Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 9



Category:Video games featuring cooperative play to Category:Computer and video games featuring cooperative gameplay

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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. Vegaswikian 04:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Per other CVG categories. Thunderbrand 23:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. David Kernow 23:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename I created today and was unaware of the accepted naming procedure for the subject. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Frackintoaster 00:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. --SevereTireDamage 08:36, 12 June 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 page.

Category:Omega models (and related categories)

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 but only those listed before late adds. Other ones can be added as a new nomination. Vegaswikian 04:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Admin: Please note that this nomination has expanded to a deletion vote for many categories listed below.--Mike Selinker 06:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Many of these categories have been added just today. Shouldn't this nomination be relisted to give it another week for discussion for those who might not have seen a tag?  --JeffW 13:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly could see relisting it for a couple more days. A whole week seems a bit much. Can we put it right below the current day's list as "Extended until June 19" or something?--Mike Selinker 01:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to list the ones that were listed before today in the work queue to be deleted. They received notification and can be deleted.  I think listing the others in a new nomination would be the most correct in terms of process.  Vegaswikian 04:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The article for Cindy Crawford, among others, is riddled with over 100 categories -- apparently, one for every company she's ever modelled with. This seems both excessive and... not the sort of thing Wikipedia really needs to categorize so precisely? Most of the categories have only a few articles, fewer than 5-10. This one only includes Crawford's article. Um. So, apologies, I'm new, this just seemed the right way to get the ball rolling if it needs a push. Luna Santin 23:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just back from the Cindy Crawford article and, yes, I agree, there might be a few too many categories listed there! Perhaps a Category:Models who have worked for more than N agencies category/ies need to be established (where N = 5, 10, 20, 25+) and a List of agencies for which X has modelled for each corresponding model X such as Crawford...?  Regards, David Kernow 00:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yuck! Does someone have the time to nominate all of those for speedy deletion here?  We can remove them after 4 days, I believe, if there are no objections.  Vegaswikian 00:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Delete (see below). How else are you going to subdivide models by their work (as opposed to nationality)? This seems a very new process (many of these categories were created by a user in the last couple weeks), so I'd say let's see how it plays out.--Mike Selinker 00:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So you think the end of the Cindy Crawford article is fine and that the categories she is in are easy to see? Vegaswikian 03:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I do. But I'd need an answer to the question I asked before I'd vote to delete it. How else is there to subdivide the Models category, other than by nationality? (Answering my own question: There seem to be three simultaneous work-specific ways they are subdivided in this category: by fashion designer (Category:Marc Jacobs models), by magazine (Category:Vogue models), and by brand (Category:Pepsi models). Maybe all of them are wrong. The most restrictive way to categorize models is by agency, which they rarely have more than a couple of. So for Cindy, category:Storm Model Agency models would be a lot better than this forest. So my suggestion would be to shred all this and do that.)--Mike Selinker 03:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, you do bring up a good point, actually. Especially if this is a recent development that's being worked on, I'd hate to slap somebody's new work in the face like that. Would it make more sense to create Category:Lists of Models, which could then include Marc Jacobs models and Vogue models (etc)? Just putting that out there for thought, seems like a fair compromise. Luna Santin 08:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, make that Category:Lists of fashion models, for better specificity. Luna Santin 09:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've gone to the user's page and invited them to participate in this discussion. It's clear to me that they're well-intentioned and actually adding quite a bit of useful information to Wikipedia. But the method may be unwieldy, and so I hope they'll come over and talk it through. This is a new user with a lot of energy, so I hope we'll all be encouraging here.--Mike Selinker 14:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't see any necessity to subdivide models into such obsessively detailed categories, especially when I go to "Category:Models" and find that there are very few models actually listed there, because their categories have been sharpened to the point that they are all but impossible to find. 122 categories (as in Cindy Crawford) is way too many for any article, and I'd like to see many of them gone, although I think there is merit in User:Mike Selinker's suggestion of keeping the agency categories.  Everything else looks like obsessive detail to me. Rossrs 11:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this whole "supermodel" and subcategories thing, is unwieldy, unencyclopedic and POV, so have also nominated that Category:Supermodels be merged into Category:Models. Rossrs 14:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete with consideration to Mike Selinker's suggestions. This whole topic needs discussion as does the Supermodel page which is getting cluttered to the point of not being useful. For lack of participation this one user charges forward with little discussion or response on talk pages. He has added good material but SHOUTS on Edit summaries and seems to believe that he is the only expert. Doc 14:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Lil Flip246 has responded on his own talk page, but even with a link here he has not responded here. This is an example of his shouting on his edit summaries for Supermodel and on his own talk page:
 * 26 Apr - (STOP REMOVING MY CONTRIBUTIONS)
 * 18 Apr - (PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE INFO U HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF. I AM A FASHION EXPERT AND KNOW MORE ABOUT SUPERMODELS AND THE INDUSTRY.)
 * 17 Apr - (PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THEM!! I KNOW MORE ABOUT SUPERMODELS THAN YOU)
 * 12 Apr - OKAY WHY ARE YOU CHANGING IT?? I MADE THIS CAT BECAUSE :IT WAS FOR NOTABLE CALVIN KLEIN MODELS. I'M A MODEL EXPERT SO I SHOULD KNOW!
