The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Move to talk page and rename. It's not a defining characteristic but it's valid metadata. >Radiant<09:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consolidating discussion: Let's do this thing properly, and discuss the general principle in one place, rather than nnn different discussions. Jheald08:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More by-source categories for deletion per recent precedents (e.g., here, here, and here). Overcategorization. Not a defining characteristic of the articles so categorized. Most sources don't have categories, which is a good thing. If we had categories for all sources each article’s important categories would be lost in a sea of by-sources categories. Carlossuarez4623:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeporswitch to talk-page usage. You obviously haven't been involved much in WP:MEA (one of the largest projects on Wikipedia), otherwise you'd understand the importance of these categories for editors. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-25 00:26Z
See my comment below. Talk pages are fine, but there needs to be some sort of categories for WP:MEA to even continue functioning for some of these sources. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-25 08:30Z
Yes, that's the best solution. Unfortunately some unknowing vote closer may come along and just decide to delete everything, wiping out the categories and their contents, losing all track of our progress on creating articles from those sources. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-25 08:35Z
Repurpose to categorise talk pages I don't propose to paste this for all of the 'categorisation by source' nominations here today—life is too short—but I do hope that it will be taken into account for all of them.
We would probably all agree that these categories are non-defining characteristics for the subjects of the articles in question, yet they do serve some purpose for editors. I agree that it is inappropriate for them to be present on the main article page, distracting and often overwhelming, as they do, from the main encyclopaedic categories.
These categories are effectively internal Wikipedia categorisation, categorisation which is for the benefit of contributors, not general readers. Why do we not treat them like this? Repurpose the categories so that they categorise the talk page rather than the article itself. This is in line with the approach that we already take for WikiProject categorisation, is there any reason that we should not adopt it for these 'source' categories as well?
Me too! Brian's comment is unhelpfully cryptic; it would more useful for him to explain their importance rather than merely asserting it. Xdamr's suggestion sounds good to me, but I'd like to hear a response from Brian or someone else at WP:MEA. I will leave a message there. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Xdamr; they should be moved to the talk page. I was only following previous precedent when I started putting categories in the article space, but the talk page makes more sense. In any case, Deleting does nothing but severely hinder WikiProject Missing Articles. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-27 14:22Z
Rename to Category:Wikipedia articles using information from (source) and use on talk pages only (preference), or Delete - The articles in this category are generally unrelated. However, this could be useful for maintenance purposes if placed on the articles' talk pages. If that is too complicated, then deletion is probably best; I see no reason to keep this maintenance category on the main article pages. Dr. Submillimeter08:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Talk pages are fine by me. There needs to be some sort of categorization, or there's really no way for us to keep track of what entries we've covered and what entries we haven't. I use Category:Cyclopaedia in particular almost all the time. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-25 08:30Z
CommentNeeds to be maintained by a bot, if the cats are to remain reliable (eg when users copy in new bits of maths articles from PlanetMath, etc). Jheald11:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may not be a defining characteristic w.r.t. the subject of the article, but it is a defining characteristic of the text. Jheald10:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to talk pages and Rename and Automatically generate. Since these cats are about the text rather than the subjects, the appropriate place for them is the talk pages. The cats are at the moment automatically generated by short template tags like {{1911}}. This must continue, if the cats are to remain reliable. A bot is therefore needed which will routinely scan the template "what links here" list of pages for changes, and add the cat tag to the relevant talk pages automatically.
