< January 28 January 30 >

January 29

Category:Mental hospitals

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. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rename category:mental hospitals to category:psychiatric hospitals

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

Category:Selectively mute people

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< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Selectively mute people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete underpopulated category with only one member article.

1. A category of one is not a category.

2. Category is nearly a year old and has not grown.

3. Use of the term "selectively mute" is debatable. It is an actual diagnostic term. If you read the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria for it, however, you'll see that even the one cited case may not fit at all, in which case it's a category of zero. DSM-IV-TR criterion 313.23.E = Do not use this term if the communication problem is attributable to another disorder.

4. Term normally applies to transient, temporary condition. DSM-IV-TR criterion 313.23.C = Duration is at least one month. A transient, temporary condition is not a defining characteristic.

Doczilla 21:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Mute people

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mute people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete category that is nearly unpopulated, with only one member article, and merge that one article back into Category:People with disabilities. Perhaps there are too few cases of muteness that do not overlap with another category like deafness for this to stand alone. Category has existed for nearly a year without getting populated. A category of one is not a category. Doczilla 21:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Kazakh culture

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. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Kazakh culture to Category:Kazakhstani culture
Propose renaming Category:Kazakh media to Category:Kazakhstani media
Propose renaming Category:Kazakh music to Category:Kazakhstani music
Propose renaming Category:Kazakh albums to Category:Kazakhstani albums
Propose renaming Category:Kazakh dance musicians to Category:Kazakhstani dance musicians
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Northern Irish terrorists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to paramilitary. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Northern Irish terrorists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Impossible to manage. At the minute it only contains loyalists. So it is always going to be point of view, one way or another. Stu ’Bout ye! 17:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, as per above--Vintagekits 17:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WTA#Terrorist.2C_terrorism. (What rename are you suggesting anyway? No suggested name was posted "above".) Doczilla 17:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I'm suggesting deletion not renaming. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Northern Irish Paramilitaries Abu ali 20:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Assassinated Northern Irish people

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Assassinated Northern Irish people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In terms of The Troubles, using "assasination" or "murder" is highly problematic. I propose deleting this category. The articles categorised as such can easily be recateogorised in other existing categories. Stu ’Bout ye! 17:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, as per above - maybe there could be a new category for those killed which have no political connection--Vintagekits 17:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proposing deletion, not renaming. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Republican murder victims

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 as empty. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Republican murder victims to Category:People killed by republican paramilitaries
Rename, as per above--Vintagekits 17:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete empty category. Doczilla 17:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed People killed by republican paramilitaries as a catch-all for for all the republican groups apart from the IRA. Alternatively, a category could be created for each one, but I don't see the point. If the consensus is delete I'm happy to go with that. It is likely the category will eventually be populated though. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Xdamrtalk 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Loyalist murder victims

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.
Propose renaming Category:Loyalist murder victims to Category:People killed by loyalist paramilitaries
Rename, as per above--Vintagekits 17:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:UTC-5

