Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 5

< August 4	August 6 >

August 5

Category:The L Word

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 per precedent --Kbdank71 13:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for a TV series. Material is interlinked and category is not warranted. Otto4711 22:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see a guideline in overcategorization about a problem with eponymous cats for anything but people. The L Word category has been clipped over time (e.g. L Word was taken out of the Ilene Chaiken article, but I added it back). There are a number of L Word related notable phenomena that don't have articles yet, e.g. The Chart, gold star lesbian. I don't like the idea of relying on "the article" to link all related content. This category is a much needed hub. Scarykitty 19:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chaiken article was removed per the precedent against categorizing people by the projects on which they work, since actors, writers, producers, etc. can work on vast numbers of different projects and categorizing them by project would lead to navigation-hindering category clutter. If there is a sudden spate of L Word articles that can't be easily interlinked through the various extant articles and can't be appropriately categorized elsewhere then the necessity for the category can be revisited. As it stands, however, this category is no different from the dozens of TV show categories with the same sort of material that have been deleted as unnecessary. Examples include these five, this one, the several on this page and so on stretching back over the last several months. Otto4711 17:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ilene Chaiken is not Steven Spielberg. She IS the L Word and is really not notable outside the series. Many TV show categories still exist, e.g. Category:The Brady Bunch. What exactly is the difference between the L Word and all the others that survive at Category:Categories named after television series The originally cited WP:OC is really no help. I do see a notation on the above mentioned category that "not all television series should have a category, in fact most should not." But there are no criteria for what is a reasonable reason for a category and what isn't. The L Word category is clearly underpopulated (e.g. Betty (band) should be listed as they also have achieved significant notability because of their association with the L Word. (yet I hestitate to add the category for fear of being reverted due to "precedent against categorizing people by the projects on which they work". Given the incredible cultural phenomenon that the L Word is in the lesbian community, I see no distinction between it and the other notable, culture-changing TV series included in the category. Scarykitty 02:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of other TV show categories doesn't serve as justification for this category, and indeed many categories, including the ones linked to above and many, many others, have been deleted. Compare this category with, for instance, Category:Saturday Night Live as an example where a category is clearly warranted because of the breadth of related articles and subcategories that can't readily be linked through the main article or elsewhere categorized. Whereas here we have a category with a single subcategory and only a few articles that are all linked through the main article with ease and fit in other categories appropriately. You're right that there is no concrete list of criteria as to when a TV show category is warranted and when it isn't. However, there is precedent, and precedent is very clear that categories with this level of material are not warranted. I think that your admiration for the show is coloring your perception of the need for the category. "Significant to the lesbian community" does not demonstrate a need for the category and basically amounts to an WP:ILIKEIT argument. Otto4711 14:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Everything can and should have navtemplates. Carlossuarez46 05:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you defnie navtemplates? I don't find it on Wikipedia.Scarykitty 02:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Navigational templates. Otto4711 22:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see how this is overcategorization. Keep per Scarykitty. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Scarykitty and SatyrTN. Benjiboi 14:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree that this is overcategorization. Rather, it serves as a useful overall category for other L-Word-related categories. --Yksin 17:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL is not a strong argument. Otto4711 14:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent, even though I sympathise with the usefulness. If OTOH we want to reevaluate that principle, we should do so universally. Tewfik^Talk 18:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - After reading Scarykitty's comments I was anticipating finding a considerable number of articles in the category. If this is all there is likely to be (with or without Chaiken), I just don't see a good rationale for keeping this cat, since the ancillary articles can easily be linked from the main article. And the navtemplate suggestion is excellent.Cgingold 08:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Scarykitty 18:43, 12 August 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:Spider-Man film series actors

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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Performer by performance, and recreation of deleted content. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete recreation. Wryspy 21:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete recreation, performer by performance = OCAT. Carlossuarez46 05:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block, along with blocking all of the varieties and flavors noted above - save us all the time and trouble of having to hunt these down for round eleventy when they get made again and again. Otto4711 18:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per ample precedent, Tewfik^Talk 18:55, 9 August 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:Fictional bulimics

