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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:People from Basel-City. Kbdank71 18:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Basel (city) to Category:to be determined (see below)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Basel is a Swiss city located on the border of both Germany and France. Basel is also the name of a Swiss canton that was divided in two in 1833. Categorizing things related to Basel can be tricky, and Wikipedias in other languages have arrived at more than one "right" way to resolve the ambiguity. I propose renaming Category:People from Basel (city) to either Category:People from Basel or Category:People from Basel-City.

Quick history: Basel and its feudal dependencies joined the Swiss Confederation in 1501, becoming the Canton of Basel in 1798. In 1833 the canton was divided into two "half-cantons": Basel-City (37 km²; 188,000 pop. in 2000) and Basel-Country (518 km², 270,000 pop.).

It is important to note that the canton of Basel-City and the city of Basel are not identical; hence "Basel (city)" and "Basel-City" are not interchangeable terms. Of the Swiss towns adjoining Basel's city limits, some are in Basel-City, some in Basel-Country.

Should we be lumpers or splitters? We can lump the two half-cantons together in "Basel" categories, or we can split them into "Basel-City" and "Basel-Country" categories.

French Wikipedia splits its Basel categories. If we do likewise, we should rename Category:People from Basel (city) to Category:People from Basel-City, and keep Category:People from Basel-Country.

German Wikipedia lumps Basel categories. To do this, we'd rename Category:People from Basel (city) to Category:People from Basel and (probably) merge Category:People from Basel-Country.

Of course we might choose to split some Basel-related categories, but not all of them. For now I'm only asking about the "People" category. And that's enough from me, unless there are questions. -- ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 22:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If no one else has an opinion, I vote to rename to Category:People from Basel and keep Category:People from Basel-Country to avoid overcategorization and keep cat disturbance to a minimum. The association of Basel with its metro area is intuitive, while the Basel/Basel-City distinction will be less than obvious to most readers. (Roger Federer is from Basel regardless of which cantonal government used to collect his property tax.) Yet some articles about people from Basel-Country but with no strong connection to Basel (e.g., Emil Frey) should be in a separate Basel-Country cat. -- ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 16:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would Oppose a rename to Category:People from Basel as being ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/query: Would you support a rename to Category:People from Basel-City? — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 22:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave as is or rename to Category:People from Basel-City. 23:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Leave as is as the established disambiguation pattern Mayumashu (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, the established disambiguation pattern applies to cantons with the same name as cities (e.g., Berne, Fribourg, Zurich). In Basel's case there are two such cantons (Basel-City and Basel-Country), and Basel-City (the canton) is not identical with Basel, the city. Either we become more precise by following canton boundaries, or more general in defining "Basel." Either approach is valid. The approach we have now is confused. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 22:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Legend of the Galactic Heroes images ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is no reason to categorize such a small number of images. TTN (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – this is how the large Category:Anime and manga images is subcategorised; clearly a defining characteristic of an image related to Legend of the Galactic Heroes. Occuli (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep images should be organized, and should be separate from articles, especially when parent image category is overpopulated. 70.51.8.158 (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: relisted on sep 23. Kbdank71 18:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Muslim Comics Characters to Category:Muslim characters in comics

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Paulley proposed this for speedy rename, but it involves multiple changes, so I am relisting it here. Stepheng3 (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the discussion so far:

• Category:Muslim Comics Characters to Category:Muslim characters in comics. mis-capitalized and format — Paulley (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I support the rename, I fail to see how this qualifies for speedy rename. Stepheng3 (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment: Sorry about putting it under speedy, i had originally suggest just correcting the mis-capitalization.. but an afterthought made me suggest the format correction which of course made it ineligible for speedy. Thanxs Stepheng3 for moving the listing. --- Paulley (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as routine correction. -- ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 22:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a sub-variant of Category:Fictional Muslims, which was deleted in a 2008 FEB 24 CfD. If kept, rename per nom. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete, if kept, rename per nom. I think we're better off limiting our fictional character categories to out of universe details rather than in universe detail, to be honest, since continuity is subject to change. Article space is the best place to comment on this, through recourse to independent reliable sources. Hiding T 09:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - while I opposed the original deletion of the various fictional characters by religion categories I recognize that consensus is against them and so for consistency this should be deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete, empty. Kbdank71 18:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:English coast and countryside by county to Category:English coast by county

Nominator's rationale: Rename The category "English coast and countryside by county" had been previously rejected (prior to my knowledge). However, a new category is necessary to accommodate the lists of the coastal features of each county, such as Category:Coastal Essex. Oneblackline (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Christian LGBT people to Category:LGBT Christians