Keep. Most of these articles using public domain text have large portions of text from these sources. The use of the proposed categories for deletion here helps to defend against charges of plaigarism as we are acknowleding the source of the text. Many of the articles I have been adding talk pages to from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships have never been touched after creation and are straight cut and paste jobs with categories added at the bottom. Most users will never visit the talk page. How are they to know the original source? If these categories are deleted, we will need another way to indicate the original source to help avoid more negative publicity on the "Wikipedians are plagiarists" front. LarryQ14:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True. However, this will require that people go back to all of these sources and add reference pages to existing articles using them. If there is a bot that can do this great. We have to acknowledge the original source. LarryQ14:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it won't. These categories are added by templates, which are not up for deletion. Therefore I don't think you have any reason to be concerned. Wimstead14:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. The templates must not be deleted, as they defend WP from charges of plagiarism. However, the categories are useful, both for maintenance, but also for browsing material of a known standard. They should remain, at least on the talk pages. Jheald15:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all or at least move to the talk pages. The addition of large amounts of out of date material to Wikipedia is not something to be encouraged. I guess that when Wikipedia was starting out, it was a good way to get a reasonable amount of material together quickly, but now the disadvantages of important incomplete or anachronistic material outweight that to my mind. Wimstead14:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my experience, if you browse articles in any of these categories, you will find material of a consistently higher standard, better written, more complete, and more balanced, than an awful lot of WP articles. Yes, readers should be aware that new information may since have come to light; but even so, these articles represent a commonality of standard, and there is value to being able to easily browse between them. Jheald15:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The addition of large amounts of out of date material to Wikipedia is not something to be encouraged." This isn't about deleting the out-of-date material. It's about categorizing the material as out-of-date. You're proposing we remove the tag that says "this material is out of date" and let it blend in with the rest of our content. — Omegatron16:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What is the need for this information as a category? If it is to only identify that the material only came from the source, then this should be noted via a template. The 'what links here' link from the toolbox would list the articles that are sourced. Is there any encyclopedic reason to categorize articles by where we sourced them? We don't categorize material from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress used for many members in the US congress. I'm leaning delete and leaving it as a reference like most other sources. Before I decide, I'll ask, is there any reason that these need to be treated any differently then almost every other source by having a category? Vegaswikian19:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's no clickable link on the page to the template, so a user can't easily get from the page to the template's 'what links here' link. Also note that this isn't just about the sources of a fact being referenced, this is about articles where verbatim lifting of substantial chunks of text. Jheald19:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' where there is a reference; Keep where there is not. In many cases, the source is identified only by the category, and deleting the category will result in a loss of idenifying information about the source of articles. A Musing (formerly Sam)16:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not their purpose (at least not for the ones I use). They're used as part of WP:MEA, and deleting the categories will destroy our progress-tracking for some of these sources. At least change your vote to move to talk page. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-27 14:18Z
If every source had such a category for someone's project, the main space would be awash in meaningless categories. Put links to the titles of all articles on a project page and work it from there. Like I've done for Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, (see User:carlossuarez46/Smithlist) rather than add a category that mucks up the mainspace. Carlossuarez4616:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only one of these I come across is the 1911 EB, and readers need to be told the information comes from there so that they don't think WP editors write like that. Templates will take up too much room, and the category is the easiest way to find & update them. It is, unfortunately, very much a defining characteristic of most of the articles with it on. Johnbod03:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The categories convey no information that is not given by the template, and are an undue intrusion of editorial issues into the user experience. They are also potentially misleading, giving a patina of authority to articles which may have been vandalised or otherwise rendered inaccurate since the material was imported (though in some cases the material is seriously out of date and unreliable to begin with) .Wilchett02:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Clean category contains some entries which do not relate to the book in question, placed there because of the unclear cat name. Jheald10:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or at least move to talk pages as per general discussion. Editing tools should not interfere with the presentation of the articles. There are other ways to organise editorial projects. Wimstead15:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
see general discussion consolidated above; only comments specific to this particular category here please
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, considering the precedent that we deleted the category for American neocons, and that we tend not to categorize people by political opinion. >Radiant<09:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Neoconservatives only in the United States. Accountready
Delete - while I question the notion that no one outside the United States could properly be labeled a "neoconservative," we deleted the category for Neoconservatives. Given the former deletion of the general Neoconservatives category I see no utility in a NC by country category structure. Otto471118:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I believe that neo-conservatives are not only in the US but if NeoConservatives as a category is deleted, subcategories make less sense. This category has only one entry. It is a stupid category and should be deleted at once.--Blue Tie19:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense.Neutral Sorry to flip flop on this, but I found a few Google hits indicating authoritative sources using the expression.[1] Let's not rush to judgment on this.Changing to Keep My flip-flop is complete. I think the arguments advanced subsequently in favor of this category are persuasive. Also I would argue that the fact that the nominator was a sockpuppet renders this entire nomination invalid.