Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 7

< October 6	October 8 >

October 7

Category:Australian banknotes

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Australian banknotes to Category:Banknotes of Australia

Nominator's rationale: It was a speedy move in the past. And what's in Category:Australian banknotes are actually people, not banknotes. The only question remaining is what do we do with these people? ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename to "People shown on ...." , (see below) if it's worth keeping. Johnbod 00:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the merge is already done. The people who appear on banknotes are usually not notable because of that appearance. If you take someone like Queen Elizabeth, she probably has appeared on the banknotes of 20 countries. Do we want to add each of these as a category to her article? Vegaswikian 04:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Vegaswikian. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

? Merge has, quite properly, not been done. The QEII problem is got around by renaming to "Australians who appear on Australian banknotes", which surely is defining. Johnbod 14:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Vegaswikian. People are not notable because they appeared on banknotes; they got the picture on banknotes because they were already highly notable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Musicians who performed under single name pseudonyms

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 17:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization based on coincidence of name type. Non-defining characteristic. Otto4711 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OCAT, non-defining, contrived connection. Carlossuarez46 21:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is often defining, and it's no more a 'coincidence of name type' than Category:Male authors who wrote under female or gender-neutral pseudonyms or Category:Female authors who wrote under male or gender-neutral pseudonyms, it's a choice made by the artist that often says a lot about the artist. --Philip Stevens 21:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author categories are problematic, and should probably be discussed, but many of their members (at least the women) do share common reasons for their use of pseudonyms. These musicians, on the other hand, share nothing beyond their names. ×Meegs 05:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Philip Stevens but rename to "single-name", per basic English grammar. Meegs's argument is less than half an argument, because it fails to address the males-with-female-pseudonyms cases, and assumes blatantly that all (as opposed to most) of the female-to-male cases are necessarily for the same limited number of reasons, which is highly unlikely. The case here is not quite the same as a the gender-bending pseudonyms case, but similar enough that I think a stronger rationale has to be offered for deleting it, especially as the similarity could lead to an assumption of precedent to nuke the other two categories, which have previously survived CfD already; if they are to be deleted it should be on their own alleged lack of merit, not because of a faulty precedent. PS for future thought: If someone cares more than I do, please CfD all of these for a brevity rename: "Male authors with female...", "Female authors with male...", "Musicians with single-name...", or better yet "Male writers with...", and "Female writers with" to avoid any dispute over the definitional distinctions between "author" and "writer" more generally. Seek out similar categories to rename, e.g. things like "Male musicians who..."— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is precisely because not all of the authors use their pseudonyms for the same reasons, and because of the original research involved, that I suggest that those categories are also problematic and need some sort of attention in the future. I do not favor keeping those categories either if all that their members have in common is limited to their names. ×Meegs 19:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as categorization by name, see also discussion of January 15th. -- Prove It ^(talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as categorization by name. It is certainly not a defining quality of those artists. Madonna arguably has more in common with Cyndi Lauper than she does with Prince. --lquilter 20:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Transgender pseudonyms is not the same thing because there is a strong social reason behind that, and because the name itself can be misleading, and in any case the selection of a transgender pseudonym is in many if not all instances a defining quality of that pseudonym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by lquilter (talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 October 2007
Delete as categorization by name, per ProveIt. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Bruce Lee pastiches

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete subjective category about "clear" or "obvious" pastiches. Doczilla 20:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Qualifying for category is based on subjective opinion and all creators could plausibly deny the connection. Also delete on the basis of the abominable use of the word "pastiche" in a category name. Snocrates 06:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition to Doczilla's reasons, this may not be a defining quality of some films, and of those that it is, it's not really distinct enough to be a genre so it's just categorizing based on a single aspect of a work. --lquilter 16:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lists of fictional characters with a real-life connection

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - vague inclusion criteria. Otto4711 19:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vague category. Doczilla 20:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; impossibly ambiguous. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Eponymous common law rules

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

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 14:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: ~~Delete~~ - a form of overcategorization based on happening to have derived a name through a common process. At the very least the category scope should be broadned to encompass all common law rules by renaming to Category:Common law rules. Otto4711 19:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon looking at a number of the articles it appears that they are not elsewhere categorized in the Category:Common law tree so instead of deleting this should be merged to Category:Common law. Otto4711 19:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Common law per Otto471. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Biological eponyms

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - for all intents a re-creation of the deleted eponymous medical categories. All the same reasons the other categories were deleted apply here. They are collecting articles on the basis of happening to have been named for a person, a form of overcategorization. Otto4711 19:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete eponyms categories have been deleted, as per Otto, and I recall Category:Eponymous cities as well. Carlossuarez46 21:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Southern California weather

