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

The result of the debate was rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Journalists killed in Chechnya to Category:Journalists killed while covering the Chechen wars

Nominator's rationale: Rename for specificity, since this is a sub-category of Category:People of the Chechen wars, and to be consistent with other categories in Category:Journalists killed in action. jwillbur 22:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom for consistency and clarity. Snocrates 02:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - much better; we don't want to start a habit of listing people who were killed by where they were killed just for the heck of it, and clearly the rename gets at the defining aspect of the category. --lquilter 15:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Johnbod 17:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 13:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Royal Canadian Navy ship names to Category:Canadian Forces ship names

Nominator's rationale: Merge: Both categories cover disambiguation pages of Canadian naval vessels, with both having virtually the same member articles. (Eventually both will have exactly the same articles as Canadian Forces Maritime Command continues to build ships named in honour of Royal Canadian Navy ships.) Similar to how Category:Russian ship names contains ships of both the Russian Navy and its Soviet predecessor, I propose that Category:Royal Canadian Navy ship names be merged into Category:Canadian Forces ship names Kralizec! (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting... I would say don't merge on principle, as I think we've generally kept this sort of thing separate. For example, I think part of the justification for separate country and navy cats is to allow maximum precision: an article will be categorized under the exact entity in which it served. See Category:German Imperial Navy ships and Category:Ships of the Kriegsmarine; perhaps Category:German Navy ship names should be split up when it gets populated. Part of me actually questions the necessity of Category:Ship names, but that's a separate matter. TomTheHand 02:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As historic navies that no longer exist, the Kaiserliche Marine and Kriegsmarine cannot add new ships. However since the 1968 formation of MARCOM, only two RCN ship names have not been re-used: HMCS Comox and HMCS Nootka. Once Canada (eventually) commissions a Comox and Nootka, Category:Royal Canadian Navy ship names and Category:Canadian Forces ship names will be identical with all articles existing in both categories. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting. I see where you're coming from. However, what if I don't know that they're identical, and I couldn't care less about the Canadian Forces, I want to see the ship names that were used by the Royal Canadian Navy? I could wind up confused. I feel like merging based on redundancy is not something WP:SHIPS has tended to do in the past: it may be redundant for this case, but isn't redundant for other cases in the same structure, and completeness of the structure is more important.

I would say that I'm convinceable but not yet convinced. Any other opinions? TomTheHand 16:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose because there are the two that have not yet been reused, so the new name would be inaccurate. Category:Canadian naval ship names would be a more accurate name, though there is the root category at Category:Navy of Canada, so this would more appropriately be called Category:ship names of the navy of Canada. 132.205.99.122 19:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 13:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Urdu literature to Category:Urdu-language literature

Propose renaming Category:Urdu poetry to Category:Urdu-language poetry

Propose renaming Category:Urdu poets to Category:Urdu-language poets

Propose renaming Category:Urdu journals to Category:Urdu-language journals

Propose renaming Category:Urdu fiction to Category:Urdu-language fiction

Propose renaming Category:Urdu nonfiction literature to Category:Urdu-language non-fiction literature

Propose renaming Category:Urdu nonfiction writers‎ to Category:Urdu-language non-fiction writers

Propose renaming Category:Urdu novelists to Category:Urdu-language novelists

Propose renaming Category:Urdu fiction writers to Category:Urdu-language fiction writers

