Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 31

< August 30	September 1 >

August 31

There is Shady Records Artists around here I believe this should be deleted. LILVOKA 23:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reichstag

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn. the wub "?!" 12:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Images of the Reichstag. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. David Kernow 04:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The category doesn't have relevant articles included, which it should. Fixing. --Dhartung | Talk 11:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No action With articles added, the category should be fine. --ais523 11:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Query re both the above: I understand that images and pages meant to be kept in separate categories...? Regards, David Kernow 13:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - From m:Help:Image page: Images can be in the same category as other pages, but are treated separately. In this case I wasn't entirely sure what value was added, but categories help people find stuff, so.... --Dhartung | Talk 15:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough; thanks for link. Best wishes, David 02:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. The proposed name is now inappropriate, now that it has been populated with articles. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:28, 1 September 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wikipedians who like LOST

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like LOST to Category:Wikipedians who like Lost

Rename - This probably could be speedied, but I thought someone might insist that "LOST" is the correct name. I know that it appears that way on the show, but I think that's just a stylization of the title. In most media, it appears as "Lost", and that's the title of its article and article namespace category as well. —Cswrye 21:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - In my opinion a category's spelling should almost always match the spelling in the title of its associated main article. Since the article is spelled "Lost", category names which include the show's title should likewise be spelled that way. Dugwiki 22:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Should have caught that the last time through.--Mike Selinker 22:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rubbish -Doc 13:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is this crap doing on our encyclopedia? --13:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs)

Any idea who this is/was? - Jc37 00:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. And it should not be deleted as there are many other similar cats. See Category:Wikipedians interested in television and subcats. --musicpvm 23:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Those categories should also be deleted. --Tony Sidaway 16:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hiding Talk 18:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Keep, per nom and musicpvm - Jc37 00:14, 4 September 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Animals with ability to swim

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

Delete, meaningless categorization. UtherSRG (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems too broad and a bit ill-defined. Wouldn't all fish be included here? What about animals that CAN swim but don't like to, or don't swim very well? In fact, can't most animals swim in one way or another if they really, really need to? I'm sure some can't, but they've got to be in the minority. Seems like a really large category. Dugwiki 22:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How about Animals who can't swim worth crap? =) --Chris (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The cat doesn't last too long in water. Pavel Vozenilek 01:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pointless category - would include most animals and be meaningless - Peripitus (Talk) 08:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The discussion on where to draw the line in categories for "Fauna of geographic region X" is a legitimate ongoing one. If we start making categories for animals that swim, walk, and breathe we really will end up with several screens worth of categories per article. --Aranae 08:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if this is kept, what's next? Animals with the ability to smell? BabyNuke 09:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First: it needs to be renamed to something a little less broad, I suggest something like Category:Land animals with the ability to swim, or Category:Mammals with the ability to swim. second: That title needs to be written correctly. third: It needs more animals in it, and we have to be sure that the animals that are being added belong there. ILovePlankton 11:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand, if you're going to rename the category and change the category definition as suggested, then you're really just making a new category altogether. Either way, the current category should be deleted, and after deletion it can possibly be replaced by something more specific.Dugwiki 21:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or add animals with the ability to walk, etc. ike9898 14:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Over-broad category. Hanbrook 19:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too broad and not a notable characteristic. --musicpvm 23:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Land animals with the ability to swim per ILovePlankton. I'd suggest vertebrates, but I think the idea seems to be air-breathing animals. - Jc37 00:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename it's not a pointless category simply because it's too broad. agree with renaming possibilities stated by users above. Chensiyuan 13:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dugwiki. If you're unhappy with a category as it is, you shouldn't vote "keep but change it completely," because that will just make it more likely that this will be closed as "no consensus." If what you want to change it to is not subject to the problems that are causing others to vote to delete, then just create the category you want and let this be deleted. Postdlf 14:26, 5 September 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Tripuris

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn. the wub "?!" 12:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:People from Tripura. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then redirect per nom. David Kernow 04:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then redirect per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 12:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then Redirect, per nom - Jc37 00:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Native tripuris are a minority in their own state, and a catregory called "people from Tripura" could include the majority Bengali population, who are not ethnic Tripuris.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The people listed under the Category:People from Tripura are not ethnic tripuris, and therefore the merge candidate is misleading.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. As it turns out, this is an ethnic group. I was mislead by original description of People from Tripura. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:35, 9 September 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Maine laws