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category:Northern California weather was deleted after this discussion we don't need to have various weather phenomena or perceived phenomena (fog, rain, heat wave, earthquake weather) to be linked in literally thousands of regional weather categories. Carlossuarez46 18:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Besides, virtually all of the articles listed also apply to the rest of California, and not just southern California. Tmangray 21:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Assassinated United States Presidents

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

The result of the debate was relisted on oct 15. Kbdank71 15:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as overgetegorization, only current member is already in both parent classes. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overcategorization. This isn't needed. Doczilla 20:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly not set up by an expert historian. Once up to strength I see no harm - tell me it isn't defining! Johnbod 22:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Defining characteristic; could possibly be useful as subcategory of Category:Assassinated heads of state. Snocrates 23:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Someone has completed the set. All four members are also in Category:Assassinated American politicians, but none are in Category:Assassinated heads of state. If this is kept, the four should be removed from the former cat, and if it is deleted, they should be merged to the latter cat. ×Meegs 06:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Assassinated heads of state and Category:Assassinated American politicians (in case any articles have been removed from there). No potential for expansion beyond 4 articles, so no need to split it out from the parent categs. In reply to Johnbod and Snocrates,yes being assassinated is a defining characteristic of those 4 men, but that's not in dispute here; the question is whether this 4-person subcat is an appropriate intersection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the answer is clearly yes in my view. No arguments have been advanced that it isn't. Some US editors may think these are so well known as to make the category pointless, but that is certainly not the case globally. Johnbod 00:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now that Category:Assassinated heads of state is up and running, I can support an upmerge to it. Snocrates 00:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if kept, shouldn't this be called Category:Assassinated Presidents of the United States (ie. POTUS) ? 132.205.44.5 03:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify 132.205.44.5 03:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep (but rename to "Assassinated United States presidents") - I'm honestly puzzled by the opposition to this category. Sub-cats by country/nationality (like this one) are routine and uncontroversial -- we have tens of thousands, many of which (to my personal dismay) have only a single article. In this case, the United States is the only nation on earth which has had more than two heads of state assassinated -- a sad distinction which underlines Johnbod's point that readers outside the US may not be aware of our, um, leadership in this area. Cgingold 03:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I find that hard to swallow, since assassination as a means to the throne (head of state) was rife in Ancient Rome, and happened several times in Ancient China (which is still the same nation as today's China). 132.205.44.5 02:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Sweden has had three kings assassinated, but I think Category:Assassinated monarchs is very incomplete (had neither Henri III nor IV). There is also Category:Murdered kings. There are 30 murdered Roman Emperors, including 11 by the Paetorian guard. Johnbod 08:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, points well taken. My comment was less than artfully worded. Obviously, I should have specified that I was referring to the articles found in the category. To be strictly accurate, I guess we could say that the U.S. has taken on the mantle of leadership in this area in the modern era. Cgingold 12:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Heisman Trophy winners and Super Bowl MVPs

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by intersection of award. Otto4711 18:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per both WP:OCAT#Award_winners and WP:OCAT#Narrow_intersection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more approrpiate for listification. Snocrates 01:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – an unnecessary and fairly trivial intersection. Not appropriate for listification either, as I'm pretty sure those four are the entire set. ×Meegs 05:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC. Doczilla 07:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Field armies of the Soviet Union

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

The result of the debate was reverse merge. Kbdank71 15:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:Soviet armies. Virtually all relevant articles within that category. Buckshot06 16:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge; the by-country naming convention for such categories calls for the category to be at this name (or at Category:Armies of the Soviet Union, which is a bit more ambiguous). Kirill 17:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem Kirill. I would like to formally withdraw my nomination, and switch it to a merge/delete for Category:Soviet armies. But how do we get all 40odd articles plus the subcat from Category:Soviet armies to Category:Field armies of the Soviet Union? Do we have to do it manually? Buckshot06 17:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just updating the tags on the two categories would be enough? There's no particular reason why this nomination couldn't close with an outcome like that, I think. Kirill 01:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Horn Rock bands

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 16:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has long been agreed upon by musicians, musicologists, music educators, and performers that the term 'jazz-rock' is archaic and paradoxical. Despite that musicological agreeance, horn-rock is the only usable term that defines the said roster of performers by style, ensemble size, instrumentation, harmonic structure, and content.

