion. Shawnc 06:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Fauna of the United States by state

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 the lot of them. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Fauna of the United States by state
Category:Fauna of Alabama
Category:Fauna of Alaska
Category:Fauna of Arizona
Category:Fauna of Arkansas
Category:Fauna of California
Category:Fauna of the San Francisco Bay Area
Category:Fauna of Colorado
Category:Fauna of Connecticut
Category:Fauna of Delaware
Category:Fauna of Florida
Category:Fauna of Georgia (U.S. state)
Category:Fauna of Idaho
Category:Fauna of Illinois
Category:Fauna of Indiana
Category:Fauna of Iowa
Category:Fauna of Kansas
Category:Fauna of Kentucky
Category:Fauna of Louisiana
Category:Fauna of Maine
Category:Fauna of Maryland
Category:Fauna of Massachusetts
Category:Fauna of Michigan
Category:Fauna of Minnesota
Category:Fauna of Mississippi
Category:Fauna of Missouri
Category:Fauna of Montana
Category:Fauna of Nebraska
Category:Fauna of Nevada
Category:Fauna of New Hampshire
Category:Fauna of New Jersey
Category:Fauna of New Mexico
Category:Fauna of New York
Category:Fauna of North Carolina
Category:Fauna of North Dakota
Category:Fauna of Ohio
Category:Fauna of Oklahoma
Category:Fauna of Oregon
Category:Fauna of Pennsylvania
Category:Fauna of Rhode Island
Category:Fauna of South Carolina
Category:Fauna of South Dakota
Category:Fauna of Tennessee
Category:Fauna of Texas
Category:Fauna of Eastern Texas
Category:Fauna of Western Texas
Category:Fauna of Utah
Category:Fauna of Vermont
Category:Fauna of Virginia
Category:Fauna of Washington
Category:Fauna of West Virginia
Category:Fauna of Wisconsin
Category:Fauna of Wyoming
  • Merge all into Category:Fauna of the United States - Although categorization of animals by country is questionable (since animals' ranges have little to do with political boundaries), categorization of animals by U.S. state is infeasible. Most North American animals are found in multiple U.S. states, and some (such as the prolific coyote and the almighty house sparrow) are found in every state in the Continental U.S. These two animals as well as others could easily be placed into almost all of the above categories. If the appropriate categories were added to animals' articles, the categories would quickly become an unusable mass of wikilinks. Given that the categorization system plainly is not practical, the entire category tree should be merged into Category:Fauna of the United States. However, an exception should be made for Category:Native fauna of Hawaii. This category will only include animals that occur in Hawaii and can therefore be used more realistically. (Additionally, note that additional debate on subdividing animals according to political boundaries instead of natural boundaries may require additional debate. Also note that a similar category tree exists for birds. However, the parent category is currently the subject of a rename debate, so to avoid confusion, any merge proposal on the bird categories should wait for the debate on the parent category to close.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all per nom. Cloachland 13:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename and merge into regional variants of Category:Fauna of North America. If you just upmerge now you'll lose whatever regionality is currently included by proxy of states/state regions. In particular, E./W. Texas & SFBA do have unique fauna and if they're in there, then it would be a real disservice to readers to suddenly have to scan through the "US" or "North America" categories to get them. -- lquilter 15:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Could you post a more specific suggestion on how to sort these state categories into regional categories? I am uncertain if I like the proposal (as many animals would fall within multiple regions), but it would help discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 16:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment: As for fauna that fall within multiple regions : By categorization standards we do the most specific cat, so if it's multiple regions (like pigeons) then it should be in only the most specific bioregion cat, e.g., "Fauna of Earth", maybe.
  • Strongly Oppose. This is one of the most damaging suggestions I've ever seen. This will completely destroy the work that went in to the effort that went in to forming these regional variations.-- DaveOinSF 16:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I agree that categorization by state cleary doesn't work. However, I don't think merging all the north american animals into one big category is the right thing either. -- Prove It (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If you agree that categorization by state doesn't work, and one big category doesn't either, then what other option is there? — mikedk9109 SIGN 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strongly oppose. Although some state animal lists are more complete than others (i.e. Minnesota). State lists can be valuable information to those state residents wishing to see what wildlife occurs in their respective states or regions. I live in New England, where the states are small. Someone in NH, ME,etc. may want to take a peek at the wildlife occurring in their own state, despite the duplicative nature of the lists. The State Fauna category allows for a further breakdown into more manageable categories, again see Minnesota. I do agree that listing each species across all animal Classes could get burdensome if listed in this manner under Fauna, but there is value in the Fauna List linking the Animal Classes or regions together, and this far outweighs the bursensome nature of people linking each species to the Faunal lists (any way to limit the Faunal lists to only include regional lists without confusing people?) The American Society of Mammalogists are devising their own state mammal lists for each state, and many organizations have their own state bird, butterfly, herp, fish which shows the interest in these types of lists. Wikipedia is in a unique position since we have the state wikis to link any verifiable state animal lists together to each state. It is a nice learning tool. My strong vote is to keep. Pmeleski 00:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Horrible category clutter. If it is important (which is doubtful) write an article for each state instead. Piccadilly 01:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - See Category:Fauna of Europe. This seems like a fairly reasonable way to organize animals. On the other hand, some of the national subcategories (e.g. Category:Mammals of Estonia) appear to replicate many of the animals in a "Europe" parent category. Dr. Submillimeter 18:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for pointing this out -- It looks good at a continent & type-of-animal level. But I wouldn't put too much weight on the lack of subdivisions, though; the fact that Fauna of Europe is not divided beyond continent is probably at least as much due to English/North American bias as it is to any decisions based on the best category structure. -- lquilter 18:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    On the other hand, how many categories are needed to indicate the range of something like the Eurasian Badger? Shouldn't two ( Category:Mammals of Asia and Category:Mammals of Europe) be sufficient? This and other animals do not need categories saying that they live in virtually every country between France and Sakhalin. Similarly, we do not need a category system that indicates that the coyote lives in every state and province between California and New Brunswick. Dr. Submillimeter 18:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    Yes, the Eurasian Badger should only be placed in two (or one--Eurasia) categories, because those would be the most specific categories for that particular critter. But the category system needs to also accommodate critters that live in smaller and more specific regions. Fauna should be placed in the most specific category appropriate to that creature, per Wikipedia:Categorization; in some instances the most specific appropriate category is continent-sized; in other instances it might be as small as a particular bay, lake, forest, or mountain. -- lquilter 03:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge This system has some use top down, but not enough to justify the damage it does bottom up (ie. from the articles). It also sets an alarming precedent as if these are categories are kept they will promote use of similar local categories in other countries. Some animals might end up in a thousand categories. Sumahoy 02:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • oppose we just had this discussion 4 months ago. Trying to delete things without first having useful alternatives is of no value to WP. The problem I saw then and still see is that the contents of the articles do not generally have sufficient information to categorize them by bioregion or really in any other way. Is anyone going to fix these articles so they have sufficient facts? Where are the biologists to do this. I think categories should always based on article facts. Hmains 04:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all These categories are unrelated to habitat conditions. AshbyJnr 16:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • comment - If we upmerge to Category:Fauna of the United States (or better yet, Category:Fauna of North America), could we include the category name information within the text of the article, in a section called "Regions found"; and note on the Talk: page that this is a temporary fix until there is a full bio solution? Would that satisfy the other folks who are concerned about losing any informational content contained by the state-based categorization, as a temporary solution? -- lquilter 23:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all State boundaries are irrelevant to science. Carina22 14:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:High schools in Orange County, Florida