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - for the same reasons the similar "fictional characters with eating disorders" has been deleted three times so far. It was suggested in one of the AFDs that a bulimia-specific category might be useful but I tend not to agree. Otto4711 16:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and much precedent. Not defining. Wryspy 21:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 05:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ample precedent, Tewfik^Talk 18:55, 9 August 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:Fictional alcoholics

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - as with the deleted "fictional drug addicts" categories this is non-defining. I'm pretty sure this is a re-creation as well, if so, salt it. Otto4711 16:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as recreation of deleted content. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete recreation. Alcoholism is too common to be defining. Inclusion criteria will be arbitrary and/or subjective. Wryspy 21:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete recreation, and for all the reasons it was deleted in the first place. Carlossuarez46 05:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ample precedent, Tewfik^Talk 18:56, 9 August 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:Deceased Soap opera 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 Delete, and SALT. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete and salt along with the likely lower-case "s" variation. We do not characterize fictional characters on living/dead status, and given soap opera's penchant for reviving the "dead" such a category for soaps is especially bad. Given the recent spate of creating and re-creating these, suggest a pre-emptive salt to save us all additional rounds of dealing with it. Otto4711 16:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as recreation of deleted content. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete recreation. We are not supposed to categorize as alive/dead. Wryspy 21:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete recreation and for all the reasons it was deleted in the first place. It may be time to block recreation of some of these. Carlossuarez46 05:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion please as above.--NeilEvans 16:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ample precedent, Tewfik^Talk 18:56, 9 August 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:Holiday parks in the UK

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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is a "Holiday park"? Looks like we're missing an article ... From context I'm guessing a some kind of combination campground / trailer park / resort.

Rename to Category:Holiday parks in the United Kingdom, convention of Category:Visitor attractions in the United Kingdom. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per both. Johnbod 00:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Holiday parks in the United Kingdom. Holiday park is a standard term in the UK, and it should have an article. Basically a holiday park is a camp with caravans or chalets (not normally tents) and entertainment facilities. A holiday park would never be referred to a campground, it certainly isn't a trailer park (and trailer park is American English in any case), and few if any of them would have the nerve to call themselves a resort (which nearly always means a town in the UK, whereas Americans use it for hotels very frequently). Alex Middleton 12:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would be correct to make holiday park a redirect to RV park or Caravan parks? -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not RV parks, since this is a purely US concept. Caravan parks just about fits, though the article is vague. At the great majority of UK Holiday parks, all or most users just turn up in a car, the caravans or chalets are provided. Also the entertainment facilities are nowadays more extensive than the RV/caravan parks seem to have. Really it needs its own article. Johnbod 14:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Many of them have mainly or entirely chalet accommodation. RegRCN 20:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per above. RegRCN 20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is already a defining entry for Holiday camp, which I suppose is where the modern term 'Park' evolved from. Shouldn't this be included as a synonym or otherwise linked into this debate? Ephebi 09:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Holiday camps in the United Kingdom, else rename the entry. Tewfik^Talk 18:58, 9 August 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:Scrubs

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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for the TV series. Material is extensively interlinked through the articles and a navtemplate. Material does not warrant a category. Otto4711 15:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ample precedent, Tewfik^Talk 18:58, 9 August 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:Talkshow with Spike Feresten

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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for a TV show. Category in no way warranted by the material. Otto4711 15:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ample precedent, Tewfik^Talk 18:59, 9 August 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:Deceased Police series 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 delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as recreation of deleted content, see many previous discussions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete recreations. Wryspy 21:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 05:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete please.--NeilEvans 16:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ample precedent, Tewfik^Talk 18:59, 9 August 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:Narnia

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/merge as nominated, except for category:The Roar of Love and category:Narnia adaptations, both of which will upmerge to category:The Chronicles of Narnia --Kbdank71 13:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Narnia to Category:The Chronicles of Narnia