Nominator's rationale: The proposed rename would shorten the category name, bring it in line with Category:Christians and make it conform to the convention of Category:LGBT people by religion. AFAIK, the "Fooian people" phrasing is not used for categorisation by religion. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This category was originally located at Category:LGBT Christians, but it was moved to its present title per CFD 2006 December 22. The move was motivated by the existence of Category:Christian people, which was later renamed (see CFD 2008 May 29) to Category:Christians. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency. -- ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 22:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Companies based in Siskiyou county to Category:Companies based in Siskiyou County, California. Capitalize proper noun and match parent category disambiguation. Stepheng3 (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it; this doesn't qualify for speedy because it's actually two changes. Stepheng3 (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discussion from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 15 Stepheng3 (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, seeing as the cat has one member, the Mt. Shasta Brewing Company, which is located in Weed, California, which is in Siskiyou County, California, I'd have to say support. -- ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 23:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename both to "rappers" variety. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Houston rap artists to Category:Houston hip hop musicians, Category:Atlanta rap artists to Category:Atlanta, Georgia rappers Per other similarly named catsCosprings (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Rename to Category:Houston, Texas rappersCosprings (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no objection to the rename, I don't think this qualifies for speedy renaming. Stepheng3 (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discussion from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 15 Stepheng3 (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - we have structures both for "rappers" (Category:Rappers) and "hip hop musicians" (Category:Hip hop musicians) of which the rappers structure is a subcategorization scheme. I can't stand the stuff so I have no idea what if any distinction is or should be drawn between the two but in light of the two schemes making this change in isolation is a bad idea. If renamed per the nom's reasoning, it should be Category:Houston, Texas hip hop musicians to match Houston, Texas. Otherwise it should be renamed Category:Houston, Texas rappers to match the Rappers structure. Otto4711 (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt rename to Category:Houston, Texas rappers as a quick poll of the category members finds several "rappers," a "rap group" and other music industry people who apparently also rap (or used to). None of them are primarily "hip hop musicians," and yes, there is a difference. -- ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 22:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Houston, Texas rappers per ℜob C. and Otto. Occuli (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Delaware State Court System to Category:Delaware state courts
• Category:Hawaii State Judiciary to Category:Hawaii state courts
• Category:Kentucky state court system to Category:Kentucky state courts
• Category:Oklahoma Court System to Category:Oklahoma state courts
• Category:Tennessee court systems to Category:Tennessee state courts

All should be renamed to match the naming convention for Category:State court systems of the United States. --Eastlaw (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything related to those on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). They may not be speediable.--Rockfang (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no objection to the rename, I don't think this qualifies for speedy renaming. Stepheng3 (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discussion from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 15 Stepheng3 (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom for convenience; it's a good convention in this context. Postdlf (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I nominated these for speedy rename--and frankly I'm a bit surprised that they aren't speediable. I agree with Postdlf though. --Eastlaw (talk) 09:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency. - Darwinek (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 18:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:Films based on fantasy books to Category:Films based on fantasy novels

Category:Films based on horror books to Category:Films based on horror novels

Category:Films based on military fiction to Category:Films based on military novels

Category:Films based on mystery books to Category:Films based on mystery novels

Category:Films based on romance books to Category:Films based on romance novels

Category:Films based on science fiction books to Category:Films based on science fiction novels

Category:Films based on thriller books to Category:Films based on thriller novels

Nominator's rationale: Rename all to align with recently renamed parent cat (Category:Films based on novels). Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with renaming but perhaps they should be Category:Foo films based on novels to better match Category:Films based on novels and the various Category:Foo films parents? Otto4711 (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kinda depends...what about items like Biggles: Adventures in Time (films based on novels, not sf) and Yellow Sky (western film based on a Shakespeare play), which are films from one genre based on literature from a different genre? Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• For Biggles, the article is currently categorized as a science fiction film. It involves non-magical time travel so I assume it qualifies. As for Yellow Sky, do we have a Genre films based on plays structure? If so I'd put it in Western films based on plays if it exists. Not really sure what the concern is. Otto4711 (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just that Biggles, for example, is a sf film based on a book with no sf elements whatsoever. There aren't any <genre> films based on <literary form> categories. I don't have an objection to <genre> films based on novels, just pointing out the difference. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If there are no SF elements in the Biggles books, then categorizing it as a film based on SF books seems invalid on its face. Otto4711 (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (Right, which is why it's categorized under Category:Films based on novels as well as Category:Science fiction films, and not Category:Films based on science fiction books.) I think Films based on foo novels emphasizes the source material and Foo films based on novels the film genre; it's just a question of which "direction" is more useful/informative/likely to fit in with the current hierarchy. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Military I'm not sure everything there is a novel based film. Aside from which "military novel" is better as "military fiction novel". So subcategorize as Category:Films based on military fiction novels. 70.51.11.201 (talk) 13:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please point to the decision renaming the parent - the history here is very complicated. I'm not seeing the benefit of cutting off those in List of short fiction made into feature films. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here you go - August 22. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks Rename all per nom. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all. Not all fiction books are novels, so what will we do with films based on shorter works? Stepheng3 (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment + Weak Oppose Books can include different literature than Novels. Novel is much more specific. A book can also be a novella, short story, novelette, tome, manuscript, etc. Perhaps it would be more apropos to use story instead of novel. Bdelisle (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do have Category:Films based on short fiction and Category:Films based on non-fiction books, in case that makes a difference; it's just that those categories haven't been broken down by genre (short fantasy fiction, for example). Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 18:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Criminal law of Wales to Category:English criminal law