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge into Category:High schools in Florida, convention of Category:High schools in the United States. -- Prove It (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per convention. -- Dweller 12:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Per the convention. — mikedk9109 SIGN 22:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Florida is far too big to have just one category. AshbyJnr 16:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

México (state)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:State of México to Category:México (state)
Propose renaming Category:Cities in México State to Category:Cities in México (state)
Propose renaming Category:Governors of the State of México to Category:Governors of México (state)
Propose renaming Category:Municipalities in State of México to Category:Municipalities of México (state)
  • Rename all, so that all categories relating to México (state) (Estado de México) use the same term in their titles to refer to the political entity (ie the Mexican state which also happens to be called México). Presently they refer to it in several different ways, which is confusing as well as inconsistent. The proposed renames reflect the nomimal form of the article on the state itself. The rename of the municipalities subcat is also consistent with the way other municipalities by Mexican state cats are formed, ie uses the of not in construction. Note also that the use of the accented char in the titles is entirely consistent with usage employed when naming other Mexican states' articles and categories (eg Yucatán, San Luis Potosí, etc. cjllw | TALK 05:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy rename - The categories should automatically be renamed to match the parent article, especially when the name of the parent article is generally accepted by consensus or is otherwise non-controversial. I had proposed a speedy rename criteria like this on the talk page for this page, but I received no comments, and so I never pushed it forward. Dr. Submillimeter 09:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy rename per Dr. Submillimeter. — mikedk9109 SIGN 22:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy rename to match article name. -- Xdamr talk 23:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:African American criminals