--Mantanmoreland19:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From that source (an interview), Ali Ansari (a dissident, apparently) says, "The whole Khatami experience, the emergence of what I call the Iranian neoconservatives." If that isn't an attack, it is at least a neologism. It definitely does not deserve a category and probably should be removed from articles in the interest of neutrality. The Behnam22:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be a neologism, but I would be more comfortable if we heard from the user who created this page, User:Sina Kardar. This is an established, longtime user. I left a note on this person's user page, and I hope the administrators will give him/her an opportunity to weigh in. I noticed that there has been no login since 3/17.--Mantanmoreland14:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pending input from user who created the page. I'm perfectly willing to flip-flop after hearing from him, but view notice to him as not just civil but also a good idea to get an understanding of the issues; I won't presume myself to understand the ins and outs of whether the category makes sense in Iranian politics today. A Musing (formerly Sam)14:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that disambiguation link, JHeald, which makes a nice rebuttal to those who think the USA has an exclusive hold on the term. I would still argue, though, that the term neoconservative is the best to use, as that is apparently what Iranians themselves use. Jeffpw10:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you just drafted that added language - is there an external citation somewhere? I'm still considering my keep, but leaning toward leaving it in place at this point, and would appreciate the source info. Thanks, A Musing (formerly Sam)13:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I wrote was condensed from the opening 2 sections of History of fundamentalist Islam in Iran. I can't claim any specialist knowledge in the area, but that article does use both "neo-conservative" and "neo-fundamentalist" extensively; and both phrases get Google hits about Iranian politicians. Jheald13:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is an attack category. These people don't identify themselves as 'neoconservative' and it is generally used as a negative comparison to American neoconservatives. The Behnam23:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with American neoconservatives. The Iranians are on a completely different planet politically from the American neocons. There is simply no connection between the two. Jheald00:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if renamed to Category:Iranian neo-fundamentalists, otherwise neutral. My original !vote (above) was to delete, but references above have persuaded me that this is neither a neologism nor an attack category. However, the term neoceonsevative is misleading: it does appear to be one of the terms used in Iran to describe a particular political philosophy, but it is prinarily understood in English as referring to the American form of neoceonservativism, and the aticle text actually links there, reinforcing the confusion. Since "neo-fundamentalist" appears to be an acceptable alternative term, it offers a reasonable solution ... but without the renaming, I'd be be neutral as to whether it should be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Businesses and organisations in Berkshire
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's Rationale:Rename. Unnecessary combination. The standard is "Organisations based in", and there is a subcategory for companies. Hawkestone18:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename all, I think this disambiguation is not needed, all the city cats are members of their respective provinces, and this also would better match the main city name. -- Prove It(talk)17:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete - disregarding the improperly categorized articles for members, there appear to be about four articles correctly in the category: S.H.I.E.L.D. itself, the list of members, Helicarrier and Life Model Decoy. These articles are all extensively interlinked so the main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub. As with many other recent deletions of eponymous categories, there is insufficient material to justify this category so it should be deleted. Otto471116:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WikiProject Comics does not want to categorize characters by organization for many reasons. As such, this category should not be kept as a character membership list. I also agree that the category is not needed for the four articles on articles not about fictional characters, so I endorse deletion. Dr. Submillimeter17:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as incorporate "Team members" category ("listify" unneeded as list already exists). Remainder, as pointed out, is already fully interlined. — J Greb00:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete - in favor of the list that exists in Captain America. Categorizing characters by alias is a terrible idea. Comic book aliases are regularly recycled and (while it's not the case here) the characters using the alias often have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. Otto471116:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Despite Keefer's argument, analysis of Category:Streets_and_squares_by_city shows that the cats for most cities are not in fact subdivided into a "street" cat and a "square" cat. It's also rather quickly after an earlier CFD that had the same conclusion, so arguably this cat is recreation of deleted material. >Radiant<09:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and perhaps salt with an appropriate notice to prevent re-creation. Why should we have to debate a nearly identical category again, 2 weeks later? Is there a way to speedy merge this in light of the previous result? --Seattle Skier(talk)23:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I don't recall you debating this at the previous discussion. Are you aware that this is about a subcategory, of the category established at the earlier CfD? Subcategories sometimes - well, most of the time - have similar names to the parent category. For example, "Category:Streets" and "Category:Streets and squares by city" are not redundant even though they both contain "streets" in the name. You can find Speedy criteria here, I'd be interested in which one you think might apply. It'd probaby make sense if you sought the answers to such questions before weighing in on the debate, especially when wielding such strong opinions on the subject. Bobanny22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd just like to know what "squares" we're talking about. Station Square obviously is a shopping centre and doesn't count; jury's out on Granville Square, but while that building has a plaza ("square") it's also the skyscraper that's called Granville Square; on a similar footing would be Park Place, which is a skyscraper complex and not a "place" (plaza, square). Robson Square also doesn't mean the plaza spaces but the building complex. So there's Victory Square .... and...and...and where, again, exactly, are there other squares (by that name or another name) in Vancouver?Skookum121:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“Squares” is not an appropriate category for Vancouver because for anything that could be classed as such, it would be based on a non-defining or trivial characteristic and it groups unrelated subjects with shared names (parks, malls, universities, art galleries, etc). The latter is made worse by adding “streets” to this motley mix, as Category:Streets and squares in Vancouver does. But since that category was imposed on Vancouver articles, it seemed to me that the “grouping unrelated things” problem could be lessened by two subcategories. Besides “Streets in Vancouver, I also created Category:Squares in Vancouver. Additionally, the only article doggedly classed as a “square” by some people in the March 9th discussion was Victory Square (Vancouver), and it seemed ridiculous to have a category with 16 streets and one park. To avoid having a single-entry category, I populated the new “squares” category with other things that might be considered “squares” and/or are named as such. If anyone wants to rejig that category, I won’t object.
