Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 15

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:Dinosaurs of Australia per consistancy with Category:Fauna by country. Feel free to nominate the rest of the subcats of Category:Dinosaurs for CfD. - jc37 07:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Australian dinosaurs to Category:Dinosaurs of Australia

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, animal categories typically take the form type of place. Peta 23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. 'Australian dinosaurs' sounds a bit odd. Epbr123 23:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - easier to type and it doesn't matter about convention. JRG 02:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Categories aren't expected to be typed. -- Cat ^chi? 05:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia's category system is built on conventions, see categories. --Peta 03:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename perhaps to "Dinosaurs in Australia"? Or else "Dinosaurs of Australia" also sounds good. -- Cat ^chi? 05:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Follows the fooian dinosaurs form found in Category:Dinosaurs. Vegaswikian 07:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - Although the dinosaur categories use "X dinosaurs" as a naming convention, most other animals are listed under "animals of X". The dinosaur categories should be renamed appropriately. Dr. Submillimeter 08:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to be consistent with the relevant related categories. If all "-ian dinosaurs" categories were up for vote (the 7 of them), I would probably vote the other way around. --rimshots^talk 09:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I support renaming this and any other "-ian dinosaurs" categories to "Dinosaurs of X". ChazBeckett 19:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Dinosaurs of Australia per wider convention. If this ends up as a "no consensus" it should not be used as a negative precedent for a group nomination. Greg Grahame 13:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Dominictimms 21:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If the consensus is to rename this one, then it should be kept and relisted as a group nomination. It is improper to only change one subcat's form and leave the others unchanged. Vegaswikian 18:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Category:Dinosaurs of X − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. Vegaswikian 05:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Video games under development to Category:Upcoming video games

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This is more consistent with the other Upcoming items in Category:Future products. Additionally, games like World of Warcraft are in continuos development even after their release. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not getting it - if games like WoW are under development, doesn't that make the "under development" category more suitable than the "upcoming" category? Hbdragon88 03:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So this new category is supposed to exclude games like WoW, which are in continuous development? --rimshots^talk 09:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This category should only include games which have not yet been released. Almost all computer games are "under development" in the sense that the developers continue to work on patches and expansions, etc. So restrict the category to only games which have not yet been released and which are still actively being developed. Dugwiki 17:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. Vegaswikian 04:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beta Theta Pi brothers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Another of these non-defining cluttersome honor society categories to follow up the recent nominations. There are more of them that need to be nominated if anyone can spare the time. CalJW 22:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's been done--see #Members of service and social organizations. And there seems to be a clear delete consensus on cats like this. Matchups 02:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per prior consensus. Catchpole 07:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A mass nomination of categories for fraternity/sorority members is needed. (I have only nominated categories for members of service/social organizations). Dr. Submillimeter 08:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per other discussions. Mowsbury 20:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for same reasons to keep ALL "fraternities" cats (see March 16 discussion). Pastorwayne 12:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The most notable category in this field (Category:Freemasons) has been deleted, and rightly so, so all the others should go. Choalbaton 22:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 13:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep College fraternity categories have relevance much as college alumni do. Because these orgs are selective and to some degree "like-minded" individuals, I think the connections may be more important than massive organizations like Rotary, etc.DIDouglass 19:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no more interesting or encyclopedic than Category:Glee club members. Carlossuarez46 01:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete College fraternities do not have as much relevance as colleges. A college deg~ree is an essential passport to most high level careers, but fraternities are not essential for anything. Wilchett 02:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These fraternal connections can be of real significance. It could be relevant that Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling are both members of this fraternity in particular. Many make claims about the relevance of Skull and Bones membership in later life and the Bonesman category would be similar to the Greek-letter fraternities.70.104.121.73 04:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. There does appear to be some support for creating a new category without the baggage of the current name. I suggest that the editors interested explore that option. Vegaswikian 03:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armenian terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Armenian Terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As per Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist, terrorism and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view the title of this category is problematic. The only linked article is a Yıldız Attempt - which seems to be an assassination attempt.

It is my belief that the category should either be deleted or renamed to something like "Armenian covert operations" or something along the line. The category is currently underpopulated anyways.

-- Cat ^chi? 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Note to closer: see also Wikipedia:Categories for_discussion/Log/2007 March_9#Category:Armenian terrorism. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or change name: Would any other ethnic group permit such a category?? Irish terrorism?, Chinese terrorism, British terrorism, American terrorism, etc.?? It's absurd and wholly unencyclopaedic and biased.O'Donoghue 21:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not believe we require ethnic groups' permission to start categories. -- Cat ^chi? 05:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. How about ASALA and the U.S. State Department says, [1], [2], [3] it was a terrorist organization. Thanks. Atabek 22:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No really we all know that, you don't use the term "Terrorism" in Wikipedia look at the rules. There's already a huge list of categories and this one is absurd, I'm sure you will disagree with Turkish and Azeri terrorism and start complaining in seconds, alot of users will disagree plus these don't fall into the category, Armenian terrorism under ASALA article is a NO, since its not a incident but a group. Artaxiad 23:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  ASALA is indeed considered a terrorist organization by the many (not everybody). The article can and should discuss all that. Name-calling any organization "terrorist" is unhelpful and problematic. -- Cat ^chi? 05:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Its against the rules. Vartanm 02:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I realized after I created the category, that it violates Wiki rules, sorry for that. But I still think all these murders, assassinations, bombings and takeovers aimed at Turkish people by armed Armenian groups, need to be categorized under one title whatever it may be. Regards.--Doktor Gonzo 10:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - This category is already under discussion from March 9. For the record, my thoughts there:
• Oppose - This would rescope the category. It would exclude assassinations of Turkish diplomats abroad and it would bring in Kurdish separatism, Grey Wolves, and others. I'd probably also oppose a delete. --Groggy Dice T | C 14:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  What are you talking about? Its just a category. -- Cat ^chi? 07:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. Bertilvidet 10:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Aivazovsky 22:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Must^TC 05:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A course on neutrality: to know if you have voted in all neutrality, ask yourself this question: "Would have I voted keep for a category on "Turkish terrorism."" Fad (ix) 17:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category: Armenian Terrorism Stronger Delete T should be small, definitely no need to have two

Category: Armenian terrorism Strong Delete or Rename to Category:ASALA and JCAG (terrorism)

Suggestion: If we want to, we can create Category:Terrorism in Turkey (many similar cat's exist) or Category: Terrorism against Turkey (I'm for this one)