Nominator's rationale: Merge. In criminal law terms, England and Wales have had a unified system since 1542, and the unity has been relatively explicit since 1707. See England and Wales. There really is no such thing as "criminal law of Wales" that is separate from what is commonly called "English criminal law", since it is all part of the same system: same courts, same judges, etc. (This is made more obvious from the lack of articles in the Wales one.) I thought about merging both into a new Category:Criminal law of England and Wales, but the term "English criminal law" is so common I'm not sure that departing from that name would be a good idea. See also main article English criminal law, which defines itself as "the body of law in England and Wales which deals with crimes and their consequences" (emph. added.). One of the parents of the combined Category:English criminal law should be Category:Crime in Wales. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild support and comment: I created this category. I largely agree with the nominator's rationale and so mildly support the proposal provided that a clear usage note is placed at "Category:English criminal law" to explain the merger of the English and Welsh legal systems. But I wonder if there will be an issue with terminology – I imagine there might be a number of Welsh people out there who would not be happy with "English criminal law". (Have the views of Wikipedians at WikiProject Wales been sought?) I would prefer "Category:Criminal law of England and Wales", and think it would avert problems. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 03:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. I understand Jacklee's issue, but "English law" is the general term. A note oln the categories might help. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Merge: There is simply no point keeping the Category:Criminal law of Wales, as it's virtually empty. However, the merged category should be named Category:Criminal law of England and Wales. Mention is made that use of the phrase 'English Law' is "so common" and that that is sufficient reason to use that name. Remember that as this is an encyclopedia the correct name should be used. This quote is from the erroneously titled article Laws of England: "Since 1967 most lawyers have referred to the legal system of England and Wales as "the Laws of England and Wales" ...". By the way, I have always known them as, and called them, the Laws of England and Wales. Daicaregos (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realise this is an encyclopedia, no worries there. The main factor was that the main article is at English criminal law, not Criminal law of England and Wales. It's also helpful if an encyclopedia has at least internal consistency. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "English criminal law" can be renamed "Criminal law of England and Wales" as that would be more accurate and informative to the reader. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It could, but we can't decide that here. It seems to be putting the cart before the horse, as it were. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Merge subject to renaming as England and Wales --Snowded TALK 20:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and without conditions. The category has two members and one pertains in title to "England and Wales." My Welsh ancestors could hardly find fault. -- ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 22:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: relisted on sep 23. Kbdank71 18:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UNHCR Goodwill Ambassadors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by non-defining characteristic. There is a list in the lead article but I don't know whether it's complete. Otto4711 (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Seems complete by reading the list linked from the UNHCR page. I can't see this as overcategorization, it is a well-defined position, made by a respected organisation, and offered to only a select group of people (20 in about 25 years). For some people it is a defining characteristic, there are large sections on humanitarian work at, say, the Angelina Jolie and Barbara Hendricks pages. While for others there is a large amount on the official UNHCR bio pages that could be added to the wiki e.g. Julien Clerc vs Julien Clerc. Tassedethe (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not defining for the individuals. The list is all that we need. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If somehow this winds up being kept, Rename to Category:United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Goodwill Ambassadors. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tassedethe -- Stepheng3 (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. I agree that this could become all-encompassing. Hell, if you can be notable for creating a website, then move over, I've got my article to write and categorize. If it's really necessary to keep these people together, they could be moved to Category:Internet, I suppose, but I not seeing a real need to. Kbdank71 18:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Website creators ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - with the proliferation of personal websites, pretty much everyone could end up in this category. If there are people whose notability comes from constructing or developing a website then there must be a category under Category:Internet into which they would fit. Otto4711 (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - but where? Evidently neither of us can find it. There should be somewhere for people like Jon Hein who do not belong in Category:Internet personalities (which needs a brutal weeding I see) but are only notable for developing a website. I'd support a merge and cull if anyone can locate such a category. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't say as I put too much effort into searching for an appropriate home because the various articles I perused before nominating contained no mention of the subject in connection with creating a particular website. I'll dig further into the Internet scheme to see what I can find. Otto4711 (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• In looking through all of the articles and ignoring the redirects, by my count there are four articles in which creating a website is clearly notable for the person. Of those, Jon Hein, Col Needham and Greg Dean Schmitz are all online film people so perhaps something like Category:Internet film critics under Category:Film criticism online, along with a new parent under Category:Businesspeople for Internet businesspeople. The fourth, Rodger Raderman, doesn't really seem like a "website creator" as I'm understanding what I think the term was intended to mean, but he's not in any other profession categories. So I'd put him in a businesspeople category and still