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< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, better served as a list. Also the North American Eastern Time Zone observes daylight savings time, spends the summer in UTC-4. -- Prove It (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
p.s.: This goes even further than just a blank category. The issue is that it has "Red links"! Seriously! Red links? As discussed at user:Bkonrad about a nomination that happened more than 2 years ago for a totally different (empty category). Well now this is appears to be empty because... We've edited the afformentioned infobox template. What a vicious circle of what I would almost consider self destruction! This is sad. Please! Please, take a look at WP:CCT talk to see what this project is trully bring to wikipedia. Thank you. My faith in wikipedia rest upon this. --CyclePat 08:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't especially care whether the category exists or not, but since CyclePat has mentioned his comments on my talk page here, I thought I'd chime in. CyclePat had made some changes to ((Infobox city)) that added a red-linked Category:UTC to articles containing the template. I reverted those changes. That problem appears to have been fixed. That was really my only objection at the time (people really should do their experimentation and bug-testing in a sandbox before applying them to high-profile templates). Though CyclePat seems to have conflated my objections with the current objections regarding DST. My understanding of the situation is limited, but the concerns expressed about DST seem to make the category rather pointless in that the information it generates will be unreliable. Until that is addressed, I don't think the category is of much use. older ≠ wiser 16:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the suggestion. Would you support the category if we changed the name, since this is a category added by the template:Infobox city, to "cities in the UTC-5 timezone" (ie.: Category:Cities in the UTC-5 timezone)? This could then be part of the above you suggested. Which could then include other sub-categories like Category:Town in UTC-5 timezone, Category:Hamlets in UTC-5 timezone, Category:Unorganized in the UTC-5 timezone, village, etc. (of course this will be multiplied by the amount of timezone permutations.
I would just like to add the the category is usefull to not only find anomolies in citie name spelling (which may help identify those that a spelt contrary to the convention that currently exists) but it places all the cities in the "alleged" correct UTC category. The only instance of error I can see would be if someone put in the wrong UTC time in the infobox city template. If of course the information is wrong, as someone questioned on the WP:CCT project, then it proves that the list is or was being used and was useful in identifying a mistake. The usefullness as per WP:LIST demonstrates that the category is usefull (One might argue that the reliability of the information is not the best. I may agree with this. I must stipulate that the category is all the more important to verify what cities currently exist in UTC-5 and ensure that the templates are in fact properly sourced per WP:V and being properly utilized for their regionality. Such a category is the preliminary steps toward having templates for cities categorized by not only region (location), but by time. Furthermore, should we add a permutation which automatically calculates the current UTC of a region. Hence if DST is in effect this would recalculate the categories, placing for example Ottawa, once spring arrives, in UTC-4, instead of UTC-5. (as sort of living category that automatically updates) Or, should we a city in both respective UTC categories. (Take note that some regions... including cities don't respect the daylight savings time. Some move back only 30 minutes and many move back 1 hour and all depend on the region). Hence perhaps the 2 categories may be easier to do (conceive). Take for example we may have [[:Category:Cities in the UTC-5 [DST] timezone]] and [[:Category:Cities in the UTC-4. The difference would be to chose on putting an emphasis on the word "current" and name the category category:Current cities in the UTC-5 timezone. This would be keeping in line with the spirit of WP:CCT but again, what a headack to add a parser function for all these exceptions. It's going to take me a long time to think of how to program that (considering I'm not really a programmer). I think whatever we chose there will always be something we can improve. --CyclePat 17:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have 3 objections; changing the name of the category would take away one objection; the other ones remain. A split between cities, towns, villages, hamlets, and "uncategorized" would be a bad idea, because the choice whether a location is, for example, a city or a town can be very subjective. Also, the city infobox is not only meant for cities, but also for other types of settlements.
My most important concern is still the usefulness of the proposal. I don't think the reasons you name are valid. 1) Finding anomalies in city naming: there are no anomalies, because there is no single global naming convention for settlements. See the discussions on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements). 2) Finding mistakes in UTC data: nobody is going to check 50,000 articles in a category for mistakes. 3) Per WP:LIST: that page is all about lists, not categories.
Essentially, my problem with these category is that the time zone is basically not a property of cities, but of the countries they are in. For a few countries, you have to go to a lower government level (for example states in the US), but almost never to city level. Neither would I support Category:Cities using the U.S. dollar as currency, or Category:English speaking cities. -- Eugène van der Pijll 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should never say never. I once heard someone say "ignorance can be bliss." 1) What we have hear is a fear of toppling the status quo with perfectly reasonable category, perfectly generate quickly with the use of a template. If all those 5000+ cities where already categorized I bet you wouldn't be saying the same thing now wouldn’t you? 2) As demonstrated in the example on the talk page of WP:CCT someone pointed out that a certain city didn't actually belong within a time zone. You may not find this practical, but I and others do. We obviously found this useful in finding a wrongly categorized city. According to Wikipedia's policy on deletion if someone find it functional and useful it's probably because it is! But I’ll play along and demonstrate the importance. As I've demonstrated, someone has already been checking, non-including myself the list (when it was there!) 3) Okay so you don't like lists! Personally it’s the same difference as a category as demonstrated by this essay. You say “po-tay-toh” and I say “pa-tah-to.” Though that essay doesn't take into consideration that, what we have a category that can be turn on like that through the template:Infobox city. Essentially if anyone changes that template it will be evident to the entire category system. Hence what we have is something that is almost as good as a list (but better because we can get all the cities, and all the work that people did… TEAM WORK! And generally know if someone tried to remove them from the category! Unlike a self centered, WP:OWN “List” usually limited to few select editor’s knowledge this method is a no “brainer”. Bigger category or list, less work, more productivity! Anyway, it appears that you wish to whack at this with countless arguments, so here you go: for your reading pleasure:
As per Purpose of the lists, lists have 3 main purposes... and so do these cities in UTC categories... 1) ’’’Information’’’: Grouped by theme 2) ‘’’Navigation’’’: as a table of contents for UTC articles (or as someone that would be browsing may click on the bottom of the article in the (See also) or as the WP:LIST states “If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles).” 3) ‘’’Development’’’: as previously discussed, used for clean-up, ensuring accuracy, fixing or finding possible errors. Not only that, but again as per WP:LIST, this category is handy because it gives “an indication of the state of the 'pedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written.”
As per WP:CG there are a couple question we can use to test the validity of this category:
’’’Q’’’: If the category does not already exist, is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of the category, explaining it?
’’’A’’’: Dam right! There are more than 5+ articles on time zones, (ie.:UTC, DST, etc..) and even individual article exist on the UTC’s. (ie.: UTC-5, UTC(0), UTC-14, UTC-3, etc… we could easily have the category being a part of the see also of those articles.
’’’Q’’’: If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?
‘’’A’’’: Well let me see… category UTC-5 and article UTC-5… I think so! And I think the category subject may need a little more development within the article but not much since there is already a list of countries and other regions in the article.
Lets continue on refuting and using every element from the WP:CG as per Some general guidelines this category passes the test for : 1, 2, 3, 4 (yes! Because we are placing them in their respective UTC sub-category: Essentially that would be; --> UTC : UTC-(subcategory#) : Cities in UTC-(subcategory#) : (maybe another sub-category for the ambitious?) <--, 5, 6 (Many articles where placed in the Category:UTC-5, rule 6 permits for the temporary placement in this category.), 7 (bend the rule a bit! Yah! Exactly!), 8 (hard to have a POV on this one considering it’s all auto generated!), 9 (The template places the cities that do not currently have the UTC time stamp in the template and permits a category for this, so users that wish to add this information may easily scroll through a single list!)
Since you insist on this refutation, let’s continue on with just WP:CG… (I can’t wait to get to other better a bigger well know rules though!) as per How to put an article into a category: “The topic may be associated with a geographic area.” Similar articles are listed and UTC ones are aforementioned.
According to Naming conventions for categories the closest naming convention I could find is Miscellaneous in country naming convention. Which appears to support the naming of Category:Cities in UTC.
The only perhaps real problem… and that’s not really a big problem is the “red linked” categories which aren’t made yet! As per Look before you leap
So I’m going to stop there for now because obviously we need to do a little work and I believe that I have successfully refuted the above comments. Nevertheless just in case, I would like to point you to the image:Timezones optimized.png. If you take a look at Canada, (near Manitoba and Ontario) you will notice that the time zones are not truly divided by province. Some of the cities belong to UTC-5. However most of Manitoba belongs to UTC-6. So your statement that “the time zone is basically not a property of cities, but of the countries they are in…” is wrong! This link shows that Nunavut has 3 different time zones. And yes! You may have meant that the time zones are generally governed and encouraged by the countries, I actually remember hearing some cities and provinces that decided that they where going to move their DST. The Canadian Governments standards can be found here and explain the changes for Canada and even North America! To something different then the standard! (Take Newfoundland which is 30 minutes)
Again semantics on how pertinent this category can truly be! --CyclePat 22:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Female Furies

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< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Female Furies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Listify and Delete, As per previous precedents with regard to comic book teams. J Greb 16:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Medical Schools in the District of Columbia

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. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Schools of Medicine in the United States, of which there are currently about 80. -- Prove It (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Events in Salt Lake City, Utah

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. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Events in Salt Lake City, Utah into Category:Festivals in Utah
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jersey Pressure Groups

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. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Jersey Pressure Groups to Category:Pressure groups of Jersey
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Italian national symbols

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. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Italian national symbols into Category:National symbols of Italy
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mythomaniacs

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< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mythomaniacs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete vaguely defined category that is not a recognized mental illness in and of itself. When it is seen, it is a symptom of some other condition. Mythomania is not a psychiatric diagnosis applied by the criteria of the DSM-IV or ICD-10. This is a descriptive term that refers to compulsive lying, not an Axis I or Axis II disorder. Category is underpopulated with only two members. Those two member articles illustrate the problem with listing this as a subcategory of people by medical condition because half of the individuals (ergo, one) so categorized lived before the term even existed. Identification of him by that term therefore invokes POV and OR. The article for the living example mentions the term only once, when it says a cartoonist used that person as an example of mythomania. We do not typically license cartoonists as diagnosticians. Doczilla 09:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:AfD debates (Indiscernable or unclassifiable topic)

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. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:AfD debates (Indiscernable or unclassifiable topic) to Category:AfD debates (Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional universes

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to "settings" seems to be the best solution. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional universes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - this category is far too broad in scope. As noted in the category description, any work of fiction by definition takes place in a fictional universe. The description attempts to restrict the category but the phrasing of the restriction ("a reality unlike our own in some way") is so vague as to be useless. Every work of fiction is set in a reality unlike our own in some way by virtue of, well, not existing and deciding that one "reality unlike our own" is enough unlike our own to warrant inclusion while another isn't introduces tremendous POV problems. I see some utility in grouping established settings of works of fiction but as it is now being utilized the category is an indiscriminate catch-all for any fiction category or article it occurs to an editor to add. The category is diluted beyond the point of usefulness. Otto4711 04:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • We already have a vast categorization scheme under Category:Fictional locations so I don't know that renaming to "Fictional settings" is worthwhile. "Fictons" strikes me as a neologism which I understand we are supposed to avoid in category names. Otto4711 17:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I read the article. I googled it though and it doesn't look like it's gained a wide currency. Otto4711 22:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would say that the Category:Fictional locations is in need of some serious clean-up. Just a quick look at it shows that there's at least 3 things I would say are out of place. (Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance and Greyhawk should be under Fantasy Worlds, same with Earthsea and Wheel of Time among others, would belong in Category:Fantasy worlds not the main category). It's almost as bad as this category. Some of the sub-categories are also bad. (How the heck is Bridge to Terebithia a fictional micronation?? ) And this category should also be included in it, no matter what the name. Ficton is new word, but one created by Heinlein, not Wikipedia, but I think the real problem is that it's not in common usage. "Fictional (with some appropriate modifier)" would be better I fee, as it would be much clearer. Just not sure of what modifier to use. I'm happy with universe, but I can see how setting might be better. But damn, looking at it, I'm almost inclined to say wipe the whole mess. FrozenPurpleCube 17:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BTW, I found this page [[1]] that might help provide some perspective on this subject. FrozenPurpleCube 16:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xdamrtalk 21:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shared universe doesn't seem to fit the bill, since if I'm understanding the SU article it refers to authors borrowing one another's characters (c.f. Anno Dracula). There is already a Category:Shared universe to capture such universes. Expanded universe seems to refer mostly to franchising and possibly canon. Not sure if, as it's being used, "Expanded universe" works either. Otto4711 22:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shared Universe is something I would say refers primarily to a cooperative effort between authors, rather than merely using the same setting characters, which I would call simply derivative works. Never seen expanded universe outside of the Star Wars series, so I don't think it's a widely used term either. FrozenPurpleCube 04:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Saskatechewan Roughriders players

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.--Mike Selinker 03:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I created this category, but it contains a typo in the name. The correct category already exists. --Rbraunwa 21:57, 29 January 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.
More