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete, whats the need to create Criminals by ethnicity? See also discussion of July 19th. -- Prove It (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 05:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It's well-known I support many occupation/identity categories, but that doesn't mean I want them to proliferate without reason. The existence of this would seem to necessitate a bunch of "Blank-American criminals" and I don't think that's helpful. Lastly the only name in it seems to be a rapper and that makes me think some kind of agenda is intended.-- T. Anthony 06:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - although criminality & ethnicity is an important & studied topic, categories of criminals by ethnicity are definitively not going to be helpful in studying it. The study of criminality & ethnicity/gender/nationality/religion/etc is statistical and quantitative, and the use of categories in wikipedia lends nothing to that. Moreover, while other identity & occupation categories are useful because they serve as barometers of notable persons in those professions, and can reflect social barriers to success based on race/gender/etc; that reasoning completely breaks down for the "occupation: criminals" category -- because what is a "notable" or successful criminal? More crimes? More punishment for fewer crimes? Less punishment per crime? Criminals are notable for all sorts of reasons; often because they are notable for non-criminal activities. So this category is not only not helpful, it is actually, actively, confusing. Delete all "Criminals by ethnicity" categories. -- lquilter 17:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can't put it any better than T. Anthony... this is completely useless.-- Isotope23 20:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per WP:OV by ethnicity. — mikedk9109 SIGN 22:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Not only is this over-categorization, it's wildly offensive that African-Americans are the only people categorized like this. -- Colage 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Obviously some crimes are racially motivated, but articles about those crimes already can be categorized under, for example, Category:Racially motivated violence in the United States. Likewise, for cases where a criminal's ethnicity led to unfair treatment by the judicial system or by vigilante groups, there exist racism related categories you can use to sort those articles. And obviously for criminals where ethnicity played no notable role in either the crime or the aftermath, there is no need to categorize those people by race. Thus it seems unlikely this particular category is actually needed and there is sufficient overlap with existing racism-related categories to cover the articles where ethnicity made a difference. Dugwiki 23:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep unless all other African American categories are deleted. Singling this out for deletion is an obvious breach of Wikipedia:Neutrality. Piccadilly 01:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
How so? You have to handle categories one at a time, and we frequently delete African American categories as being a random intersection of ethnicity and occupation/status. If you have other similar categories that you think should be considered for deletion, I'm sure we'll consider them equally. Dugwiki 20:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mayors of places in Sweden

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Mayors of places in Sweden to Category:Municipal commissioners of Sweden
  • Rename, The title of mayor doesn't exist in Sweden, which is divided into municipalities led by a municipal commissioner ( Swedish: kommunalråd). Slarre 03:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename, makes sense to avoid inaccurate 'translations'.-- cjllw | TALK 05:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - well, if we are talking about "inaccurate translations" then I must point out that translating the Swedish "kommuner" to the word "municipalities" is a debateable point! The English language already has a perfectly good translation of the word "kommun" - it is "commune". Why do we use the awkward "municipalities" for Swedish articles, but the standard "communes" for our French ones? -- Mais oui! 08:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename Let's be precise as per nom. TonyTheTiger 19:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename To match the title in Sweden. — mikedk9109 SIGN 22:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Australian Gaming conventions