This discussion isn’t supposed to be about the merits of the parent category Category:Streets and squares by city, but it should be pointed out that underlying this debate is an assumption that there is objectively such a thing as a “square” that can be applied universally to any city with a place called or square or something imagined to be a square, which couldn’t be further from the truth. What constitutes a “square” changes radically in different contexts, and in this context, is about as useless as "Category:Centres in Vancouver" would be. Even calling them “public” can mean “publicly owned,” or just “used by the public,” as in all the privately owned shopping malls calling themselves Squares. No matter how you look at it or what your POV is, “streets” and “squares” are entirely unrelated in Vancouver (see: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection by location). This pairing possibly stems from Boston; the Category:Squares in Boston page defines a square as “a major intersection, usually with many street approaches.” The parent article to this category, Town square, notes that this definition is applied “in some cities, especially in New England in the U.S.” Making these CfDs only about Vancouver obscures the underlying assumption that "Category:Streets and squares" can be applied unproblematically to anywhere that has one or more places resembling or being called a square. Note that no one’s trying to rename the subcategory for Rome “Squares in Rome” from it’s current name, “Piazzas of Rome.”Bobanny22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per WP:POINT. This is a bad faith and spurious nomination. The March 9th discussion was silent on the issue of subcategories, and there is nothing in that discussion or its outcome that can be construed as an argument for merging this subcategory into its parent. “Category:Streets in Foo,” as Keefer4 noted, is an established standard category, conforms to all the guidelines, consensus decisions, and conventions. As the creator of this category, my gut feeling was that if this CfD is based on the earlier one, as per nom, it must be directed at me with the assumption that my creating this subcategory was a sneaky attempt to bypass a consensus decision. In other words, I figured it must be targeting my behaviour rather than the merit or appropriateness of the category (see Seattle Skier’s comment above, which not only assumes my bad faith, but assumes it will be an ongoing problem and salting might be necessary). I’m really not interested in trying to defend my wiki-cred here and have no doubt users familiar with my contributions, or ones interested in checking, will know that such tactics would be uncharacteristic.
Since my sinister motives are only implied by the nomination and were not explicitly alleged by User:ProveIt, I decided to slavishly abide by WP:AGF and ask him to clarify the reasons for the nomination, since the March 9 discussion is utterly irrelevant and offers no direction (at least not without a large dose of creative interpretation or ignorance of the issue at hand). He responded that it was only because the parent category is called “Streets and squares by city” rather than just “Streets by city.” He said this would “help people quickly find what they are looking for” by improving consistency, which I thought was a bizarre response from someone who apparently does loads of categorizing work on Wikipedia. The whole purpose of subcategories is to make a more specific and precise category for a subgroup, and that is what helps people quickly find what they are looking for.
As for this particular CfD, the nominator’s actual reason, which has no relation to his reason stated above, is this:
As far as making subcats for it; at the moment there are a total of 16 streets and 7 squares. If there were hundreds of streets and dozens of squares, making subcats would be the right thing. But for a grand total of 23 articles, its just not worth it, and the subcats just get in the way.”
I think it’s important here to note that this is an administrator with deletion powers and who does an awful lot of deletions on Wikipedia. His going against or ignoring guidelines and conventions, as well as undermining consensus processes can’t be accounted for by a lack of knowledge as to how things work. Too few articles in a category is in not a problem for Wikipedia, nor is it an acceptable criterion for deletion unless it’s a completely empty category. Generally, categories should have “potential for growth,” (but with exception), which both “Streets in Vancouver” and “Squares in Vancouver” do. Subcategories do not in themselves undermine the usefulness of the category scheme. “Get in the way” of what exactly? “Hundreds of streets and dozens of squares” needed to justify a subcategory? What online encyclopedia does that city category exist on? Certainly not Wikipedia, No city has that many. (For a relevant discussion on the number of articles in categories, this one on the CfD talk page).