 * He does not seem to think he needs to get consensus for anything Doc 22:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yipe. Well, nonetheless, it doesn't let us off the hook for finding a consensus ourselves. I think everyone here so far agrees that this categorization system has to go. What springs up in its place, if anything, can be decided later.--Mike Selinker 00:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Every single one of these categories should go. It just isn't important who they have modelled for. Osomec 15:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete These cats ignore policy: categories should be for facts important enough to mention in the article, where they can be discussed. And if these were mentioned in the article, they wouldn't be needed as categories. The article would link to the product (and say which product it is, btw - see Omega (disambiguation)) and the product could link back. Septentrionalis 16:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Alternate proposal: We'd delete this category and nearly all of the others like it. The ones that survive would be the ones where the grouping is something that has penetrated the national consciousness. For example, it is interesting who's in category:Got Milk? models, as those ads have a unique style (the milk mustache), and it would likely include the rock stars and actors who've done that too. Similarly, Category:Victoria's Secret Angels fits that description; they're a highly recognizable group of supermodels dressed in a notable manner (they have wings). But Category:Victoria's Secret models does not; there have been hundreds of those. Similarly, though Crawford is noteworthy for endorsing Pepsi, very few people care who followed her in that role. So it isn't a good category. Meanwhile, we give every model an agency category and pretty much that's it. Who likes that?--Mike Selinker 19:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Septentrionalis. Postdlf 20:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry Mike, but I just don't see the point of categorizing them by their agencies. If I were browsing for some model and went to the Fashion models category and all I saw were a list of modelling agencies I be completely stymied.  It would be better to have them all lumped together in one huge category.  --JeffW 22:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So the proposed list includes:
 * UPDATE: I've gone through and tagged all the categories that weren't yet tagged, except for those I felt would likely survive a deletion vote (e.g. Category:Sports Illustrated swimsuit models. Admin: This is the list of all the categories tagged under this deletion recommendation.--Mike Selinker 06:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:Abercrombie & Fitch models
 * Category:Agent Provocateur
 * Category:Akris models
 * Category:Alberta Ferretti models
 * Category:Alessandro Dell'Acqua models
 * Category:Alexander McQueen models
 * Category:Alice Roi models
 * Category:Allure models
 * Category:American Express models
 * Category:Amica models
 * Category:Anna Sui models
 * Category:Anne Klein models
 * Category:Anne Valerie Hash models
 * Category:Antonio Berardi models
 * Category:Applebottoms models
 * Category:Arena models
 * Category:Atsuro Tayama models
 * Category:Attitude models
 * Category:Azzedine Alaia models
 * Category:Baby Phat models
 * Category:Badgley Mischka models
 * Category:Balenciaga models
 * Category:Bally models
 * Category:Balmain models
 * Category:Banana Republic models
 * Category:Barneys New York models
 * Category:Beauty.com models
 * Category:Behnaz Sarafpour models
 * Category:Benetton models
 * Category:Benjamin Cho models
 * Category:Betsey Johnson models
 * Category:Bill Blass models
 * Category:Biotherm models
 * Category:Black Chandelier models
 * Category:Blackglama models
 * Category:Blanco Y Negro models
 * Category:Blumarine models
 * Category:Bottega Veneta models
 * Category:Bruno Magli models
 * Category:Bulgari models
 * Category:Burberry models
 * Category:Byblos models
 * Category:Calvin Klein models
 * Category:Cantarelli models
 * Category:Capezio models
 * Category:Carolina Herrera models
 * Category:Catherine Malandrino models
 * Category:Celine models
 * Category:Cerruti models
 * Category:Cesare Paciotti models
 * Category:Chado Ralph Rucci models
 * Category:Chaiken models
 * Category:Chanel models
 * Category:Chantal Thomass models
 * Category:Chatelaine models
 * Category:Chloé models
 * Category:Chocolate models
 * Category:Christian Dior models
 * Category:Christian Lacroix models
 * Category:Christina Perrin models
 * Category:Cia Maritima models
 * Category:Cioe Girl models
 * Category:Citroën models
 * Category:Clarins models
 * Category:Claudia models
 * Category:Cleo models
 * Category:Clinique models
 * Category:Club Monaco models
 * Category:Coca-cola models
 * Category:Colcci models
 * Category:Comme des Garçons models
 * Category:Cosmopolitan models
 * Category:Costume National models
 * Category:Cynthia Rowley models
 * Category:DKNY models
 * Category:DT models
 * Category:David Yurman models
 * Category:Dazed & Confused models
 * Category:Details models
 * Category:Diane von Fürstenberg models
 * Category:Dillards models
 * Category:Dirk Bikkembergs models
 * Category:Diva models
 * Category:Dolce & Gabbana models
 * Category:Donna Karan models
 * Category:Dormeuil models
 * Category:Douglas Hannant models
 * Category:Dove models
 * Category:Dragon Fly models
 * Category:Dries van Noten models
 * Category:EAS AdvantEdge models
 * Category:ELLE models
 * Category:ELLEgirl models
 * Category:Earl Jean models
 * Category:Ebony models
 * Category:El Corte Ingles models
 * Category:ElateWear models
 * Category:Elie Saab models
 * Category:Ellen Tracy models
 * Category:Emanuel Ungaro models
 * Category:Emilio Pucci models
 * Category:Enrico Coveri models
 * Category:Eric Bergere models
 * Category:Escada models
 * Category:Esquire models
 * Category:Essence models
 * Category:Esteban Cortazar models
 * Category:Estée Lauder models
 * Category:FHM models
 * Category:Fendi models
 * Category:Finesse models
 * Category:Fitness models
 * Category:Flare models
 * Category:Foster Grant models
 * Category:Fotogramas models
 * Category:Frank models
 * Category:Freizeit Revue models
 * Category:French Connection models
 * Category:Furla models
 * Category:Gap models
 * Category:Gentlemen's Quarterly models
 * Category:George models
 * Category:Gianfranco Ferre models
 * Category:Giorgio Armani models
 * Category:Giulana Teso models
 * Category:Givenchy models
 * Category:Grosvenor Furs models
 * Category:Gucci models
 * Category:Guess? models
 * Category:H&M models
 * Category:Halston models
 * Category:Harper's Bazaar models
 * Category:Harpers & Queen models
 * Category:Harry Winston models
 * Category:Heatherette models
 * Category:Herbal Essences models
 * Category:Hermes models
 * Category:Hermès models
 * Category:Hervé Leger models
 * Category:Hot Dots models
 * Category:Hugo Boss models
 * Category:I-D models
 * Category:I-N-C models
 * Category:INC models
 * Category:Il Marchese Coccapani models
 * Category:Il Venederi models
 * Category:Imagenes de Actualidad models
 * Category:Imitation of Christ models
 * Category:InStyle models
 * Category:Isaac Mizrahi models
 * Category:Istante models
 * Category:J.Crew models
 * Category:JH Collectables models
 * Category:Jared Gold models
 * Category:Jean-Paul Gaultier models
 * Category:Jeremy Scott models
 * Category:Jill Sander models
 * Category:John Bartlett models
 * Category:John Galliano models
 * Category:Joop models
 * Category:Julien Macdonald models
 * Category:Kara Saun models
 * Category:Karl Lagerfeld models
 * Category:Kathleen Madden models
