< July 31	August 2 >

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; rename for grammar --Kbdank71 14:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alternate versions of to Category:Alternate versions of fictional characters

Nominator's rationale: Rename - "Alternate versions of" is a horrible name. The rename makes it clear what the category is for, assuming that the category is even necessary. The articles could easily be housed in the Category:DC Comics characters and Category:Marvel Comics characters so I have no objection to a merge. Otto4711 23:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think Category:Alternative versions of fictional characters would be better. The current name makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in Commonwealth English, as these do not alternate. If this were a US-only topic, then a weak case for keeping "alternate" might be valid, but I would still argue for "alternative" as reflecting international usage (the term means the same thing in all forms of English that I know of). See List of words having different meanings in British and American English#A. Xtifr _tälk 02:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something. I agree with Xtifr in preferring "Alternative", for the same reasons. These aren't really different "versions" but different "persona". So my preferred rename is Category:Alternative persona of fictional characters, but I could live with versions. Johnbod 02:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Quote Nom: "The articles could easily be housed in the Category:DC Comics characters and Category:Marvel Comics characters". And are better placed in there. If this cat stands up, then two cats will be needed when one would do. SilkTork 12:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Category:Alternate versions of Batman was recently deleted: [1]. SilkTork 12:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial intersection and over categorization. Vegaswikian 22:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated. I was hesitant at first, but upon thinking about it I liked it a lot more. The articles stop the main articles from being loaded down with alternative version info, in a similar manner to Category:Career achievements of sportspeople, and so they deserve a category to hold them all together. (Per alternate vs. alternative: In comics, you come from an "alternate world," not an "alternative world.")--Mike Selinker 16:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as suggested by nom. This is a grouping of things that have little in common, the better place to list them would be the grouping of all comics characters of that world. >Radiant< 12:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete per precedent --Kbdank71 18:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - the contents of each of these categories is limited to one or more of the following categories: albums; members; songs; along with the band's article and in some instances a discography article. Per precedent this is overcategorization. The only exception is Category:The byrds which is a redirect to the correctly capitalized category. Unsure if it can be deleted as a category or if it has to go to RFD. Otto4711 21:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD C1 on Category:The byrds, since redirects are not supposed to be used on categories, and there is no edit history that was merged (incorrect tag), it was empty and unused. 132.205.44.5 23:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all of these useful categories. The precedents are invalid, as these categories are being deleted without consensus, as the nominator is aware. When do the precedents for retention start to become valid? Hawkestone 20:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The precedents are valid, and neither your sour grapes nor your drive-by attacks on my talk page is going to change that. Otto4711 20:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per ample precedent, these categories are unnecessary and redundant and offer no measurable benefits to navigation. All the articles (no more than two in any case) are sufficiently interlinked, and the subcategories will be kept and will remain useful and also contain extensive interlinking. DRV has already been used to review the precedents, which were upheld, so the claim that they are "invalid" is simply preposterous. In all the debates on similar categories, no argument stronger than WP:ILIKEIT has been proffered. Xtifr _tälk 21:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per overwhelming precedent. Wryspy 03:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is this a partial request to delete Category:Categories named after musicians? I don't understand why the cats above have been selected, unless it's part of a larger move to depopulate the main cat and then delete that. I am not in favour of overcategorization either - I find that a few good categories are more useful than a bunch of minor ones. However, these cats collect together all the scattered articles on a group in the same place. I just looked at The Byrds and saw no easy way to overview all the articles on The Byrds. There is a possibility that a See also section could be created in that article and all the other musician articles, however, as this already existing cat serves that function and does it quite neatly I am unsure of the need to take this down to build it up elsewhere, and in a manner that is not so easy to navigate. I'm not yet saying that I think these and the main cat should stay because I haven't yet seen the argument for why they should go. Does that make sense? SilkTork 12:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that the nav box at the end of the article does not do a better job? It presents more information then you get from the category in more groupings and makes all of the information available with a single click. Vegaswikian 22:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've just taken a look at that, and I see the point you're making. I'm not a box user and tend not to look at them. I was considering changing my !vote, but then I clicked on a few musician articles and noticed that not all of them have a nav box so I am hesitating. SilkTork 13:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep No proper rationale in this nomination that I can see as to why these categories are unnecessary. Circeus 17:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have thought about this. Unless someone provides a decent argument for deleting these cats, then I can't see a reason for them to go. SilkTork 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on exhaustive previous discussions on like categories. Ample justification for deleting has been offered, discussed and supported by consensus. Vegaswikian 22:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you be able to link to one or more of these discussions because they are being mentioned, but not sourced. I am not aware of the previous debates and arguments used, so a link would be appreciated. SilkTork 13:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Daughter of the Lioness, Category:The Immortals, Category:Protector of the Small, Category:Provost's Dog, and Category:The Song of the Lioness to Category:Tortallan books