Note: Apparently, we don't need to avoid the term terrorism in categories deniz 06:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we don't need to avoid the terms, personally, I don't have any problem about the category "terrorism" to be added on ASALA article, even though the category was more reserved for articles about terrorism and terrorist acts rather than a group itself. But creating articles about ethnic group X terrorism will push a chain of events, where various categories on terrorism will be created, while we still have a problem with the category "terrorism" alone. Fad (ix) 17:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer a no-category solution. The navigation template is more than enough. We have plenty of needless categories out there. -- Cat ^chi? 19:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Stronger Delete An absurd category with an aim to discredit Armenia and Armenian people in the eyes of the world. In case of keeping, this category is going to be the part of Turkish underground propaganda of Genocide Denial (many of you have seen Armenian-genocide-related websites crushed by Turkish hackers and "Armenian Genocide is a lie! See the truth about Armenian Terrorism!! written on their them"). Armatura 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Please stay on topic. This isn't a talk show. -- Cat ^chi? 07:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed since March 15th, please see AngusMclellan's comment above. Most of the votes were late, I guess. Anyway they were mostly delete, which is the result. Now we have Category:Terrorism in Turkey, which somehow includes ASALA and JCAG. deniz 22:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Telugu Visionaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as POV. How is visionary defined? rimshots^talk 18:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as having no possible objective definition. All entries are already categorized as "Telugu people" so no need to merge. Otto4711 19:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, irretrievably POV. --Xdamr^talk 19:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV/spin/boosterism. Choalbaton 22:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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 merge Category:Former Sinn Féin politicians into Category:Sinn Féin politicians. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Sinn Féin politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Wholly unnecessary category, as Category:Sinn Féin politicians and Category:Northern Irish independent politicians cover this more than adequately. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "former" categories like this are not usually useful. This one is no exception. Warofdreams talk 18:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with above. Even in cases where the group is extremely limited (which this isn't), it's not necessary to have a "former" category. For example, instead of Category:Former United States Supreme Court justices, we just have Category:United States Supreme Court justices, which includes everyone has ever been a justice. ChazBeckett 18:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Sinn Féin politicians. Otto4711 19:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with above. Unhelpful category that is already causing problems Weggie 19:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Merge into Category:Sinn Féin politicians. Past/Present divisions in categorisation are unencyclopaedic, displaying as they do a temporal bias. --Xdamr^talk 19:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question for those who want to delete: is there some reason that I'm not seeing as to why we would want to delete this cat rather than merge it to the Sinn Fein politicians category? Otto4711 06:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not aware of any technical reason why this category has to be deleted. Anyone who is in this category belongs in the SF category anyway. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Then we should merge rather than delete, yes? Otto4711 06:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As long as there ceases to be a "former" and "current" category you can colour me satisifed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Sinn Féin politicians - We should keep the people in the Sinn Fein category tree, but we should not categorize people by status. Dr. Submillimeter 08:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Sinn Féin politicians per Dr S. Our practice is not to separate current from former, and in this case the distinction is not always clear (a politician defeated in an election may have retired from politics, or may be energetically seeking re-election). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Sinn Féin politicians per Dr S. Greg Grahame 13:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, the individual articles can tell us if they are "former" and whether they are "former" merely due to death. Carlossuarez46 01:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Honey I... films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the various articles in the series are all extensively interlinked through the text and through a navigational template. There is no need for this category. Otto4711 16:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Or in the alternative, merge to Category:Size change in fiction. Otto4711 16:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. With only four possible entries, this is overly specific and doesn't serve any purpose. ChazBeckett 16:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Categories which only contain members of a film series are best deleted in favour of a series box. Perhaps this ought to be added to Wikipedia:Overcategorization?

Xdamr^talk 19:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am not sure whether series box means infobox or navigational template, but in either case, it would be better than a category. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 01:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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 per nom. However there is some cleanup that will remain for editors to follow up on after the rename.Vegaswikian 22:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Settlements by region to Category:Settlements by country

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to match its three by-type categories and the hundreds of other by-country categories. All the subcategories are for countries (or for territories, which are treated the same as countries in the category system) apart from Settlements on Lake Victoria, which I have moved up a level. (That one might well merit deletion actually, but that is a separate issue best handled in a different discussion). CalJW 15:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename any sub-country categories can be placed in their country's category. Hmains 02:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Choalbaton 22:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wilchett 15:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-Can't vote without more information "by country" would by most definitions eliminate: Category:Settlements in Kosovo (UN supervised province of Serbia), Category:Settlements in Kurdistan (spread all over Turkey, Iran, Syria, Iraq, and who knows where else), Category:Settlements in the Falkland Islands (an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom when the Argentines aren't occupying it), Category:Settlements in the Faroe Islands (an autonomous region of the Kingdom of Denmark), and the jury is still out on: Category:Settlements in Western Sahara (an integral part of the Moroccan kingdom or occupied territory, take a POV).

If we're going to keep these at this level, then "by country" is wrong; if these will be pruned, then perhaps "by country" will be right. Carlossuarez46 01:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Kosovo is part of Yugoslavia at present, the Falkland Islands is an overseas territory and they are treated the same as countries in the category system, ditto the Faroe Islands, Western Sahara is either a country or a part of Morocco, and should be classified both ways for neutrality. That only leaves the Kurdish category, which should be deleted as Kurdistan has no clearly defined borders. That eliminates all the problems. Wilchett 02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 16:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Possible centenarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - There's living people, possibly living people and dead people. We don't need this.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We generally should not create categories with weasle words such as "possible". Dr. Submillimeter 15:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Possibly delete. >Radiant< 15:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possibly one of the sillier categories. ChazBeckett 16:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. How can you verify inclusion when the inclusion criteria is based on an unknown? mattbr 17:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unverifiable and nonsensical. --Xdamr^talk 20:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Peta 23:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obviously speculative category. Doczilla 01:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete couldn't any missing person be a possible centenarian?--Piemanmoo 05:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as speculative --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Everyone living today is included, so it just might get just a bit too big! SkierRMH 01:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. Rather then renominate, I'd suggest listifing as an alternative. Vegaswikian 21:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Footballers with 100 or more caps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This category is for football (soccer) players who have appeared in 100 or more international matches. This seems to be an arbitrary inclusion limit, a form of overcategorization, and it should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 15:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nominator is misusing the word "arbitary". CalJW 15:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is indeed arbitrary as wel could just as easily have Category:Footballers with 97 or more caps or Category:Footballers with between 112 and 119 caps. >Radiant< 15:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a fatuous argument. You know as well as I do that 100 is not arbitary in the way that 97 is. Please come up with a credible argument or withdraw your comment. CalJW 22:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an arbitrary inclusion standard. If kept then it should be renamed so that someone unfamiliar with the terminology "caps" knows what the category is for. Otto4711 15:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Arbitrary is being used correctly to describe this category. ChazBeckett 16:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Arbitrary_inclusion_criterion. This is exactly what "arbitrary" means. Doczilla 18:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I started the category, initially as a way of collating a list for making an article of such players, before eventually discovering that such a list article exists. Upon finding that article, I abandoned trying to populate the category myself (thus my keep vote is weak), but other editors have obviously thought it worth adding players to since then. I would deny that the inclusion is arbitrary: reaching 100 caps would be considered a very significant landmark in a player's career, and such an event would be marked with considerable publicity and often with formal presentations and recognitions of the acheivement. To deny that powers of 10 have significance as landmark acheivements is to ignore countless commemorations.