Delete, there is no horn rock supporting article, or at least Rename to Category:Horn rock groups, convention of Category:Rock music groups by genre. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly listify. Google does find some references for "Horn Rick", but top obes mostly seem to be geographical features. I don't think it's quite a neologism, but it doesn't seem to be a widely-used term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Horn Rock is a genre of music that existed between 1966 and 1976. The bands featured horn instruments, such as trumpet, sax, trombone, french horn and fused styles as wide as blues, jazz, big band and rock together. It is a legitimate genre, and has also been classified as big band rock. Bands of this genre include Blood, Sweat & Tears, Lighthouse, Chase, the Buckinghams, Chicago and many others. There are numerous Rolling Stone Magazine articles from the late 60's & early 70's that back this up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebigern (talk • contribs) 20:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Steve-O

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: No need for category Deiz talk 15:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Otto4711 16:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easy access to talent's shows. WIKIVUE Detroit (talk) SUN OCT 07 2007 6:54 PM EDT

The shows are all easily accessible through the article Steve-O. Otto4711 01:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the benefit of those who are interested in the idea! There are all kinds of categories, why couldn't he have his own category on Wikipedia? Hmm? WIKIVUE Detroit (talk) SUN OCT 07 2007 9:20 PM EDT —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OC#Eponymous_categories_for_people and WP:OC#Performers_by_performance. Otto4711 04:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per otto4711' eponymous categorization pointer. All articles can be linked from article. --lquilter 20:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Flat races for 3-y-o fillies only

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

The result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 16:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Flat races for 3-y-o fillies only to Category:Flat horse races for three year-old fillies only

Category:Flat races for 2-y-o fillies only to Category:Flat horse races for two year-old fillies only

Category:Flat horse races for 2-y-o's only to Category:Flat horse races for two year-olds only

Category:Flat horse races for 3-y-o's only to Category:Flat horse races for three year-olds only

Nominator's rationale: Rename to expand the abbreviations. Otto4711 15:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think the proposed change would make the titles unnecessarily long. However, if the consensus is in favour of change I would suggest including an extra hyphen, i.e. three-year-old not three year-old. -- Zafonic 18:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the revised hyphenation suggestion (I was never clear on the rules). If you want to shorten the names then chop the word "only" off the end. Whatever else happens, though, the word "horse" needs to be inserted in the two-year-old fillies category. Otto4711 19:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so is the current rename consensus of the form Category:Flat horse races for three-year-old fillies? Vegaswikian 21:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, with of course the appropriate per-category based tweaks. Otto4711 05:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support revised rename. Fixes the abbreviations and removes the unneeded 'only'. I don't think that adding 4 or 5 characters matters much in discussions about the category being too long. Vegaswikian 02:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I was just about to tag these for speedy renaming when I noticed the tags already up. I agree with the consensus so far as summarized by Vegaswikian. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Places in Northern Ireland by county

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 18:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale:: Rename, inserting the word "county" for clarity, as proposed in the mass nominations in yesterday's CfD of by-county categories in the Irish Republic. (most by-county categories in Northern Ireland already include the word "county". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom (Sarah777 14:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Rename per nom Agree as it seems like a reasonable suggestion ww2censor 00:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Strawbs singles

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

The result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 16:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Strawbs songs, per discussion of June 9th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sub-set of Strawbs songs - not all Strawbs songs were singles. Eventually there will be many more entries in the songs category which will not appear in the singles category. Witchwooder 09:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. We don't characterize singles by artist, only songs by artist. I'd love there to be a Speedy rename justification for this one.--Mike Selinker 16:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Actors who voiced Cartoon characters

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

The result of the debate was relisted on oct 15. Kbdank71 16:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into appropriate Category:Voice actors subcategory, as Performer by performance, or at least Rename to Category:Cartoon voice actors. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Cartoon voice actors. This does seem like a notable sub-cat of voice-acting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete - this isn't a category for people known primarily as voice actors who performed in cartoons. It's for actors not normally known for their voice work who happened to do a voice part. It is performer by action or appearance overcategorization. Otto4711 15:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Haven't we done this one before, anyway? Voice-roles have certainly come up before; I remember cross-gender voice roles. --lquilter 20:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Kentucky cultural icons

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

The result of the debate was Merge. Vegaswikian 18:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Kentucky cultural icons to Category:Kentucky culture

Category:Hong Kong cultural icons to Category:Hong Kong culture

Nominator's rationale: Merge both - per July 7, 2006 CFD for Category:Cultural icons, no objective definition is possible for what constitutes a "cultural icon." Inherently POV category. Otto4711 13:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:2006 Triple Crown

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - this strikes me as overcategorization akin to person by project. Otto4711 13:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete shouldn't be categorized by year, that's a bit much. --Buridan 16:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Flat horse races for 3-y-o's only

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

The result of the debate was Closed. Discussion combined with Category:Flat races for 3-y-o fillies only. Vegaswikian 21:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Flat horse races for 3-y-o's only to Category:Flat horse races for three year-olds only