Nominator's rationale: Rename - there's no real standard across the various category structures when it comes to "Foo writing" vs "Foo-language writing". My feeling is that Foo-language is better because it reduces abiguity (is a "Foo writer" a writer from Foo or one who writes in Fooish regardless of country of origin?). Just happened to find Urdu while looking at some other categories and it seemed like as good a place to start as any. At the same time I'm wondering if some of these specific categories are really needed at all. They seem to divide the field fairly finely. Otto4711 19:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is. "Urdu" refers only to a language (one that is spoken in Pakistan and parts of India), not to a culture or country of origin. There is no ambiguity, and the suggested names are clumsier. SparsityProblem 20:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that's kind of the point. This doesn't refer to a nationality or an ethnicity but from the names as constructed it can be inferred that they do. The suggested renames are also in line with Category:Urdu-language writers, which since several of these are subcats they should match the parent. Otto4711 20:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you think there is a place or people called Urdu (or Urds?). You refer (with typo) to "ambiguity" in the nom but where is it? Urdu has about 160 million speakers & is about the 20th language in the global native-speakers charts. Johnbod 20:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not everybody is as smart as you and not everybody comes to Wikipedia knowing that Urdu is a language and not a people. You were not, one assumes, born with the innate knowledge of what is Urdu. If everybody knew everything already then there wouldn't be any need for an encyclopedia at all, would there? Otto4711 21:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any minimum IQ requirement for knowing that Urdu is a language (i.e., all Urdu speakers, no matter how smart or dumb, presumably know that) but anyway, this can be addressed in the category descriptions. I don't think there's any requirement that a category name be understandable from first principles. SparsityProblem 21:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for Urdu topics, you presumably know it; if not, it presents a chance to find out. Johnbod 21:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is, per SparsityProblem; not a good example to start this with. Johnbod 20:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. Urdu is a language. "Urdu-language" is like preferring "English-language" over "English. Doczilla 00:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We do prefer English-language to "English" when it is the language under consideration. Otto4711 01:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because "English films" is ambiguous. "Urdu-language films" is tautologous. Johnbod 02:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is - Urdu was the court language of the Mogul emperors. It is actually a diglot between Hindi and Persian (as English is a diglot between German and various Romance languages). It is widely spoken by Muslims in the Indian subcontinent. The major differnece from "English" or "French" is that these adjectives refer either to a language or a country, so that the adjectives are potentially ambiguous. Since there is no "Urduland", there is no ambiguity; hence no need for a change. Peterkingiron 21:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bano Qudsia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Held the main article and two books which have been appropriately categorized in a by author cat. Otto4711 19:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 00:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gu Long ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Following removal of articles that either don't mention this author at all or were person by project categorization, the remaining articles on the author and a character stub (that should be deleted) don't warrant the category. Otto4711 19:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 00:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was relist to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 13. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Retro automobile trend to Category:Retro style automobiles

Nominator's rationale: The articles in this category are for automobiles, not a "trend" (which is a subjective term) itself. I would also suggest "Retro-styled automobiles" as an alternative name.. or possibly a discussion to delete the category altogether. --Vossanova ^o< 19:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sub Pop ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a company. Not needed to hold artist and album subcats. Otto4711 17:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 00:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bill and Ted ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with little or no growth potential. One of the subcats has been empty since July and is tagged for speedy. The remaining material is extensively interlinked and properly categorized and doesn't warrant the category. Otto4711 16:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 00:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. None of the members of this list are regularly called "Hall of Famer Doyle Brunson" (or whatever) on TV broadcasts, leading me to agree with some of the arguments that Binion's selection of these people is not a big deal. Their achievements (winning the World Series, say) are much more valuable as subjects of categorization.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Poker Hall of Fame Inductees ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:European Poker Players Hall of Fame Inductees ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Either delete as overcategorization by award/non-defining characteristic, or rename with lower-case "i" in "inductees." Otto4711 14:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 17:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom I'd think the hall of fame is sufficiently notable for a category, as suggested. If it was "Poker Magazine's player of the year" or similar I'd say delete, but hall of fame is reasonable enough. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The American hall of fame is awarded by a single casino and the European hall was created by a single person, if that alters your thinking any. Otto4711 02:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not really. I can't be bothered looking through the history of the page, but I remember one reason for it was that certain people/shows/etc win a lot of awards, so you end up with twenty categories if you start making categories for every award. I just think a recognised hall of fame, regardless of who organises it, is a defining characteristic for a poker player. Granted I'm not overly enthusiastic about some of the recommendations for induction to the European one such as Roland de Wolfe, but such is life. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If this one remains, then I'll probably recreate some of the deleted categories since there is a new precedent. If that is fine as an outcome, so be it. Vegaswikian 03:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since other more notable gaming awards have also been cleaned up this way. Not happy, but this is the established consensus. Vegaswikian 07:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete overcat by award. Doczilla 00:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children's animal television series ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Shows where animals are characters, such as Lassie, Flipper, Rin Tin Tin, Gentle Ben, Daktari ... I don't see this as a defining characteristic. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 00:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; someone has created a slew of categories into which Lassie, Flipper, and Mr. Ed have been placed. Carlossuarez46 20:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children's action and adventure television series ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mild delete, this seems a little too broad to be useful ... nearly every Saturday morning show has some amount of action or adventure. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 00:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; someone has created a slew of categories into which Lassie, Flipper, and Mr. Ed have been placed. Carlossuarez46 20:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to category:Literature and category:Social events. There's no exact subcategory of the literature category that quite works, though one could easily be created.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Reading series into Category:Literary festivals and Category:Social events

