Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 10



American Veteran Politicians

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

The result of the debate was duplicate discussion. the wub "?!"  10:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Category:American Veteran Politicians(Deceased) -> Category:American veteran democrat politicians

American Veteran Politicians(Republican) -> Category:American veteran republican politicians

American Veteran Politicians(Deceased) -> Category:American veteran deceased politicians

Category:American veteran independent politicians

There seems to be an urge to merge these categories when all that is necessary is making the names lower case. I think the categories should remain separate so that wikipedia can provide a more useful delination fo this information to people. I don;t have a problem changing the names, I'll even do the work myself. How Do I declare the discussion ended? --Dr who1975 20:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See discussions of December 8th and December 9th. You can't summarily declare the discussion closed, all you can do is argue as to why you think these categories should stay.  However, if they do stay, they should be renamed as you have suggested. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy close as duplicate. Osomec 19:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 section.

Category:Raven-Symoné singles

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!"  09:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Raven-Symoné songs, per convention of Category:Songs by artist and discussion of June 9th. -- ProveIt (talk)'' 18:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 section.

Category:One Buck Short

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!"  09:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * one buck short

Article created in the category space, I think Stifle (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, looks like a category about the band One Buck Short to me. ~ BigrTex 14:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - even the main article for the group is borderline in terms of content and notability; an entire cat for a marginal band seems unnecessary. Doc  Tropics  19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 section.

Category:Disc galaxies

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!"  09:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:Disc galaxies into Category:Galaxies


 * Merge - This category currently contains only disc (galaxy), disc galaxy, Category:Lenticular galaxies, and Category:Spiral galaxies. It is inconceivable to put anything else into this category that is not already found in the two subcategories.  This category is effectively an additional layer of categorization that simply is not needed.  It should be merged into Category:Galaxies. Dr. Submillimeter 18:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. ---J.S (T/C) 02:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge WilliamKF 17:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 section.

Category:Wheaton College alumni

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!"  23:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as ambiguous, see Wheaton College (Illinois) and Wheaton College (Massachusetts). -- ProveIt (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 section.

Bangladeshi cricketers by century

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

The result of the debate was keep status quo, withdrawn by nominator. — CharlotteWebb 11:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:Bangladeshi cricketers of the 21st century
 * Category:Bangladeshi cricketers of the 20th century
 * Merge both into Category:Bangladeshi cricketers, overcategorization. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose This is a knee jerk reaction by ProveIt who proves nothing here by hitting an ongoing (indeed, just started) piece of work that is taking place across several similar categories.  The object of the exercise is to break down very large player categories (in a dozen countries) by timespan (there is already a spatial divide in most of the countries by team, though not in Bangladesh as it happens).  It is true that as yet there are not as many Bangladeshi cricketers as there are in the other Test Match countries but that does not mean we should be inconsistent.  The reason given of overcategorisation simply does not take account of the scale of the exercise, both actual and potential.  --BlackJack | talk page 17:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, there's some precedent, see, for example, Category:Mathematicians by century, however I think that's more appropriate when there are hundreds of years of history involved. But in this case the parent category is still very small. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The operative word there being "still" but that is a temporary state of affairs as the "parent category" will become very large very soon as per every cricketer by country category. When that happens, we will need an approach to Bangladesh that is consistent with the other countries.  I fail to see what is wrong with pre-empting the need for this approach and doing things by using a planned, top-down, structured method instead of having to react sometime next year to yet another over-large category.  And why not ask me first via the talk page what I am trying to achieve instead of going straight to CfD?  --BlackJack | talk page 17:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment The objective of the two categories is to provide readers with a needed temporal analysis so that they can see which players were active before Bangladesh began playing Test cricket and which after. Bangladesh's first Test match was right at the end of the 20th century so this is not a mere "century split". The country also needs a spatial analysis of players by first-class team (e.g., Category:Barisal Division cricketers). This follows the English model whereby you have the huge "master category" category:English cricketers which is of no real benefit to readers who are interested in particular teams or eras. Hence you have spatial categories such as category:Kent cricketers and temporal such as category:English cricketers of the 18th century. The only difference between England (300 seasons) and Bangladesh (30 seasons) is scale. It is not "overcategorisation" to provide readers with separate analyses of a huge file of names. Furthermore, category:Bangladeshi cricketers is nowhere near complete even in past and present terms (let alone future players) and it is NOT the "parent category" of the two categories under discussion: their parent (indeed grandparent) is category:History of Bangladeshi cricket which again underlines the temporal reason for their existence. --BlackJack | talk page 06:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose I'm principally a reader rather than a writer of WP but well aware of the restructure of the cricket history category which is definitely needed. Bangladesh is not big yet but soon will be.  The word is consistency.  If doing this for England, etc. it must be done for all Test countries.  This proposal is unwarranted and any suggestion that Bangladesh should not be treated the same as the rest should wait until the current exercise is complete.  In other words, review after not during.  --GeorgeWilliams 18:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Definitely KEEP the two categories separate as this is the correct approach to a study of Bangladesh cricket. It has two distinct eras - before Tests and after Tests.  The arrival of Test cricket completely transformed the cricket scene there.  I know because I have been there and have a personal interest in the place and its cricketers.  The proposal here is misguided and is in any case wrong on two other counts: "overcategorisation" is a non-word and surely if it means anything it means that a category has exceeded capacity (!?); second, these two categories are in a history thread and have no direct connection with the main cricketers category (see also England and West Indies which use same model).  --AlbertMW 06:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn It seems the people who know and care about cricket prefer it this way. I only hope this doesn't lead to more sportspeople by century cats.-- ProveIt (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you and much appreciated. Don't worry about the cricket project which is run responsibly and has everything done to provide useful information.  But I do take your point about certain other sports.  Best wishes and a great 2007.  --BlackJack | talk page 20:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 section.