I’ve no problem with losing debates, abiding by decisions I don’t like, or even having my work undone for reasons I disagree with. This is flagrant disrupting Wikipedia to make a point by the nominator to push a deletionist agenda. I’m sure categorization work would be a lot easier if the only category were Category:Categories, but Wikipedia is not a Newspeak dictionary, and will undoubtedly keep on growing. If Prove It or anyone else thinks it should go in a different direction, then take the time to build a consensus to change it. In the meantime Prove It, stop wasting my and other people’s time by abusing the process. Defending one of my most pedestrian contributions to Wikipedia from being undone was not on my list of things to do this week. At the very least, stop misrepresenting archived discussions as you did both here and the previous CfD, instead of stating your true reasons up front. Someone did take the time to create what you are deleting, and others are taking the time to try and constructively discuss the relevant issues. Not bothering to even identify how proposed categories “violate policies, or are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant, need to be merged, not NPOV, small without potential for growth, or are generally bad ideas” is disrespectful to the efforts of all involved. Bobanny22:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge superseded by a two-days-later blanket deletion of all related "ice hockey by state" cats. >Radiant<08:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - categorizing sportspeople by the state where they were born is overcategorization for the sake of it. The lone occupant of the category, Mark Mowers, is already appropriately categorized by the teams he's played for. Delete this and the rest of the player by state categories. Otto471115:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for now. I would probably support a merge later, but that's not on the table right now (all the states would have to be proposed together). Getting the name of this one right is worth doing now. — coelacan — 16:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a merge not on the table right now? The outcome here should be whatever the correct decision is, be that a keep, delete, merge, upmerge, listify or any other appropriate outcome. Vegaswikian19:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why rename if the result is going to be delete shortly? If there are more that need to be deleted, then nominate them all. Don't wait for someone else to do the work. Vegaswikian19:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
WP:NOT, not encyclopedic. The films have nothing in else common, so it tells the user nothing helpful about the group. Not showing the title before a film says nothing of the film, either, it seems to be an artistic choice on the part of the director, producer, and/or editor. May also be confused with 'untitled films', which could be a legitimate category. 68.162.148.4810:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The inclusion criteria (given in a sentence on the category page) are rather strange. Moreover, as stated by the nominator, the films are otherwise unrelated. Dr. Submillimeter12:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia. The category is not actually for "films with no title", but rather for "films whose title is not displayed on screen at the start", which is no a defining characteristic. No objection to listifying, if someone wants to do so. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply possibly not, but I don't know the issues involved, and if omission is an aesthetic choice rather than just a trivial omission, the lead section of a list could explain that. I don't know enough about film-making conventions to judge that one now, which is why I'd prefer to give someone the opportunity to create an annotated list with explanation rather than prejudge the issue. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
Delete - I find the notion of categorizing things without names by name intriguing but that's not what this is. Per the similar deletion of films with post-credits scenes, too trivial to categorize. Otto471117:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I created the category. I did so to try and recognise a developing trend in the production of films and therefore within cinematic history as a whole. The movement of all credits to the end, save for the title, was something that began en masse in the late 1980s. Now, from 1999 onwards, producers are increasingly leaving even the title until the end. A search on the IMDb keyword "no opening credits" currently reveals a list of 121 titles (of course, by no means exhaustive), but they don't differentiate between those whose title appears at the beginning (the majority) and those whose title is at the end. I just wanted to highlight the distinction. If the consenus is that this information is better left to a list article, then I'm fine with that. Any titles that appear in the category could possibly be added to Films with no title, which explains the practice. (I appreciate the article could have a better name, but I didn't create it.) Chris 4211:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The category does nothing to describe this phenomenon. All the category does is bring together what appear to be a series of unrelated films. (How many other things do Fantasia (film) and Apocalypse Now have in common?) I suggest using films with no title with a list of films to describe this phenomenon. (Feel free to rename the article if you can think of a better name.) I also suggest using referenced information on this subject, or else the topic will appear to be original research by some guy watching the opening credits of a bunch of movies. Dr. Submillimeter14:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this category and the article from which it sprung, films with no title, as they are both entirely Original research-- unless someone can provide a reliable, published source for the assertion that there is anything significant about not having a title at the beginning of a movie. --LeflymanTalk01:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's Rationale:Rename/Merge, These 2 categories should probably be merged, but I'm not sure that the name for either is good. "Famous Bibles" is capitalized incorrectly and has the POV word of famous. "Rare special" feels a little better, but still not quite right. Looking for suggestions/consensus here. ----After Midnight000115:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge bothtoCategory:Bible. The current contents of that category seem compatible with the three entries in the two nominated categories and I'm not seeing the need to categorize the three "special" bibles separately. Otto471115:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge bothtoCategory:Bibles, per Vegaswikian. A very sensible suggestion. Any specific bibles that have individual articles are going to be famous, rare and/or special, or they wouldn't have articles, so it's pointless to say any more than "Bibles" in the cat name. But I'm sure there are enough notable individual bibles in the world to justify a (simply-named) category. Xtifrtälk04:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I echo this. This sort of mistaken plural/singular categorisation already causes problems in other areas (egCategory:English law and Category:English laws), we shouldn't be adding to them.
