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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 02:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Pretender (TV series) characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Cat had two entries, one of which was a stub that I redirected to the main show article per WP:FICT and the other of which is the main show article. No need for the cat at all. Otto4711 20:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete don't see the characters having their own pages anytime soon, category is not needed and will not be needed as far as I can tell. --ImmortalGoddezz 20:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Currently empty of actual characters. Unnecessary category. Dugwiki 19:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What are ppl thinking :D TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 17:01, 27 December 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 02:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not appropriate to categorize real places by fictitious events. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and also as highly ambiguous. The Badlands is a location that is very rocky. Grutness...wha? 22:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Overcategorization. Vegaswikian 08:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 15:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete At this time, there are 18 pages in the category. Two have prominent mentions of being locations for the movies. Two have trivial mentions. The other 14 have no mentions. If it's not worth mentioning in the article, it's not worth categorzing. -Freekee 16:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very bad idea to start categorizing locations by what movies or TV series they've appeared in. Imagine how many movies and series have been centered in New York City, for example, and adding all those categories to the New York City article? Dugwiki 19:06, 26 December 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 02:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not quite notable enough for a self-named category. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -Will Beback · † · 19:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep easier to find Brandt related items. Does not hurt anything to have its own category. Anomo 21:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Help stop useless eponymous categories. Brandt related items can be found int the Daniel Brandt article. If they are not listed, add them to a "See also" section. Isn't that easy? -- Samuel Wantman 23:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also note that as a semi-noteable mostly private person he has the right to a degree of privacy not afforded fully public persons according to both Florida law and according to our WP:BLP policy. Also note that he claims to not even want a wikipedia article about him and while he has made press releases indicating some desire for publicity he has declined offers by reporters to photograph him indicating a sincere desire to limit his publicity. And again, the basis of WP:BLP is common human decency and not the mistaken claim that it is "just being really hard-assed about the other content policies". WAS 4.250 09:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnecessary eponymous category. Can easily create a See Also section in the main article for this. Dugwiki 19:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary category bloat. --lquilter 02:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dugwiki Honbicot 16:16, 27 December 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 02:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:American game show panelists
• Category:I've Got a Secret panelists
• Category:Just a Minute panellists
• Category:Match Game panelists
• Category:To Tell the Truth panelists
• Category:Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! panelists
• Category:What's Going On? panelists
• Category:What's My Line panelists
• Category:Blankety Blank panelists
• Category:Blankety Blanks panelists

Per precedent set by Hollywood Squares panelists. Otto4711 18:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per previous CFD. Dismas|^(talk) 18:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with no objection to listification. Note: If listified, Blankety Blank should be "panellists", and separation needs to be made between the US and UK versions of "What's my line". Why are Blankety Blank and Just A Minute listed with Category:American game show panelists anyway? Grutness...wha? 22:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• They aren't. I thought it was obvious that all noms were separate categories. Now it should be more so. Otto4711 22:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even if there are a few regular panelists for whom these are defining characteristics, they will be lost amidst the swarms of people for whom they are not. Sumahoy 15:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above Dugwiki 19:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wimstead 21:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge info to article lists before deletion. The Hollywood Squares panelists discussion included several comments equating "panelists" with "guests":

"like the 'Guest stars on The Simpsons' categories of the past which have been deleted. A panelist may have been in the studio for all of an hour or two. Their connection to the show is just above being tenuous;"

"Delete Entertainment appearance categories should be restricted to roles people filled on a regular basis over a period of time;"

"We shouldn't categorise people by guest appearance."