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 12:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maine laws to Category:Maine law

Rename, to conform with all the other subcategories of Category:State law in the United States, and because "law" is more necessarily inclusive. "Laws" would focus on discrete statutes, acts, regulations, etc., to the exclusion of case law, doctrine (articles such as redhibition), legal institutions (chiefly state courts), and legal topics (articles such as Delaware corporation or capital punishment in Virginia), all of which are about the law of a state. "Laws" are instead a subtopic of the "law" of a jurisdiction (see, e.g., Category:United States federal legislation (i.e., "laws"), which is a subcategory of Category:United States federal law. Postdlf 19:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistancy. - Jc37 00:14, 4 September 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Superman's abilities

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Very silly category. There are already lists of this in more than one article, and serves as an unuseful subcategory because all entries will have to be placed in Category:Fictional abilities as well. Just pointless. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. God forbid we ever categorize superhuman strength by every fictional character who is depicted as possessing it. Postdlf 19:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Example case for a list rather than a category...? David Kernow 04:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering how one of the entries in this category is Powers and abilities of Superman... Postdlf 17:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is sufficient on its own. Hanbrook 19:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and then Delete - Jc37 00:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned above, there already is an article that has a list as well as substantive content: Powers and abilities of Superman. Postdlf 14:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wimstead 17:34, 5 September 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:English statisticians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 12:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Were very few entries compared to Category:British statisticians, and it is now empty. Avi 19:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per approach of asymptote. --Dhartung | Talk 12:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:British statisticians - it doesn't appear to me to be empty. Changed to Neutral. English vs. UK. vs British. I think if a keep concensus is reached, this should be relisted to determine which name is most accurate. - Jc37 00:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All English categories are legitimate. Choalbaton 13:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Populated and useful. Not all British people are English. Wimstead 17:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a standard Wikipedia biog cat, per Choalbaton and Wimstead. Have a look at all the subcats of Category:English people by occupation. --Mais oui! 10:39, 6 September 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Blue plaques

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Blue plaques to Category:People commemorated by blue plaques

Rename, The people in this category are not in themselves blue plaques. Tim! 19:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, Now that people are in a separate category from buildings the people category name should reflect its usage. But should there be a super-category to contain both the new Category:Blue plaques and Category:Buildings with blue plaques? Oosoom ^{Talk to me} 23:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Tim! Re Oosoom's thought above, I'm not sure; suspect unnecessary category duplication might result...? Regards, David Kernow 04:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I Suggest Category:Blue plaques awardees or Category:People awarded blue plaques. ILovePlankton 11:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe they're always posthumous, so perhaps "award" could be misleading...? Regards, David Kernow 13:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - True. Maybe it was a bad suggestion. :D ILovePlankton 20:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as umbrella and merge contents with suggested per nom & Oosoom. --Dhartung | Talk 12:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:People commemorated by blue plaques and Keep as top category for people and buildings, as per above. - Jc37 00:14, 4 September 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:English Premiership top scorers

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 12:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Category:FA Premier League top scorers reasons below

Rename to Category:FA Premier League top scorers, to match Category:FA Premier League players. Kingjamie 18:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, no reason not to follow the main article's (FA Premier League) naming convention. - Bobet 08:20, 1 September 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Largest School districts in Ohio

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is likely over categorization. How are we going to define this? 10 districts? The top 25%? This will need to be updated every year. If kept, then it needs to be renamed to Category:Largest school districts in Ohio. Vegaswikian 18:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective category. Tim! 19:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - EurekaLott 19:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tim!. This is what lists are for, so rankings can be explained and verified (e.g., List of school districts in Ohio by student population, etc.), rather than clumsily slopped together by an unknown and ultimately arbitrary cut-off under an opaque designation. Postdlf 19:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify to List of school districts in Ohio with alpha/size rankings as warranted. --Dhartung | Talk 12:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete as per above - Jc37 00:14, 4 September 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Guntur Education

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 12:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Schools in Guntur, to match Category:Schools in Mumbai. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. David Kernow 04:09, 1 September 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Scrolling fighter games

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 12:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scrolling fighter games into Category:Beat 'em ups

Merge, Almost all games listed in the parent cat, Beat 'em ups, are of the 'scrolling fighter' genre anyway.Marasmusine 17:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - If you read the main article, Beat 'em ups, the very first line in the intro says that Beat 'em up games are also known as "scrolling fighting games". So according to the main article, the two terms mean exactly the same thing. There's no difference, at least according to the Wiki article the categories reference. Dugwiki 22:48, 31 August 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:5* Hospitals

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, somehow this seems like advertising. Do you agree? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not because it is advertising but because it is based upon each country's own rating scale and criteria, which are not standardized. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 17:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A category for each country with such a scheme may have merit, but as Lajbi says, they can't really be lumped together. JPD (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; listify by country if desired. David Kernow 04:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the UK the top grade is only 3 stars. Hanbrook 19:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete - Jc37 00:14, 4 September 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Dimmu Borgir

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was duplicate listing; see below for original and comment there. Postdlf 20:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This Category is useless. LAUBO 17:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a duplicate nomination. Someone please close it.--Mike Selinker 17:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - useless, senseless, unpractital, whatever...Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 17:38, 31 August 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Playable songs from Guitar Hero

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a distinguishing characteristic for songs. However, it would make a fine list article. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Brilliant game, lousy category.--Mike Selinker 17:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's already a list within the game article. That's enough. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 17:40, 31 August 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Other Attractions at Busch Gardens Africa

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Busch Gardens Africa, or delete. No preference. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Delete. Mickey Mouse is an attraction for Disneyland from this point of view??? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 17:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at the moment, the category only contains one article, which is already in another Busch Gardens' category. --musicpvm 18:20, 31 August 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Kilt wearers

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was DELETED undebatable -Doc 14:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the decision to close this early. I don't have an attachment to this category, but in my opinion this debate should have stayed open. We have no clear guidelines as to what makes a usable Wikipedians category, so I wouldn't be making changes like this. Just my opinion, though.--Mike Selinker 18:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather surprised, especially considering that there was a possibility of reaching the delete concensus, anyway. I think this should be re-listed at WP:DRV so that concensus can be followed. - Jc37 00:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedian kilt wearers, or kill it now. No preference. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, but I would not object to delete. I'm not sure if a Wikipedian's choice of clothing is something that could help in editing the project. --Cswrye 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to category:Kilt-wearing Wikipedians to match other subcategories of category:Wikipedians by lifestyle. I don't have a problem with category:Nudist Wikipedians, so I can't see how I'd object to this.--Mike Selinker 17:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finish it! Fatality!(Delete). We don't need gardrobe categories at all. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 17:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly ridiculous category. --Tony Sidaway 13:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stab with my Sgian dubh speedy delete as idiotic. Why are we wasting time debating this crap? --Doc 14:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stupid ike9898 14:25, 1 September 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:American women athletes

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as gendered category. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Categories generally are not separated by gender. --Cswrye 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if Olympics separate them by good faith then why shouldn't we do so? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 17:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And another thing, this category doesn't use athletes in the same way as other categories, ie for what Americans call "track and field athletes". There are no athletes as such in it, so it should be empty. Hanbrook 19:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - Darwinek 22:01, 2 September 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Hurricane Katrina charity singles

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hurricane Katrina charity singles to Category:Hurricane Katrina tribute songs

Rename, Category criteria should be expanded, as it was done with all the Category:___singles to Category:___songs, and also need to clarify if it is really required that a song should be a "charity" one, which means that all the sales income is to be transferred to charity services. Currently none of the articles within couldn't meet that. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 15:38, 31 August 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Grammar Nazi

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to category:Wikipedians who obsess over grammar --Kbdank71 14:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedian grammar nazis. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like a totally subjective category, nor do I off-hand see a practical use for it either. How do you objectively verify someone is in this category? And even if you could be objective about it, what would be the point other than as a way to irritate people on the list? I'm voting to delete the category altogether unless someone can explain what I'm overlooking. Dugwiki 15:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's self-selected, populated by {{User grammar-nazi}}. I don't care strongly either way, I'm just cleaning up the list. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changing vote to Rename - Thanks for the clarification. Since the category is self-selected only I don't have a problem with it. People can describe themselves however they like. I do agree the name isn't all that great, though. Usually "Grammar Nazi" has a negative connotation, as in someone being irritatingly nit-picky about grammar. Maybe something more positive sounding, like "Grammar Mavens"? Just a thought. Dugwiki 22:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. The cat was originally cross-namespace. Renaming clarifies that it is a user cat. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 16:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Dugwiki, Wikipedian categories are subjective and unverifiable by their very nature. I think that the main criteria for them is whether or not they are useful, and in this case, I think it is. In fact, now that I know that this category exists, I am thinking of contacting some of the people in it for help with a grammar issue. --Cswrye 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to category:Wikipedians who obsess over grammar. A fine category, but I'm not a big fan of using "nazi" in this context.--Mike Selinker 17:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to whatever, that Nazi-thing irritates me. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 17:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians who obsess over grammar, per Mike Selinker. However, see The Soup Nazi. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians who obsess over grammar, per Mike Selinker. Has grammar nazi been used in popular culture (as Soup Nazi has)? - Jc37 00:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen the term grammar nazi come up from time to time in online discussions, but never in real life. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:01, 5 September 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:List of Towns in El Salvador

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 12:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Towns in El Salvador, convention of Category:Towns by country. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --Cswrye 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Hanbrook 19:15, 1 September 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Man or Astro-man? releases

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Man or Astro-man? albums, Category:Man or Astro-man? songs convention of Category:Albums by artist. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --Cswrye 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 17:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to category:Man or Astro-Man? albums, and move all contents in there. As far as I can tell, all of these "singles" are much more like EPs, and thus belong in albums. If anyone writes an article about one of their songs, we can make a songs category.--Mike Selinker 05:24, 1 September 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:1900s in the United Kingdom

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename all. alphaChimp^(talk) 02:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Category:1900s in the United Kingdom to Category:20th century in the United Kingdom[reply]

Rename, 1900s refers to a decade but this category contains a century worth of years. Tim! 06:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -whoops! this is (kind of) my fault. I was just copying the pattern set by the Australian cats, eg Category:1900s in Australia, so we had better rename all of these:

--Mais oui! 15:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both the nominated cat and those which Mais oui! lists, for which I don't think {{cfr}} tagging to be necessary, inasmuch as the proper disposition seems rather clear. Joe 17:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per above. David Kernow 22:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Nathan Mercer 10:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The subcategories were not tagged for renaming, so I'm relisting them for another week. Someone needs to tag them. The original discussion is here. --Kbdank71 13:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Haven't checked all of them, but the five I picked at random were all tagged, so perhaps all now are...? David Kernow 04:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per above. --Cswrye 16:43, 31 August 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Biography articles of living persons

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 12:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Biography articles of living people. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom Dugwiki 15:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Cswrye 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - these two are identical. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 17:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom -- Avi 19:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Biographies of living people and leave redirects...? David Kernow 04:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Used and renamed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. I don't think a redirect is needed. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:43, 1 September 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:MTV Networks

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 13:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MTV Networks to Category:MTV

Rename, This is the general category covering all aspects of MTV. Hawkestone 11:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and comment Category:MTV Networks should be subcategory of Category:MTV. Articles in MTV Networks would appear in Category:MTV Networks and all the other articles in Category:MTV -- I@n 12:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - just came here to note that if renamed persons would fit there too, for example Sway or Xzibit sounds bad to go to Networks category but can to MTV. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Hanbrook 19:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Organize per I@n - Jc37 00:14, 4 September 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wikipedians_who_listen_to_Dimmu_Borgir

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Runcorn 19:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians_who_listen_to_Dimmu_Borgir

Delete, The category is useless. LAUBO 11:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I@n 12:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's no more useless than category:Wikipedians who listen to Jimi Hendrix or any of the other subcategories of category:Wikipedians by musician. Either nominate them all or live with this one, I say. --Mike Selinker 13:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mike S. Nominate them all, if you like, LAUBO. ×Meegs 15:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Normally I would just say "keep", but the fact that there is only one user in this category makes me wonder if this is really a band with enough Wikipedian fans to have its own category. I'm willing to give it the benefit of a doubt though. --Cswrye 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - useless, senseless, unpractital, whatever...Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 17:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as there are many other similar categories. I would support a deletion of Category:Wikipedians by musician and all its subcats though. --musicpvm 18:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Cswrye. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:51, 31 August 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Songwriters' Hall of Fame Inductees

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Songwriters Hall of Fame inductees. the wub "?!" 12:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songwriters' Hall of Fame Inductees to Category:Songwriters Hall of Fame Inductees