Nominator's rationale: Per this fictional locations discussion, using the place name as the guide has some issues. I thought I'd see if we could name this one after the book series instead, as per the newly renamed category:The Chronicles of Narnia locations. The last category is too catchall for my tastes; I could see category:The Chronicles of Narnia ships, though.--Mike Selinker 14:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:The Roar of Love. The one article in it has no official connection to Narnia or The Chronicles of Narnia. Otto4711 15:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but it's clearly related, official or not, the same way Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex belongs in category:Superman.--Mike Selinker 17:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever else happens the item should not end up in the music category, which should only include items which are from the series itself. Adaptations might be acceptable if it "tells the story" of the books but that's still a stretch. Otto4711 22:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it belongs in the music category (if we keep it) because it is a musical adaptation of the works. LloydSommerer 01:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Does it make sense to Delete category:Chronicles of Narnia films and move the articles in that category into the parent category category:Narnia adaptations? LloydSommerer 16:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the idea here is that the adaptations category contains all things other than the books. I'd probably keep the films category, but I might delete the adaptations one and just put the films and music categories and the other articles into the main category.--Mike Selinker 17:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per last week's discussion, with two exceptions. One, Category:Narnia adaptations is an unnecessary layer and should merged to the parent category as Mike suggests above. Two, the album Roar of Love does not need a category, so either delete Category:The Roar of Love or merge its one article to the Narnia root or music cat (where, yes, it doesn't quite belong). ×Meegs 21:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care for the inconsistancy of having categories for film and music adaptations and not for the other types of adaptation. But, I agree that these categories have too few articles to warrent keeping them all. To be consistant we would need to (a) remove all three categories and put all films, music, tv and game adaptations in Category:Narnia (b) remove films and music categories and let all of the adaptations live in Category:Narnia adaptations or (c) put films and music into narnia and add categories for TV and Games as well. I don't think C is a good idea, but A or B both seem fine to me. LloydSommerer 01:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suggest that (c) is the best option, particularly in the long run. Keeping the films cat is important, as it fits well into several greater categories such as Category:Films based on children's books and Category:Fantasy films by series. That can't be done if it's merged into the parent cat, (a), or into the adaptations cat, (b). The music and (yet to be created) games categories will make a lot more sense as they gain new members as the films are released. I have no problem keeping their contents, as well as the one article about the television adaptation in the parent category in the meantime, though. ×Meegs 10:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd be fine with eliminating the "adaptations" layer.--Mike Selinker 21:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment should objects and events be categorized together, and not separately? 132.205.44.5 21:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a strange combination. The problem is that even with them categorized together, there're only four of them. That is why Mike suggests, and I agree, that the category should be merged into the catchall Category:The Chronicles of Narnia. It's not obvious that there are more articles in the pipeline, but, if in the future we've generated a handful of articles about events, I'm sure no one will object to the creation of a subcategory just for them. ×Meegs 10:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, though we should delete OCATs like "the Roar of Love" (which seems in any event to be upmerge-bound). Tewfik^Talk 19:02, 9 August 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:Shark (TV Series)

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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete eponymous overcategorization for a TV show. Material is interlinked and does not warrant a category. Otto4711 14:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ample precedent, Tewfik^Talk 19:02, 9 August 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:Palaces in Italy

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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palaces in Italy -> Category:Palazzi in Italy

Nominator's rationale: The English word ‘palace’ can be a translation of the Italian word ‘palazzo’ (and etymologically they are of the same stuff), but it is often rather a misleading one, as the text of the both this category and the article palazzo make clear. It is for this reason that the word palazzo (plural palazzi) has become widely used in English, and, on the basis of WP:UE, that is the word that should be used to name this category. Ian Spackman 14:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. There was a similar issue with French chateaux (vs castle) categories some months ago, where we went from "castles" to "fortified chateaux", so there is precedent. Johnbod 15:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Palazzi has not been widely adopted into English. Alex Middleton 12:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the plural form you object to? Johnbod 13:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment are we be adopting the Italian nomenclature solely for buildings that the Italians call "Palazzo", or will this include "Castelli" and other designations. If the latter, palaces is probably better. Perhaps US usage is less rigorous since we don't usually have these buildings about; many stately homes in various European countries would be referred to as "palaces" regardless of whether they were or are so titled, just as most Americans would not consider the Palace of Westminster a palace but as the "Houses of Parliament". Palazzo in Italian is a loosely defined term in Italian usage, but certain buildings bear the title regardless of what their function is or was and often regardless of grandeur. If it is solely for those buildings with that title, palazzi works, otherwise let's not tie it to the foreign title if we are going to be loose about whether it need bear the title to be included. Carlossuarez46 05:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few that should not be there I think, like Visconti Castle, which is also in the large Category:Castles in Italy, and some other "castles" in small towns, which are maybe ok. Also some villas, more or less rural - we also have Category:Villas in Italy. My understanding is that a palazzo has to be in some kind of urban setting, not an isolated country house. I'd certainly be happy to restrict the category to those. They all come under Category:Houses in Italy, and with a little pruning I think the scheme works fine. Johnbod 15:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support suggested rename - if there are items listed which are not palazzi, they should be recategorised appropirately. Comment The Palace of Westminster is origianated as a Royal Palace and technically still is one. Some French chateux are indeed castles (in the English sense); others are country mansions, with few (if any) real defensive features. The best policy is to follow local nomenclature, rather than to impose a foreign translation that may have false connotations. Peterkingiron 21:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as long as this is scoped to palazzo, which is unique and distinct from palaces. In theory, I could support an additional "palaces" category which would be this one's parent, but I don't think there are sufficient palaces that are not palazzi to warrant it. Tewfik^Talk 19:07, 9 August 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:Puerto Rican assassinated people