Most of the panelists I remember were not guests; the "guests" were the people who came on the show with a secret, or a hard-to-guess job. When I hear the word "panelists," I usually think of the regulars on the game shows from the 50s--What's My Line, I've Got a Secret, To Tell the Truth--people such as Kitty Carlysle, Peggy Cass, Orson Bean, Henry Morgan, Jayne Meadows, Betsy Palmer, who seemed to be some kind of celebrities, but who were otherwise completely unknown to me. Over the years, I've learned that most of them had some kind of entertainment-related career, rather than just being New York socialites or over-the-hill party girls. If somebody was interested enough in one of the panel shows to find it and read it, he would probably be interested in the panelists. If he was interested in that show's panelists, he might be interested in panel shows and panelists generally. The tree of specific show panelist categories, leading up to American games show panelists or something similar, seems to me to be the best way to organize this data. Some of the shows have lists of panelists included or on a separate page, but som of the ones that I just looked at seem to be less comprehensive than the categories, probably because somebody editing the Dorothy Kilgallen article would look for categories that she fit into but might not edit the What's My Line article to make sure that she's on whatever list is there. OTOH, I think that lists attached to panel show articles are the best solution for "guest panelists," such as this one: List of What's My Line? guest panelists. Same for guest stars on other shows, especially if being on the show has a special cachet, such at the Simpsons. --Hjal 21:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have a problem with converting these categories into list articles. But there are reasons not to create seperate categories for guest-actors-by-series, and that includes game show panelists. You're correct that in many cases these are "recurring guests", which is more of a grey area, but even there my opinion is that if the information can easily be obtained from a main article or a cast-list subarticle about the TV series in question, it should probably not be a category. Dugwiki 18:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/listify, not a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 13:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category clutter. Honbicot 16:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify. As creator of several of the above categories, I don't really care how the content lives on. If the current thought is that a category serves the content poorly, I have no objection. There is no reason to purge otherwise appropriate content due to qualms over its form, though. Erechtheus 20:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep now. Two more points. First, it is clear that for dozens of people that their 5 to 20 years as panelists on nationally broadcast network game shows is their primary claim to fame--that sounds like a "defining characteristic" to me. Second, I just checked the histories of each of the categories under discusion and then the talk pages of four of the creators--apparently no notice had been given to the first editors of these articles about the discussion here until I notified them. Unless there has been some other notice given by another means, I suggest that this discussion stay open for a reasonable period so that they may comment here if they so choose. (One just came in while I was composing this.) --Hjal 20:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think it's something that's very useful. If you want to listify it great, but there's lots of info here and it should be kept in some form. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Those for whom such appearances are career defining are in a small minority. Nathanian 20:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or a least Listify. There is some useful information here that is not really available anywhere else. I created & contributed to the Just a Minute category and it there is no website that lists previous panellists of this cult programme.Tony Corsini 23:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - In many of these instances, the panelists were regular cast members. I think this would then fall under Radio/TV series cast members. If consensus to delete, please listify. - jc37 13:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Not a defining characteristic. (Is Buck Owens known because he appeared on a game show? Hard to tell, his article doesn't mention it. When I see categories like this, am I supposed to expect that the point made by the category is oh-so-obvious that no one has bothered to add some text on it to the article yet?) Dagnabit 14:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC) (And wouldn't it be great if all of the Law & Order actor categories only included people who were not regulars, and not hundreds of people who just guest starred once?)[reply]

• Comment Isn't the point of this project incremental updating? Some users specialize in providing information (like Buck Owens as a game show panelist), while others may specialize in editing such information into the article in a coherent fashion. If we judge worthiness by what is currently included, what is the point of allowing future edits? Erechtheus 18:01, 30 December 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.

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

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 03:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:AMD to Category:Advanced Micro Devices
• Category:AMD people to Category:Advanced Micro Devices people
• Category:AMD products to Category:Advanced Micro Devices products
• Category:ATI to Category:ATI Technologies

rename as main page name.Viacosa 15:22, 25 December 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.

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Critics of Sathya Sai Baba. Timrollpickering 03:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Speedy Timrollpickering 14:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

• Category:Famous Anti-Sathya Sai Baba activists to Category:Opponents of Sathya Sai Baba. This may not be the best new name, but the present name (resulting from what seems to be an out-of-process renaming of the category) is both mis-capitalised, awkward, and inaccurate (none of the people in the category is famous, though they're doubtless encyclopædic...). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wouldn't Category:Critics of Sathya Sai Baba be a better name?