Apologies: I wrote the above on 15 Mar but forgot to sign it! Kevin McE 07:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as arbitrary criteria for inclusion. --Xdamr^talk 20:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reaching 100 caps is a career landmark that will always attract wide notice. Dominictimms 22:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't believe there's a dispute that 100 caps is considered significant, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still an arbitrary standard. Is a player with 99 caps really that different from one with 100? ChazBeckett 22:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the 100 cap threshold is significant because it's what FIFA calls a "century" of caps (see http://images.fifa.com/images/pdf/IP-390_01A_CenturyMen.pdf. It's a significant career milestone for footballers. howcheng {chat} 23:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd consider that to be a pretty good reason to have a list (containing most of the information in that pdf), but not a reason to categorize articles by this standard. ChazBeckett 23:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - At one point Hank Aaron had the most categories. His categories have been pruned a bit, but 500 homers and 3000 hits still remain. I view this as a similar type category although since I don't follow soccer except for the World Cup, I do not understand its significance. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't mean anything to the average reader. --Peta 00:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a pretty bizarre statement. Do you have any idea how many people in the world are interested in football/soccer? Following your logic, 99.9% of categories should be deleted as they may not be meaningful to a sufficiently wide audience. Craig.Scott 02:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is nothing wrong with this category, and it is more useful than most of the categories for achievements on sportspeople's articles. Perhaps the problem here is that American Wikipedians may not appreciate how important international appearances are in sports like cricket, rugby and soccer. This category is as valid as any of those in Category:Baseball records which are based on numerical cutoffs. Craig.Scott 02:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am willing to nominate many of the subcategories of Category:Baseball records for deletion as well. The reason why I nominated this category first is because football (soccer) players currently appear higher than baseball players at Special:Mostcategories, so I tend to find problematic football categories first. Dr. Submillimeter 09:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Comment. Are powers of ten arbitrary? It is noticeable that the examples at Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Arbitrary_inclusion_criterion relate to non-round numbers. I submit that there are different cases to be distinguished here. One is round numbers on a roughly logarithmic scale, including powers of 10: ie 10, 20 or 25, 50, 100, 200 or 250, 500, 1000... The other case is numbers which are not round numbers. I submit that the first category is less arbitrary than the second category; and where the number chosen is the only appropriate round number available, it is not arbitrary at all. In this case, 200 caps does not happen; 50 caps is widespread; but 100 caps defines a very select group. I therefore submit that in this case 100 caps is not arbitrary; and I think the achievement is notable enough that the category deserves a Keep. Jheald 16:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ChazBeckett as an arbitrary inclusion standard. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless Category:20th century is also deleted for even more arbitary reliance on powers of both ten and twenty. Postlebury 20:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--this is a well-known, non-arbitrary, and defining characteristic. Matchups 02:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Arbitrary inclusion criterion. I would also vote to delete arbitrary Category:Baseball records, including 500 homers and 3000 hits. ~ BigrTex 03:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• and Listify I am in the process of writing up my response to the 3000 hits nomination, and want to treat both categories equally. I am therefore adding listify to my response here. I think that this category has arbitrary inclusion criteria which is overcategorization. However, it would be perfect for a list. ~ BigrTex 17:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is not arbitary, it is rational, conventional and well chosen. Winning a 100 caps defines a player as having played at the top level through the bulk of his career. AshbyJnr 12:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Overcategorization. Garion96 (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - non arbitrary, defining characteristic wrt longevity and skill. Neier 03:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We don't need this. It's an arbitrary number chosen to give some kind of quantification to "best". A person in this category is not significantly different from a person with 99 caps, however. So it's non-defining too. — coelacan — 00:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Important and defining category. Abberley2 01:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not a defining category by any stretch of the imagination, in this or any other reality. The limit of 100 is entirely arbitrary, and is nothing special. Nothing separates someone who has 100 caps from someone who has 99 or 101, besides the obvious (i.e. one cap). Chris cheese whine 12:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is far more useful than many of the categories for footballers, such as those for appearances in individual tournaments, which would be a better starting point if there is a need to cut down the number of categories on articles about footballers. Anyone who thinks that 100 is not significantly different from 99 or 101 should count their fingers, and ponder the existence of the decimal point, and indeed the meaning of the word decimal. Greg Grahame 23:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counted my fingers, they're all present and correct. Still not seeing your point. The only significant boundaries in caps are those between 0, 1 and 2. Chris cheese whine 00:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As suggested above, and to widen the debate, I have listed Category:3000 hit club for deletion, with an explanatory not that I am more interested in the discussion than the fate of that page. Kevin McE 08:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thinking about the baseball category listed above, which I have just voted to delete, it seems that the difference between football and American sports is that America has the Hall of Fame concept as a way of grouping the top players, whereas football does not have a single hall of fame. Therefore this one should be kept, but I am going to amend my vote on the baseball category to delete. Honbicot 19:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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 merge Category:Plymouth, Minnesota into Category:Settlements in Minnesota. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plymouth, Minnesota (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Currently this category contains only its (eponymous) main article. This article already serves as a navigational hub. rimshots^talk 14:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Settlements in Minnesota. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above Only article in the category is the main article. Dugwiki 16:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per SMcCandlish. --Xdamr^talk 20:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Navigational boxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, empty duplicate of Category:Navigational templates. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as duplicate. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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 merge and redirect Category:Pilsen Region to Category:Plzeň Region. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pilsen Region to Category:Plzeň Region

• Merge, Duplicate category. See also Plzeň Region rimshots^talk 14:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If this merge happens, a cat redirect should be left behind. Vegaswikian 05:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak merge. I disike using accents in category names, but reluctantly have to support it as there are lots of precedents. However, I agree with Vegaswikian that a category redirect will be needed if the merger goes ahead. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pennslyvania Campgrounds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Apart from being badly spelled, incorrectly capitalized and not using the usual form X in Y, this is overcategorization. Category:Camping shows no sign of overcrowding. rimshots^talk 14:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 13:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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 Keep. Vegaswikian 01:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Usagi Yojimbo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the category is unnecessary because the main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub for the material it contains. Otto4711 13:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No, it really doesn't. Evan1975 05:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The main article has multiple links to every other article and subcat and the other articles have links to the main article and each other. What specifically about the items in this category require the category when the articles and subcats are all interlinked? Otto4711 03:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Part of a series of categories, and more user friendly than the article for navigational purposes. Greg Grahame 23:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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 Category:Fictional rednecks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For one, this could be perceived as insulting to the people in question, and for another it's hardly objectively definable who is or is not a redneck. >Radiant< 13:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Otto4711 13:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - These categories suffer from POV problems. Dr. Submillimeter 13:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with extreme prejudice. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the fictional category per nom. I have speedied Category:Redneck as G10. The term is, quite frankly, disparaging term for rural Americans and would be used as a POV insult if added to most articles. Even to those that self identify, it would be akin to including Category:Niggas in the article of every rapper that has used that word to describe themselves. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with appologies to Jeff Foxworthy Dugwiki 16:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective term with room for abuse. Doczilla 17:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as thoroughly subjective with potential for abuse. --Xdamr^talk 20:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exlcusiopn = POV. Carlossuarez46 01:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with no criteria, it's totally open to POV.SkierRMH 01:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A neutral, verifiable definition of "redneck" is not possible. szyslak (t, c) 08:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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 Merge. Clearly the consensus is to not have this category. So I'm going with the merge rather then a no consensus. Vegaswikian 00:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC) I'm all in favor of categorizing fictional characters by profession, but "kidnapper" isn't one. Most antagonists, villains (super- or otherwise) and miscellaneous bad guys have, at some point in their career, kidnapped one of the good guys or their sidekick. >Radiant< 13:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - We should not characterize characters based on specific actions (such as kidnapping), especially when such actions are commonly performed by characters across multiple genres. Dr. Submillimeter 13:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree that categorizing by actions doesn't make much sense. How many kidnappings make a character a kidnapper? Just one or would it have to be at least a part-time job? ChazBeckett 16:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Fictional criminals If there was already a Category:Kidnappers for actual people, I might reconsider merging. But as is I'd lean toward having these characters under the "fictional criminal" category instead of the more specific "kidnapper" category. Dugwiki 16:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Dugwiki. Doczilla 17:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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:Fictional characters on the autistic spectrum. Vegaswikian 21:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC) At the very least, this should be "fictional characters on the autistic spectrum", per its non-fictional counterpart. However, as the name "spectrum" suggests, it's not at all clear when a not-so-sociable character is or is not autistic, so deletion may be in order. >Radiant< 13:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Fictional characters on the autistic spectrum As a rule of thumb, I think the fictional character categories should sort of match the actual people categories. So rename as indicated to match Category:People on the autistic spectrum. I agree with Radiant that the question of whether or not a specific character is in the autistic spectrum may be difficult to define in some cases, so the category should be restricted to those character which have verifiable references indicating the character is presumed to be in the autistic spectrum. If autism or the like isn't mentioned in the character's article, they shouldn't be categorized here. Dugwiki 17:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency with Category:People on the autistic spectrum. Doczilla 17:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Dugwiki, favoring consistency. — coelacan — 22:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for now, with nop prejudice to another CfD focused on deletion if Radiant!'s conerns regarding managability prove to be true. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per the reasonings above. However, I don't feel that deletion will be necessary. If a character is not stated to be autistic they shouldn't be in the category because the (fictional) truth of the matter is unknown. If they are defined as such within their fictional medium, then they belong in the category. -- Noneofyourbusiness 03:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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 Merge Category:Anthropomorphic samurai to Category:Anthropomorphic martial artists, which should be a subcategory of Category:Fictional martial artists and Category:Fictional anthropomorphic characters. The creation of the latter cat should help the cleanup of Category:Anthropomorphism, as discussed below. - jc37 07:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silly cross-section. Arbitrary cross-section of two entirely unrelated traits. >Radiant< 13:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge samurai to martial artists and keep martial artists absent a more compelling reason to delete than "silly." Category seems to be doing a good job capturing its intended targets, the articles don't appear to be in danger of being swamped by overcategorization. Otto4711 13:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both to Category:Fictional martial artists - Wikipedia generally does not separate anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic characters. Dr. Submillimeter 13:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Anthropomorphism seems to be quite a bit about such separations. Also, where are you suggesting that these categories be merged to? Otto4711 14:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I clarified my vote. Category:Anthropomorphism lists articles about anthropomorphism in general, not specific fictional characters. Dr. Submillimeter 14:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, but subcats of the cat do concern themselves with specific ficional characters and the martial artists seems like a reasonable (and fun) part of the tree. Otto4711 16:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, and keep the latter, per Otto4711. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This one is a tough call. I see these categories as an attempt to subdivide Category:Anthropomorphism. It may be that that category is large enough to suggest subdivision is a good idea. However it might be that this particular subdivision scheme isn't quite the best one. Perhaps all that's needed is Category:Anthropomophic fictional characters and all such characters could be merged into that? Then other articles about anthropomorphism which aren't about specific characters can be left in the parent Category:Anthropomorphism. Hmmm, what do you guys think of that alternative? Dugwiki 17:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Anthropomophic fictional characters per Dugwiki's suggestion. — coelacan — 22:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Doczilla 00:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. Vegaswikian 21:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Trivia. >Radiant< 13:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it is unacceptable POV-pushing for a category to assert that arms in addition to two are "extra." Otto4711 13:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Except for the superficial characteristic, the characters are generally unrelated. Dr. Submillimeter 13:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Dr. Submillimeter. --rimshots^talk 17:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Although I don't agree that calling a third arm "extra" pushes any POV beyond plain, objective recognition that it's more than the standard two, I still vote to delete trivia. Doczilla 17:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep- Characters that have more than two arms can be defining characteristic of a character. Though if you want it might be a better idea to change the name to Fictional Characters with more than two arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf2006 (talk • contribs) 14:14, March 16, 2007 (EDT)
• Strong Keep too. Same suggestion. Ominae 06:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename "Fictional characters with more than one arm" is probably a better name that solves POV problems. Katsuhagi 03:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Egad, that would allow inclusion of anyone with two arms, which is pretty much everyone. Otto4711 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoops. Meant "more than two arms". Typo. Katsuhagi 00:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is a defining characteristic. Also, I favor retaining the current name, as "more than two arms" would allow, for example, all fictional octopi. Matchups 16:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Otto4711's reasoning is amusingly PC. Dominictimms 21:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually my "reasoning" was supposed to be a joke at the absurdity of categorizing fictional characters on the basis of their having more than two arms. Otto4711 23:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. Vegaswikian 21:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC) It is not uncommon for characters in fiction to play a game of chess, generally with no relevance whatsoever to the plot or the character depth. This is not a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 13:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and what, no Windom Earle? Otto4711 13:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Characterizing characters by their hobbies is not useful. Dr. Submillimeter 13:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --rimshots^talk 17:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but restrict to articles which significantly mention chess playing The article should be kept as an appropriate subdivision of Category:Chess players (to differentiate actual people who play chess from, say, fictional professional chess players). I generally support having fictional character categories that are similar to actual people categories so they have a somewhat consistent overall structure. And there are fictional characters who, if you wrote an article about them, are notably chess players (such as the main characters in Chess (musical)). Now if that restriction ends up emptying the category, because there aren't any appropriate articles, then delete as empty. Dugwiki 17:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trivia. Doczilla 01:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative might be Fictional Profesional Chess Players An alternative that came to mind might be to rename and restrict the category to Category:Ficitional Professional Chess Players to act as a subcategory of Category:Fictional characters by occupation. That way you maintain the proper categorization for any characters whose occupation is "playing chess", but weed out the articles for which playing chess isn't an important characteristic. Dugwiki 17:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - None of the characters appear to be professional chess players. If the category is renamed, it will be emptied and then probably deleted as empty. Dr. Submillimeter 10:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I am not in favor of a category for fictional characters who merely played chess on occasion, but would like to see one for those for whom it is a defining characteristic, if a way could be found to make a clear delineation. Matchups 16:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. There were many points made about this on both side. The consensus here in my opinion points to deletion. If I had voted, it would have been to delete adding more towards a delete consensus. Vegaswikian 21:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Boils down to "fictional characters who are smarter than the other characters in the same fiction". Not objectively definable, WP:OCAT. It contains Seymour Skinner, a smattering of tech-savvy superheroes, and even Wile E. Coyote... >Radiant< 13:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and let's look at the evil geniuses subcat too. Otto4711 13:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This suffers from POV problems. Please add Category:Evil geniuses to this discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 13:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's Category:Fictional evil geniuses. Otto4711 14:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The term is indeed a scientific term. In one specific episode of Prison Break, for example, Michael's therapist specifically told Sara that Michael Scofield is a creative genius in the traditional sense. Evil Geniuses you can lose though. --T smitts 15:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most works of fiction have at least one character with superior intelligence that could arguably be considered geniuses. Any definition would be subjective and/or arbitrary. ChazBeckett 16:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as per ChazBeckett --rimshots^talk 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into appropriate Fictional categories I agree that "evil genius" and "genius" are a bit subjective. So I say merge the articles into things like Category:Fictional inventors or Category:Fictional scientists or Category:Supervillains, etc, depending on exactly how the character manifests his particular form of "genius". Dugwiki 17:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as subjective categories. Yes genius is a scientific term, but rarely have the examples been scientifically identified as having I.Q. of 145 or higher. Some have, but the category as named simply invites editors to add characters not known to have taken I.Q. tests. Doczilla 17:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.--Gonzalo84 00:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. For characters who are explicitly created and defined as geniuses, this is useful, interesting and encyclopedic. Genius is a trait that's meaningful in characters like Sherlock Holmes, Adrian Monk and River and Simon Tam. Let'snot delete the category because of some ill-advised additions; instead, let's remove the category from any character who hasn't been defined in some meaningful way as being a "genius" rather than just "intelligent" or "clever." Maybe a list should be created in addition to (ar at least instead of) the category, to provide citations for each of the categories and make it easier to identify unsourced additions. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 08:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Genius" has a very loose definition anyway. By the literal definition, it is remarkably broad, including everything from Dexter and Mandark to any character with a Bat-prefix attached to their name.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Classification as a genius is more objective than it seems at first glance. A character can be stated with canon to be a certified genius. A genius is defined as someone with an IQ above a certain level. Genius-level intellect and the presence or absence of typical savant behavior are objectively verifiable or falsifiable traits. If a character is not stated to be a genius or to have a high IQ but is merely in the category by virtue of being smarter than other characters, then they should be removed. -- Noneofyourbusiness 03:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How many of the characters in this category have subjected themselves to formal IQ tests? IQ values are probably only explicitly stated for a few characters. Usually, editors have to subjectively determine whether characters belong in this category. Dr. Submillimeter 13:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The ones who have submitted to formal IQ tests or are otherwise certified geniuses belong in the category, those for whom it is vague do not. -- Noneofyourbusiness 16:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Realistically, how many articles on characters in this category contain referenced information stating that these characters have taken formal IQ tests or are otherwise "certified geniuses"? How are geniuses formally "certified", anyway? I challenge anyone reading to produce a list of ten articles that meet this "referenced IQ test" criteria. Dr. Submillimeter 09:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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 Keep. Vegaswikian 21:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Winning the lottery is a common plot among soap series and comic books and the like, and is hardly a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 13:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a review of the articles in the category indicate that it actually is a defining characteristic for them. Every flashback involving Lost's Hurley, for example, has been about how his lottery win has affected his life in one way or another and his lottery win (using the numbers) is what landed him on the Island. Not sure about having show-based articles, though the shows are premised on the lottery win and are thus defining. Otto4711 13:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But your rationale is based on the suggestion that the category should be used in a manner different from what its title suggests. For instance, just about every character in Category:Characters in the Scrooge McDuck universe has won the lottery at some point. >Radiant< 13:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm talking about the category as is, not the category as it might be. Otto4711 14:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I get that. I'm talking about the category as written, not the category as it happens to be used at the moment. I'd expect a cat named "lottery winners" to include, well, lottery winners, with no inclusion criteria beyond what is obvious from the title. Thus I would indeed expect (nearly) every Donald Duck character to be in there, since they are "fictional lottery winners". >Radiant< 14:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Winning the lottery is a common plot gimmick, as shown by the inclusion of Zonker Harris and Roseanne (TV series) in this category. Also, the category has been misapplied to both fictional characters and any series or movie that features a lottery winner. This type of categorization is incoherent. Dr. Submillimeter 13:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is indeed a defining characteristic for some characters, such as Eal Hickey and Hurley. --T smitts 15:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So admittedly, it's not defining for most characters that are nevertheless lottery winners, right? >Radiant< 16:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to be reasonably defining for the characters currently listed. Even Zonker Harris qualifies, as his lottery win was used as a springboard for a number of storylines for some time after. Were there a sudden influx of characters who, say, won $5 on a scratch-off ticket then I would reconsider. Otto4711 16:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I did, however, remove Roseanne (TV series) from the category because since the last season was fiction within the fiction no one on the show actually won the lottery. Otto4711 17:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Otto4711 and T smitts. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Perfectly valid categorization. 2005 02:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as shows like My Name is Earl have the entire plot revolve around it. --Piemanmoo 05:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sometimes a defining characteristic. Quite often actually. Greg Grahame 23:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as repost of deleted content. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete recreation. Doczilla 18:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as recreation. --Xdamr^talk 20:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. Vegaswikian 21:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bitmap graphics editors to Category:Raster graphics editors

Nominator's Rationale: For clarity, and because the main article for the category is raster graphics editor, not "bitmap graphics editor". --Stratadrake 12:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)}}}[reply]

• Support per nom. Recury 16:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per nom. --rimshots^talk 17:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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 Merge only those that mention "Middlesex" into Category:Middlesex. It looks like the category's members may also need to be recategorised to whatever appropriate "Sport in current location" category may be applicable. I'm not listing this on the "working page". Drop a message to me, or any other admin, to delete Category:Sport in Middlesex once it's been properly emptied. - jc37 07:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sport in Middlesex to Category:Middlesex

• Merge, The county of Middlesex no longer exists, so it is not appropriate for articles to be subcategorised by topic with regard to Middlesex on the same basis as other counties as though it does still exist. These articles are also in the relevant modern categories. Category:Middlesex should be purely a historical category, not part of the geographical subcategorisation of British articles. Outright deletion would also be an acceptable option. Dominictimms 12:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Recat to appropriate "Sport in current location" category. Don't dump contents into Category:Middlesex unless Middlesex actually appears in the article title. Jheald 19:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge only those that mention "Middlesex" into Category:Middlesex. Most of the items were already in the correct modern category, and I've added a category to those that weren't. AshbyJnr 12:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 12:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Elks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Kinsmen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Kiwanians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Knights of Pythias (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Lions Club members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Loyal Order of Moose members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Members of The Arts and Letters Club of Toronto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:National Puzzlers' League members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Sigma Pi Phi brothers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - The decisions on Category:Freemasons and Category:Rotary Club members have demonstrated that categorization of people by fraternal/service/social organization is not useful. Among other things, membership in these organizations is frequently not relevant to the people's notability (for example, Jimmy Carter is not notable as a member of the Lions Club), and sometimes no references are provided that people were members of these clubs. Therefore, these categories should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 11:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 11:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-defining (however much good comradeship etc they provide). Mowsbury 12:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non defining. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 17:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Members of The Arts and Letters Club of Toronto As a private club with a small membership, it's different from the Kinsmen and such. Membership in the club was relevant to the notability of the people in it, such as the Group of Seven (artists) who formed at the club in 1920. It was a centre of arts and culture in Canada, and it's useful to know who would have met there. A history of the club is coming out in November and will document the memberships. Also, having the category means there's no need for a list such as the Athenaeum Club has. In fact, I think a category should be created for that club too. (Note: I created the category in question.) WilliamDenton 01:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep National Puzzlers League. Many of the people listed are professional puzzlers and have had careers influenced by their membership in the NPL. Although references for membership have not been provided, they could be; the information is verifiable via the NPL's membership lists, which are widely distributed, and its History, which covers 1883-1998. (BTW, I created and mostly populated this category, along with the {{npler}} template.)

Delete large service/fraternal organization categories as non-defining and clutter.

Abstain for now on A&L of Toronto.

Matchups 02:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Members of The Arts and Letters Club of Toronto as per WilliamDenton and Move Kinsmen to Kin Canada as it relates to clubs, projects, and Kin VIPs rather than members. (Kin Canada used to be called Kinsmen). DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. These would be better as lists either in the body of the organizations' articles, or as separate list articles. Disclosure: My mainspace article's in the NPL category, and I think that category clutters it up.--Mike Selinker 10:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for all the reasons to keep "fraternities" (see 16 March discussions) -- these are defining characteristics. Notability is not the only reason for a cat. Pastorwayne 12:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Categorizing by hobbies and clubs creates an unacceptable level of clutter. Choalbaton 22:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, overcategorization. Garion96 (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Clubs and societies don't define people. Wilchett 02:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 21:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Past Grand Governors of the Loyal Order of Moose in Great Britain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete/Move to article space - This is a subcategory of Category:Loyal Order of Moose members, which is nominated for deletion above. The category is actually mostly a text list with only one article. The category is overly-specific (a form of overcategorization), sorts people inappropriately according to status (we generally do not separate "former" and "present" people), and is underpopulated (the category only contains one article). However, the list looks like it may be useful as an article. So, regardless of what happens with the parent category, I recommend turning this list into an article and deleting it from category space. Dr. Submillimeter 11:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mowsbury 11:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Choalbaton 22:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 12:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nondefining, rather hard to verify, volatile. Created few days ago by someone who disagreed with deletion of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_8#Category:Naturally_busty_porn_stars. Pavel Vozenilek 11:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate Category:Natural big-bust models and performers (created yesterday) here. In addition to arguments above there's no clear distinction between these two categories. If kept they should be merged together. Pavel Vozenilek 11:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See also Category:Big-bust models and performers which is currently on CfD. 11:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Porn stars/Deletion notified. Pavel Vozenilek 11:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not hard to verify or subjective. Notable subcategory of Category:Big-bust models and performers. Epbr123 12:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bold text:*You have cast two opposite !votes here. Please clarify. Otto4711 12:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well, these are two completely different categories, aren't they? Epbr123 16:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I just don't want there to be confusion in the !vote count since your !votes are separated in the discussion. Otto4711 18:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry. To clarify, I mean delete Category:Female porn stars with natural busts and keep Category:Natural big-bust models and performers. It's a shame that these weren't considered for deletion seperately. Already people have voted to delete both categories using arguments that only apply to one. Epbr123 18:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, Category:Natural big-bust models and performers is not volatile. Very few natural big-bust models go on to eventually acquire implants. It is also not 'nondefining'. Epbr123 17:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per WP:POINT and because we should not be categorizing performers on the basis of whether they use artificial means to enhance their performance or not. We would not have Category:Male porn stars who don't use Viagra or Category:Uncircumcised male porn stars or the like. Otto4711 12:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's unreasonable to categorise porn stars by genre. All other types of artists are categorised on Wikipedia. Painters are divided into Impressionist painters, muralists, Dutch Golden Age painters, miniature painters, Graffiti artists, Gothic painters, etc. Non-pornographic actors are divided into Shakespearean actors, child actors, actors with dwarfism, LGBT actors, film actors, voice actors, musical theatre actors, character actors. Epbr123 17:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No one appears to be suggesting that categorizing models who work in the big bust genre is undesirable. What people are saying is that they disagree with the notion of then subdividing the genre models into with or without implants. Otto4711 23:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You are actually the first person in this discussion to express that opinion. Subdividing the big-bust genre models is justified as natural big-busts is a major genre itself. Epbr123 00:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• A large number of big-bust fans find models with huge implants unappealing, so there is an important difference between the two types of models. It is not just categorizing performers on the basis of whether they use artificial means to enhance their performance. No-one cares whether or not male porn stars use Viagra or are uncircumsticised, but it does matter whether large breasts look real or not. Epbr123 01:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Your understanding of gay porn is limited, which is fine, but saying that no one care whether a male porn star is circumcised or not has a whiff of bias about it. Uncut stars are often if not as a matter of course mentioned in marketing material. But I wouldn't advocate subdividing male porn star categories on that basis. I don't think it's desirable or necessary to categorize on the basis of every fetish or variation of sexual desire. It's not like if someone really needs to know whether a porn star has implants or a foreskin (or both for that matter) there aren't resources outside of Wikipedia where they can find it. As has been noted elsewhere, this is a negative categorization by something the people don't have, which is generally something that we avoid here. I'm not seeing any reason to make an exception to that for this category. Otto4711 02:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not negative categorization because having large natural breasts is more notable than having large fake breasts as large natural breasts are more sought after. I agree it isn't necessary to categorize on the basis of every fetish or variation of sexual desire but this is one of the most notable and popular genres, as shown by the number of models within it. I don't mean to be offensive but as a homosexual you might not understand the important distinction between big-bust models with and without implants. Epbr123 03:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per Pavel, not per Otto. Such categories are not evidently WP:POINT at all, and making such an accusation is basically an assuption of bad faith. Looking at the categories, they appear to be being used honestly and in good faith by people who evidently care about such things in their smut and want to pointlessly categorize articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you just fell off the WP:AGF bandwagon yourself. :) youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• SPEEDY DELETE RECREATION. Doczilla 17:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a significant distinction between Category:Natural big-bust models and performers and Category:Naturally busty pornstars. Category:Natural big-bust models and performers is not subjective as it refers to models in the big-bust genre rather than any model with big breasts. Epbr123 18:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete WP:CSD#G4, so tagged. — coelacan — 22:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Female porn stars with natural busts was created before the deleted Category:Naturally busty pornstars so WP:CSD#G4 doesn't apply. Epbr123 23:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for pointing that out. Category:Naturally busty porn stars was CFD'd at 23:29, 8 March 2007, and you had already made this category at 23:01, 8 March 2007. My apologies. I'll go remove the speedy tag. — coelacan — 02:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-defining, possibly irrelevant categorization. — coelacan — 02:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which category are you refering to? There are two categories up for deletion here. May I suggest you read through the whole discussion before forming an opinion. Epbr123 02:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both. I do not believe that implants or lack thereof are anything like a defining characteristic to categorize people by. — coelacan — 06:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its not defining for people in general, but surely you can see that porn stars are the exception? Epbr123 12:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Surely I cannot. No more defining than a Prince Albert piercing, which I would not categorize porn stars by. I wouldn't categorize "porn stars who don't bleach their asshole" either and I don't see this as any less crufty. — coelacan — 20:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do you think that natural big-busts is a major genre within pornography? Epbr123 21:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, I don't. It's a minor distinction within an already narrow interest. A niche within a niche. Overcategorization. — coelacan — 23:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you look at the number of articles in Category:Big-bust models and performers and Category:Natural big-bust models and performers, you will see that neither are minor niches. Epbr123 00:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Porn models and performers number in the millions. The fact that you could find fifty women to put into the "natural" category still doesn't suggest to me that we're talking about anything but a niche within a niche. You created the "natural" category, so it really only tells me that you consider it important enough to categorize people by. I guess that's where we disagree. It sounds to me the same as separately subcategorizing "plumber on housewife" and "electrician on housewife", under "handyman on housewife". — coelacan — 01:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Name one porn star in the "electrician on housewife" genre. The fact that there are 50 articles show that it is not overcategoization. There are no other genres as popular as this except big-busts in general. Epbr123 01:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I doubt that very much. Got any sales records to verify your assertion, or is this your personal observation? — coelacan — 00:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Can you name a bigger genre? Epbr123 00:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am pro big all-natural chests. However, this category is unecessary as useless due to verifyability difficulties. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The verifyability difficulties are very minor. Why is 'natural bust' included in the template for female adult bio boxes if it is regarded as unverifyable? Some articles, such as the one for Maria Swan, give conclusive evidence proving the nature of the models' breasts. Epbr123 00:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This category is far too important to let minor issues like verifiability get in the way. Based on the passion of this discussion and the volume of the so-called natural bust porn market, it's clear that this category will be well policed. I can foresee models providing verifiable information (an exam by an admin?) to get their name on this list. The category name could be improved, but I'll leave that to others. If wikipedians can see beyond the technicalities, this category could be a tremendous contribution to society at large.Ghosts&empties 16:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No porn-related category is important, and this one looks like it will create problems that are not worth spending charitable bandwidth on. Wilchett 02:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Ornithology in the United Kingdom. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Birds in Britain to Category:UNKNOWN

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - This category includes a series of unrelated articles, including articles specifically about the natural histories of birds in Britain (e.g. ospreys in Britain), articles about ornithology and bird watching (e.g. British Ornithologists' Union), and list articles identifying the birds in Britain (e.g. list of British birds: passerines). The category needs to be renamed, or else it will be used like other "fauna by country" categories as a collection of articles on individual animals found within Great Britain. (For example, see how Zebra Waxbill is categorized; also see this 8 Mar 2007 discussion, where it was decided not to categorize Eurpoean animals by country.) However, I have no good suggestions on how to rename this category. Deletion may also be appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 10:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Ornithology in the United Kingdom. Mowsbury 11:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I partly agree with Mowsbury; Indeed, I was thinking of making the same proposal; but what then would be the British entry under Category:Birds of Europe? Perhaps the category needs to be sub-divided, into the existing one, for species, and the prosed new one, for other articles? Andy Mabbett 12:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - We are currently avoiding categorization of animals by political boundaries. See this 8 Mar 2007 discussion on the former subcategories of Category:Fauna of Europe; this type of categorization generally was not feasible. Dr. Submillimeter 13:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Ornithology in the United Kingdom. There is ample content to require such a category, even without including a single species of bird in it. CalJW 15:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Ornithology in the United Kingdom. This makes more sense. --Bduke 00:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Mowsbury. Luffy487 06:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. See also a related CFD earlier this week that had broader input and the same outcome. >Radiant< 12:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Birds of Italy to Category:Birds of Europe