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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Duplication of Category:Assassinated Puerto Rican people and goes against the naming convention of the sub-cats of Category:Assassinated people by nationality. Lugnuts 13:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Assassinated Puerto Rican people. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. RegRCN 20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per convention, Tewfik^Talk 19:08, 9 August 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.

Abarat

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/merge as updated --Kbdank71 14:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These three don't agree with each other. The name of the series is the Abarat Quintet (I could go either way on the "The"), and so the categories should be standardized to that. We don't do characters by fictional nationality as far as I can tell.--Mike Selinker 13:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

alternative renaming That only applies is there is a Quintet, and if there are no other related books. I would suggest that if the current naming is unacceptable, we rename to:

that keeps it under the same heading, but does not invite potential renaming in the future. this follows the examples for Narnia and Wheel of Time as two examples. Books on Narnia are called Narnia, with subcats for Narnia books, characters, locations. the wheel of Time series is called simply Wheel of Time with similar sub cats. UKbandit 09:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that as well. (Though I am proposing a change in the Narnia categories, above.)--Mike Selinker 20:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
great, who does it then ;)
- Nomination updated.--Mike Selinker 15:57, 7 August 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:Classical music in popular culture

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 Speedy Delete per CSD:C1. Tewfik^Talk 19:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Classical music in popular culture to Category:In popular culture

Nominator's rationale: Merge - Small category and, considering that through AFD the content has gone from 15 articles to two (and possibly to zero as the last two articles are nominated), unlikely to expand. SHould in the future there be a spate of acceptable articles on the topic it can be recreated but for now it's unnecessary. Otto4711 13:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, you are pushing things rather hard here. Wait till they actually go--if they are kept, there will probably be a quick effort to provide articles for the others. If they do go, then perhaps it might be just as well. DGG (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So...is that a keep then? Otto4711 04:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There's one article left. Otto4711 04:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete are we going to toss in anyone's view as to an occurrence of classical music in popular culture? I certainly hope not. Carlossuarez46 05:37, 7 August 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:Fuse VJs

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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Fuse VJs to Category:VJs

Nominator's rationale: Merge - this is performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 12:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, we do not do People by television network. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, performer by performance. Carlossuarez46 05:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per precedent, Tewfik^Talk 19:14, 9 August 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:Brave New World

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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with little chance of expansion. Category contains three articles, one of which is set to be transwikied to Wikiquotes, and a template that's nominated for deletion. The two remaining articles are interlinked and elsewhere categorized and do not require this category for navigational purposes. Otto4711 12:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overcategorisation per nom, Tewfik^Talk 19:15, 9 August 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:Pakistani women's ODI cricketers

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 withdrawn and listed at WP:CFD/S for speedy renaming. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as overcategorisation. These two categories are subcategories of Category:Pakistani women's cricketers, which has been nominated for speedy renaming. Between them, the three categories include only one article. Moreover, Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality stipulates that "a gender-specific category should only be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic". I think this justifies the existence of the main "women cricketers" category, but the two subcategories constitute overcategorisation. If kept, the categories should be renamed to Category:Pakistani women ODI cricketers and Category:Pakistani women Test cricketers. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Category:Pakistani women ODI cricketers and Category:Pakistani women Test cricketers This dual categorisation is consistent with the well established system used for male cricketers. The two forms of the game are substantially different, and a fair number of cricketers specialise in one of them to a greater or lesser degree. Perebourne 10:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be the case for men, but there is currently only one article shared by all three categories. Moreover, per the categorisation guideline I linked to, gender categories are warranted only "where gender has a specific relation to the topic". I can see that applying to occupations, but different forms of a game? ... — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The different forms of the game refers to Test and ODI cricket, two similar but distinct forms of cricket. The gender separation is appropriate here as men's cricket and women's cricket are essentially separate sports. Whilst they do play the same forms of the game as the men, the statistics are counted apart from each other, the teams at each level of the game do not match, etc... I certainly intend to fill the categories up with more players when I get round to it, but as it stands there is no other categories for the player to go into. Andrew nixon 19:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know much about cricket, so I will defer to your knowledge. However, in that case, individual articles should be placed in the subcategories rather than the parent category, should they not? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is something that occasionally comes up at the cricket wikiproject. To use an example with much more articles in, Category:English cricketers also has players in its subcategory Category:English Test cricketers and others. This seems to be the current consensus. As for the reasons, I'm at a loss there, I'm just following the consensus! Andrew nixon 20:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Huh, I wasn't aware of that. Given the above discussion, I will withdraw the nomination. I have already listed the categories for speedy renaming at WP:CFD/S. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Category:Pakistani women ODI cricketers and Category:Pakistani women Test cricketers as Perebourne says. Consistency with all other similar categories. Andrew nixon 10:59, 5 August 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:Free image placeholders

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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Free image placeholders to Category:Wikipedia image placeholders

Nominator's rationale: Rename, currently confusing name, does not explain the difference between zero price and freedom; also should be categorised with the Wikipedia prefix to imply internal information ~ Riana ⁂ 04:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AgreeHowever it should be merged as [[Category:Wikipedia image placeholders is quite populated,Blacksmith2^talkEditor Review 06:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Perebourne 10:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sounds good. AnonMoos 23:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this project-space per nom, Tewfik^Talk 19:15, 9 August 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:Afghanistani people

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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Afghan people, convention of Category:People by nationality. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Johnbod 03:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Afghan people. - Onnaghar ^{tl | co | @} 13:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per category convention, Tewfik^Talk 19:17, 9 August 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:Afghanistani poets

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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Afghan poets, convention of Category:Afghan people by occupation, recreation of deleted content. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Johnbod 03:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Onnaghar ^{tl | co | @} 13:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge recreated content per category convention, Tewfik^Talk 19:18, 9 August 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:People with clinical depression

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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discsuion regarding similar category People diagnosed with clinical depression on April 11 which reads "Delete as non-defining. When professionals refer to clinical depression as "the common cold of mental illness" because it's the most frequently diagnosed specific mental illness, then it's too common to be a defining feature for most people".--Dr who1975 04:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Perebourne 10:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-defining. Onnaghar ^{tl | co | @} 13:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete recreation. Wryspy 21:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete recreation, and for all the reasons it was deleted the first time around. Carlossuarez46 05:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Using the same reasoning, it seems it would be a frequently used category for those individuals for whom it is stated in their bio, and justified there. There won't be that many. Per BLP, it will only be mentioned where relevant to the career, and documented reliably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 07:14, 7 August 2007
Weak Keep since I appreciate the medical ambiguity, but agree with DGG about categorising by relevant and verifiable conditions. Tewfik^Talk 19:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and as re-creation of deleted content. Otto4711 22:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same arguments exist from previous deletion, nothing has changed. Clinical depression is too common. How many people are famous because of their depression? I know of individuals that are associated with a depresses persona, like Steven Wright and Robert Smith (musician), but neither of them are diagnosed with clinical depression. Looking through the cat, there are people there who clearly aren't notable because of the clinical depression diagnosis (Jim Carrey for one). Maybe Trent Reznor is notable as being depressed? But really, this is so subjective and arbitrary, I do not believe this is what categories are intended for. Sure, mention verifiable facts in the article, but don't use trivial diagnosis of very common illnesses as categories.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. However, I would be inclined to support a category for individuals who have become involved in public education/activism around the issue, if there are enough with articles to justify such a category. Cgingold 08:18, 11 August 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.