Comment: I strongly support the suggestion that it should be Category:Critics of Sathya Sai Baba M Alan Kazlev 00:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - whichever of these is best, this is NOT within the scope of a speedy renaming and should be debated in the main section, below. Grutness...wha? 08:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is apparently intended as the complement of Category:Famous followers of Sathya Sai Baba. They should be named (or renamed) similarly. -Will Beback · † · 19:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC) (PS: 10:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Comments. First, I'm not sure why someone edited my signature. Secondly, when entries are removed fromWikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, shouldn't the proposer be informed, and some indication given (also at the Category page itself) as to where they've been moved to (or even that they haven't simply been deleted)? Thirdly, User:Kkrystian, instead of posting here, edited my proposal at the Category page. Fourthly, I also prefer Category:Critics of Sathya Sai Baba; I'm not happy with Category:Famous followers of Sathya Sai Baba, again because most the people in the category aren't at all famous. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It should be Category:Followers of Sathya Sai Baba, omitting the "famous". -Will Beback · † · 06:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why even bother renaming it? It does not appear to be a notable category for Wikipedia, shouldn't this discussion be about deleting this category instead? All entries would be restored back into [[Category:Sathya Sai Baba]] which, in my opinion, should not have been divided in the first place. The divisions seem inappropriate to me. Ekantik ^talk 04:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am strongly opposed to the creation of "Critics" categories, in accordance with previous CfD discussions on various "Fans of," "Supporters of," "Opposition to" and similar categories. For one, every public figure is going to have admirers and detractors, and will no doubt hold opinions of other public figures, leading to a proliferation of categories for likes and dislikes. But more importantly, there are multiple ways in which one may follow, respect, criticize, or detest someone, particularly in the case of religious and political figures. Nearly everyone who is a "follower" or "admirer" is going to be a "critic" or "opponent" at some level, and perhaps vice versa, rendering both categories essentially meaningless if they were not frequently OR to begin with (e.g. did Mel Carnahan actually hate John Ashcroft the person? And even if he did, does that mean the reverse was true?). There are better ways to capture the sentiments—categorize by, for instance, membership in some organization affiliated with the supporters or opponents. -choster 16:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Can anyone explain how this is different from Category:People who don't like Bill Gates? >Radiant< 13:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that there's also the Sathya Sai Baba movement, it seems like this category is somewhere between what you mention and Category:Critics of Scientology. And if they're actually activists against specifically him/his movement, and there's a fair number of them, it might merit a category. Not sure that matches the reality of the articles in the category, tho. Mairi 05:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is exactly analogous to Category:Critics of Scientology and should be named accordingly. If there was a class of people who were mainly known for writing critical books about Bill Gates, "Critics of Bill Gates" would be a reasonable category too. 67.117.130.181 06:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• That sounds reasonable. Very well, rename to "critics of Saithy Say Baba" or however you spell that. Frankly I've never heard of him, but consistency is good. >Radiant< 10:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm all for consistency on Wikipedia and am happy with the category being renamed, but I just took a look at Critics of Scientology and I noticed that there's a reasonable number of Wiki-people articles to fill that category. The same is not true for the SSB issue, there are only about four or five. Perhaps creating a category for just five people is going a bit too far? Ekantik ^talk 05:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it was created as a complement to the "followers" category (six entries). In that role even just one entry would make it worthwhile. Combined the pro and con categories have eleven entries. -Will Beback · † · 06:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, both categories, to "critics of Sathya Sai Baba" and "followers of Sathya Sai Baba". -Will Beback · † · 06:57, 30 December 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.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Timrollpickering 02:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Speedy Timrollpickering 14:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