 * Category:Katjes models
 * Category:Kenneth Cole models
 * Category:L'Officiel models
 * Category:L'Oréal models
 * Category:L.A.M.B. models
 * Category:Lancôme models
 * Category:Lanvin models
 * Category:Laura Biagiotti models
 * Category:Lawrence Steele models
 * Category:Lee Jeans models
 * Category:Levante models
 * Category:Levi's models
 * Category:Liz Claiborne models
 * Category:Louis Feraud models
 * Category:Louis Vuitton models
 * Category:Luca Luca models
 * Category:Lucky models
 * Category:Luella models
 * Category:MAC models
 * Category:MODA models
 * Category:Macy's models
 * Category:Madame Figaro models
 * Category:Mademoiselle models
 * Category:Man models
 * Category:Marc Bouwer models
 * Category:Marc Jacobs models
 * Category:Marie Claire models
 * Category:Marithé François Girbaud models
 * Category:Mark Eisen models
 * Category:Martine Sitbon models
 * Category:Maska models
 * Category:Matthew Williamson models
 * Category:Max Factor models
 * Category:Max models
 * Category:MaxMara models
 * Category:Maxim models
 * Category:Maybelline models
 * Category:Mervyns models
 * Category:Michael Kors models
 * Category:Missoni models
 * Category:Miu Miu models
 * Category:Moschino models
 * Category:Moulinex models
 * Category:NIVEA models
 * Category:Nanette Lepore models
 * Category:Narciso Rodriguez models
 * Category:New Woman models
 * Category:New York & Co models
 * Category:Nicole Miller models
 * Category:Nike models
 * Category:Nine West models
 * Category:North Beach Leather models
 * Category:Nova models
 * Category:Numéro models
 * Category:Ocean Drive models
 * Category:Omega models
 * Category:Options models
 * Category:Oscar de la Renta models
 * Category:Palmers models
 * Category:Pantene models
 * Category:Para Ti models
 * Category:Patek Philippe models
 * Category:Paule Ka models
 * Category:Pepe Jeans models
 * Category:Pepsi models
 * Category:Perry Ellis models
 * Category:Phat Farm models
 * Category:Photo models
 * Category:Pirelli Calendar models
 * Category:Pizza Hut models
 * Category:Polo Jeans models
 * Category:Prada models
 * Category:Premiere models
 * Category:Proenza Schouler models
 * Category:Ralph Lauren models
 * Category:Razor models
 * Category:Rebecca Danenberg models
 * Category:Rebecca Moses models
 * Category:Red models
 * Category:Revlon models
 * Category:Richard Edwards models
 * Category:Richard Tyler models
 * Category:Rimmel models
 * Category:Roberto Cavalli models
 * Category:Rocco Barocco models
 * Category:Rock and Republic models
 * Category:Rolling Stone models
 * Category:Romeo Gigli models
 * Category:Rosa Cha models
 * Category:Saks Fifth Avenue models
 * Category:Salvatore Ferragamo models
 * Category:Scope 88 models
 * Category:Sean John models
 * Category:Shape models
 * Category:Shine models
 * Category:Sky models
 * Category:Sonia Rykiel models
 * Category:Specchio models
 * Category:Sportmax models
 * Category:Stella McCartney models
 * Category:Stephen Burrows models
 * Category:Stern models
 * Category:Style models
 * Category:Swish Jeans models
 * Category:Talk models
 * Category:Tatler models
 * Category:The Face models
 * Category:The Source models
 * Category:The Sun models
 * Category:Time Out models
 * Category:Todd Oldham models
 * Category:Tommy Hilfiger models
 * Category:Top Model models
 * Category:Trussardi models
 * Category:Umberto Ginocchietti models
 * Category:Valentino models
 * Category:Vanidades models
 * Category:Vanity Fair models
 * Category:Vegas models
 * Category:Vera Wang models
 * Category:Veronique Leroy models
 * Category:Versace models
 * Category:Via Mujer models
 * Category:Vibe models
 * Category:Victor Alfaro models
 * Category:Victoria's Secret models
 * Category:Video 7 models
 * Category:Vivienne Westwood models
 * Category:Vogue models
 * Category:W models
 * Category:Weight Watchers models
 * Category:Windsmoor models
 * Category:Woman & Home models
 * Category:Woman models
 * Category:Wonderbra models
 * Category:World Models models
 * Category:X-O-X-O models
 * Category:YM models
 * Category:Yeohlee models
 * Category:Yohji Yamamoto models
 * Category:You models
 * Category:Yves Saint-Laurent models
 * Category:Zac Posen models
 * Category:Zara models
 * Category:Zest models
 * I have not tagged these, just trying to see what is potentially included. Vegaswikian 23:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * One of the other editors has tagged the above entries. Vegaswikian 02:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few more now, stemming off the Rebecca Romijn entry. I tagged them and added them to the above list.--Mike Selinker 19:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Septentrionalis. Category:Pizza Hut models‽ -R. S. Shaw 02:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Finally responding to Mike's proposal. Does it really make sense to categorize models by agency? I can see the logic, but at the same time, people tend not to remember or identify models on that basis. If I go looking for models, and see a list of agencies, I'm liable to stop looking because the information just isn't accessible to me when it's categorized that way. Real case in point, the Storm agency is mentioned nowhere in the Cindy Crawford article at all (though that is her agency, now that I checked, which I'm impressed you know, heh). So, maybe we should just stick with an overall category, and subcategories by nationality. Luna Santin 09:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, probably. I was just looking for some work-related parallel to each sports player's team categories, to avoid this method of categorizing by work. But it's not crucial. Let's attend to the business of the nomination. It seems like we're at consensus, at least till the originator shows up. So I say tag 'em all. (My keeps by content: Calvin Klein, L'Oreal, Revlon, Ralph Lauren, Versace. But maybe none of them.)--Mike Selinker 14:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think keeping any of them is POV. Someone else might want to add "Oscar de la Renta" (just plucking one at random) to the list and someone else might have another favourite, and before long, the whole lot are back on the list.  I really think it's a case of all or none here.  I also say "tag 'em all".  Rossrs 14:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably so. Still, I think some of them--especially those that can be defined without the word "models" in their name, like "CoverGirls" and "Victoria's Secret Angels"-- are legit categories.--Mike Selinker 17:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's a few we might keep, I've already seen them mentioned. Vegaswikian kindly produced a list of most of those categories that are more in line with "Omega" and less notable; are there any on that list that we'd like kept? Luna Santin 17:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all Wikipedia should not be used to promote brands, even inadvertently. Twittenham 15:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all By-nationality categories are sufficient. ReeseM 01:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete categories and turn into lists. MakeRocketGoNow 17:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all of these cats--Kalsermar 01:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Septentrionalis. King rich 00:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all Just because somebody has too much time on their hands doesn't mean it should be kept. Stev0 03:17, 15 June 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 page.