Category:Birds of Norway to Category:Birds of Europe

Category:Birds of Scotland to Category:Birds of Europe

Category:Birds of Spain to Category:Birds of Europe

• Merge - The decision in this 8 Mar 2007 discussion was to avoid subdividing European animals by country because the animals have ranges that are generally unrelated to the political boundaries and because the categorization of animals by country would lead to long, difficult-to-read category lists. In accordance with that decision, these categories should also be merged into Category:Birds of Europe. Dr. Submillimeter 10:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since subdividing European animals by country does not work, how about categorized them according to the scheme for geographic subregions used by the United Nations: United Nations geoscheme. I would suggest to recategorize all the fauna articles according to this scheme. By the way, Europe is way too big, covering about 10,400,000 square kilometres which I don't think is a good choice to replace just a few countries covering less than 2,000,000 square kilometres. Luffy487 11:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This is a bad idea for multiple reasons. First, the United Nations geoscheme is based on arbitrary political boundaries that may or may not be related to the distributions of flora and fauna. Second, some similar categories (such as Category:Fauna of Scandinavia and Category:Fauna of the Baltic States) were already deleted following this 8 Mar 2007 discussion. Third, many of these animals are found across vast stretches of Europe anyway, so categorization by continent is more approrpriate here. If some animals are found in specific regions, then the categories for those animals should begin with the word "endemic". Dr. Submillimeter 11:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Well, in my humble opinion, I am suggesting to sub divide the Europe continent into four smaller regions: Eastern Europe, Northern Europe, Southern Europe and Western Europe from the United Nations geoscheme guideline. Categorization by continent is what I am afraid that may not be a feasible idea as the range is just too wide. It is true that many of these animals can be found across vast stretches of Europe, but don't forget there are still some which can't be found in most parts of Europe. Luffy487 12:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If you really want to subdivide Europe, I recommend using ecoregions, such as those describe by the WWF at this website. These are geographical regions that are based on the distributions of animals instead of regions based on political boundaries. Dr. Submillimeter 13:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I support the idea to rename the categories as eco-regions describe by the WWF. Well, it is a better guideline to categorize the animals instead of political boundaries. Haha.

As regards to the comment made by Andy Mabbett, it is true that although those animals are not restricted by political boundaries but somehow they are been forced to be conserved in a particular location and research are been done by individual country. See Giant Panda or external link: News on birds in Spain and The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds for example. Luffy487 06:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have found a few experts regarding this topic and they could be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ecoregions. Maybe we should ask them how do we recategorize the fauna articles. Luffy487 08:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned by this proposal. National avifaunas are published, and are relevant for issues such as conservation, treatment as alien, and so forth. Andy Mabbett 12:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This was addressed in this 8 Mar 2007 discussion on Category:Fauna of Europe subcategories. Articles with lists of birds by location would be a better solution than categories. Lists would be able to discuss conservation issues and invasive species issues. Categories simply cannot address these issues appropriately. Moreover, for widespread animals, the categories contribute to category clutter in articles on individual species (see Zebra Waxbill, for example). Dr. Submillimeter 13:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge This is simply an attempt to slip past what is amounting to User:Dr. Submillimeter's attempt to change Wikipedia policy regarding categorizing by country. It needs broader overall community discussion, rather than this user posting them one at a time until everything is changed without the majority of Wikipedians knowing or having any input into what is going on. KP Botany 21:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - We already had a debate in this 8 Mar 2007 discussion where multiple people, including KP Botany, contributed to the discussion. The consensus was not to categorize European animals by country because the categorization was not meaningful. This is not an attempt to do away with categorization by country in general, nor is it an attempt to change Wikipedia policy. Political boundaries are meaningful for most human beings and most human institutions, as so division by country is meaningful for human beings. However, division by country is not meaningful for animals with ranges that are mostly unaffected by human political boundaries (although the treatment of specific animals in specific countries may be a factor in a few limited cases). Dr. Submillimeter 07:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I believe the period of time needed to discuss this matter may be very long. Thus I am proposing to have this discussion redirected to here: Category talk:Biota by country. So that majority of Wikipedians will get involve in the discussion. Luffy487 07:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Also note the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Non-endemic "endemic" birds. I worry that a discussion at Category talk:Biota by country will die or result in no action, as did happen previously. Dr. Submillimeter 08:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. There was only an objection to merging, which wasn't being proposed in the first place. >Radiant< 12:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Insects of the British Isles to Category:Lists of insects in the British Isles

Propose renaming Category:Beetles recorded in Britain to Category:Lists of beetles in the British Isles

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - These categories mostly contain lists of insects found in the British Isles, not articles on specific animals. (The parent category also contained two articles on specific animals found only in the British Isles; I moved those to Category:Endemic insects of the British Isles.) The category should be renamed to indicate that it is for list articles and not for articles on individual animals. (See the this 8 Mar 2007 discussion to see reasons why animals should not be categorized by country in general). Dr. Submillimeter 10:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge This is simply an attempt to slip past what is amounting to User:Dr. Submillimeter's attempt to change Wikipedia policy regarding categorizing by country. It needs broader overall community discussion, rather than this user posting them one at a time until everything is changed without the majority of Wikipedians knowing or having any input into what is going on. KP Botany 21:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This is not a proposal to merge. This is a proposal to rename categories. The proposal even preserves the subdivision by location in this situation. KP Botany's objection here makes little sense. Dr. Submillimeter 07:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. This is the same discussion as [March 8th], just a category that was missing from the list. No need to repeat ourselves. >Radiant< 08:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Extinct animals of the United Kingdom to Category:Extinct animals of Europe