Category:Football (soccer) by country subcategories (continents)

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

The result of the debate was rename all to "Football (soccer) in [Continent]". — CharlotteWebb 10:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Rename all to the same format as the national categories for sports: Wilchett 15:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:African football (soccer)
 * Category:Asian football (soccer)
 * Category:Central American football (soccer)
 * Category:European football (soccer)
 * Category:North American football (soccer)
 * Category:Oceanian football (soccer)
 * Category:South American football (soccer)
 * category:Football (soccer) in Africa
 * category:Football (soccer) in Asia
 * category:Football (soccer) in Central America
 * category:Football (soccer) in Europe
 * category:Football (soccer) in North America
 * category:Football (soccer) in Oceania
 * category:Football (soccer) in South America
 * I support those renames.... the "Football (soccer)" part seems a little... odd. But I'll leave that for a different debate:) ---J.S  (T/C) 02:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose this naming scheme; suggest the following scheme instead:
 * category:Football (soccer) in AFC countries
 * category:Football (soccer) in CAF countries
 * category:Football (soccer) in CONCACAF countries
 * category:Football (soccer) in CONMEBOL countries
 * category:Football (soccer) in OFC countries
 * category:Football (soccer) in UEFA countries
 * My reasoning is that many countries are not in the continental confederation suggested by their geography. Australia is in the AFC, having moved from OFC in 2006. Turkey, Israel, and some CIS countries (depending on the definition of "Asia") are geographically in Asia (partially in the case of Turkey) but members of UEFA. Guyana and Suriname are full members, and French Guiana is an associate member, of CONCACAF despite being geographically in South America. — Dale Arnett 20:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Updated comment for above: Forgot to mention that North and Central America are combined into a single confederation. IMHO, subdividing by continental confederation makes more sense, since qualification for all FIFA competitions is based on confederation. — Dale Arnett 20:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Opposition withdrawn. Now support. — Dale Arnett 10:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support The teams are in countries; where they compete can be discussed in the articles.  The purpose of categories is to find the information.  People will know, or can determine, what continent a country is on; they shouldn't  have to know in what cryptic, abbreviated "confederation" some team plays in to find it in Category:Football (soccer) by country, the parent category of these categories.  Of course, Category:Football (soccer) in Turkey can be included in both the Europe and Asia categories, so that won't cause any problems either. Gene Nygaard 22:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 section.

Category:Galactic images

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

The result of the debate was rename. — CharlotteWebb 12:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:Galactic images to Category:Galaxy images


 * Rename - The term "galactic" in astronomy is frequently used to refer to the Milky Way Galaxy. However, this category contains images of other galaxies.  For clarity, I suggest renaming this category to "Galaxy images". Dr. Submillimeter 15:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support 132.205.93.16 00:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support WilliamKF 17:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support rename for accuracy. Doc  Tropics  19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 section.

Category:Passenger train stations in Virginia

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

The result of the debate was rename all to Railway stations in foo. the wub "?!"  09:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC) These categories are not named consistently. Perhaps they should all be renamed to "Category:Railway stations in ..." as they are subcategories of Category:Railway stations in the United States. Craig.Scott 14:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Or possibly "Railroad stations in..." Craig.Scott 14:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I prefer "railway stations in". Stifle (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd support renaming to any reasonable naming scheme, but I'm neutral to what scheme to use. ---J.S (T/C) 02:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I support renaming for consistency, but I'm neutral per J.smith. However I think "train stations" is the predominant term in the U.S. over "railway stations." Tinlinkin 13:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support consistency. As to the terms, I would accept any of the three proposals so far with no strong preference for any (but I've seen them called "train stations" by the general public more often than the other two). Slambo (Speak)  14:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support to train stations. This seems to be the common usage in the US where you travel by train. Vegaswikian 20:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support to 'Passenger train stations' which is what they all are, after all. Hmains 03:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support any above rename, with a preference for "Railway stations in..." for consistency with the parent; all of the mentioned constructions are used to some extent (and are well understood) in the United States. —CComMack (t–c) 05:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename to "Category:Railway stations in ..." per nominator, for consistency with parent category. (some of the other sub-cates also need renaming). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename to "Category:Railway stations in ..." as that form is consistent and, it seems is not wrong in an American context. Hoylake 19:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support renaming for consistency per nominator. I'm neutral on what scheme to use per J.smith Thryduulf 21:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename to "Category:Railway stations in ..." per convention. If there are any articles about stations that don't serve passengers, I see no reason to exclude them. Greg Grahame 20:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 section.

Category:Mighty Max episodes

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

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!"  09:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:Mighty Max episodes to Category:Mighty Max (TV series) episodes

rename. Mighty Max (TV series) episode article category.--Rocking1 12:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not a necessary disambiguation. Far as I can tell there's nothing else that "Mighty Max episodes" can refer to other than the tv series. Dugwiki 19:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose Personally I think all TV episode categories are redundant because episode lists already exist. Xiner 20:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 section.

Category:Khmer Motivational writers

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!"  09:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * khmer motivational writers

This category is empty, except of the categorization of Category:American motivational writers into it (!) and the text: ''In Cambodia have only one famous Khmer motivational author. His name was Vichey. This is his pen-name.'' The category itself is categorized into Category:Khmer Motivational Writers (only diffference: capital "W"). Delete. Béka 11:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Osomec 19:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 section.

Category:The Wendy Williams Experience guests

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

The result of the debate was delete. — CharlotteWebb 09:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * the wendy williams experience guests

Category for celebrities who have made guest appearances on a gossip/talk show. Overly broad; simply appearing on a talk show is not something that should appear in a celebrity's biography. &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's what categories are for. --Chris Brown&#39;s boo 05:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Above user created the category. &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So. Chris Brown&#39;s boo 17:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  07:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This criteria is not important enough for an own category. Béka 11:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, guest star categories just lead to clutter. No objection to a list of guest stars article. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. gossip shows have no relevancy. 24.148.67.71 17:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the point in a cat like this. Seems like over categorising. I suggest Deleteing the cat. ---J.S (T/C) 02:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 section.

Category:Modern Magic Dealers

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!"  10:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * modern magic dealers

Empty category, does not seem to serve much purpose since I'm pretty sure that 95% of articles created about magic dealers will be speedied under G11 anyways... If by some miracle this is kept, the capitalization should be fixed.Pascal.Tesson 05:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't imaging there will ever be more then a half-dozen notable magic-suppliers on wikipedia. I could be wrong. Recreate the cat then. Delete for now. ---J.S  (T/C)
 * Delete Mistitled category of very doubtful value. Hawkestone 20:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 section.

Category:Big Bads

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

The result of the debate was delete. — CharlotteWebb 10:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * big bads