Category:Football venues in Kyrgystan

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Misspelling of the country Kyrgyzstan. All (1) articles have already been moved to an appropriately-named category. fuzzy510 22:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. David Kernow 00:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Rossrs 11:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete misspelt and articles transferred AndrewRT 12:38, 10 June 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 page.

Category:East Coast Hockey League players to Category:ECHL players

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 per nom. Conscious 16:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems weird I know, but officially ECHL doesn't stand for anything anymore, it is just a meaningless set of initials. The league renamed itself when they began expanding away from the East Coast of the United States. BoojiBoy 22:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Now there's no way to know its a hockey league. Perhaps Category:ECHL hockey players?  --JeffW 23:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment They say KFC doesn't stand for anything either. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename Category:ECHL ice hockey players, or Category:ECHL (formerly known as East Coast Hockey League) players --William Allen Simpson 03:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As much as I dislike the options, including this one, maybe Category:ECHL (formerly the East Coast Hockey League) players could be the best choice. A bit shorter then your suggestion.  Vegaswikian 05:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:ECHL (formerly East Coast Hockey League) players...? Regards, David Kernow 09:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:Players in the league formerly known as the East Coast Hockey League ;-> Septentrionalis 17:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * At this rate, it'll be "Former players in the league formerly known as the East Coast Hockey... hey... where'd everyone go?"! David 23:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I can live with Category:ECHL (formerly East Coast Hockey League) players but I think including 'the' reads better. Also does former instead of formerly work?  Vegaswikian 23:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename Category:ECHL (formerly East Coast Hockey League) players -- As folks may have noticed, I was riffing off "The Artist formerly known as Prince" and David has taken it to the logical extreme! I've changed my replacement based on Vegaswikian. --William Allen Simpson 00:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I dunno, it might just be me, but that "formerly" note seems a bit unwieldy. I'd say either use ECHL or East Coast Hockey League, but putting both in the category seems redundant. Certainly the name-change should be noted, but is a category name the best way to accomplish that? Luna Santin 09:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe Category:ECHL players plus note at the top of the page explaining why "ECHL" is one of those abbreviations left unexpanded will suffice. Regards, David Kernow 11:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. It's the name of the league, and would only need a disambiguator if there were other ECHLs.--Mike Selinker 17:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue is not about being a DAB, it is about expanding abbreviations. Vegaswikian 02:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, and "ECHL" is not an abbreviation. BoojiBoy 21:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I get that. I'm agreeing with the nomination, and saying I don't agree with "(formerly East Coast Hockey League)".--Mike Selinker 07:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename as per nom, and follow David Kernow's example of including a note on the page indicating that it no longer stands for anything. Otherwise it gets too unwieldy and difficult to include on pages (plus it just looks really stupid to say ECHL (formerly East Coast Hockey League)).  I know we're trying to make things organized on this site, but let's not get stupid with it. Anthony Hit me up... 14:21, 14 June 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 page.

Category:List of Mexican-American War Veterans

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 to Category:Mexican-American War people. Conscious 16:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This category is filled with people whose significance has not been asserted, and Category:Mexican-American War people already exists. Medtopic 22:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and/or delete. BoojiBoy 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge - but someone needs to go through the artcles in this category - many are just old obituaries, and like the nominator stated, the individuals' notability isn't asserted. I think most of these articles can be deleted.--Nobunaga24 00:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge That will deal with the list of names added to the page. Osomec 15:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I'll just move the list to the talk page as it shouldn't be on the category page whether or not the category is appropriate. Osomec 15:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a new category and all it needs is some time. If all the proper names are added then you would have the likes of Lee, Grant, Sherman, Scott, etc....  This needs to be kept because people are different than veterans and this war had some heavy hitter veterans.  If WWI and WWII get a category like this then this war deserves one too.--Looper5920 10:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename if kept List of... is not appropriate for a category name. If kept the name should be changed to just be Mexican-American War veterans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffW (talk • contribs)
 * Seconded, although how about merging it and Category:Mexican-American War people to create Category:People of the Mexican-American War...? Regards, David Kernow 20:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC), updated 12:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have merged all of the remaining names in Category:List of Mexican-American War Veterans to Category:Mexican-American War people. I like the suggestion to rename it Category:People of the Mexican-American War. Medtopic 03:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, delete Category:List of Mexican-American War Veterans; and...
 * Merge with Category:Mexican-American War people per above. David Kernow 15:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename Category:Mexican-American War people to Category:People of the Mexican-American War. I've tagged Category:Mexican-American War people accordingly. Regards, David Kernow 12:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC), deleted per below 15:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This rename of Category:Mexican-American War people should be relisted under todays date. It's a new nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffW (talk • contribs)
 * Good point; have now relisted it here. Thanks, David 15:05, 16 June 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 page.

Category:GCSE English Literature Set Texts

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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. Vegaswikian 04:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete - This is a category better served by a list. This is not a defining characteristic of the texts categorized. Also opens a nasty door to categorizing every work of literature by what must be thousands of different school curriculums. MakeRocketGoNow 21:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Chicheley 09:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Osomec 15:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; set texts are not a constant and recategorising articles every time the lists are changed is a Very Bad Idea. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as above, particularly about recategorisation. Ck l o stsw o rd|queta! 17:04, 11 June 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 page.

Category:Canadian top-fifty singles

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 (no merge) --William Allen Simpson 01:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a really bad idea, as this means nearly every single gets a half dozen more categories based on where it charted in which country. The fact that over half of these are by Destiny's Child and Mariah Carey suggests it's mostly one user at work here. The number ones can stay, but this should go.--Mike Selinker 20:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Piccadilly 20:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Rossrs 11:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Osomec 15:08, 10 June 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 page.

Category:Frigates of the United States Navy to Category:Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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:Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States Navy. Vegaswikian 04:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"Frigate" and "destroyer escort" are, in a 20th century sense, synonymous. The rest of the world used "frigate" while the USN used "destroyer escort." In 1975 all USN destroyer escorts were renamed frigates. It would be helpful to have one category to contain both, because they are part of one continuous line of evolution. I have placed "frigates" first because it will sort alphabetically with "Frigates of the United Kingdom", etc. I have dropped "Navy" because it is redundant; a frigate is a warship, therefore it must be of the USN. TomTheHand 20:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States Navy, because the Navy should still be mentioned for clarity, and also in case the US Coast Guard ever gets uppity and buys a frigate. BoojiBoy 20:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom, as the Coast Guard would be very unlikely to call it a frigate, even when shaped like a frigate, and a category of 1 for the Coast Guard would be a waste. --William Allen Simpson 03:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename as per BoojiBoy for clarity, whether or not the USCG might do anything. Mainly to be consistent with Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy and Category:Battleships of the United States Navy. (Okay, I know that we have Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States and Category:Auxiliary ships of the United States, but I don't like them because of the implication that they might be somewhere other than the Navy. I don't see the redundancy that TomTheHand does.) Jinian 18:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States Navy, and create that category of one for the Coast Guard. Twittenham 15:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States Navy per the suggestions of the above; they've made good arguments for retaining "Navy" and I now see that it would be better to keep it (I am the nominator) TomTheHand 16:30, 14 June 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 page.

Category:Singles by number

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Designed to parallel category:Albums by number, which we just deleted. I've moved category:Debut singles out of this and into category:Singles.--Mike Selinker 20:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Piccadilly 20:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ReeseM 01:46, 12 June 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 page.

Category:2006 sports events to Category:2006 in sports

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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. Vegaswikian 04:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge [both]. Redundant categor[ies]. BoojiBoy 19:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge both per nom. David Kernow 00:04, 10 June 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 page.

Category:Virginia soccer to Category:Soccer in Virginia

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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. Vegaswikian 04:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Per naming conventions, see cat:Soccer in the United States etc. Punkmorten 18:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC).
 * Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. CalJW 03:50, 14 June 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 page.

Category:Placename etymology to Category:Placename etymologies

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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. Conscious 16:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Placename etymologies doesn't make it clear that this category is for lists of etymologies. JeffW 18:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This cat contains etymologies of particular places as well as lists, so my suggested rename doesn't work. How about just Category:Placename etymologies?
 * Forgive me for talking to myself, but I believe my confusion comes from the fact that we don't generally mix lists of things and things in the same category. We have categories with lists of people and we have categories with people, but I don't know of any categories that mixes them?  So what I'll do is create Category:Lists of placename etymologies and move all the lists into it.  And I'll modify the heading (and the tag) to make this a proposal to rename the category to its plural.  Sorry for the confusion.  --JeffW 18:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:aeticlogies should solve this problem. Septentrionalis 17:06, 10 June 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 page.

Category:Billboard Hot Dance/Club Play artists to Category:Dance/Club music artists

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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. Vegaswikian 04:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 16:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Renaming of category Robert Moore 00:58 09 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I contest this being av valid request for speedy renaming. It does not seem to fulfill the criteria for such. __meco 09:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Piccadilly 20:57, 9 June 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 page.

Category:Universal Monsters to Category:Universal monsters

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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:Universal Monsters universe. Vegaswikian 04:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 16:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

caps -- ProveIt (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this category needs renaming (see Universal Monsters). jareha (comments) 14:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename but to Category:Universal Monsters universe which matches better to what the blurb in the category says. --JeffW 16:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Universal Monsters universe per JeffW. BoojiBoy 19:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename per JeffW. &#151;Lady Aleena talk / contribs 19:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename per JeffW. &hearts; Her Pegship &hearts; 18:06, 16 June 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 page.

Category:Cities and towns in Italy
<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 of the proposed deletion of 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 Speedy deleted. Vegaswikian 04:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * When I was going throught this to close, I closed the discussion as delete since the link was red and appeared to have been listed as a delete. This was an error in that it should have been a merge as has been pointed out.  I'll create the new cat and do the moves. 06:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Category:Towns in Italy and Category:Cities in Italy into the new category Category:Cities and towns in Italy. There is currently no distinction in which category ("City" or "Town") municipalities fall into (there is no distinction in Italian either). A categorization scheme like Category:Cities and towns in Sicily, where towns/cities of all sizes are together should probably be adopted.


 * Rename and Merge as per nom- AKeen 16:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename and Merge per nom. Piccadilly 20:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename and Merge per nom. GilliamJF 00:41, 16 June 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 page.

Royal mistresses
<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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Vegaswikian 04:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have just created these, taking the form from the article Mistresses of the Swedish royal family, but in their current form they can be misconstrued, so I would like to suggest a switch to a different form, which is also shorter: Please note that these are not "by nationality" categories as a fair number of women were not of the same nationality of their royal lover. Also, not all of the royals in question were monarchs.
 * category:Mistresses of the British royal family to category:Mistresses of British royalty
 * category:Mistresses of the English royal family to category:Mistresses of English royalty
 * category:Mistresses of the French royal family to category:Mistresses of French royalty
 * category:Mistresses of the Swedish royal family to category:Mistresses of Swedish royalty
 * category:Mistresses of the Scottish royal family to category:Mistresses of Scottish royalty
 * Rename all Chicheley 08:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Carina22 12:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename all per nom. David Kernow 13:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename. If these cats are to be divided by nationality, British should begin with the Union of the Crowns in 1603; otherwise all the mistresses of the 1600's will be entitled to two overlapping cats. Also, if we are going to include every woman ever associated with Charles II, George IV, and Edward VII, these cats will be very large. Septentrionalis 16:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Twittenham 15:59, 11 June 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 page.

Category:Babenberg to Category:House of Babenberg
<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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Vegaswikian 04:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This category references a royal-nobel family which ruled Austria in the Middle Ages, not a place. Chicheley 06:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC).
 * Rename as nom. Chicheley 06:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. David Kernow 13:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Cats should be short, and the lead article suggests that there is no longer a place called Babenberg. Septentrionalis 16:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename Cat names should be short but clarity and consistency are important too. And House of Babenberg is still short.  --JeffW 22:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Twittenham 15:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. BoojiBoy 23:23, 11 June 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 page.

Category:American World War I officers
<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 of the proposed deletion of 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 (no merge) --William Allen Simpson 01:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary category, already well covered by an American WWI vets category and each branch of the military has an officer category. The category doesn't specify what branch of the military, and there is no criteria listed for inclusion - WWI era service (the US entered the war after it had been going on for about 3 years), or in-theater service. Nobunaga24 05:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom: cloudy criteria and lack of branch specificity makes it difficult to integrate with established cats. Its one member is already a member of Category:United States Army officers and Category:American World War I veterans, so no merger is necessary. ×Meegs 07:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ReeseM 01:47, 12 June 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 page.