support deleting this. Otto4711 (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect many of the "Internet personalities" (a sub of "Celebrities", ha ha), like Katie Jones (web entrepreneur), would be better off here in an ideal world. I tracked down Category:Dot-com people which is also possible for her, and for Rodger Raderman (he really spells it that way??). But unless anyone volunteers to sort through that morass, I suppose a Selective merge to Category:Internet personalities or Category:Dot-com people or nothing is the realistic choice. Johnbod (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: As defined, the category could include me and everyone I know between the ages of 10 and 35. Looking at it in context (the breezily named Category:Media people), it doesn't seem that the cat is meant to play up the business side of website authoring, but the media buzz aspect. A case might be made for renaming to Category:Web personalities (or "World Wide Web," perhaps, to avoid confusion about the meaning of web), but I won't make that case. The Web is a different kind of medium than radio and TV; I'll leave it at that. -- ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 23:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, we have Category:Internet personalities, so you want a merge to that, no? Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't support a merge, and don't think Category:Internet personalities would be an appropriate merge target. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 22:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: relisted on sep 23. Kbdank71 18:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hollywood Walk of Fame ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by what is ultimately a minor honor. Anyone can nominate any celebrity with the celebrity's permission and a $2500 fee. People associated with the recipient often buy the stars as part of a publicity or promotion campaign. Otto4711 (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete per nom, and as List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame seems to do the job better. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and because the list exists. It's a trivial category. -- ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 22:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While the actual details of earning a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame may be more trivial than assumed, the general public perception of the honor among the public at large is fairly high and non-trivial, and receipt of a star is often covered heavily by the media, our ultimate arbiters of notability. Tourists walking through Hollywood would also take issue with the decision that the award is "trivial". There is no explanation of why the award, even if trivial, would justify an article and a list but would require deletion of this category. Nor is there any explanation of how this qualifies as "overcategorization", yet another generic justification for deleting a category without any legitimate cause based on policy. Again, we are presented with the false option that there is a binary choice of either presenting this information as a category or a list. Per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, the relevant Wikipedia policy on the matter, describes how categories and lists "should not [emphasis in original] be considered to be in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others". There is no policy justification that would require deletion. Alansohn (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is the standard for articles, not categories. Definingness is the standard for categories. Are the people with stars defined by having them? For that matter, if notability were the standard, would having the star particularly add to their notability the way that, for instance, an Oscar or a Nobel would? Please also see Wikipedia:OC#Award_recipients which advises that most awards should be presented in list format rather than as categories. Otto4711 (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• While a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame may not be the defining award in one's career, it's clear that the media treats it as a strong defining characteristic, with a Google News Archive search turning up over 14,000 references, most of them to an individual receiving their star. Yes, these stars are defined by this recognition, which appears to confirm ones status as a celebrity. As such, the overcategorization argument does not apply here. Alansohn (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per Alansohn, the general public recognizes the Hollywood Walk of Fame as an institution which legitimizes the celebrity of those in the entertainment industry, and those who have received the honor (whatever the mechanism for it may be) truly do constitute some of the most notable people in the industry. When people walk the Hall of Fame, they go "Oh yeah!" not "Who's that." I see no reason for deleting this category. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 00:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've walked the Walk of Fame and have said "Who's that?" quite often. Another common comment is "Why him (or her)?" --Wolfer68 (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 18:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences founders ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - seems better suited for a list, either within the article on the Academy or as a standalone. Otto4711 (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Being a founder of AMPAS is a rather strong defining characteristic and a rather meaningful node of categorization. There is no explanation of why this would be better presented in list format, not as a category, nor is this specified anywhere as a valid justification for deletion. Again, we are presented with the false option that there is a binary choice of either presenting this information as a category or a list. Per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, the relevant Wikipedia policy on the matter, describes how categories and lists "should not [emphasis in original] be considered to be in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others". There is no policy justification that would require deletion. Alansohn (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rock duos to Category:Rock music duos

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parents and siblings. Otto4711 (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Makes sense to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Country duos to Category:Country music duos

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parents and siblings. Otto4711 (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Makes sense to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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