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to expand the abbreviation. Otto4711 13:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose see separate discussion above on "Category:Flat races for 3-y-o fillies only" -- Zafonic 18:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can a passing admin please close/merge this nomination to the other CFD up the page? I didn't know about the other three categories when I put this one up and obviously these should have the same outcome. Otto4711 20:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Business Intelligence Software companies

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 16:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Ended up being untenable to categorize 'companies' by the domain of software, many companies either cross categories or defy clear categorization by category of 'domain'. Cander0000 08:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry, I don't think that I understand the nomination. Can you explain a little more? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started subcategorizing Category:Software companies a while back, and at first though that it could be broken down by which 'type' of software the companies created (i.e. "Business", "Games", "Accounting"). After getting through a few, it became clear that the majority of companies made products across 'category' lines, and/or had switched 'categories' over time. Plus there wasn't a really good definitive list of 'categories' available into which to categorize. Studying other industries on Wikipedia (i.e. Category:Energy_companies), categorizing the companies by country was a better fit. Cander0000 09:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's harder to categorise by geography -- There are so many software companies that operate internationally -- With an example of Crystal Decisions (prior to BOBJ takeover), it had Strong roots in Canada (former Crystal Tech) and in the UK (former Holistic Systems), but was officially based in Silicon Valley. It only ever did Business Intelligence software, however. Ratarsed 11:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yet more Irish categories by county

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 18:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale:: Rename, inserting the word "county" for clarity, as proposed in the mass nominations in yesterday's CfD of Irish by-county categories. (most Irish counties have an eponymous county town, so the word "county" is important as disambiguator)--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom (but, of course, minus the word "Category" in each of the names). I was so puzzled & intrigued by the word "Gaeltacht" that I checked into it, and learned something I didn't know about before. Is it just coincidence that it sounds/looks like Gaelic+talked? Cgingold 09:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the duplication of "Category:"; thanks for pointing it out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom (Sarah777 13:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Rename per nom Agree as it seems like a reasonable suggestion ww2censor 00:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Towns in the Republic of Ireland

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 18:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging

Category:Towns in the Republic of Ireland and Category:Villages in the Republic of Ireland to Category:Towns and villages in the Republic of Ireland

Suggest renaming

Nominator's rationale: Merge/Rename/, This proposal involves all the categories for towns and villages in Ireland. It does two things:

Merges all "towns" categories and "village" categories into new "towns and villages in County X" categories
Renames all the existing "towns and villages in X" categories to the format "towns and villages in County X" (i.e. "adding the word "County", for consistency and clarity)

Only one county (Cork) currently has separate categories for towns and villages; ~~both seem well-populated, and~~ this ~~nomination does not seek merge them~~ (nomination modified to merge them). However, the other counties all have a single category, usually called "Towns in X"; but since there is no separate village category, these categories all include lots of villages (an approach which was agreed at CfD in May 2005). These categories are best renamed as "towns and villages in County X" to reflect their actual usage for both types of settlement; the parent categories are near duplicates, and should also be merged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nomination now complete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support; the situation where half the counties have one type of category and half another is confusing. This needs to be done. (Sarah777 13:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment; I would merge the two Cork categories as well for standardisation purposes; the 'towns' list contains more villages than towns. (Sarah777 13:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You're right, and there are in fact only 3 villages in Category:Villages in Cork. I have amended the nomination to merge them too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support makes sense.--Padraig 15:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Support - common sense, at all levels. A small caveat re the cities, by far most notably Dublin, where I think Towns, villages and suburbs might make sense, as not all the modern suburbs started have a heritage as villages / towns. SeoR 17:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and rename per nom Agree as it seems like a reasonable suggestion ww2censor 00:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is something to be said for having a separate "Town" category and a "Village" category for each County (see Northern Ireland categories where this works well). Check out Category:Towns in Cork and Category:Villages in Cork to see how this would work in practice (I moved all the villages from the town category) Peter Clarke 11:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support adding the word "County" where missing Peter Clarke 11:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Less is more. Peter seem to want more categories but none of these merged cats will become too big - maybe 100 at the most. No matter the final number in a cat, trying to find a town or village in Ireland means looking up two categories. What casual, non-geographic specialised, editor knows into which category it has been placed by some subjective categoriser. A merged category avoids deciding whether a place is classified as a town or a village - often a subjective and hard thing to decide. ww2censor 13:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agree with Ww on this one; I have already seen edit skirmishes over some small towns/large villages and as most towns or villages are not official classifications the division would be highly subjective in many cases. (Sarah777 20:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with Sarah, because we don't have a clear and accessible definition of the distinction betweens towns and villages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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