Delete, Category is vague, and almost too far-reaching -- it could easily contain every fictional bad guy ever. Additionally, the title of the category is very vague. Until you read the description on the page, one could argue that history's greatest villains might belong here also. Right now, it appears to merely be a list of Power Rangers or Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. What's next? Zany Sidekicks? JPG-GR 05:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is actually a legitimate term with a fairly narrow scope. I understand the concern for potential abuse/overuse as a cat, but it only applies correctly to major, recurring villains...usually those who are dominant in a seasonal story-arc. The examples from the Buffyverse are characters who appeared in a minimum of 2 dozen episodes, some of them (Spike and Angel) were featured in several dozen. Doc  Tropics  05:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and listify over-Buffy-ification 70.51.9.22 07:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I believe the correct term is "wacky sidekicks." Otto4711 13:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wilchett 15:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, I created this as a subcategory of television villains because I felt that certain characters entered a scope separate to minor villains {e.g. Mister Trick) which became partially synonymous with major characters, and is a crossover trope across many television shows of the telefantasy genre, requiring at least partial expansion to incorporate this trend. I do not feel this is overbuffyfication - the term was coined in Buffy and since applied to other media. A list would not be terrible, as I believe it's significantly more definable than even protagonists.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 16:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - speaking to my area of expertise (Power Rangers), the main villain of every year could be considered a "big bad", but on the same hand, this "big bad" is superceded by the next year's main villain. Perhaps it works for Buffy. Perhaps it works in general, but it sure doesn't work for PR. JPG-GR 01:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Yes that's exactly it. The Buffy/PR formula for villains is frighteningly similar.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 02:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Inclusion into this cat seems very subjective.... Either Delete or Rename as "Category:Television Antagonists" or something encyclopedic. ---J.S  (T/C) 02:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for being too subjective. Osomec 19:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as subjective (and a neologism at that). -Sean Curtin 03:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm a Buffy fan, but I don't see the value of this category. Xiner 20:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Meaningless and regional kids' slang title, no encyclopedic value to contents. Fancruft deluxe. 12.73.195.195 01:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 section.

Category:Cognitive intelligence
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. — CharlotteWebb 10:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * cognitive intelligence

No indication that the term is used anywhere. In any case, obvious vandal creation. Pascal.Tesson 05:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - Nonsense entry, just vanish it. Doc  Tropics  05:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as misuse of category space - it is an article. Wilchett 15:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Doczilla 21:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest turning it into an article, but it is basically OR with no sources... so just Delete. ---J.S (T/C) 02:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 section.

Category:Weapons of Ukraine
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!"  10:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:Weapons of Ukraine into Category:Military equipment of Ukraine


 * Merge, redundant categories. Pascal.Tesson 05:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom, "Military equipment" is more populated. Doc  Tropics  05:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. ---J.S  (T/C) 02:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 section.

Category:People from Stoke-on-Trent by settlement
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus — P ilotguy (ptt) 01:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * people from stoke-on-trent by settlement

Seems like a definite over-categorization. Not clear how subdividing the category into tiny parcels will be helpful. Category:People from Stoke-on-Trent contains 83 people, not so huge as to merit subcategories. Pascal.Tesson 05:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Regan123, & with a view to populating the sub-categories. Jhamez84 14:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is the format that is being rolled out across the UK places and is standardised. Regan123 12:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete overcategorization. Doczilla 21:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is what is being done in all other districts in England. There are still numerous settlements and people who have not been added to Wikipedia yet, this categorisation is a robust attempt to deal with further additions. MRSC • Talk
 * Delete Stoke on Trent is not large enough for this to be sensible. For that matter I am not sure it is even a good idea for London. I'm English and I haven't heard of most of these places. It is more helpful to be told that someone comes from a place I have heard of than one I haven't. Osomec 19:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Stoke is one of the 20th largest connurbations in the UK and is made up of six distinct towns. London has a larger population than Scotland and multiple boroughs, some of which have been absorbed over the years.  A single London cat would run to thousand+ over time.  I have gone through all articles linked to Stoke and have now added around 20-30 more people born to the original cat.  Another example is Stafford Borough which contains two towns.  People from Stone would not take kindly to being told they are from Stafford.  Regan123 21:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all as overcategorization. Hoylake 19:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So the 100+ sub-cats of Category:People_from_London_by_district have to go back into Category:People from London because of "overcategorization". I don't think so. MRSC • Talk 08:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Category:People from Stoke-on-Trent is sufficient. Xiner 20:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete OTT. New York was only broken down by borough (of which there are 5) last time I looked, and I wouldn't want to see it broken down further. Wikipedia is aimed at a global audience, not a local audience. Hawkestone 20:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What exactly is being proposed now? The deletion of Category:People from Stoke-on-Trent by settlement or all its sub-cats too? This has far wider implications. There are hundreds of these 'People by locality' categories. I for one, do not wish to see people categorised by local government district only, which would in many cases be anachronistic as the boundaries were often only set in 1974. MRSC • Talk 20:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Surely what matters is what people define locally. Of course, Wikipedia is aimed at a global audience, but part of that is helping people understand the local breakdowns.  Robbie Williams, for example, is very keen to remind people his is from Burslem in Stoke-on-Trent.  To many it is like telling a Scotsman that he is from England or the United Kingdom.  If New York is organised that way, then fair enough.  I know little of the structure of New York beyond the boroughs.  I will have to make the effort to learn more. Regan123 21:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 section.