Nominator's rationale: The material does not justify a distinct category. The single article should be upmerged. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article Reading series, which would presumably be the head article for the cat, includes a list of reading series, of which two have WP articles and c/should be added to this category. In theory this category could grow, although I hate the title which is really hard for me to understand for some reason. "Series of readings"? But "Literary festivals" isn't quite right, because not all ongoing series of readings are festivals (indeed most would not be). The Category:Literary events which was just deleted would be the right place for this. Hmm. --lquilter 15:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 16:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indian comic book characters to Category:Indian comics characters

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Comics, including Category:Indian comics. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename in line with all the other similar categories: Category:Comics characters by origin. (Emperor 15:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Rename per convention. Doczilla 00:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep the songs and albums categories; the main category was speedy deleted per CSD G4. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Soulja Boy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Soulja Boy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Soulja Boy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete: Per previous deletion and discussion atCFD 2007 Oct 9 --Piemanmoo 07:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Soulja Boy as repost of deleted content. Tagged. Keep the album and song subcats per convention of Category:Albums by artist and Category:Songs by artist. Otto4711 13:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 16:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Academic enclaves to Category:Student ghettos

Nominator's rationale: Merge or Reverse merge - the two categories appear to cover the same territory. Otto4711 05:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Student ghettos (the more direct, concise, and widely used term). SparsityProblem 05:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Category:Academic enclaves includes clusters of schools. Category:Student ghettos appear to be clusters of school specific housing. Not the same thing. Vegaswikian 06:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the 4 neighborhoods listed in Category:Academic enclaves, two include multiple schools, but the other two (University Circle and University District, Seattle, Washington) only include one school each. (Indeed, University District, Seattle, Washington is listed in both categories.) Of the 11 neighborhoods in Category:Student ghettos, Headingley, Home Park (Atlanta), and Jesmond include multiple schools. And indeed, the description given for Category:Academic enclaves says "Neighborhoods of a city or town dominated by students and other members of an educational community." -- there's nothing there about clusters of schools. So this doesn't seem to be the case. SparsityProblem 07:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Vegas - overlap does not seem to be enough. Johnbod 13:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The ordinary usage of these two terms is pretty different and non-synonymous. Student ghettos are poorly-maintained roach-traps. Academic enclaves often have lots of faculty members and can be pretty upper-class. While the categories here may not be used well or consistently or accurately, the concepts are not the same. However, I'm not convinced either category is really helpful or likely to generate a lot of articles. Couldn't any such articles really be classed within the specific neighborhoods of the particular city and the appropriate university categories? --lquilter 17:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Te terms are different, as the others here have shown. Of course they will be classedwith the city and --when relevant--with the university also. But we are not limited to a single class, and the point of the category is to bring together the articles on a topic. DGG (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Terms are different. Doczilla 00:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Art school culture ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - vague, ill-defined category. Otto4711 03:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Almost anything could be "significant to the lifestyle of art students". SparsityProblem 04:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. By no means contains the things I would have expected. Johnbod 13:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. A vague category. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 20:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vague cat. Doczilla 00:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all as nominated. A separate nomination will be needed to consider the desirability of merging the various subcategories of Category:Thai people of European descent (formerly Category:Thai Europeans). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Filipino Thais to Category:Thai people of Filipino descent