• Category:Occitan personnalities to Category:Occitan personalities. I'd simply do it myself, but there are a fair number of entries, and I don't have time at the moment.--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Should be Category:Occitan people. I would also note that the inclusion of the by place categories appears to be Occitan-centric POV. Osomec 04:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. First, would it not be courteous to inform the proposer when a speedy-renaming proposal is moved here (and alter the notice on the Category page)? Secondly, my speedy rename was based upon spelling (and thus in keeping with speedy-renaming rules); I can't see any sign of a request to delete this category, so am unclear why it was moved here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Renameto Category:Occitan people per Osomec Sumahoy 15:58, 26 December 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 02:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and propose permanent ban on all people by astrological sign categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, perhaps rename to Category:Lists of people by astrological sign. Note that this category holds only lists of people, not individual bio articles. If you want to delete the lists, fine; but as long as they're with us there's no reason for them not to be in a category. -- Visviva 11:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The lists should also be deleted. Speedy deleted as recreated crapcruft in fact. Otto4711 20:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Given that all lists are now (presumably) on their way to deletion, delete per nom. -- Visviva 05:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This content is unfit for an encyclopedia. Nathanian 16:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP is not a tabloid. Pavel Vozenilek 17:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I support the permanent ban too. Pavel Vozenilek 17:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, salt, stake through the heart and bury at the crossroads. Otto4711 20:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and block Wimstead 21:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete However, a category for "Lists of notable people who take astrology seriously and who self-identify by astrological sign" might be acceptable, just as List of Scientologists and Category:Scientologists are. Reliable information that a notable person, such as a politician, corporate executive, or entertainer, is involved in an esoteric religion or philosophy seems encyclopedic to me. --Hjal 22:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a (soon to be) unused category, and salt, since the originator has recreated the articles after one deletion already ➥the Epopt 14:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if lists are kept, Delete if lists are deleted This one hinges on the fate of the list articles. If the list articles in this category are kept, then this category would make sense as a way to index them. On the other hand, if all the list articles are deleted, then the category will be empty and can obviously be deleted. So wait and see what happens with the articles themselves first, then act accordingly on the category. Dugwiki 18:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, period/full stop. Replacing a nonsensical category with nonsensical lists is pretty pointless. --Calton | Talk 02:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete permanently Osomec 17:24, 29 December 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 02:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Simpsons guest stars ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This category, or ones very similar to it have been deleted before. The link between the show and the artists are many times tenuous at best. They may have only been "in the studio" for a couple hours and this has very little to do with their overall career or who they are as people. It's categorycruft. Dismas|^(talk) 13:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - They may have only been "in the studio" for a couple hours - well how long does it take to record a voice over? 6 months?! D'oh! Merry Christmas! Lugnuts 13:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment(edit) I did search for this category using lots of different variations on the name and checking the deleted log for those pages without success too! Lugnuts 13:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • more comments! So I guess you'll be nominating the following pages too then: [1], [2] and [3] ??Lugnuts 13:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment, Do you usually start discussions with such sarcasm and attitude? Perhaps you'd like to read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Category:Actors by television series. Dismas|^(talk) 14:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment Do you usually reply to questions with even more questions? Lugnuts 14:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as repost, see discussion of October 21st. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per Provelt. I'd also suggest salting. Comment as per the other categories Lunuts mentioned, they should be renamed and pruned, heavily. — J Greb 15:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Recreation of overcategorization. Perhaps needs salting. -- Samuel Wantman 23:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 15:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Recreation. Dugwiki 19:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although there is a comprehensive List of guest stars on The Simpsons with lots of details, that doesn't help a reader find out that the subject of a specific actor article was a Simpsons guest, whereas the category does. Based on numerous interviews of Simpsons writers and guest stars over the years on NPR shows, it seems to me that many of the guests take particular pride in being on the Simpsons. But for many of their own articles, such as Tom Poston, it appears that including this category is a better choice than adding a few sentences into the article and linking to the show or the list of guest stars. BTW, Wikipedia:Overcategorization is disputed. This category seems to meet the standards of Wikipedia:Categorization, which is not disputed. --Hjal 22:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if an artist or whatever takes particular pride then maybe it should be mentioned in their article. Otherwise it is just more category creep, and a very bad precedent-setting category creep too -- guest stars on tv shows are infinite. --lquilter 02:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy, recreation. Also, not a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 13:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I guess you'll be nominating the following pages too then: [4], [5] and [6] ??Lugnuts 13:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Well? Lugnuts 15:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are categories for actors. This is one for guest stars. There's an important difference there. >Radiant< 10:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • actors and guest stars - one and the same. Look at the Family Guy one, for instance. Three names I'll pick - Drew Barrymore, Peter Frampton and James Woods. All three have also "guested/acted" on The Simpsons. How is that any different? What if I created a category called The Simpsons actors?? Lugnuts 10:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hm, that is problematic. If I saw a category for The Simpsons actors, I'd expect it to contain Dan Castellenata and the other six or seven people of the main cast. We do have Category:The Simpsons cast members. You are indeed correct, and I'll nominate the other three for deletion or substantial pruning. >Radiant< 11:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, for those who say that it's just a category link at the bottom of the page... At one point the article for Cindy Crawford had over 70 categories! There was a category for every clothing company that she had modelled for. If the same thing were done with character actors, we could end up with many many actors with many many cats. Dismas|^(talk) 15:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category clutter. Honbicot 16:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a defining characteristic. Recury 17:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, useless as a category, should be a list. -Sean Curtin 06:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I just delisted this as a Speedy Deletion Candidate as it a)has an active CFD going on it, and b)is quite populated. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Dagnabit 14:36, 30 December 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.

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

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 02:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Brands of Spain ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Spanish brands
• Category:Brands of Norway ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Norwegian brands
• Category:Brands of Japan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Japanese brands
• Category:Brands of Hong Kong ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Hong Kong brands
• Category:Brands of France ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:French brands
• Category:Brands of Denmark ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Danish brands
• Category:Brands of Germany ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:German brands
• Category:Brands of Argentina ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Argentine brands
• Category:Australian brandnames ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Australian brands

"Fooian brands" sounds so much less clunky and more natural than Brands of Foo, no? For the record, there are currently eight "Brands of Foo," (excluding one which I've tagged with {{db|catempty}}) one "Fooian brandnames," and six "Fooian brands." See also Category:Brands by country. Picaroon 05:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. Recury 17:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. (Suggest the occasional grammatical/syntactical difficulties country adjectivals can present don't outweigh the awkward "Brands of".) Regards, David Kernow (talk) 13:01, 29 December 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 02:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clockwise spinners ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Category is based on obscure figure-skating trivia. If we need this category, should we also classify the other 90% of skaters into another category for counterclockwise spinners? If it's relevant that a skater was a reverse jumper/spinner, can't we just note that fact in the article for the skater? Dr.frog 04:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, absent clear inclusion criteria and some indication that this is a defining characteristic. -- Visviva 10:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seems rather like categorizing people by their dominant hand. Recury 17:36, 27 December 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 02:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albums named for colours ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, A list of albums named for colors is only marginally interesting, and interesting is not a criterion for inclusion at Wikipedia. Also, it's not clear whether the category is for albums with official names that are colors, or albums that are referred to by their color, or if the color should be the only word in the title. I'm not sure if we narrowed it down far enough, that the category would be meaningful. Freekee 04:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not even sure if it makes sense as a list, but I'd leave that option open. Hard to imagine how this would be encyclopedic in any form. -- Samuel Wantman 23:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a meaningful connection. Sumahoy 15:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify I'll give it the benefit of the doubt that it's ok as a list article. Bad category though, as above. Dugwiki 19:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are currently six articles in the cat, and four of them are disambiguation pages. -Freekee 05:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no list. Lists of musicial trivia like this have been deleted in the past. Recury 17:38, 27 December 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 02:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT people who committed suicide ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Unuseful, too narrow and unnecessary. Ashadeofgrey^Talk 03:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - not unuseful, not unnecessary, and not too narrow. Otto4711 13:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also, there is no Category:People who committed suicide, so I can hardly see the use of subdividing a non-existant category. — coelacan talk — 13:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• See Category:Suicides of which the nominated category and many others are children. Otto4711 13:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One should note that the sub-categories here are occupations except "LGBT people"--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 22:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those should probably be deleted too then. The question here is, "could you write an article about it?" Is there something particular about LGBT suicides that makes them especially notable? No, nor Category:Chefs who committed suicide. It's category cruft. Furthermore, there are POV problems with this category. In general, the fact that someone committed suicide is not a defining characteristic of that person. It is like having a category for people who died from kidney failure. It's non-defining, so we shouldn't have a category for it. To have such a category is to push the POV that their suicide totally changed the rest of their life previous, and it gives undue weight to their manner of death. Specifically for LGBT suicides, the category pushes the POV that LGBT people are prone to suicide, or should commit suicide, or that being LGBT in and of itself causes suicide. The category suggests a correlation between these factors, and it gives undue weight to the crossover of these topics. Everyone in this category can be safely upmerged to Category:Suicides if suicide is so important. But it's POV to keep a category that pushes an implicit correlation. — coelacan talk — 14:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering the research on LGBT suicide risks, yes, an article on LGBT suicides could definitely be written and probably should be, since the research is notable, verifiable and controversial. It is not POV pushing to have a category for people who are according to scientific research more likely to commit or attempt suicide and who have indeed committed suicide. As far as not wanting to have categories based on kidney failure or other causes of death, if you want to get rid of those you have a lot of work ahead of you. And the threshold for a category is not "defining characteristic." If it were then 90% of the categories here would be 86ed. Otto4711 14:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, there should also be catergories per gender as males are more likely to commit suicide.--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 19:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing against the inclusion of one category by saying there should be more categories doesn't really make a lot of sense. Categories like articles stand or fall on their own merits and the existence or non-existence of one has no bearing on whether another should exist. Otto4711 19:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing for more categories, I don't think that this category is needed. Maybe a list (thought it will be very short because of the narrowness of the category).--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 19:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, the threshold for a category is "defining characteristics". See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining or trivial characteristic. This may indeed mean that even a majority of the categories on Wikipedia should be deleted, and that's what "Categories for Deletion" is for, believe it or not. So we'll keep putting them up on the chopping block, and the fact that we're not finished yet is all the more reason to keep moving. We might as well start with this category, as it's overcategorization if I've ever seen it. — coelacan talk — 00:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said, if that standard were actually adhered to then about 90% of the categories here would be toast. But from the description at the other end of your link: " If you could easily leave something out of a biography, it is not a defining characteristic." Someone's homosexuality is not easily left out of their biography, at least not any more, and that someone committed suicide is also not easily left out of their biography. So no problem with this cat even under that standard. Otto4711 01:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also I note that you linked to a guideline and not a policy. Otto4711 01:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus." A guideline is what you usually should do. A policy is what you had really darned well better do except in very rare cases. Obviously this guideline doesn't need to be a policy, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't follow it. "Oh it's just a guideline" is not equivalent to "just ignore it." Now, I am not a deletionist, and if this category didn't have POV problems I wouldn't be fighting it. But even if you could write an article on a statistical correlation, it would still be POV pushing to tag someone's article with this category, which implies causation. The category means "okay we have a tendency here, and Person X is an example of this tendency." That might not be true. Is Alan Turing a strong example of correlation? Maybe so. Is Virginia Woolf? Probably not. And yet here they both are in this category. "Someone's homosexuality is not easily left out of their biography, at least not any more, and that someone committed suicide is also not easily left out of their biography." Agreed, but a crossover category of their sexuality and their suicide is a tentative correlation that probably should be left out of their biography. It's not POV to write an article on correlation studies. But it is usually POV to pin this correlation on any particular person, and even moreso to do it with a cateogory, which cannot have qualifiers or footnotes or useful detail. You are a good editor, Otto, but I think in this particular case, you are wrong. — coelacan talk — 16:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly I'm on the losing side of this discussion (which doesn't mean I ain't going down swinging). But I think your opposition to the category rests in large part on your own POV about the category. The category is a simple collection of people who 1) were LGBT and 2) killed themselves. The only one claiming that the existence of the category implies correlation is you. You are drawing an inference, which makes the POV problem yours, not the category's. Otto4711 17:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, you might be right about whatever's going on in my subconscious, but if so I assure you I'm not going to be the only reader who sees it that way. I want to point out that I am certain that User:Yonmei created the category in good faith. I am afraid that the POV is completely inadvertent. Do you see any merit to my argument that it can be NPOV to create the article on the subject of LGBT suicide and yet POV to attach the category to particular people? — coelacan talk — 23:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, no, I don't see any merit to it. And even assuming arguendo that a particuar editor adds a particular person because of some ax the editor wants to grind, so what? As long as the category is legitimate and the person being added to the category fits the criteria for inclusion, the reason someone chose to include an otherwise proper entry is irrelevant to me. Now, if the category were something like "People who were hounded to commit suicide because of societal hatred of homosexuality" then yes, that would be impermissibly POV. But the cat under discussion is based entirely on verifiable and notable facts. I don't find that the category makes any correlation or implication of correlation any more than the category for mathematicians or socialites or religious people who snuffed themselves draws or implies that correlation. Otto4711 04:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No implication of correlation? But weren't you the one who called it "a category for people who are according to scientific research more likely to commit or attempt suicide and who have indeed committed suicide"? Isn't that the very definition of correlation? — coelacan talk — 04:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the very definition of categorizing an intersection of two notable facts. Otto4711 15:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Whether it is random or point-making, this should be deleted either way. Sumahoy 16:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see someone else recognizes the inherent problem in the overcategorization. — coelacan talk — 16:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Tha fact that some people get fascinated with suicides doesn't make it good categorisation scheme. Pavel Vozenilek 17:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The POV problem is the category's as a significant proportion of reasonable people will suspect the motives behind the creation of the category. Wimstead 21:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete reluctantly. LGBT suicides is considerably more meritorious than, for instance, all the professional categories, precisely because it is a studied topic, and a literary/artistic topic a well. But I think this is better handled with a list. (As are all the other suicide categories -- they should all be lists, in the Category:Lists of people by cause of death, and there should be a Category:Lists of suicides to gather them up. For the categorizor(s), lists will make this information much more accessible than having to browse categories, and much more findable -- category creep makes categories invisible. --lquilter 02:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Coelacan makes good points. This might make a good article or list, but as a category it is flawed. -- Samuel Wantman 09:01, 28 December 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 02:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monolingual writing systems to Category:Unilingual writing systems