Subcategories of Category:Government ministers by country
<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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Conscious 16:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Per here, naming these categories "[occupation] in [country]" seems odd. Suggest they are all renamed using "of" rather than "in". David Kernow 02:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename all as nom . Abstaining for time being. David Kernow 02:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC), amended 13:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. These are political offices, not garden-variety occupations.  In our occupation-based sections, we classify by occupation + nationality of the person (so the nationality modifies the person, not the occupation itself... widget-makers that are danes, not makers of danish widgets.).  These are state-based, and hence the state is modifying the office, not the person (people who work in the state apparatus associated with India, not Indians who work in state apparatuses anywhere).  Also, note something like "Government ministers of Canada" implies strongly that they are federal-level office holders, when the cat actually contains a variety of offices at different levels of the federation as well as offices for antecedents states on the territory of Canada not named "Canada". Similar factors come into play for any federal state, and also the UK and so on.  There's also a long history in colonial contexts of administrators of particular states not being identified with the domestic nationality--Chris Patten, for instance, is not a "Chinese politician" but someone who was a "Political office-holder in China".  The rationale for these is noted at WP:NCCAT. The Tom 03:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yikes. Did you read this? Meanwhile, I agree that Chris Patten was a political office-holder in a place. My experience is that the "in" becomes an "of" when a generic description such as "political office-holder" is made more specific. So I guess I'd say he was govenor of Hong Kong. Jane Doe is a minister in a government, but a minister of a country or other region (per ibid.). Maybe that's where the distinction lies; between association with an organization (such as a government) and a region...?  Thanks for your input, David Kernow 04:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * PS Re misleading federal overtones, I agree; how about categorizing these officials as "of" the region for which they are accountable/responsible...? Regards, David 04:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't catch the first Australian example. In any case, there'd be awkwardness in having "Government ministers of New South Wales" be a subcat of "Government ministers of Australia" because the latter has an intrinsic federal implication rather than a nice super-categoryish feel.  The rule of thumb that's sort of evolved is particular offices get the "of" (ie, "Governors-General of Australia", "Premiers of New South Wales"  while groups of office of a certain class get the "in" (ie. "Premiers in Australia").  That should certainly be up for renegotiation if we can come up with a cleaner system that's demonstrably better in all aspects, but I personally have yet to be sold on any other kind of delineation.  Finally, it's worth pointing out that "Ministers of Australia" implies that the term "Minister of Australia" is commonly used as a descriptor for such offices when to the best of my knowedge such constructions never get used. The Tom 06:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How about (1) making {subcategories that contain articles on individuals} subcategories that are "of" the region for which those individuals are/were responsible and accountable; and (2) making/keeping those {higher-level categories that carry only subcategories} categories that use "in (country)", with a line or two of explanation for the "in" on the category page? Would that work?  (I'd hope the brief explanation – perhaps make it a template – would help folk coming by these categories as I did.)  Something I meant to say before: I acknowledge the thought you (and others) have already given here!  Regards, David 13:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Rename all to "of". The present names make little sense; at any given time a certain proportion of ministers are on foreign trips. Carina22 12:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Although I had earlier supported (and suggested!) this idea. However, there are convincing arguments in favor of keeping it as it is.  Also,  WP:NCCAT prefers the in form for groups of office holders by country and of for singles.  So, it specifies Presidents of and Legislators in. ProveIt (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename all to "of" as making sense. And ministers are singles usually: most countries have only 1 minister of defense at a time, so if User:ProveIt's point is conceded "of" is proper here. Does the media really refer to someone as the Home Secretary in Australia? or the Foreign Minister in Germany? rather than "of"? I don't think so unless they are on a diplomatic visit as noted by Carina22.... Carlossuarez46 20:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename all to "of" for reasons given above. Piccadilly 20:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename all to "of" --William Allen Simpson 03:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename all to "of" ReeseM 01:48, 12 June 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 page.

Singles by artist into Songs by artist
<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 of the proposed deletion of 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 The items split out will be kept along with the parent group. They may be nominated again in the future allowing time for consensus to develop. Vegaswikian 04:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a debate here which proposes the deletion of the Category:Singles by artist. Having received no real outrage at the proposal, I'm listing them for merging and/or renaming. This all follows a successful passage of a deletion recommendation on the category "Weezer singles," on the grounds that it almost entirely overlapped Category:Weezer songs, and that the entire category structure that required splitting songs into two different categories was flawed. Some users follow it, but many others do not. In very rare cases, an artist's work is notable for all of its songs like in Category:The Beatles songs, but in many cases, singles and songs are basically coterminous (e.g., Category:Mariah Carey singles). Basically, those of us who support this want one song category per artist. (Please note that the singles chronology and infobox would be untouched by this proposal. Those are great.)
 * Here are the ones that everyone seems in agreement should be moved/merged:


 * category:Singles by artist to category:Songs by artist
 * category:A*Teens singles to category:A*Teens songs
 * category:ABC singles to category:ABC songs
 * category:Aaliyah singles to category:Aaliyah songs
 * category:Paula Abdul singles to category:Paula Abdul songs
 * category:Adam & the Ants singles to category:Adam & the Ants songs
 * category:All Saints singles to category:All Saints songs
 * category:Tori Amos singles to category:Tori Amos songs
 * category:Namie Amuro singles to category:Namie Amuro songs
 * category:Angela Aki singles to category:Angela Aki songs
 * category:And One singles to category:And One songs
 * category:Arctic Monkeys singles to category:Arctic Monkeys songs
 * category:Tina Arena singles to category:Tina Arena songs
 * category:Ash singles to category:Ash songs
 * category:Atomic Kitten singles to category:Atomic Kitten songs
 * category:Baboon singles to category:Baboon songs
 * category:Victoria Beckham singles to category:Victoria Beckham songs
 * category:Natasha Bedingfield singles to category:Natasha Bedingfield songs
 * category:The Bee Gees singles to category:The Bee Gees songs
 * category:Bee Gees songs to category:The Bee Gees songs
 * category:Beyoncé singles to category:Beyoncé songs
 * category:Björk singles to category:Björk songs
 * category:Black Eyed Peas singles to category:Black Eyed Peas songs
 * category:BlackGirl singles to category:BlackGirl songs
 * category:Mary J Blige singles to category:Mary J. Blige songs
 * category:Blind Guardian singles to category:Blind Guardian songs
 * category:Blink-182 singles to category:Blink-182 songs
 * category:Songs by Blondie to category:Blondie songs
 * category:Blue Angel singles to category:Blue Angel songs
 * category:Blur singles to category:Blur songs
 * category:BoA singles to category:BoA songs
 * category:Brakes singles to category:Brakes songs
 * category:Brandy singles to category:Brandy songs
 * category:Bright Eyes singles to category:Bright Eyes songs
 * category:British Sea Power singles to category:British Sea Power songs
 * category:Chris Brown singles to category:Chris Brown songs
 * category:Brutal Juice singles to category:Brutal Juice songs
 * category:Emma Bunton singles to category:Emma Bunton songs
 * category:Burden Brothers singles to category:Burden Brothers songs
 * category:Kate Bush singles to category:Kate Bush songs
 * category:Ryan Cabrera singles to category:Ryan Cabrera songs
 * category:Mariah Carey singles to category:Mariah Carey songs
 * category:The Cars singles to category:The Cars songs
 * category:Johnny Cash singles to category:Johnny Cash songs
 * category:Cheap Trick singles to category:Cheap Trick songs
 * category:Cher singles to category:Cher songs
 * category:Chloe singles to category:Chloe songs
 * category:Eric Clapton singles to category:Eric Clapton songs
 * category:Phil Collins singles to category:Phil Collins songs
 * category:The Cure singles to category:The Cure songs
 * category:Daft Punk singles to category:Daft Punk songs
 * category:Dick Dale singles to category:Dick Dale songs
 * category:Daphne & Celeste singles to category:Daphne & Celeste songs
 * category:Kate DeAraugo singles to category:Kate DeAraugo songs
 * category:Depeche Mode singles to category:Depeche Mode songs
 * category:Do As Infinity singles to category:Do As Infinity songs
 * category:Dr. Dre singles to category:Dr. Dre songs
 * category:Hilary Duff singles to category:Hilary Duff songs
 * category:Duran Duran singles to category:Duran Duran songs
 * category:Sheena Easton singles to category:Sheena Easton songs
 * category:Missy Elliot singles to category:Missy Elliot songs
 * category:Eminem singles to category:Eminem songs
 * category:Enigma singles to category:Enigma songs
 * category:Erasure singles to category:Erasure songs
 * category:Eurythmics singles to category:Eurythmics songs
 * category:Evanescence singles to category:Evanescence songs
 * category:Every Little Thing singles to category:Every Little Thing songs
 * category:The Faces singles to category:The Faces songs
 * category:Faith No More singles to category:Faith No More songs
 * category:Fall Out Boy singles to category:Fall Out Boy songs
 * category:The Feeling singles to category:The Feeling songs
 * category:Foetus singles to category:Foetus songs
 * category:Jamie Foxx singles to category:Jamie Foxx songs
 * category:Frankie Goes To Hollywood singles to category:Frankie Goes To Hollywood songs
 * category:Aretha Franklin singles to category:Aretha Franklin songs
 * category:Franz Ferdinand singles to category:Franz Ferdinand songs
 * category:Miki Fujimoto singles to category:Miki Fujimoto songs
 * category:Funker Vogt singles to category:Funker Vogt songs
 * category:Nelly Furtado singles to category:Nelly Furtado songs
 * category:Gackt singles to category:Gackt songs
 * category:Genesis singles to category:Genesis songs
 * category:Gnarls Barkley singles to category:Gnarls Barkley songs
 * category:Grandaddy singles to category:Grandaddy songs
 * category:Amy Grant singles to category:Amy Grant songs
 * category:Hello! Project singles to category:Hello! Project songs
 * category:HIGH and MIGHTY COLOR singles to category:HIGH and MIGHTY COLOR songs
 * category:Geri Halliwell singles to category:Geri Halliwell songs
 * category:Ayumi Hamasaki singles to category:Ayumi Hamasaki songs
 * category:Hard Fi singles to category:Hard-Fi songs
 * category:George Harrison singles to category:George Harrison songs
 * category:Heart singles to category:Heart songs
 * category:Utada Hikaru singles to category:Utada Hikaru songs
 * category:Whitney Houston singles to category:Whitney Houston songs
 * category:Ice Cube singles to category:Ice Cube songs
 * category:Information Society singles to category:Information Society songs
 * category:Ja Rule singles to category:Ja Rule songs
 * category:Janet Jackson singles to category:Janet Jackson songs
 * category:Michael Jackson singles to category:Michael Jackson songs
 * category:Jade singles to category:Jade songs
 * category:James singles to category:James songs
 * category:Jamiroquai singles to category:Jamiroquai songs
 * category:Jay-Z singles to category:Jay-Z songs
 * category:JoJo singles to category:JoJo songs
 * category:Billy Joel singles to category:Billy Joel songs
 * category:Elton John singles to category:Elton John songs
 * category:Ana Johnsson singles to category:Ana Johnsson songs
 * category:Joy Division singles to category:Joy Division songs
 * category:KC and the Sunshine Band singles to category:KC and the Sunshine Band songs
 * category:KISS singles to category:KISS songs
 * category:KLF singles to category:KLF songs
 * category:KMFDM singles to category:KMFDM songs
 * category:Aiko Kayo singles to category:Aiko Kayo songs
 * category:Keane singles to category:Keane songs
 * category:Alicia Keys singles to category:Alicia Keys songs
 * category:Khanoda singles to category:Khanoda songs
 * category:The Kinks singles to category:The Kinks songs
 * category:Kumi Koda singles to category:Kumi Koda songs
 * category:LCD Soundsystem singles to category:LCD Soundsystem songs
 * category:LL Cool J singles to category:LL Cool J songs
 * category:Cyndi Lauper singles to category:Cyndi Lauper songs
 * category:Avril Lavigne singles to category:Avril Lavigne songs
 * category:Ben Lee singles to category:Ben Lee songs
 * category:John Lennon singles to category:John Lennon songs
 * category:Lindsay Lohan singles to category:Lindsay Lohan songs
 * category:Jennifer Lopez singles to category:Jennifer Lopez songs
 * category:Loverboy singles to category:Loverboy songs
 * category:MAX singles to category:MAX songs
 * category:Mack 10 singles to category:Mack 10 songs
 * category:Madonna singles to category:Madonna songs
 * category:Barry Manilow singles to category:Barry Manilow songs
 * category:Marillion singles to category:Marillion songs
 * category:Massive Attack singles to category:Massive Attack songs
 * category:Martina McBride singles to category:Martina McBride songs
 * category:Paul McCartney singles to category:Paul McCartney songs