• Merge - The decision in this 8 Mar 2007 discussion was to avoid categorizing animals by European country because the political boundaries do not necessarily correspond to the distributions of animals and because the animals are listed in too many categories. An argument may be put forth that some of these animals are endemic to the United Kingdom. However, only one animal (the grice (extinct pig) may be described as endemic; the other animals were (or still are) found elsewhere. List of extinct animals of the British Isles already contains a more complete list with more detail. Given the precedent for deleting similar categories and the problems with implementing categories such as this one, this category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The precedent for deleting previous categories was based on the assumption that, "Indeed, animals do not mind human borders, so anything found in one country is likely also found in the next country over," and now you're saying that there is such a thing as endemism? If all animals are likely to be found everywhere in the world, how can you even argue for lists? And User:Radiant! now admits he/she was wrong.[[4]] "Proof by assertion isn't." So, his/her closing of the CfD that you say establishes precedent for all future categories to be deleted does not apply here, as it was closed based on the false assumption that all animals occur everywhere on any given continent when they appear in any one country ("anything found in one country is likely also found in the next country over"), and he/she now admits that his proof by assertion that "anything found anywhere is everywhere" isn't proof of anything. If you want to delete ALL categories for animals by country make it a policy discusion, instead of pulling it one by one, saying endemism means something, then having categories deleted because there is no such thing as endemism. This is also categories for discussion, so discussion is appropriate. Don't merge unless and until the issue of categories versus lists is discussed as a matter of Wikipedia style/policy, rather than this method of slipping in one, not discussing it, then using it as precedent for everything being changed. You want policy changes, discuss it openly with Wikipedians.KP Botany 21:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We already had a debate in this 8 Mar 2007 discussion where multiple people, including KP Botany, contributed to the discussion. The consensus was not to categorize European animals by country because the categorization was not meaningful. This is not an attempt to do away with categorization by country in general, nor is it an attempt to change Wikipedia policy. Political boundaries are meaningful for most human beings and most human institutions, as so division by country is meaningful for human beings. However, division by country is not meaningful for animals with ranges that are mostly unaffected by human political boundaries (although the treatment of specific animals in specific countries may be a factor in a few limited cases). (Also, the assertion about User:Radiant! makes no sense; I see nothing that indicates that he agrees with KP Botany's viewpoint.) Dr. Submillimeter 07:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh and yes, KPB is misrepresenting my views. It is his proof-by-assertion that I objected to. >Radiant< 08:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't merge Plate tectonics happened. There are some countries (such as Scotland), islands (such as Great Britain), archipelagoes (such as the British Isles), kingdoms (such as the United Kingdom), and even peninsulas (such as Iberia, Alaska, and Florida) that are or were so separated from the larger continents by water or mountains that they developed their own ecosystems with unique species living there, and some of those species are extinct. In a more localized context, there are also some bodies of water and slow-moving river systems (such as all Endorheic basins (including the Caspian Sea, the Great Salt Lake, and the Dead Sea), Loch Ness, various Great Lakes, Lake Okeechobee, the Nile (and more recently Lake Nasser), and the Mississippi River), that are or were so separated from larger bodies of water by land that they developed their own ecosystems with unique species living there, and some of those species are also extinct. Why shouldn't those species have their own geography-specific categories? To take a specific, somewhat ridiculous example, Loch Ness Monster could be in Category:Animals of Loch Ness (alleged), which could be in Category:Animals of Loch Ness (oh, the heated debates this categorical inclusion could engender!), which could be in Category:Animals of the Scottish Highlands, which could be in Category:Animals of Scotland, which could be in Category:Animals of the British Isles, which could be in Category:Animals of the United Kingdom, which could be in Category:Animals of Northern Europe, which could be in Category:Animals of Europe, which could be in various categories of animals of former continents and former supercontinents, which could be in Category:Animals of the Northern Hemisphere, which could be in the extant Category:Animals. Using the example cited above, Grice (extinct pig) could be in Category:Extinct animals of the Shetland Isles, which could be in Category:Extinct animals of Scotland, which could be in Category:Extinct animals of the British Isles, which could be in Category:Extinct animals of Great Britain and the extant Category:Extinct animals of the United Kingdom, which could be in Category:Extinct animals of Northern Europe, which could be in the extant Category:Extinct animals of Europe, which could be in Category:Extinct animals of Eurasia, which could be in various categories of extinct animals of former continents and former supercontinents, which could be in the extant Category:Extinct animals.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Controversial video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - The category suffers from inherent POV problems. Whether or not a game was "controversial" and how this label should be applied is a matter of personal judgment. Such subjective inclusion criteria cannot be used for categorization. Dr. Submillimeter 09:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and many similar CfDs in the past. Pavel Vozenilek 11:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per similar concerns I've expressed previously. Otto4711 12:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agreed. An overly subjective and ironically controversial criteria. Dugwiki 17:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And should we also investigate deleting some or all of the subcategories of Category:Controversial entertainment media? Dugwiki 17:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete subjective category per precedent of other "controversial" cat deletions. Doczilla 17:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as subjective categorisation and per precedent. --Xdamr^talk 20:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This category should stay as long as it's parent category Category:Controversial entertainment media does. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Controversial entertainment media is actually the grandparent. The parent is Category:Video games by societal reaction which is also up for deletion. Otto4711 02:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Those categories suffer from the same problems. I will nominate those other categories for deletion when I have the chance. Dr. Submillimeter 08:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This and all similar categories. Craig.Scott 02:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exlcusiopn = POV. Carlossuarez46 01:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete: This category has only one article, its main page. Its one-and-only subcategory can be easily moved to its parent category. Kevinkor2 05:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 08:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --rimshots^talk 14:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 20:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there can only be one entry in this category - move to parent category. SkierRMH 01:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images of Canberra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All media that were in this category are on the commons; image cats have been superseded by the commons. Delete Peta 05:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No they haven't. Image cats are still valid on Wikipedia, and not all free pictures can and have been uploaded to Commons. You should just nominate this for deletion on the grounds that all images HERE are in Commons, and add a Commons tag on the Canberra page. Delete for THIS reason. JRG 02:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All images should be moved to commons. Choalbaton 22:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not about what you think - it's about what is done per consensus at present. Images are still validly entitled to be uploaded on Wikipedia. JRG 04:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete wrt to JRG's comment, this page exists because users have a right to say what they think. That is why this page is called "Categories for discussion". Greg Grahame 13:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:City parts of Miskolc to Category:Neighbourhoods of Miskolc

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. The present name is not quite the right translation from the Hungarian. ReeseM 03:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, to fit with Category:Neighbourhoods in Hungary. --rimshots^talk 17:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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 - jc37 07:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famicom games to Category:Nintendo Entertainment System games

• Merge, The Famicom is simply the Japanese name of the Nintendo Entertainment System. There is nothing distinguishing between the two versions of the hardware (other than the standard regional lockout and the aesthetics of the exterior) to warrant separate categories. Note that this is NOT a nomination of Category:Famicom Disk System games, as that is a sufficiently different platform. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. What about games that were only released in Japan? Should this category be kept for them? They wouldn't really be NES games, would they? youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, well, it's more than just the aesthetics; Famicom cartridges don't fit in the NES and vice versa without an adaptor. I think this means that, practically speaking, there were Famicom-exclusive games that make this category non-redundant. — brighterorange (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Brighterorange. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 02:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Japanese releases are not the same as North American releases. The cartridges are not the same. Someone with a Nintendo Entertainment System could not use a Famicom game on his system, and someone with a Famicom could not use an NES game on their system. Cheers, Lankybugger 13:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong merge. Both formats use the same basic hardware. The way I understand it, Famicom games can be run on the NES with a simple bypass device and vice versa, with the cartridge shape being more about fitting the system's different style and deterring attempts to use it in the other region. This would be like separating Category:Windows games into "Windows games released on floppy disks", "Windows games released on CD-ROM", and "Windows games released on DVD-ROM". The media formats are different, yes, but the hardware is not. Garrett^Talk 20:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A better analogy might be "Windows games released in English" compared to "Windows games released in Japanese", as any Famicom games were released primarily in Japanese whilst NES games were released primarily in English. Cheers, Lankybugger 19:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The Famicom and the NES are the same machine, same CPU, same RAM, same ROM. The differences in the cartridge shape are just part of the regional lockout. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'd like to point out that there are not separate categories for TurboGrafx-16 and PC Engine games as they are also different names for the same platform. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of people with breast implants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Incorrectly named but there's already a list of people with breast implants. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 00:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Badly titled. If a better name was proposed, I would still wonder if this was over categorization since a good number of females today have these. Not sure how defining this is without some other limiting criteria. Vegaswikian 04:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A category is not a list. This is a trivial category anyway on a non-defining thing. Doczilla 05:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial, unsourced, and just NOT needed. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 05:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: wrong name, trivial, hard to verify, volatile, nondefining. Pavel Vozenilek 11:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-defining etc. Mowsbury 11:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Women in general shouldn't be defined by whether they've had implants. Epbr123 20:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Improperly named and non-defining. --Xdamr^talk 20:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-defining. Might as well AFD the article as well. — coelacan — 22:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Categories are not lists. - Magioladitis 23:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete having a list doesn't preclude having a category, but this is non-defining, and for WP:V would be more prudently maintained as a list. Carlossuarez46 01:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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