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization: Daughter of the Lioness only has two books in it, and most the others have no more than 4. SarekOfVulcan 21:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep part of wider scheme of Fantasy novels by series, though the "duology" of Daughter of the Lioness is pushing its luck. Johnbod 03:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Category:Emelanese books was condensed as well. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 06:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. The scheme is too complex for these books. >Radiant< 12:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wolves in film --Kbdank71 14:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Either delete as unnecessary to navigation or rename and repurpose to Category:Films about wolves. The entire article content is four wolf-related films from the same film series which really don't require a category as they are interlinked. Otto4711 19:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amended Note The nomination's description of "entire article content" ignores well over 100 articles in sub-cats (not about films). Johnbod 00:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these are generally unsupportable as articles, even less so as categories. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep this and al the similar ones. Essentially all the ...in popular culture articles (and related ones dealing with cultural influences and common themes) are being currently proposed for deletion at the rate of a dozen a day. Among the arguments for this deletion are that categories are more appropriate. Many of those !voting for such deletions are doing so on this basis, and saying so. Now it is proposed to eliminate the categories, and one of the comments above indicates that it is intended not just for this one, but all similar categories. I note that earlier, the in poplar culture (etc) sections of articles were in many cases split into separated articles as advocated by some of the same people who are now trying to delete the separate articles, a practice which does not seem altogether straightforward. Now that it is being accepted that some will be reduced to categories, it is now being proposed to eliminate the categories. Even a group of four is worth bringing together. Not all these will be about films only, there are also books--I added two, and I am sure there is music as well, so for uniformity, the present category name is better. If the nom will assure me he is intending only this and perhaps a few others i will AGF, but I will still oppose this change. DGG (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What constitutes wolves (or anything else) in popular culture is inherently POV; do we place the tag on all sports teams, books, films (and how much about wolves or about wolves in popular culture must such a film be to placed in this cat?), or anything that has a tangential reference to a wolf? Ultimately, many articles due to their nature will have a huge number of "popular culture" categories (take Saturday Night Live or The Simpsons, which are reflections or spoofs of pop culture, for example) that they become meaningless. Taken to the extreme, and I gave this example at one of the articles for deletion debates a while back: what about the word "the" in popular culture? It's used quite often in popular culture so we could create a cat and put any article that references or uses that word in Category:The word "the" in popular culture. Carlossuarez46 16:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Nomination appears to have been made out-of-date by valid addition of sub-cats. This tree is now well-populated, with well over 100 articles. The nominator might care to reconsider. Johnbod 00:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been exactly two articles added to the category since the nomination. I have no idea where you'er coming up with the notion that the category has over 100 articles in it but simply clicking on the link shows that this isn't true. Otto4711 05:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

???Category:Fictional wolves 46 + subcats, Category:Fictional werewolves 62, & there are various others. Sorry, I assumed, given your rename suggestion, you wouldn't have phrased the nomination so misleadingly if the sub-cats had been there at the time, but now I see I was wrong.Johnbod 21:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles in the subcategories are not in the category. I gave the correct number of articles at the time in the nomination and I have to say I don't appreciate your constant little jabs in various CFDs. Otto4711 03:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So only the articles actually in the main category itself actually count? Wow, I never knew that! Maybe other people don't know it either, so please remember us ignorant folk when doing your noms. Thank you. Johnbod 03:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is my opinion that since the subcategories are undisturbed by a CFD, that they do not count toward the article total within the CFDed article. Otto4711 14:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wolves in art and literature, maybe? CaveatLector^Talk 02:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'd support that. Johnbod 02:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am unsure of the legitamacy and effectiveness of the entire Category:In popular culture and related subcats. Popular culture is seen as different to High culture. High culture is seen as involving literature, art and film, and popular culture is seen as pop music, fashion, comics and - again - film. There is a blurry line - does a mention of a wolf in one particular film constitute pop culture or high culture. Is Teen Wolf considered pop culture, while The Company of Wolves is considered high culture - and what about Dances with Wolves - would that appear in both categories? And this section - Popular culture#Contested definitions of Popular culture - reveals some disputes about the very definitions of pop culture, thus revealing that the cats might well be based on dispute and contention. Also, I dont see a Category:In high culture which might indicate a systemic bias. I have read DGG comments above on the hounding out of Pop culture sections from main articles into stand alone articles, and now the cats holding these articles are being hounded, and I hear that concern. I am always hesitant to remove articles, and I am considering if A)Getting rid of these cats would harm the articles themselves, and B) If the articles are simply trivia listings of items across a broad largely unclassified selection of society is there a value of keeping such articles anyway? Hmmm. SilkTork 13:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the concerns I raise above. SilkTork 13:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Otto has a valid point that the "fictional wolves" categorization is an independent issue from this category. I would propose renaming this category to Category:Wolves in film to match Category:Wolves in literature, and both would be subcategories of Category:Fictional wolves. The fact of the matter is there is only a small number of articles in this category, and they can easily be separated based on medium, "film" or "literature" (or both in some cases). The current category just adds an extra branch on the tree to account for a small number of articles. I believe all of these articles can easily fit in the "fictional wolves" scheme (especially considering my proposed "film" category). -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Andrew C. Good solution. >Radiant< 12:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Images of the Vermont State House; contains images of the Vermont State House. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom & if possible transfer to Commons. Johnbod 03:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Images of the Vermont State House. CApitol3 15:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Cold Case images, convention of Category:Television images. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what about Category:Screenshots of television? Otto4711 17:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't notice Category:Screenshots of television ... it's inconsistent, going between Foo screenshots, Foo images, Screenshots of Foo, and Screenshots of Foo episodes, and Foo screenshots and pictures. I'd support just about any consistant naming convention, but slightly prefer images to screenshots since many promotional pictures are not screeenshots. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Screenshots of television just seems like a catch all grouping and probably could be deleted. However it might be better to simply move these to commons and follow their preferred image category scheme. Vegaswikian 22:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Vegaswikian 22:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated. it appears that Category:Screenshots of television is for non-free screenshots that is populated via template. --Kbdank71 14:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:The Class images, convention of Category:Television images. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what about Category:Screenshots of television? Otto4711 17:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Vegaswikian 22:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Andrew c ^[talk] 15:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Savannah Black leaders, or Merge into Category:People from Savannah, Georgia. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:People from Savannah, Georgia, the triple intersection of race, place, and being "leaders" is unsupportable under WP:OCAT. Carlossuarez46 22:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:People from Savannah, Georgia. Violates WP:OCAT#Intersection by location, WP:OCAT#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference, WP:OCAT#Narrow intersection and arguably even WP:OCAT#Trivial intersection. While most of those allow room for exceptions, I think this is clearly violating too many guidelines to qualify as a viable exception. And, of course, there's also the vague, subjective, POV term "leader", which is the icing on the cake. Xtifr _tälk 21:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. A quick poll of google for "health risk" shows that Radiant! is indeed correct. Laser printers, sprouts, sexual intercourse, loneliness, leaky roofs, mold outbreaks, and rodents were found to be health risks, yet if they were added to the category, I'm sure they'd be immediately removed. It is subjective, period. However, Johnbod pointed out that if it didn't exist, something would replace it. There was no suggestions as to what to rename it to, therefore the no consensus. --Kbdank71 14:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems rather arbitrary. I can think of lots of other things that could be considered health risks, including but not limited to firearms, fast food, predatory animals, and anvils. Suggest deletion, because we cannot objectively define what is or is not a "health risk". Note that its "main article" was recently deleted for having no content. >Radiant< 16:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Heck, you could argue that GWBush is a health risk to anyone in the Armed Forces. Delete.--SarekOfVulcan 21:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - The nom doesn't explain what's being requested here. Is it deletion or renaming (or something else)?? If deletion was the goal, I would suggest that renaming might possibly be a better course of action to pursue. Cgingold 13:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. Now that you've added the bolding, I see where it said "deletion". Obviously I was reading way too fast! Cgingold 11:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vaguely named category per nom. The nomination does explain what's being requested here. Wryspy 03:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can the nominator substantiate his claim that the medical profession is unable to define "health risk"? It seems unlikely to me. The category works well as a sub-cat of Category:Health effectors and Category:Risk. If it weren't there something would have to replace it. Johnbod 03:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This category does not use the medical definition, but rather (as with most poorly named cats) the definition of "whatever any random editor seems to consider fitting". Note that several other fields (e.g. legal and insurance) use different definitions. We could use an article on medical health risk. >Radiant< 10:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general medicine seems a rather poorly covered area in WP, compared to many. I suppose professionals have other things to do, and amateurs are rightly wary of editing. But I don't see deletion of this category as helping, rather the reverse. I can't see any very silly inclusions, like those mentioned in the nom. Specialised terms of art or contract in law and insurance are clearly secondary to medical usage here. We certainly do need such an article, but until we get it the category will have to fill this (rather large) gap. Johnbod 12:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very important to make a distinction between risks and hazards. They are often conflated with one another, but they're not the same thing. For instance, in the examples given by Radiant, firearms, predatory animals, and anvils would more properly be considered "hazards" rather than "risks", whereas fast food might be considered a risk (if it comprises a major part of one's diet). Cgingold 15:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a cursory discussion of this issue at Occupational safety and health#Hazards, risks, outcomes. There really needs to be an entire (short) article explaining the relationship/distinction. Cgingold 01:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not yet entirely certain what I am going to recommend here. Although I am leaning in the general direction articulated by Johnbod, after looking into the larger category structure regarding "health risks", etc., it occurs to me that this issue may well be too complex to achieve a good resolution on the basis of this particular nom. We may need to broaden the discussion to include the larger structure. I suspect that we may also need to solicit input from people with serious knowledge of these subjects (i.e. Public health, Environmental health, Occupational safety and health). I've already asked the creator of two parent categories (Category:Health effectors and Category:Determinants of health) to join the discussion. For now, I'm still reserving judgement. Cgingold 15:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I oppose deletion - Determining if something is a health risk has been used to enact legislation like smoking bans, and so I think the subject is important enough and definable enough to have a category here. Whether it would be better to rename to say Category:Medical health risks, I'm not sure. I'd also add that the concept of determinants of health that can affect people and populations positively and negatively (health risks) is a well-defined, accepted, and important branch of public health and health promotion, and is supported by organizations like the World Health Organization^[2] and the Public Health Agency of Canada^[3]. Kurieeto 18:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And that is precisely why this should be an article rather than a category. >Radiant< 09:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it were to be only an article, where would for example Passive smoking and Category:Pollution best belong in the Category tree of Category:Health? --Kurieeto 23:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've spent the last hour finding and contacting editors who appear to have expertise in the fields I mentioned above. I left notes asking them to participate in this discussion ASAP -- but it may well take another day or two for them to respond. So I am making an official request to leave this discussion open long enough for these individuals to comment. Please do not close this CFD prematurely. This is a complex and very important issue, and we need to arrive at a soundly considered resolution that will hold up over the long term. Cgingold 02:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename - I'm still not sure what the final answer is here, but I am quite certain that simple deletion is the wrong answer. In the mean time, I keep coming back to Johnbod's observation that "If it weren't there something would have to replace it." I think he's put his finger on the crucial point here. If "Health risks" is too problematic (and I'm not entirely persuaded that it is), we may want to consider changing the category name to something like "Potential human health risks" or perhaps "Medical and environmental health risks". I'm hoping that the people I've contacted will assist us in arriving at a solution that really makes sense. Cgingold 03:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename - it's certainly a notable concept, but I do appreciate the danger pointed out by Radiant, that it can be "whatever any random editor seems to consider fitting". The best approach is to discuss on the category talk page how to avoid this problem. A note at the top of the category explaining exactly what goes in? (Only a partial solution, as not everyone who adds cats looks at the cat page). Or split into medical and legal categories...? Sounds messy. Can't think of a perfect solution, but nonetheless if it's a notable category of concepts then we should avoid a simple delete. --Chriswaterguy talk 04:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Since there was a consensus to merge the first two, but not to what, I'll merge Category:Criticism involving the September 11, 2001 attacks into Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks. If this is not acceptable, another CFD can be ran but at least the articles are in one category. As for Category:Groups challenging the official account of 9/11, there seemed to be a consensus to keep it as a separate category and to rename it, but no consensus as to what. --Kbdank71 13:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks,

Category:Criticism involving the September 11, 2001 attacks, and Category:Groups challenging the official account of 9/11
There's barely enough material here for one category, not three, and it should have a name that does not include weasel words. Merge & rename, a title like Category:September 11, 2001 conspiracy theories would probably cover the matter best. >Radiant< 15:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, oppose suggested rename. "Conspiracy theories" is far too loaded. "Alternate (not "alternative") theories" seems like a reasonable enough name. Otto4711 16:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "alternate" does not have the same meaning in Commonwealth English, whereas "alternative" would fit and make sense on both sides of the pond. And, while these are articles about a US topic, "alternative" works for everyone, so I see no reason to avoid it. Just the opposite, in fact. Xtifr _tälk 22:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think these three cats are a result of proponents objecting to "conspiracy theory". Merging and renaming would be an improvement, although I'm not sure a category is really needed. The navigation templates and the See also sections are probably enough. Calling it 9/11 conspiracy theories might better match what we call the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes, but proponents of a conspiracy always object to calling it a conspiracy theory. I've seen multiple repetitive debates and even an ArbCom case about that, but in the end we always call it what it is. >Radiant< 11:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the official account is also that it was indeed a conspiracy, the term is hardly useful in distinguishing alternative theories in this case. Johnbod 13:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks or Category:Theories challenging the official account of 9/11 Johnbod 03:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename one, Upmerge one, and Keep one - When Category:Criticism involving the September 11, 2001 attacks was created on December 22, 2006, there was actually a good rationale, because at that time there were 3 existing, related categories (one of which, for individuals, was deleted in July), which it brought together under a single parent cat. It wasn't the ideal name for the category, but it did serve a useful function. However, as things currently stand, there's no real need for that "umbrella" category. Therefore, to clarify and simplify the category structure:

Rename Category:Criticism involving the September 11, 2001 attacks to Category:Alternative views of the official account of 9/11. The term "conspiracy theories" is blatantly POV for a category that also includes critiques and/or questions of the official account. "Alternative theories" is an improvement, but not all critiques re 9/11 amount to theories, so I think the broader term "Alternative views" is preferable.
Upmerge the contents of Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks to the renamed parent category, and
Keep Category:Groups challenging the official account of 9/11 as a sub-cat of the renamed parent category, as an aid to readers who would not otherwise recognize that those are, in fact, the names of groups.

The term "official account of 9/11" is widely understood to refer to the 9/11 Commission Report, along with the NIST report on the collapse of the Twin Towers, and should be defined as such on the Category pages. Cgingold 13:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is? I was unaware of that. I think that people challenging the 9/11 Commission Report would then be a better name. >Radiant< 09:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Official account" is a term of art within the conspiracist movement used to favorably characterize themselves as plucky outsiders fighting the Bush administration. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get that, but we're an encyclopedia here and don't have to use their weasel words. >Radiant< 09:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, all theories of 9/11 involve a conspiracy; there is no "lone gunman" view. The term is therefore useless in distinguishing different views/accounts/theories here. Johnbod 14:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I suggested "challenge the commission report", as above. >Radiant< 09:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a tiny adjustment, from singular to plural, is needed, thus: "Category:Alternative views of the official accounts of 9/11", with "official accounts" defined as above. Cgingold 02:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no I don't think so. That's even more weasely. >Radiant< 09:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to like weasels, nonetheless your use of the term is totally misplaced, Radiant. The only point of adding the "s" was because of the need to define what we're speaking of as referring jointly to the two specified reports. What in hell is "weasely" about that??? Quite to the contrary, that's called specificity. Cgingold 12:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge/redirect. Andrew c ^[talk] 15:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Category:People from Reading, Berkshire, to match Reading, Berkshire. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (rather than deleting). Hawkestone 17:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It should probably also mention Reading, Kansas, Reading, Massachusetts, Reading, Michigan, Reading, New York, Reading, Ohio, Reading, Pennsylvania and Reading, Vermont. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, neutral on the redirect, but leaning towards endorsement. Xtifr _tälk 22:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Presumably if no-one has complained yet, the existing name is the only such category, so the redirect should be ok until another is set up. Johnbod 03:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - per strong precedent against performer by performance. --Orange Mike 14:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - overcategorization. Otto4711 14:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:OCAT and similar cfds. Dugwiki 17:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete performer by performance. Wryspy 04:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Andrew c ^[talk] 22:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Fictional manslaughter victims; We do not normally categorize fictional characters as dead or alive. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom & empty category. Onnaghar(T/C) 14:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - I'm willing to bet this was created in an attempt to get around the deletion of the fictional murder victims category. We don't categorize by living or dead. Otto4711 14:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salt the lower-case m version too, pre-emptively. Otto4711 17:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to the lower case when the category contains victims of a manslaughter where that is significant, it is hard to think of a way of doing it that does not indicate they are dead. All categories that are useful for collocation and navigation and browsing should be kept. Keep and populate. Otto, what sort of categories for fictional characters do you approve of? DGG (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I am not the only person arguing for the deletion of this category, it seems inappropriate for you to try to make this about me in any way. Otto4711 12:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pointless and burdensome. --Orange Mike 14:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This strikes me as something of a joke, to be perfectly honest. What's next, Fictional victims of blackmail or extortion? Fictional dognappings? Too trivial to take seriously! Cgingold 14:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wryspy 04:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Andrew c ^[talk] 22:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Squares of Adelaide to Category:Squares in Adelaide

Nominator's rationale: Rename, To conform to naming conventions used within the category Squares and plazas by city. Longhair\^talk 06:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support makes sense :: maelgwn - talk 11:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Onnaghar(T/C) 14:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Hawkestone 17:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Nominator's rationale no longer applies since the cat has been populated. Not enough opinions expressed to determine whether the populated cat should exist. Circeus or anyone else is welcome to try to consolidate the templates in with the main infobox.Andrew c ^[talk] 22:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: No contents whatsoever AC Best Autograph Book 05:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just created the category. And I just populated it with a large number of entries. Unless it's changed, empty categories aren't usually deleted for at least 4 days after they've been emptied. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No way these should be templates to begin with. They should be subpages on integrate in the master template.Circeus 21:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as category is populated. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Belgian First Division footballers to Category:Jupiler League players

Nominator's rationale: Rename, The top division now know as Jupiler League. Matthew_hk t c 04:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure about this - past players presumably played under the old name, and how long does Jupiler's sponsorship deal run? Johnbod 03:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Andrew c ^[talk] 22:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete An award conferred by humorists is non-defining, especially for the likes of a former Prime Minister of India. A list of winners already exists. Alex Middleton 00:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A list already exists as well. --musicpvm 03:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - list already exists. Onnaghar(T/C) 14:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hawkestone 17:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:OCAT#Award winners. This is clearly not among "the most notable awards" (although it's one that I try to follow). Xtifr _tälk 22:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't notable in quite the same sense as other awards, but it is widely publicized, and widely followed, even by the previous ed. and myself. DGG (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Of course they're not on a par with the Nobel Prizes, but then, what is? They are well known, and widely reported in the mainstream media every year, thus are sufficiently notable for a category. In addition, with so many names, it's much easier to see them and make use of them when they're neatly laid out in alphabetical order in a category, than in a cluttered list that's subdivided by year & field/subject. In sum, this is a very useful category, which nicely complements the existing list. Neither is sufficient in itself. Cgingold 13:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cgingold. Not defining for a few winners, but is for most - the main claim to fame for many. Johnbod 19:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Might be "conferred by humorists", but has a strong connection in wider culture, making the categorization relevant. Circeus 17:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Ocean liners with four funnels --Kbdank71 14:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Four Funnel Ocean Liners to Category:Ocean liners with four smokestacks

Nominator's rationale: More specific name, and better wording. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Smokestacks" is US English only, and none of these appear to be US ships. I don't know if we need this category at all, though I suppose it is useful for U-boat captains. Johnbod 01:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Ocean liners in the absence of any compelling explanation as to why the number of funnels/smokestacks a liner has is a valid criterion for a category. Otto4711 02:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, regarding number of smokestacks, there were only fourteen four-stackers ever built, vs. lots of one, two, and three-stackers, so their relative rarity seems worth noting. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So a navbox could be an alternative to a category? Readers interested in these probably are aware of one. Vegaswikian 23:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as Category:Ocean liners, seems more appropriate. Not many British or users from abroad using BE will know what "smokestacks" are. Onnaghar(T/C) 14:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose rename per Johnbod; Keep per SchuminWeb, and for the benefit of all the U-boat captains who read wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it seems a lot of the opposition is to the use of the term "smokestacks", I have no problems going with Category:Ocean liners with four funnels. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it Category:Ocean liners with four funnels would work in my mind. The idea of the category was similar to the category "United_States_Navy_nuclear_ships". Merely to better define a special class or characteristic of a vessel. As stated above only a dozen or so ships ever had 4 funnels the majority reside in the 1-3 funnel arena, making those that did push the limit a special exception. There number's also include some of the most (in)famous liners in history. JimmyV 19:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support to renaming it Category:Ocean liners with four funnels. Opposed to -smokestacks. Also opposed to merging to Category:Ocean liners by the logic outlined by JimmyV. -- Kjet 16:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(further to above) I'm fine with Category:Ocean liners with four funnels, or the present name. Johnbod 22:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Andrew c ^[talk] 22:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Star Trek music to Category:Star Trek

Nominator's rationale: Merge - most of the contents has been deleted at AFD or was removed as having only incidental relationship to the subject of Star Trek music. As it stands now, the category is unnecessary for navigational or diffusion purposes. Otto4711 00:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - too niche a category. More generalised and appropriate to Category:Star Trek Onnaghar(T/C) 14:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As above this seems to be an unnecessary subcategory with only the two articles. If someday there's a rash of Star Trek music articles that started to fill the main category I'd reconsider. Dugwiki 17:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dugwiki.--SarekOfVulcan 21:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 1

Category:Alternate versions of

Eponymous musician categories - B

Category:Daughter of the Lioness and related

Category:Wolves in popular culture

Category:Vermont State House

Category:Screenshots of Cold Case episodes

Category:The Class Screenshots

Category:Savannah Black Leaders

Category:Health risks

Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks

Category:People from Reading

Category:Whose Line Is It Anyway? actors

Category:Fictional Manslaughter victims

Category:Squares of Adelaide

Category:The Simpsons episode list infobox templates

Category:Belgian First Division footballers

Category:Ig Nobel Prize winners

Category:Four Funnel Ocean Liners

Category:Star Trek music