Nominator's rationale: Mass nomination. See below for rationale. cab 01:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standardise Category:Thai people by ethnic or national origin along the lines of Category:Canadian people by ethnic or national origin or Category:Japanese people by ethnic or national origin. See related debate Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 5#Category:American Japanese people. Suggest using the form "Thai people of Fooian descent" rather than "Thais of Fooian descent" as the head article is at Thai people rather than "Thais". cab 01:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom Johnbod 14:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Either keep all or rename all. Im comfortable with either way. But I find it a rather tedious work, as doing so you might need a bot or it will be tiring for human hands, and there is some risk of missing out one or two relavant articles during the shiting process. Also, may I ask about the fate of Category:Chinese Americans? Are we to name them as "Category:Americans of Chinese descent" as per say? It might seems biased in this way.
  • Also, I would also propose that the Category:Thai Europeans be renamed Category:Thai people of European descent, with the Danish, British etc as subcategories, if you want to carry out the propsed changes. Anyway, Category:Thai Europeans could fit into the higher category order of Category:People of European descent, and that there is no harm in renaming this along as well.
  • However, I must raise another point that in doing so as we shift the people of the Danish, British, Spanish (any European countries) categories into the higher category order of "Thai people of European descent", we must remove the main categories from the articles when replacing the with the lower category order, which is ultimately linked to the higher category order as subcategories. Otherwise what are the subcategories for? You might want to see Wikipedia:Categorization. Thanks. Mr Tan 15:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for bringing it up, not really sure what should be done with "Thai Europeans". To me, running a by-continent scheme in addition to or in line with a nationality scheme just feels like an extra level of unnecessary categorisation. It consisted largely of white Australians and Americans anyway ... presumably the point was to create a category for Thai/white people, which in that case should be stated explicitly, and which might be better off as a list. "Thai European", like any "Fooian Barian" name, means different things to everyone (Fooians in Barland, Barians in Fooland, people with Fooian and Barian parents, only Fooians with Barian citizenship, any Fooian in Barland, etc.) cab 23:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correction: My apologies. The propsed "European descent" category fits into Category:European diaspora, not Category:People of European descent as mentioned earlier. Check it out.
      • I must also bring up that having segregated categories of Danish, British categories would each have very small categories; as we all know Thais of European descent make up a significant population, but if segregated as propsed the subcategories will be very small. perhaps all of you might want to see Category:European Malaysians as reference as well. Mr Tan 03:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all for clarity. Doczilla 00:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novels with a pedophile theme ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Pedophilia defines pedophilia as "the primary or exclusive sexual attraction by adults to prepubescent youths." If we use that definition of pedophilia, many of the articles in this category don't belong: to pick three examples I've read, Bastard Out of Carolina and Hogg feature violence against women and children but no implication that the characters who commit this violence are primarily interested in children, and Death in Venice is about a man who feels attraction to a young boy but never acts on it, and there is no implication that this is his primary orientation. Of course, it's possible to remove these and other misplaced novels from the category. But this just illustrates the subjectiveness of the category -- IMO, subjectiveness that is sufficiently great so as to disqualify this as a Wikipedia category. In addition, the same information is duplicated as a list: Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (boys) and Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls) (not that a list's existence is always a reason to delete an analogous category, but in this case, we'll still have the lists, which allow greater room for explanation to substantiate the placement of novels in these categories.) Delete. SparsityProblem 00:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all the reasons provided by nom. Too POV (or at least has the potential to be so) and a list already exists. Snocrates 01:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; categorizing by theme is not a good idea and I strongly suspect that "pedophile theme" (even if we could all agree on what that means) is a POV-magnet. --lquilter 17:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Categorizing novels by theme is a good idea, and a category is a good way to do it, and the remaining problems are editing concerns. We can deal with category-spam. DGG (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to disagree. While organizing literary works by theme is a very fine idea, categories are a very bad way to do it. Lists and even better, articles (with embedded lists), are by far the better way to approach literary / artistic / filmic / etc. themes. (1) Lists/articles permit referencing, sorting, and explanations, while categories only permit a binary on/off treatment, no referencing, and no sorting other than default alphabetical. So an article about a work with a relatively minor treatment of a theme, or an outlying treatment of a theme, is simply displayed alphabetically with a work that exemplifies the theme. (2) Trying to restrict the category only to appropriate works is much more difficult than watching a list/article. Especially with controversial themes (pedophile-themed literature is a great example), people will be all the time adding & subtracting the category. This is a very subtle change to any individual article, and in the aggregate it is much harder to police the "category" than an article or list. (3) Works can have many themes leading to a potential massive proliferation of theme-categories on any particular article about a work. Particularly since "theme" can be difficult to distinguish from other literary analyses (genre, characterization, plot, setting -- all can overlap with "theme", depending on the theme) theme categories can proliferate wildly, leading, again, to very large numbers of categories on articles. --lquilter 17:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "Theme" is vague. A list already exists. A list can be properly annotated. A category cannot. There's no clear inclusion criterion. How much content makes up "with" a theme? Doczilla 00:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 16:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transgressive artists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Far too vague and subjective. Are there artists who *aren't* transgressive in some way? Delete. SparsityProblem 00:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thomas Kinkade is not transgressive in any way. Otto4711 02:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said "artists" :-) SparsityProblem 02:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Isn't it the intent of the artist that determines whether or not art is transgressive (as opposed to whether it actually transgresses any norms or upsets people)? If this is right, I would say keep and limit to artists who have somehow expressed this intent. I may be wrong, however, because I know little about art. Snocrates 07:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's still impossibly hard to verify. SparsityProblem 07:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impossibly hard? If you can find a statement/interview with them where they declare their trangressive intent, include them. If not, don't. How would that be impossibly hard? Obviously the category has probably not been applied in this way, but I'm saying it could be defined in this way and thereby allow the category to be kept. Snocrates 07:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would they be required to say in order to justify inclusion in this category? Do they have to use the word "transgress"? If not, what would your proposed requirement be? SparsityProblem 17:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several options, I imagine, one of which you mention. My main point is that if it is the intent of the artist that is determinative, defining the category and applying it would not be impossible. As I mentioned above, I know little about art and the art world and how artists interact with the media, etc., so I wouldn't deign to be the one propose the specific standard to be used. Snocrates 21:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If it's not transgressive, it's craft or decoration rather than art. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename to Category:Contemporary artists who attempt to shock , though it does now agree with main article title (added)Johnbod 13:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I haven't come to any conclusions yet on this one. I understand SparsityProblem's concerns, which are somewhat reminiscent of the issues that came up recently with regard to New Western Historians. However, in this case we do have both Category:Transgressive art and a main article, Transgressive art -- which reflects the fact that this is a widely recognized term in contemporary art and culture.