I don't understand the logic here. This distinction works in other areas like Category:Wine and Category:Wines being one example. In this case, bibles are specific books so using that as the name of a category to contain those books should not be confusing. If we need to compromise on a name, then it is better to go with Category:Individual bibles even though this is effectively an unnecessary long tittle since the word individual is not necessary. Vegaswikian20:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Bible Having looked through the discussion this strikes me as being the best course. Per Dr. Submillimeter the Bible/Bibles distinction should be avoided at all costs.
Belated comment This makes little sense really. The Mendi Bible is a famous copy of an otherwise not especially famous edition. The 1614 Bible is a rare, but not really really famous edition, with at least 7 copies known. It should really go with the Gutenberg in an "early printed Bibles" category, for which there are many other candidates. Johnbod15:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Coelacan's cats - much more precise. That's where I would look if I wanted to find those Bibles. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are very silly categories; the Gutenberg Bible does not even meet the stated criterion for its category as there are ?200-300 copies around. There probably should be a category for "Early printed Bibles" - there are 160 pages in the versions & translations category, which needs subdividing. Most really famous individual Bibles are in Category:Illuminated biblical manuscripts where they belong. There are no? other famous printed Bibles (I think) so the proposed Individual Bibles category seems pointless. Both to the big category & let local editors sub-divide. Johnbod03:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, only the Gutenberg & 1614 would go there; the Mendi would just have to go in versions & translations. I would prefer "early printed Bibles" to the centuries. Generally what are notable are the first, or first few, translations into a language: Luther's Bible, Henry VIII's, 1612 Authorised version etc. Most of these are C16, but by no means all. Plus plenty of later versions in English (really only English) have articles or are likely to get them. There are few, very few complete, printed editions in the C15, & I think a single category with a rough cut-off of say 1650 would make more sense. At some point the Illuminated MS ones may be sub-categorised by century, but they should stay seperate. There are also the non-illuminated early copies & fragments, with textual importance, but they are in the Biblical manuscripts category (the head category, with a small overlap, of the illuminated MS one) and should stay there. Johnbod09:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no need for categories with just one or two entries. I am concerned with Category:Individual Bibles because how many actual articles could go in this category? I believe Category:Bible versions and translations is a good category for various printed editions to go. Then we have Category:Biblical manuscripts for all of the notable pre-printing press bibles. I do not believe there is a need to have a special category for these 3 articles. However, if the Category:Bible versions and translations is getting too large, I would support Dr. Submillimeter's suggesting of breaking up the category by century. At least that way, the early 'notable' editions will be together without creating an extraneous category based on a subjective judgment. If I am wrong, could those supporting Coelacan's proposal list all of the individual bibles that would fit in that category?-Andrew c19:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Listify and delete - the category is to capture mutants who retained their powers following a particular Marvel Comics storyline. While it's not technically a listing by team, it serves the same function and there is strong consensus against such categories. Establishing categories based on the outcome of specific storylines is not a good idea. Particularly active characters could end up with dozens of such categories on their articles. Otto471109:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Possible Delete, I have no vested interest in seeing this article deleted. I simply wish to start a discussion parallel to that here as to whether a sporting landmark falls foul of Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Arbitrary_inclusion_criterion, or whether reaching the landmark is itself a significant acheivement. In essence, the debate is whether a player with 3000 hits is markedly different from one with 2995, or 2950, or 2750 etc etc etc Kevin McE08:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Listifying these arbitrary milestone achievements is probably better for navigation, especially since some of these very famous sportspeople accumulate many categories. Note that this is not the first discussion on an arbitrary milestone in sports; Category:Footballers with 100 or more caps was nominated for deletion about a week ago. Dr. Submillimeter09:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response My purpose is to widen the debate, and I resent an apparent accusation of disingenuity. I see no contradiction between my "weak keep" on the other page, and a "possible delete" here. This page was mentioned, by Dr. Submillimeter, as a parallel, and that is why I chose to widen the debate here. I make no accusation of bias in favour of USA-based sports, but the query was raised there by user:Craig.Scott that "American Wikipedians may not appreciate how important international appearances are in sports like cricket, rugby and soccer."