• Rename, "Unilingual" is more consistant to the Latin prefix in bilingual. 71.175.41.54 02:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per the grounds given on Category talk:Monolingual writing systems. Not a meaningful or useful categorization. Even listification would be problematic. -- Visviva 02:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If not deleted, oppose rename; "monolingual" is actually more common by an order of magnitude than "unilingual." That's even if you exclude the Mac software. -- Visviva 02:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the discussion on Talk page should be considered as a part of CfD process. It is quite convincing to delete it. Pavel Vozenilek 17:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Visviva; impractical and not meaningful. If not deleted, I'd oppose renaming, as 'monolingual' is more common than 'unilingual'. Mairi 01:22, 28 December 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.

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

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 02:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Megacorp to Category:Megacorps

• Rename, The title should be pluralized. I would also support renaming to Category:Megacorporations. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to plural. Rename per Sumahoy. Comment: The article related to the category is Megacorp. Megacorporation redirects to Megacorp.
• Rename to Category:Fictional megacorps to anticipate possible misuse for real companies. Sumahoy 16:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional megacorps per Sumahoy. Mairi 01:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional megacorporations. "Megacorp" is a silly term, and it's a redirect regardless. -Sean Curtin 06:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Up until about 12 hours ago, Megacorp was not the redirect. Someone just swapped the pages, and now they don't make sense. The now Megacorporation article starts out with "Megacorp" is a term popularized by William Gibson. Just dumb. And anyway, "Megacorp" is the term of note, while "megacorporation" is the one that is less easily defined. -Freekee 17:08, 28 December 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.