I've taken the step of soliciting input from two editors who appear to have more expertise in this subject area: User:Sparkit, who created the parent cat, Category:Transgressive art, and User:Jahsonic, who was a major contributor to the article, Transgressive art. Hopefully, they will join the discussion and assist us in coming up with a sound resolution on this issue. Cgingold 20:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete undefined, subjective category lacking inclusion criteria. Doczilla 00:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ravenhurst 13:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Also note that the template that populated this category – Template:Biased source – was deleted per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 5, thus making this category eligible for speedy deletion per criterion C3. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia articles with biased sources ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as un-necessary subdivision of Category:NPOV disputes. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - POV creation for Sri Lankan articles. Johnbod 14:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Tweak the template {{Biased source}} that populates this category so that it adds Category:NPOV disputes instead, then delete this category per nom as empty (as it will be by that stage). Bencherlite^Talk 19:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, useless fork of category mentioned in nom. See now also Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 5#Template:Biased source. Sandstein 22:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vague, subjective trouble magnet. Doczilla 00:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If this really only occurs in {{Biased source}} (which I created) then there is no reason to keep it. I don't usually create categories just like that (I've been active on CFD a couple of years ago and know that it's harder to delete cats than to create them), so it was either a mistake or there was already such a category populated - in which case I apologize for not documenting that in the summary. Either way, sorry for the unnecessary hassle! As far as I'm concerned, this can be speedied. — Sebastian 06:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it can't be speedied as a {{db-author}} as it wasn't you who created the category that this template uses. It already existed, so you needn't worry about creating a hassle(!) At present, though, the only articles in the category are from {{Biased source}}, so changing the template will empty the category. I had a quick peak at the category creator's contributions for July and August, and can't see the category being used, but I may have missed something. Bencherlite^Talk 09:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & as empty. Carlossuarez46 22:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ravenhurst 13:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was selectively merge. Dessel and Mol, Belgium are already located in Category:Municipalities of Antwerp and so do not need to be merged. Campine appears in Category:North Brabant, and will be also placed into Category:Antwerp (province) and Category:Limburg (province). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Campine to Category:North Brabant

Nominator's rationale: Merge, eponymous category for the small Campine area of North Brabant, doesn't appear to fit the convention of geographical categories for Belgium. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Doczilla 00:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete North Brabant is a province of the Netherlands so the contents should not be merged. Tim! 17:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge carefully each article going either to Category:North Brabant or to [[:Category:Limburg (province}]] which is the one for the Belgian side and probably due for a renaming itself (there being a Limburg province in the Netherlands as well, but that for another day). Carlossuarez46 20:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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