Comment There is only one numerical category for football that I have seen, but there are several for baseball. Is it possible to single out this, or any of the others as the most important? Choalbaton15:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify(list already exists at 3000 hit club) - I said on the other debate that I would vote to delete this category (3000 hits) if it were nominated. 3000 hits is an arbitrary number, there is not a significant difference in my eyes between a player with 2997 hits and one with 3000 (except in movies). The 3000 hit club article states "Getting 3000 hits is generally considered - barring severe bad behavior off the field - one of the most reliable marks of a player entering the Baseball Hall of Fame.", but a quick look through List of Major League Baseball players with 2,000 hits shows that every retired player with at 2800-3000 hits is in the Hall of Fame except Harold Baines who has only been on the ballot once. ~ BigrTex18:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It does appear to me that this nomination is sketchy procedurally with regard to WP:POINT, but I don't know how it could have been nominated so soon after the other without appearing that way. ~ BigrTex18:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Generally, when a 3000th hit is achieved, the game is paused, bases may be uprooted, etc. That doesn't happen for the 2999th or 3001st hit, so, while 3000 may be arbitrary, it is widely accepted as a notable number. Neier02:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thinking about this some more, and having looked at the other debate, the fact that U.S. sports have an overall hall of fame, whereas non U.S. based sports like football don't clinches the decision. The football category should be kept as the best available way of grouping top players from around the world, but for baseball, the hall of fame category does that. Honbicot19:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Strong keep. This is a well-known and defining characterization which has existed in published media for over 90 years. It is as important and well-known as Category:500 home run club. It is irrelevant whether "3000" is an arbitrary number, the long historical precedent makes it significant. How many WP categories have that? There is nothing wrong in having these well-known classifications be WP categories, in addition to having a list in the corresponding article. No need to try to make a WP:POINT in this deletion debate, or the several other numerically-based subcats in Category:Baseball records which are sure to follow if this one goes through. --Seattle Skier(talk)23:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; Carlossuarez46, the made-up example categories you cite have little bearing on this issue, as they would have hundreds if not thousands of members and strain the bounds of reason. But 3000 hits is very notable, the category has < 30 members, and historical precedent is strong. There is not any historical precedent for saying "X is member of the hat trick club", "Y is a member of the century club", or "Z is a member of the triple-double club", no published reference uses those phrases in that way, mainly because none of them are career-long achievements, all are single game/match events. But there are innumerable published refs to "X is a member of the 3000 hit club", making it a definite known categorization. Please use examples which are more relevant to the issue at hand. Thanks. --Seattle Skier(talk)05:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know nothing about baseball, but it does seem clear from the articles that the 3000 hit mark is widely recognised in baseball as a very significant achievement, with established rituals whe n the 3000 mark is reached. As such, it is not an arbitary figure for a category, because the category inclusion threshold is one chosen by the sport, not by wikipedia. There are only 25 player articles in this category, which illustrates its rarity; by contrast, Category:Baseball Hall of Fame has nearly 300 articles, so the 3000 club is only about 8% of the Hall of fame. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - uhm, seriously? 3000 hits is a noteworthy accomplishment and is usually bandied about baseball as one of the "plateaus" that make automatic entrance to the Hall of Fame for hitters - a widely discussed club. WilyD20:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCarlossuarez46's thoroughly misguided list of supposedly comparable categories is the clincher for me. For example the comparable cricket category would be more like one for batsmen who have scored 20 test centuries, or 8,000 test runs. Dominictimms17:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete - requires improper OR/POV speculation to place articles in the category. Potential magnet for conspiracy nutjobs (I'm surprised Marilyn Monroe isn't categorized here). Otto471107:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague, excessively broad category. Way too many deaths can be included in "possible" murders. In fact, almost every death could be to a conspiracy fan. Someone had a heart attack? Induced by poison. Car accident? Someone arranged it. Cancer? Someone slipped them carcinogens. Sank on the Titanic? Maybe somebody at the helm deliberately hit that iceberg. Doczilla08:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Possible" invites speculation, speculation means it will be unverifiable, unverifiable demands thatout it go. Kevin McE08:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above I'm not comfortable with the phrase "possible" in a category, especially when there is a liklihood of negative implications for various people talked about in the included articles. However, I might be ok with something like "Category:Murder investigations" to collect articles that talk about notable murder investigations, whether or not they proved a murder was committed or resulted in arrest. Dugwiki18:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Suspected murders - meets most/all of the objections above. The suspicion must be verifiable by normal criteria of course, not OR. Could become a useful category; there are lots of significant historical figures who could go here. Johnbod03:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly not seeing any difference between the two. If someone believes a death is a "possible" murder doesn't that mean by definition that the person "suspects" on some level that it was murder? Otto471106:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Eponymous category with two articles and a subcat that is also up for CfD. Way too slim to be useful. Delete. — coelacan — 06:19, 24 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
All the articles in this category are going to be merged together per the results of a recent AfD. The category is going to be obsolete; we might as well get rid of it now. Delete. — coelacan — 06:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The articles are way too detailed and should certainly be merged and compressed, and when they have been this category will be redundant. AshbyJnr01:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Per convention of Category:Musicians by band, it's just "members," not "band members." The Frank Zappa category contains many musicians that have never worked as a cohesive unit; they are all extensions of Zappa, except for the two versions of the Mothers. This is the same for Bill Medley, and worse, most of this category's members are single-line articles. April Wine and The Queers have only one musician each. (After this nomination, the asterisked ones above were emptied and replaced by the categories' creator, User:Aeromedia. So I deleted the empty originals.)--Mike Selinker02:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consider :The Queers have many members and as yet have not tackled that to add, why it is so vacant. lots of work this. Bill Medley had a stable of musicians who mostly toured with him. April Wine is a spin off of the Wackers. And like the Wrecking crew who were made up of the top session men and a Gal, around LA. Bottom line for me, the whole point of these Categories, these lists is to see whom might they be, how they interacted with others and where they went ect. You don't get that kind of history from just a single article. I love research and use the Wiki in this manner rather than to pull up a article. And for some these bands are unknown maybe, perhaps through time, we are talking 40 years. But they were important and had a major impact on the music scene even today. I have no problem cleaning up the "convention for these listings as I was only following what was already being used in format. But I do disagree tossing out members names or groups on a whim. This goes to many great recordings by many top performers who tour with many of the same musicians used by other artist, and who record. I like to study who records with who or tours and how they cross connect.--Aeromedia19:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Building names groups I have had an on running problem with editors who slam my work even as I try to build it. I find it difficult, like walkign a tight rope to offen get the variuos names placed in a group. hard to know everyone of their histories. With out a name page article they have no power of link to the band they were a part of. Mostly the main players have all the notice leaving these other players out. Where you say there is only one name I think in April Wine, there are many if you read the aricle on the group, they are all listed but all the time it takes to build each a page is very time consuming . Wish there was a way to include them on the band memers site easily. --Aeromedia20:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not including the group It seems it is necessary to include the name of the group in the members list if only to find the listing. When you go to a group's article and there is not mentioned the names of the musicinas then how do you get to the bands members listing to find out who they are. I find this happening as I try to comply with your request to not include the bands name in the members, as I navagate to clean this up and make that correction I often times find it impossible to get back to the members page listing.--Aeromedia20:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Aeromedia is responding to a comment I left on his User talk:Aeromedia talk page. I added his Gary Usher categories as well. In the cases of April Wine and The Queers, I have no objection to recreation of these categories if they get three or more band member articles.--Mike Selinker20:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
I would think of something like this as an exception to the "small with no potential for growth" guideline. We wouldn't expect more bones to show up, you know? And yet that would be okay by me if it were part of a coherent categorization scheme. But this is the only such subcategory in Category:Skeletal system. If that category isn't going to be further subdivided, and it doesn't look like anyone's doing that, then merge. — coelacan — 06:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nomination, this isn't "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" so it wouldn't be an exception to the "small with no potential for growth" criteria. Resurgent insurgent13:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Sesamoid bone article, there are five general classifications of bones, with the sesamoid bones being one of them. If someone wanted to subcat the skeleton along those lines, then keeping this it would make sense. However, it doesn't make sense to have just one. -- Prove It(talk)16:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep, I was not sure this was a widely-accepted way to group the bones until I saw things like [2] and [3]. And I've gone ahead to create the other four categories. Seeing that Category:Skeletal system has over 160 entries now, sub-categorizing will probably lessen the number of articles there dramatically. Resurgent insurgent17:18, 24 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete per strong consensus against categorizing comics artists by book. I think this is recreated content but I'm not finding the old CFD, but if so then this should be speedied. Otto471101:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inappropriate grouping of "Person by Project". The parent this should have been in was put up for CfD here with a merge result. Since the articles listed are already resident in appropriate "Nationality comic artists" no merging is needed. Also of note, the current parent Category:New Warriors fits the same mold as this CfD and should likely also be put up for CfD. — J Greb02:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete for now per nom, without prejudice to recreation if a significant number of articles are created, eg about national member firms. Hawkestone16:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep If series worlds/universes are notable enough to have their own "universe" articles/categories, those articles/categories are worth categorising. Category doesn't appear to be overflowing, and is a useful cat for WP by ontology. Regarding Category:Fictional settings, the problems there can be fixed; it shouldn't be deleted either. Jheald20:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion for Category:Fictional settings. I can think of a number of books that can be argued to be either fantasy or science fiction (e.g. Split Infinity) and a number of fantasy books that aren't "worlds" per se (e.g. Ravenloft) hence "Fantasy worlds" isn't as clear as some people think. >Radiant<09:49, 30 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