Rename, The category has an apostrophe and should not have. Ashadeofgrey 09:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename — The Hall of Fame is Songwriters Hall of Fame, with no apostrophe. The category must reflect this. Grstain | Talk 12:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- I@n 12:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above Dugwiki 15:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Cswrye 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should "Inductees" still be capitalized like some defined term or is it just the noun we'd expect it to be and should be lower cased? Carlossuarez46 16:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be lower-case "inductees" - I think you're correct that the word "inductees" should be lower case, similar to Category:Academy Award winners or Category:American Theatre Hall of Fame inductees. Good catch. Dugwiki 21:32, 1 September 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Lists of ambiguous place names

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of ambiguous place names to Category:Ambiguous place names

~~Rename~~, The category is not a collection of lists, it's a collection of names. Populated through use of the {{geodis}} template, so one could argue that disambiguation pages are lists, but I think thats stretching it a bit to be honest. -- I@n 03:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to delete after reconsidering, per Hawkestone. -- I@n 12:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. What a bizarre category. Places that could be the names of other things, like Adams? I lean toward delete.--Mike Selinker 04:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Carlossuarez46 below. David Kernow 11:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC), amended 05:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename, but would have no objection to deletion. This is presumably an offshoot of disambiguation, and categorising disambiguation pages seems like a complete waste of time to me. Hawkestone 11:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I'm not sure I understand the reason for the category, but I'm not opposed to keeping it either. Maybe the author intended it as a way to sort of automate the disambiguation process for places? Dugwiki 15:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not sure if this category is really useful. If it is kept, rename. --Cswrye 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absurd. Fucking, Austria is missing. Pavel Vozenilek 01:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the category is populated by objectionable entries by injudicious use of "geodis" template. The category should probably be something like Category:Place names with disambiguation pages. How useful that would be is a matter of viewpoint: how often would someone want to use WP to try to find a collection of such places; I don't know. Why do we even have the category Category:Disambiguation for that matter? Carlossuarez46 16:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Place names with disambiguation pages per Carlossuarez46. - Jc37 00:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Makes sense, since a big chunk of dab pages are geographic disambiguations (human name dabs are also a large category). It would be nice to have a more stringent definition of what it covers, though. GregorB 10:18, 10 September 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Games on Nintendo platforms

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Games on Nintendo platforms to Category:Nintendo games by platform

Rename, To conform with other category names (see Category:Nintendo games by franchise Category:Nintendo games by division) – Sean Daugherty (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- I@n 12:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Cswrye 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - Jc37 00:14, 4 September 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedians by website and software

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly one template here: Wikipedians who use X. I like “use” because it doesn’t distinguish between contributors and lurkers. Programmers should be separate, of course, but that’s another nomination. ~~I also didn’t like the two I suggested deleting, because the many categories of browsers suggest that if you’re not using IE, you can put yourself somewhere else.~~ I fixed those to renames after some objections.--Mike Selinker 02:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians interested in LiveJournal, Category:Livejournal users into Category:Wikipedians who use LiveJournal -- ProveIt ^(talk)
- We can't merge category:Livejournal users into that, as it's full of encyclopedia subjects, not Wikipedians. I listed it for deletion a few days ago. I agree about category:Wikipedians interested in LiveJournal, but I got talked out of it last time.--Mike Selinker 03:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all nominated for renaming, but keep the two categories nominated for deletion. "Not using" sends a different message compared with "using": it means the user refuses to use the named browser for some reason. As an anology, to say "I don't eat chicken" doesn't mean "I eat beef, pork, fish, and all other food in the world". --Pkchan 06:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, thanks to Pkchan for reminding me to tag those categories. Second, if those categories are kept, do you have any objection to changing them to category:Wikipedians who do not use FireFox and category:Wikipedians who do not use Internet Explorer?--Mike Selinker 13:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no objection to renaming the two categories currently nominated for deletion as long as they are named consistently with the other similar categories you have already nominated for renaming. --Pkchan 15:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and delete per nom. -- I@n 12:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and delete per nom. For the two deletions, I don't think it's a good idea to categorize people by what they don't do since that is essentially an infinite number of categories. If they are kept, the names that I would recommend are Category:Wikipedians who refuse to use FireFox and Category:Wikipedians who refuse to use Internet Explorer since those are closer to the meanings that the categories try to convey. --Cswrye 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and delete - there's plenty of things people don't do. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 17:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: some of these proposals change the meaning of the categories, especially the ones that involve contributions to websites. There are lots of people who use IMDb or dmoz, but the number of contibutors/editors is much smaller. - EurekaLott 18:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep category:Wikipedians not using IE. Many of these are next to worthless if you ask me, but I do not see why we should to single-out the non-affirmative ones for deletion. With over 200 members, not using IE is among the most populated of the lot (it is fed by a userbox). To match, I suppose we should rename it (and possibly category:Wikipedians not using FireFox) to Wikipedians who do not use. ×Meegs 01:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, with two objections, I fixed them to renames. If later on someone wants to nominate them for deletion on their own, that's cool.--Mike Selinker 01:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See:Talk:MSN_Messenger While Windows Live may be derivative ofMSN Messenger, MSN Messenger is not necessarily Windows Live. The two should not be merged, but kept separate. - Jc37 00:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I amended that one.--Mike Selinker 04:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seconding the comments about IMDb and DMOZ, re: contributors vs. users. —tregoweth (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Golden Age comics related

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Runcorn 19:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel Golden Age characters
Category:Golden Age supervillains
Category:Golden Age comics creators
I'm arguing for deletion on a number of points. There's been discussion of these comics terms before, golden age, silver age and whatever we're calling the period after the silver age now, and it's felt these are peacock terms, and should be avoided.
First up, there's no clear definition. I can cite many arguments where scholars disagree on the definitions, but for a one stop link on the problems see One For The Ages, a paper which originally appeared in The International Journal of Comic Art volume 5, issue 2.
Secondly, every medium, every area of cultural value, cites itself as having had a golden age, and the term is somewhat worthless, in that it implies a value judgement and thus isn't something we should be doing here on Wikipedia, since we aim for a neutral point of view.
Thirdly, what are we attempting to categorise? Characters who were created in Marvel's golden age, or Marvel characters created in the reputed golden age of comics? Wouldn't it be easier to categorise characters per decade, and allow scholars to research that way and make their value judgements on what era such characters were created in? Should we enforce a disputed judgement on readers? Should we present a contentious term as legitimate through its use in our category structure? Would we allow a category of the golden age of sculpture or photography?
Fourthly, it is a symptom of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. It represents only American comics. Should we present a golden age of comics which ignores examples of people working outside of America? Are American comics somehow of more value?
For an example of how hard it is to define, read the description from Category:Golden Age comics creators the seminal period from the 1930s creation of the first newsstand comics to the decline of comics popularity in the late-1940s/early-1950s The category itself is unclear as to where it begins and ends. Hiding Talk 00:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. But it's a meaningful term to comics fans. We don't describe them as World War II comics, or early comics, or anything else. They're comics from the golden age.--Mike Selinker 02:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment But they aren't meaningful terms to comics scholars, as I point out with my link. They are in fact very contentious terms in comics scholarship and I fail to see why categorising this way is any better than by decade. We certainly talk of comics in the 1930s and 1940s. Nobody is 100% clear on what belongs in a golden age category, and categories should carry a better degree of certainty than that. And it also doesn't address the systemic bias. For example, British comics had a much earlier golden age. Hiding Talk 08:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IF it's specifically defined as characters published during the Golden Age (June 1938 - Sept. 1956), then keep because that would be specifically and clearly defined, not requiring original research. However, if it includes retcons, then delete because it would be an unmaintainable mess with no end of argument. (Past Sept. 1956 becomes arguable because the Silver Age began the next month, however Golden Age characters continued getting published beyond that.) Doczilla 04:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your definition is not clearly defined, since there isn't agreement between scholars that that is the cut off point, and some characters which were first published before your date are thought of as silver age characters, and some from after the line are thought of as golden age. This is a loose term which applies to only a very limited set of comics, specifically the American superhero comic books, it is poorly defined and it disregards other countries and genres within the media. Hiding Talk 08:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. These ages - Golden, Bronze, Silver and Modern seem to be reasonably recognised terms, but their boundaries are a bit too rubbery for me. Categories should at least try to be unambiguous. I don't see that the project will be significantly damaged by these not being there. -- I@n 13:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if years are objectively defined in category definition - I don't have a problem with keeping this categories if the category specifically defines what years constitute each period. Note that the category definition does not have to agree with what "scholars" might or might not say the terms mean. It just has to be a consistent, objective definition that serves as a useful way to subdivide comic books. In this case, dividing comic books by 20 year period or so can prove useful, I think. As far as the phrases "Golden" and "Silver", I don't think they're "peacock terms". Rather they simply refer to how old the comics are, analagous to "Golden anniversary" being the 50th anniversay and "Silver anniversay" being the 25th anniversay. Golden here simply means "older" than Silver, not necessarilly better. Dugwiki 15:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, The terms don't equate to how old they are, they refer to the quality, basically the golden age is a reference to the Golden Age (metaphor), with the silver age being a second golden age of lesser quality. At least, that's how it's referred to by those who use the terms. It also only applies to American superhero comics, another point you fail to address. I'd also have to ask how we can define these terms as you state and not fall foul of original research. Hiding Talk 16:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we're talking about the fringes of the category. For the bulk of characters, they fall squarely into the uncontroversial time period (just before World War II to just a few years after). It's possible to disagree about, say, a character created in 1954, but not one created in 1943. That's a Golden Age character.--Mike Selinker 17:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - From my experience, the terms "Golden Age" and "Silver Age" are rather important concepts in the field of comics. ("Bronze Age" and "Modern Age" are more ambiguous and less important.) I don't mean to diminish Hiding's argument, but from my experience, they are often used by comics experts and fans to address many comics and the issues surrounding them. The terms are also used in many comics-related articles, and there are articles for them. They don't refer to the quality of the comics, but rather to their style, in terms of the art, the types of characters, and the topics addressed by them. In fact, because of issues with the Comics Code Authority, many people would say that more recent comics are better than those of the Silver Age. I know that there is some blurriness of the boundaries between each age, but many categories have some level of subjectivity, and while there will probably be some disputes, I think that the majority of the content in these categories will be uncontested. I'm honestly not sure if the terms include foreign comics. If they do, there's no problem. If not, that should be apparent on the relevant Golden Age and Silver Age articles. If that's still controversial, maybe they could be renamed "American Golden Age" and "American Silver Age". --Cswrye 17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The terms are certainly exclusive of other countries, in Britain the golden age of comics is regarded as being the 1920s, and not only are they exclusive of other countries they apply to one genre only, that of superhero comics. I don't dispute the terms are important to fans, but the disputes on beginnings and endings should be discussed in an article, not in the category space. They are not of great use to comics scholars, however, and are seen as contentious and impractical. And what you mention as being style is what I mean by the phrase quality, those qualities and their differences are what separate the eras, and are qualitative judgements. The terms are not based on periods of time but qualitative differences. Hiding Talk 23:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These are important terms in the history of comics. Because scholars can debate the cut-off point, we have to restrict the endpoint to the earliest possible date, which would be the month before the Silver Age Flash debuted. No matter how long the Golden Age took to peter out after that, September 1956 was still part of the Golden Age. Doczilla 17:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd put the latest-possible-end here: "The Golden Age was definitely over by 1954, when the book Seduction of the Innocent, by Dr. Fredric Wertham, appeared." That seems quite non-controversial. (By the way, it occurs to me after all this that I don't think anyone's suggested categorizing characters by decade of origin. Would anyone dispute the encyclopedic value of category:Superheroes created in the 1940s?)--Mike Selinker 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had mentioned that earlier in the debate, and it's certainly my view on resolving this issue. It's clear, unequivocal and allows for a more uniform approach, as when we approach later "ages" we don't have to adopt names which are ill-formed. Hiding Talk 21:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comics get priced according to these classifications! Have you ever read a price guide? People buy and sell comics according to whether they're Golden Age or Silver Age. I wish I had my Overstreet guide handy. These terms are more important than a WHOLE lot of stuff that people agree belongs in Wikipedia. The Golden Age (comics) article should better note the range of dates suggested by reputable sources, but in terms of the associated categories, any date that falls within the range of possible dates might be okay. Mike, where did you that quote about 1954? I've seen sources that have it run right up to October '56. Anyway, like I said, the date issue belongs in the Golden Age article. For our purposes in this discussion, all I really need to say is keep these. They matter. Clean them up, sure. Just don't let any characters created outside the 1938-1954 or 1938-1956 range stay in those categories. Wryspy 07:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The quote's from the Golden Age (comics) article itself.--Mike Selinker 15:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Darn. I liked the quote. However, Wikipedia guidelines are clear that Wikipedia isn't supposed to be its own source of citation. Now, because that word "definitely" invokes POV, I'll change it to "may have been" pending an actual source. Wryspy 20:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very useful. - Jc37 00:14, 4 September 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Characters in The Bill

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:The Bill characters, convention of Category:Television characters by series. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Michael 02:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. the wub "?!" 10:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- I@n 12:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Cswrye 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 17:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. Tim! 19:12, 31 August 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.