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Australian Gaming conventions to Category:Role playing conventions
  • Rename. Gaming in this case is totally ambiguous. Role playing makes it clear what this category is for. Vegaswikian 03:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename. "Gaming" in many legal terms refers to gambling. Doczilla 10:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per Doczilla. — mikedk9109 SIGN 22:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Is this a necessary category? It seems to me it should be deleted per small with no potential for growth, and possibly even Wikipedia is not a directory.
    • The problem I have with deleting this is that the whole area for games needed to be looked at and cleaned up to understand what belongs. I tried a little work on Category:Games today to see what could be moved down to see if there was a logical way to organize these conventions. Part of the problem is the name for the parent, Category:Gaming conventions, which is also ambiguous. Vegaswikian 01:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Another option here is to rename to Category:Role playing conventions which would increase the scope of the category and allow more members. The by country designation could be added later if needed. I think this makes more sense, so I'm going to modify the nomination to reflect this. Vegaswikian 01:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Rename - Probably the most reasonable thing to do with the category. -- Colage 01:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to category:Game conventions per the discussion above on category:Gaming conventions.-- Mike Selinker 03:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Conflicts

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: do not merge. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Conflicts into Category:Conflict
  • Merge, There is already a larger Category:Conflict. I changed everything that was categorized as Conflicts to Conflict since there is no need for two similar categories. -- Jagz 02:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • There should not be a category named Conflict and another Conflicts, it is too confusing. -- Jagz 07:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • I will remove the merge proposal template from the Category but will add a description of the Category to prevent confusion. -- Jagz 17:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose The 'Conflict' category should be reserved for articles on the sociological theory of conflict. The 'Conflicts' should be the overarching category for articles on conflicts that have occurred in history. Look at the categories to which these two categories belong to see the difference. Hmains 04:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Why not just create a new category called Sociological Conflict or Theory of Conflict, etc.? It can be a subcategory of Category:Conflict. -- Jagz 05:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Unmerge and Rename Category:Conflict to prevent future confusion. ~ Bigr Tex 04:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I am against the name Conflicts because it implies that it is for articles with more than one conflict. A category with the name Conflict could represent articles with one or more conflicts. -- Jagz 05:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. This is a perfectly standard distinction between a category that covers everything related to a topic and a category that includes specific instances of it; c.f. Category:Fire (general topic) versus Category:Fires (specific instances). Kirill Lokshin 14:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose and unmerge per Kirill Lokshin. TonyTheTiger 19:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose merge; Comment - Clearly these should not be merged; "conflicts" is for examples of particular conflicts; and "conflict" is for the theory/study of. However, we might consider possibilities of renaming " Category:Conflict to render things less confusing. (Even though I agree it is standard to have Topic (singular) / Topics (plural) to distinguish between theory & examples, if there's a sensible way to distinguish, I think we should. In this case we could move Category:Conflict to Category:Conflict theory (my #1 choice) or Category:Conflict studies (my #2 choice), and retain Category:Conflicts the way it is. (Although conflicts should list as a subset of Conflict, also.) -- lquilter 20:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Kirill Lokshin put it perfect. — mikedk9109 SIGN 22:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American English-language writers

Category:Canadian writers in English

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:American English-language writers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Canadian writers in English ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pure time-wasting category clutter. There are something like ten thousand plus articles about American writers, of which this contains one. A vast amount of effort has been put into subcategorizing category:American writers, but it is a huge task and there is still a long way to go. All this would do is recreate that category. It is far more rational to make this category, and others for mainly English speaking countries, subcategories of category:English-language writers and add a qualifying note that those subcategories may contain a few non-English language writers. Sumahoy 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Not necessarily; are there no American writers who write in Spanish? Native American languages? Bearcat 23:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
They are rare exceptions. What do we gain by adding this category to thousands and thousands of categories. Pinoakcourt 21:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is an unneeded intersection of American writers and English-language writers. It makes more sense to fully populate both parents and delete the intersection. I don't think that American writers should be a subcategory of English-language writers. -- Samuel Wantman 21:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and apply the same approach as Category:English-language poets. Pinoakcourt 21:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Now done. I am also adding a nomination for Category:Canadian writers in English. I know the exceptions are rather greater in that case, but I think an English-language category is clutter on the articles just the same, and there is no need to have it when there is an easy workaround. The tiny number of articles in both categories suggests that there simply isn't much demand for them and that there is little chance of them ever being fully populated (though full-population would be undesirable). Pinoakcourt 21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Another point to keep in mind is that if this system was extended some people would end up in not one extra category, but six or eight, eg an American novelist/short story writer/poet/dramatist and playwright/literary critic/travel writer could also be categorised in an English-language category for each of those genres. Pinoakcourt 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both per Pinoakcourt. Hawkestone 14:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both for being almost totally useless. AshbyJnr 16:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_31&oldid=1138388149"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE