Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 16

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< October 15 October 17 >

October 16 edit

Category:Caused over 1 million deaths edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 Delete. —Centrx→talk • 20:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caused over 1 million deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, was just created today, smells POV, and is I believe completely unnecessary. Plus, it is quite inflammatory, as I can already forsee edit wars on the subject... Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, ridiculous. Made for causing trouble. This isn't what cats are for. Bishonen | talk 20:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete pointless category that presently is too underpopulated to call it a category anyway. Doczilla 20:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The title of the of the category is rather ambiguous, and well, its contents are like explained above. chsf 21:36, 2006-10-16 (UTC)
  • Save Not pointless. Some people like Stalin and Hitler killed an astounding number of people, there are currently no categories to indicate that these people have anything in common. No POV problem unless you believe it is debateable whether killing over a million people is a good or a bad thing. How can it be ridiculous? How else would you note people or things that have killed over one million people? --Sugarcaddy 00:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sumahoy 00:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Str1977 (smile back) 08:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice. --Golbez 09:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Mass killers Psychomelodic2 15:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC) (user:psychomelodic)[reply]
  • Delete Why one million? Who do you include? How many Nazis? If Nazi other than Hitler is included you are in POV territory. The same applies to other genocides. And what about famines? Attributing blame for them is even more a matter of POV. Golfcam 16:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This would probably be better handled by a hypothetical category like "Heads of state convicted of war crimes". That would be a little more objective and easier to verify. As currently written, you can run into hypotheticals problems of people claiming a head of state or general was responsible for a million deaths, but the claim is exagerated or was made by a political enemy of the person. Dugwiki 16:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless. --Ezeu 19:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Killing over one million people is pointless? Isn't that what Stalin said? Remarkable. --Sugarcaddy 20:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wondering why the above was closed prematurely (since no comment about it from the closer). - jc37 21:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See talk page. - jc37 20:46, 22 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Indian political party "leaders" edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 Rename both per the fact that not all politicians are leaders. Nishkid64 23:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Leader" is being used very misleadingly here, essentially to mean "important politician", which is a little redundant, given the notability threshold. These are the main BNP/INC categories, and the parent and siblings use "politicians". Alai 19:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename both per nom (unless these parties have hundreds of leaders). David Kernow (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's a change that's probably better discussed first at Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Politics. Given the size of the parties, and their state structures, I'd guess that a better answer would be adopting new categories and sub-categories like Category:Political office-holders in the United States.--Mereda 14:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the sensible course is to rename this category, since de facto it's already in use as a catch-all, and if someone then wants to create a sub-cat for actual leaders in some formal sense, or office-holders of this or that sort, then more power to 'em. Alai 17:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I am with Indian politics project. Not everyone in that list is a prominent leader which seems to be the criterion for inclusion as per header in the category.
  • Rename both - This reminds me of a national "heroes" previous discussion. - jc37 21:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both per nom - the corresponding categories for all other nationalities I have seen use "politician" (and I've seen quite a few sorting through all the -politician-stubs). I took a little sample of this material, and based on that, the Indian material is of a similar nature as the rest, so it should be named consistently. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 09:37, 18 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Battleships of the United States Navy edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 merge. the wub "?!" 13:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Battleships of the United States Navy into Category:Battleships of the United States

  • Merge. We have recently merged USN escort carriers and USN aircraft carriers because the navy version was functionally identical to the country version and the navy version was less complete. Continuing with that trend. TomTheHand 19:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The first category is clearly redundant. If US Battleships do not belong to the US Navy, who do they belong to? George J. Bendo 20:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As above (unless maybe Bill Gates built his own private battleship :) ) Dugwiki 16:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Redundant category.--Oldwildbill 19:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - until we discuss about ships of the other military branches, such as the army. - jc37 21:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Name three US Army battleships fast. (After all, one or two would hardly be worth a separate category...) Alai 05:28, 18 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Notable YouTube users edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 delete. the wub "?!" 14:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Notable YouTube users (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Comment, this is a procedural nomination. User:JROBBO apparently tried to nominate this for deletion earlier today after removing the category as "redundant" from all articles it was listed on and linking them to an article he created Notable YouTube memes. No reason given for the CFD, as it was not correctly submitted. Personally, my opinion is that this should be kept and added back to the articles it was removed from as the category isn't redundant with the article (and predates the article anyway; it was originally a list that was categorized). Still, I wanted to finish the nom and see what the community thinks. If kept I 'll add it back to the original articles (someone just let me know on my talk page).--Isotope23 19:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added this for deletion as this stops disputes of notability. It's better that a list of users who have been made notable by YouTube exists, rather than individual articles where the potential for them to be deleted as "no longer notable because they are no longer on YouTube" exists as per the current debate at Emmalina - which I think is fatuous. The list of people shows that YouTube made these individuals popular, rather than the individuals being popular or well-known on their own merit, which they are not. Apart maybe from lonelygirl15, there's no need for individual articles on YouTube users. I think "YouTube users" invites a free-for-all on who or what can be added to it and is a bad idea personally. (JROBBO 06:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - if consensus is to keep it will need renaming to remove the strong whiff of POV. Grutness...wha? 22:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there isn't some other way to categorize them they aren't notable. Golfcam 16:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Or, if kept, rename to Category:YouTube users. The word "Notable" isn't necessary because all people with Wiki articles are supposed to be notable by default. If they're not notable, their article should be deleted. Dugwiki 17:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to YouTube users. I like that idea. It is becoming more common for people known in other media to use YouTube, such as Paris Hilton and P.Diddy or whatever name he's going by these days. This is better because then the notability need to be from YouTube, but they would need to have an article. I fear that the Notable YouTube memes article runs the risk of people adding new people with little regard for actual notability since each section need not meet the requirements to survive AFD. Much edit warring may ensue. Siradia 23:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - How about MSN users? Yahoo users? Google users? or even Wikipedia users? : ) - jc37 21:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Use of those things doesn't have an end result of an available product for others. Use of YouTube results in sometimes very popular videos viewable by the masses. Siradia 23:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Ignoring google and the rest for a moment, you don't think Wikipedia is a useful or popular product? : ) - jc37 23:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, oxymoron :) >Radiant< 09:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's got the pov word in it that we don't do. Obviously a closing admin can read my argument to also mean rename to a category without that pov word in order to gauge a consensus. Hiding Talk 20:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, This is simply an attempt to be noted on wikipedia. Perhaps there should be a 'notable youtube submitters' page instead at the very most...Teque5 Talk 20:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another Comment I'd just like to point out that the article Notable YouTube memes is up for deletion now and looks like it will be deleted. There will continue to be articles for those people on YouTube meeting WP:BIO. It seems there should be something connecting them. User:JROBBO originally nominated this category for deletion because he created that article and then emptied the category of those people with articles. It seems at least one of the two should stay, and I still recommend this one be the one. (Well, renamed to YouTube users as recommended above...) - Siradia 04:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Endgame1 06:11, 21 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Word lists to be moved to Wiktionary edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 rename. the wub "?!" 14:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Word lists to be moved to Wiktionary to Category:Word lists to be copied to Wiktionary

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:Triracial girl groups edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 delete --Kbdank71 16:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Triracial girl groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, There have been only 2 members of this category for about 5 months now. Chsf 18:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this underpopulated, ambiguous category. Doczilla 19:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --musicpvm 01:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They are all human, and that's enough for me. Merchbow 17:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 09:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, overcategorisation. Go girls. Hiding Talk 20:55, 18 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

World cities edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 delete --Kbdank71 16:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Alpha world cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Beta world cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Gamma world cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. Possible recreation of previously deleted category (for the first one, only). (There were deleted edits, but no entry in the deletion log, as far as I can tell....) Categories describing one organization's categorization of cities. Would be better off as a list; and, in fact, it is a list in the Global city article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)

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:Celebrities by nationality and subcats edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 delete --Kbdank71 16:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "celebrities" is an extremely POV word. These categories are just unnecessary. Most of the cats state "Individuals should not be included in this category unless they do not fit into another occupational category". Every person in these categories is already placed into another more specific category. --musicpvm 15:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per above. I would also like that such categories surely would have some members added and removed and re-added and so on and so forth ad infinitum. - Chsf 18:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 19:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ProveIt (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sumahoy 00:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it isn't the case that every person in these categories is already placed into another more specific category; virtually everybody sitting in the Canadian celebrities category, for example, is in there precisely because there isn't a more specific category that they can be filed into. What more specific category, for example, would you propose replacing it with on Manuela Testolini? Dick Assman? Walter Gretzky? The Star Wars kid? Mike Rowe? In none of these cases is there either a viable or a possible replacement category. The celebrities category is also worthwhile as a branch within the category trees; it groups together the subcategories of people whose notability comes from having their names widely known among the general public (as entertainers, writers, etc.) rather than being virtually unknown to the public but notable for other reasons. It needs to be kept on those grounds. Bearcat 02:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As DugWiki stated below, they should be placed into a subcat of Category:People by nationality, but it makes no sense to drop all the people that do not fit into an occupational category into a category with a POV title. Who decides who is a "celebrity"? It can be argued that every person with a Wikipedia article is a celebrity. Also, it doesn't seem useful to use the categories just to hold subcats. Category:Entertainers by nationality and Category:Occupations by nationality are sufficient. And who would decide which occupations are "celebrity" occupations? At the end of the day, the word is just too subjective. --musicpvm 17:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The answer to the above comment is that, worst case, people can be placed under the catch all of Category:Canadian people. By default ALL people with articles on Wikipedia should be notable, so there's no need to sort out "celebrities" from "notable". If the person isn't notable, their article should be deleted. Dugwiki 17:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Category:Canadian people is intended to only contain subcategories; it is not supposed to directly contain any unsubcategorized articles at all. Bearcat 04:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the problem is that there are some notable people that are notable for weird reasons and are almost uncategorizable. Golfcam 01:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is, in my opinion, precisely the benefit of this particular category. Bearcat 19:02, 19 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Saxophonists who are capable of circular breathing edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 delete --Kbdank71 16:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a style like jazz. Also, contains only Kenny G.--Mike Selinker 14:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nomination. I would also like to add that I'm sure it would be useful to mention whether a saxophonist is capable of circular breathing or not in the article concerning the saxophonist in question, but maintaining a category for this sounds more of a curiosity to me. - Chsf 18:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or listify Assuming there are multiple articles about such people, I think a list would work better than a category here. Dugwiki 17:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sounds like a need for citations/references. - jc37 21:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but there certainly seems to be more saxophonists than Kenny G who can do this. However I think they could be worked into the article on circular breathing somehow as it's not too big.--T. Anthony 03:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 09:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't even want to know what it is. Could be rude. Or, per above. Hiding Talk 20:59, 18 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Leaders of alleged cults edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 delete --Kbdank71 16:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Leaders of alleged cults (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) There is already a Category:Cult leaders, with specific criteria. This category is an attempt to 'label' certain people under the controversial label of "cult". A POV magnet: POV pushing via categorization. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Bookgrrl 15:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We've gone through this several times with the category on alleged cults. Why does this stuff keep coming back? Some groups are widely recognized as cults, like the Heaven's Gate people who are too dead to argue about it anyway. Once you include "alleged cults" you leave a lot more room for attacks against specific religions. Doczilla 20:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC) [1][reply]
  • Keep deletion nomination for Category:Cult Leaders by same nominator. I'm pretty sure Category:Alleged cults also has an AfD history if someone can dig it up. A key point which I agree with Jossi on is that categories don't allow for annotation so there is no way to answer the 'alleged by whom' question that WP:AWW would require. The header at Category:Alleged_cults is one imperfect solution (imperfect due to the inherent limitation of categories which don't allow for annotation). Simply labeling organizations as 'cults' is problematic since the definition is subjective in the usage the vast majority of WP readers would bring to the article--the academic literature on cults is sparse and in disagreement so Category:Cults and by extension Category:Cult leaders will be constantly in flux. List of groups referred to as cults has a codified approach to this problem and the Alleged cults category header leverages this by requiring membership there, which would apply to 'alleged cult leaders' by extension. Antonrojo 18:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The category is not arbitrary or ill-defined. Leadership of an alleged cult is a major characteristic of an individual. -Will Beback 20:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Category:Leaders of new religious movements (if a similar category does not exist). — goethean ॐ 15:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)delete. superfluous fork. — goethean ॐ 19:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:LaszloWalrus's delete vote has been deleted somewhere. — goethean ॐ 15:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(restored deleted vote)

  • Delete totally arbitrary category. LaszloWalrus 15:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Inherently: POV, undefined, subjective. "Alleged" by whom? First define "cult" then talk "alleged". SSS108 talk-email 17:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is defined as per Category:Alleged_cults. This isn't POV. -- LGagnon 19:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SSS108.--Ezeu 20:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - alleged = a need for references/citations, which isn't possible in a category in this case. - jc37 21:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the category is tied to [[[List of groups referred to as cults]], so references are used. -Will Beback 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per LGagnon's comment above. Smeelgova 00:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • The criteria at List of groups referred to as cults are rather ambiguous or convoluted. "Inclusion is based on a single reference"? Any organization that did not exist before 1920 is a cult? It also reads like a bit like an overly defensive rant. —Centrx→talk • 02:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we don't deal with allegations, we deal with facts. >Radiant< 09:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both "alleged" and "cult" are loaded terms, and pre-judge the issue. "Cult" is in any event imprecisely defined. Readers should be able to make their judgements on the facts about any given individual. Dexton 09:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails the controversial part of our category guidance. Alleged cults? Who gets to decide what an alleged cult is? How many people need to allege it to make it an alleged cult? No, not a path the categorisation structure should lead us down. Save it for articles, where rebuttals can be made. Hiding Talk 20:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inherently POV due to the "alleged" part. How many allegations does a cult need to qualify for the category? One? Ten? | Mr. Darcy talk 22:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above "alleged" and "cult" are loaded terms, and pre-judge the issue.Momento 21:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Radiant. Pavel Vozenilek 18:01, 22 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:M51 subgroup edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 delete --Kbdank71 16:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:M51 subgroup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - The original creator had found a website that conjectured that the M101 Group and the M51 Group were both part of a single group of galaxies. However, most scientific references (such as those used in the M101 Group article) indicate that the M101 Group and M51 Group are separate entities. Therefore, keeping the M51 subgroup category is not useful. George J. Bendo 11:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:M51 subgroup is depopulated, so a merge would have the same effect. (I would prefer to move Category:M51 group to Category:M51 Group, but that is a request for later.) George J. Bendo 00:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete per nom. - jc37 21:33, 17 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:M101 subgroup edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 delete --Kbdank71 16:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:M101 subgroup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - The original creator had found a website that conjectured that the M101 Group and the M51 Group were both part of a single group of galaxies. However, most scientific references (such as those used in the M101 Group article) indicate that the M101 Group and M51 Group are separate entities. Therefore, keeping the M101 subgroup category is not useful. George J. Bendo 11:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:M101 subgroup is depopulated, so a merge would have the same effect. (I would prefer to move Category:M101 group to Category:M101 Group, but that is a request for later.) George J. Bendo 00:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete per nom. - jc37 21:33, 17 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:W. S. Gilbert plays edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:W. S. Gilbert plays into Category:Works by W. S. Gilbert

However, unless we're using the American "Play" meaning any stagework, it's a Cat that would be difficult to fill - two possible members, at present. Better to link the "Works of W. S. Gilbert" (which includes all his operettas and other musical stagework, and only one book) to those categories. Adam Cuerden talk 19:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we force each seeker after British plays to click on all of Gilbert's stage works in order to find out which two are plays? —Blotwell 13:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What significant difference is there between his plays and operettas, in style? Also, three now, if it matters. Adam Cuerden talk 17:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. - jc37 21:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. -- Ssilvers 04:46, 20 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Performers by performance edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 Moved As these were not cfd discussions that can be closed in a normal matter, but rather proposals for new speedy criteria, they have been moved to Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Proposals for new csd criteria for categories, a more appropriate venue conducive to further discussion. Hiding Talk 14:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Performers by performance edit

I think the following should be a new criteria for speedy deletion, per many examples on CfD lately. This isn't the same as CSD A7, because it's about the actions of the performers, not the performers themselves (not to mention that it's for a category, not an article). Let's call this proposed CSD C6.

Some examples:

  • Performers who have performed <action>
  • Performers who have portrayed <character name>
  • Performers who have portrayed <a type of character>
  • Performers who have performed <a specific work>

-

  • "Performers" can include actors/actresses (including porn), models, singers, dancers, comedians, etc.
  • "Action" examples: a "spit take", "anal sex", a "pirouette", a "runway walk", a "pratfall", a "sword fight", etc.
  • "Character name" examples: Darth vader, or Hamlet. This includes voicing animated characters, such as Donald Duck. This also includes doing "impressions".
  • "A type of character" examples: wealthy, poor, religious, homeless, gay, female, politician, Scottish, dead, etc.
  • "A specific work" examples: "Amazing Grace", "Swan Lake", "Hamlet" (the play), "Why did the chicken cross the road?" (a joke), etc.

-

  • Support as nominator. - jc37 09:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since this is a policy change, shouldn't this discussion start at the CfD discussion page? Also, there are plenty of lists of characters from popular shows, episode lists and the like that I think sometimes deserve the full CfD process. Antonrojo 21:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then please note that below under "cast members" (that's part of why I specifically separated that into a separate section), to clarify : ) - A person could be in favour of this nom, and not support the "cast member" expansion below. jc37 22:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I concur with the idea, this is probably not the best place to discuss it. Did you add a notice to e.g. the village pump and CSD talk? >Radiant< 09:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. As I mention below, I would like input from those who tend to contribute to CfD (since they are more often the ones who see the many examples here), before posting to the general masses at those locations. I think that we have a decent idea of what has and hasn't achieved consensus, and so such opinions should be rather useful in the future discussion. - jc37 21:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose making this a speedy deletion criterion. While many categories of the type described here are likely to be inappropriate as categories, I can't say yet that all of them are. (Also, this would be CSD C4 if accepted; there are only three speedy deletion criteria for categories currently.) --Metropolitan90 23:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cast members of a show edit

Support or Oppose: Should CSD C6 - Performers by performance (proposed above) be expanded to include:

  • Cast members of <show>
  • Cast members of a show by <location>

-

  • "Show" can be a TV series, a broadway production, etc.
  • "Location" examples: Broadway, television, film, Vietnam, Hollywood, Bollywood, The Improv, Australia, the Palladium, Carnegie Hall, etc

-

  • Further question, if kept: Should "show" be specific? For example: A revival of Show Boat, would have a different cast than the original production. Or general (any version of the show)?

-

  • Support as nominator. - jc37 09:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if kept, I prefer categorisation by specific show casts. - jc37 09:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See above. Antonrojo 21:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur, but see above. >Radiant< 09:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely not. Such nominations are usually unsuccesful so why on earth are you proposing there should be a criterion to speedy delete them? Tim! 16:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is exactly why I separated this into a separate nom. I would like the distinction clear, for future reference. - jc37 21:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I opposed CSD C6 - Performers by performance above, I also oppose expanding the speedy deletion criteria to include these as well. --Metropolitan90 23:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persons by creative work edit

Support or Oppose: Should CSD C6 - Performers by performance (proposed above) be expanded to include:

  • Persons by <creative work>

-

  • "Persons" in this context are those who create the creative works. Examples: Artisans, blacksmiths, violin makers, bakers, artists, sculptors, producers, cinematographers, jewellers, engravers, brewers, etc.
  • "Creative work" examples: a sculpture, a painting, a diagram, a blueprint, a theory of mathematics, a novel, a dictionary, an article, a blog, a web site, a cake, a carpet, a bookshelf, a bridge, a galley, a pocket watch, a bell, a computer, a video game program, a programming language, a television show, a slide show presentation, a log cabin, an igloo, etc.

-

  • Support as nominator. - jc37 09:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't understand this criterion. I'm not aware of any examples where someone tried to create a category for the constructors of a particular igloo, for example. --Metropolitan90 15:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - imagine a cat of "Computer programmers of instant messengers". Or Producers of The Price is Right. Or "Companies which design pocket watches", etc. Just because these may not yet exist (and I have a feeling that such categories do exist), doesn't mean that we shouldn't be proactive and prevent their creation now, before it does become an issue. - jc37 21:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur, but see above. >Radiant< 09:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I opposed CSD C6 - Performers by performance above, I also oppose expanding the speedy deletion criteria to include this as well. In fact, categories like "computer programmers of instant messengers" or "companies which design pocket watches" don't sound that bad to me; if they existed and came up on CfD they might well wind up with a "keep" result. --Metropolitan90 23:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General comments about the above nominations edit

  • Comment: This is not the way to propose a new speedy deletion criteria. New criteria are reached by discussion and consensus, not through polls. Preferably, that discussion should take place at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, where it will get a wide audience. - EurekaLott 13:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, considering that those who frequent here are typically well-versed in the types of categories I am listing here, I would like to see what sort of concensus is achieved here before going officially suggesting it there. And, you don't think that "Categories for discussion" is about discussion and consensus? - I welcome you to comment at a discussion about consensus, that is asking such questions. - jc37 17:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A fair point, just don't expect direct action to follow the votes. Also, I suggest listing this elsewhere and linking here since the current list is unwieldy. Antonrojo 21:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be simple enough for editors to comment in each section. Can you clarify what you feel is "unwieldy"? - jc37 22:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. A poll should be a last step - and ideally one that can be avoided - after users have had the opportunity to ponder and discuss a proposal. Please feel free to copy your suggestion to the CFD talk page (or start a new page) for further input. - EurekaLott 21:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eureka is correct in that polling is not such a good way to add a criterion. Let's advertise a bit and see if there are any objections (I suspect there won't be that many). >Radiant< 09:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the proposed criterion are overly broad and we should not set up speedy deletion criteria for categories. And yes radiant there are objections to some of these if you look back through some of the nominations, so there is no consensus on any of the proposals: let normal full cfd debates handle it. Tim! 16:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have speedy deletion criteria for categories. What I am listing in the above 3 sections are just perennial recreations. And there are a LOT of them passing through CfD. The more discussion that happens here, the better we will understand consensus about categorisation. - jc37 21:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only for empty categories and those used by templates. Undeleting a category is much harder work than undeleting an article because you need to re-add each of the articles to it. For this reason creating classes of category which may be summarily deleted is not a good idea. Tim! 16:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For now, could we nominate for deletion (or listify) all categories that match:
    • Performers who have performed <action>
    • Performers who have portrayed <character name>
    • Performers who have portrayed <a type of character>
    • Performers who have performed <a specific work>
This would be a large number of categories. They would all have to be tagged, but they could and should be discussed together. Discussing them one by one will lead to comments of "if xxx category is OK, than this one should be as well". Perhaps we could also discuss some sort of guideline that changes the normal default of "keep" to "delete" for recreations. This would mean that there would have to be a clear consensus to keep instead of a clear consensus to delete unless someone can make a good case for why the first CFD was flawed, circumstances have changed, etc... -- Samuel Wantman 19:16, 21 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Towns in Gippsland, Australia edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 16:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns in Gippsland, Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not needed. Category:Towns in Victoria is sufficient.--cj | talk 04:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A quick geography lesson the difference or simiarity between the two geographic designations would be helpful for the uninitialized. Antonrojo 21:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, I am neither from Victoria nor Australia itself, but I know that Victoria is one of the umpteen Australian states. Gippsland is not something I have heard of before, probably an area in Victoria? Something like South Australia's River Country/whatever I suppose? Oh, and delete as per nomination. - chsf 21:32, 2006-10-16 (UTC)
  • Comment. Perhaps knowing something about the geography of Australia would be useful before you vote? Gippsland covers approximately 25% of the state of Victoria (one of only six states, BTW, though there are quite a few territories), the largely rural area stretching east of Melbourne as far as the New South Wales border - an American equivalent might be talking about Southern California or Upstate New York. Grutness...wha? 22:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And a British equivalent would be? ^_~ If you want to impress anyone, you should go and update the article on Gippsland, it's lacking in information. ^___^ chsf 23:48, 2006-10-16 (UTC)
A British equivalent would be the Welsh Marches, or Black Isle, or the Yorkshire Dales. I apologise for assuming you were American for having a lack of knowledge about the rest of the world, sorry - I forgot that not all poms are geo-literate either :) Grutness...wha? 00:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per a suggestion at an AfD for Towns in Gippsland,Victoria,Australia. -- Nathannoblet 06:53, 18 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Superman locations edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Superman locations into Category:DC Comics locations

  • Merge, Like the other superhero subcats listed below, this is a small subcat for a fictional set of locations in the DC Comics Universe. The majority of them are already listed in other appropriate categories, such as planets, cities or organizations. Any that are not can easily be accomodated in the parent cat. CovenantD 04:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and keep all the location categories below (can all these be in one nomination, please?). It's very useful to subdivide DC Comics locations this way, because it puts the locations of a particular hero or team into their category as a subcategory.--Mike Selinker 16:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment They were kept separate so that each could be commented on based on their own merits. CovenantD 19:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Superman locations do not all belong to Superman. Metropolis is home to many different DC characters. Doczilla 20:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps, but If you check the most common usage (Not even suggesting you ask the "man on the street", though that would work too), I think that nearly every example of Metropolis in DC comics = Superman. And besides Booster Gold (who's now dead), what non-Superman Family-related character is headquartered in Metropolis these days? (I'm curious) - jc37 08:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. Category:Batman locations was deleted back in July; see discussion. Her Pegship 04:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The reasons for deletion were because the category included things besides locations (in other words, it needed cleanup), and it was felt that what would be left wouldn't be enough to have it's own category. In this case of Superman-related locations, that isn't true. - jc37 08:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above Dugwiki 17:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - While I may agree with the following noms, Superman (and Batman) have some rather iconic locations. - jc37 21:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but won't those be more easily found through the text of the Superman article than the category structure? Hiding Talk 14:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Locations belong to a fictional world or setting, not a character. >Radiant< 09:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, I don't want to get into the legal dispute that is Smallville. It's contentious basically, and doesn't really help transform the information in a useful way. Any location relevant to Superman is going to be in the Superman article, which is where any researcher is going to look for it. Hiding Talk 21:03, 18 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wonder Woman locations edit

Category:Teen Titans locations edit

Category:Justice League locations edit

Category:Green Lantern locations edit

Category:Green Arrow locations edit

Category:Flash locations edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wonder Woman locations into Category:DC Comics locations, et cetera

  • Merge, Very small cat that can easily be accomodated in the parent cat. CovenantD 04:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Overcategorization. (Every location in the DC Universe is a Justice League location.) Doczilla 20:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. - jc37 21:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I combined the sections for clarity's sake, as all sections and comments were identical except for the one directly below. >Radiant< 09:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge The article could presumable be in both Category:DC Comics locations and Category:Green Arrow. Palendrom 00:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC) This comment was only made about the Green Arrow category. >Radiant< 09:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all, see reasons at the Superman discussion above which apply here too, as well as points made by others.. Hiding Talk 21:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per nom. ThuranX 01:15, 22 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Upcoming segregates of Olacaceae edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 Deleted. The category was deleted on 00:50, 18 October 2006 by USer:MPF as over-categorisation. Hiding Talk 14:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Category:Upcoming segregates of Olacaceae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
category is patent nonsense. KP Botany 00:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category is a category of plant families that may be formed if the "APG III" (Angiosperm Phylogeny Group III), an entity that currently doesn't appear to exist other than on Wikipedia pages, is ever created and if it takes up the question of those families and if it decides that those families should be split. In other words, it's POV speculation about the future results of future original research by a future entity. It's generally a bad idea to have a category for "Plant families that ... are likely to be recognized in APG III" should APG III ever exist. It's pre-original research.

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Even if that were not true, this would require citations/references from involved authorities. - jc37 21:33, 17 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_16&oldid=1136103879"