 * category:Melanie B singles to category:Melanie B songs
 * category:Melanie C singles to category:Melanie C songs
 * category:Melotron singles to category:Melotron songs
 * category:Katie Melua singles to category:Katie Melua songs
 * category:George Michael singles to category:George Michael songs
 * category:Monica singles to category:Monica songs
 * category:Monty Python singles to category:Monty Python songs
 * category:Morrissey singles to category:Morrissey songs
 * category:Mull Historical Society singles to category:Mull Historical Society songs
 * category:'N Sync singles to category:N Sync songs
 * category:Ne-Yo singles to category:Ne-Yo songs
 * category:New Order singles to category:New Order songs
 * category:New Power Generation singles to category:New Power Generation songs
 * category:Ocean Colour Scene singles to category:Ocean Colour Scene songs
 * category:OutKast singles to category:OutKast songs
 * category:P!nk singles to category:P!nk songs
 * category:PM Dawn singles to category:PM Dawn songs
 * category:Dolly Parton singles to category:Dolly Parton songs
 * category:Paulini singles to category:Paulini songs
 * category:Pet Shop Boys singles to category:Pet Shop Boys songs
 * category:Phish single to category:Phish songs
 * category:Billie Piper singles to category:Billie Piper songs
 * category:Pixies singles to category:Pixies songs
 * category:The Police singles to category:The Police songs
 * category:Daniel Powter singles to category:Daniel Powter songs
 * category:Primus singles to category:Primus songs
 * category:Princess Superstar singles to category:Princess Superstar songs
 * category:The Prodigy singles to category:The Prodigy songs
 * category:Pulp singles to category:Pulp songs
 * category:The Pussycat Dolls singles to category:The Pussycat Dolls songs
 * category:Queen singles to category:Queen songs
 * category:R.E.M. singles to category:R.E.M. songs
 * category:RBD singles to category:RBD songs
 * category:Red Hot Chili Peppers singles to category:Red Hot Chili Peppers songs
 * category:Reverend Horton Heat singles to category:Reverend Horton Heat songs
 * category:Rihanna singles to category:Rihanna songs
 * category:Rogue Traders singles to category:Rogue Traders songs
 * category:The Rolling Stones singles to category:The Rolling Stones songs
 * category:Terry Ronald singles to category:Terry Ronald songs
 * category:Kelly Rowland singles to category:Kelly Rowland songs
 * category:Bic Runga singles to category:Bic Runga songs
 * category:Röyksopp singles to category:Röyksopp songs
 * category:SUPER MONKEY'S singles to category:Super Monkey's songs
 * category:Chantay Savage singles to category:Chantay Savage songs
 * category:Schnappi singles to category:Schnappi songs
 * category:Shakaya singles to category:Shakaya songs
 * category:Shakira singles to category:Shakira songs
 * category:Tupac Shakur singles to category:Tupac Shakur songs
 * category:Sigur Rós singles to category:Sigur Rós songs
 * category:Ashlee Simpson singles to category:Ashlee Simpson songs
 * category:Jessica Simpson singles to category:Jessica Simpson songs
 * category:Will Smith singles to category:Will Smith songs
 * category:The Smiths singles to category:The Smiths songs
 * category:Snoop Dogg singles to category:Snoop Dogg songs
 * category:SoulDecision singles to category:SoulDecision songs
 * category:Soundgarden singles to category:Soundgarden songs
 * category:Singles by Space to category:Space songs
 * category:Spice Girls singles to category:Spice Girls songs
 * category:Squeeze singles to category:Squeeze songs
 * category:The Stranglers singles to category:The Stranglers songs
 * category:The Streets singles to category:The Streets songs
 * category:Sugababes singles to category:Sugababes songs
 * category:Supergrass singles to category:Supergrass songs
 * category:Supersuckers singles to category:Supersuckers songs
 * category:Songs by the Supremes to category:The Supremes songs
 * category:Tammin Sursok singles to category:Tammin songs
 * category:Ami Suzuki singles to category:Ami Suzuki songs
 * category:System of a Down singles to category:System of a Down songs
 * category:TLC singles to category:TLC songs
 * category:Tackey and Tsubasa singles to category:Tackey and Tsubasa songs
 * category:Hitomi Takahashi singles to category:Hitomi Takahashi songs
 * category:Tarkan singles to category:Tarkan songs
 * category:Tears for Fears singles to category:Tears for Fears songs
 * category:The Temptations singles to category:The Temptations songs
 * category:Thalía singles to category:Thalía songs
 * category:Therion singles to category:Therion songs
 * category:They Might Be Giants singles to category:They Might Be Giants songs
 * category:Rob Thomas singles to category:Rob Thomas songs
 * category:Van Tomiko singles to category:Van Tomiko songs
 * category:Josh Turner singles to category:Josh Turner songs
 * category:Shania Twain singles to category:Shania Twain songs
 * category:U2 singles to category:U2 songs
 * category:The Used singles to category:The Used songs
 * category:The Velvet Underground singles to category:The Velvet Underground songs
 * category:Vengaboys singles to category:Vengaboys songs
 * category:Shayne Ward singles to category:Shayne Ward songs
 * category:Nikki Webster singles to category:Nikki Webster songs
 * category:Wham! singles to category:Wham! songs
 * category:The Who singles to category:The Who songs
 * category:Pharrell Williams singles to category:Pharrell Williams songs
 * category:Brian Wilson singles to category:Brian Wilson songs
 * category:Wolfmother singles to category:Wolfmother songs
 * category:Y Kant Tori Read singles to category:Y Kant Tori Read songs
 * category:"Weird Al" Yankovic singles to category:"Weird Al" Yankovic songs
 * category:Yeah Yeah Yeahs singles to category:Yeah Yeah Yeahs songs
 * category:Will Young singles to category:Will Young songs
 * category:Þeyr singles to category:Þeyr songs
 * Update: All categories tagged and listed here. I've also occasionally added a non-singles category to smooth out the wording of the "songs" categories.--Mike Selinker 01:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As a separate group, here are ones that at least some users recommend be kept for now, till we can figure out how to deal with them.
 * category:The Beach Boys B-sides to category:The Beach Boys songs *
 * category:The Beach Boys singles to category:The Beach Boys songs *
 * category:The Beatles B-sides to category:The Beatles songs *
 * category:The Beatles singles to category:The Beatles songs *
 * category:David Bowie singles to category:David Bowie songs *
 * category:Green Day B-sides to category:Green Day songs *
 * category:Green Day singles to category:Green Day songs *
 * category:Nirvana singles to category:Nirvana songs *
 * category:Oasis singles to category:Oasis songs *
 * category:Prince B-sides to category:Prince songs *
 * category:Prince singles to category:Prince songs *
 * category:Radiohead singles to category:Radiohead songs *


 * Delete them all too narrow on each. Adambiswanger1 04:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge – Singles and non-singles (notable enough for articles) need not be separated; lists of artists' singles, more reliable than categorization, can be found elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Merging the two decreases complication, eases maintenance, and avoids the issue of whether single releases belong in both categories, or merely singles. These categories are all reasonably-sized, and merging them will not sacrifice browsability. ×Meegs 06:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. I backed Mike on this when he proposed it on the WikiProject song page, and I support it now. Anthony Hit me up... 12:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom, I think... and perhaps produce lists of songs that were singles/B-sides/etc by particular artists, for those seeking this information? Regards, David Kernow 13:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a great idea. Especially, that would put them in chronological order, to match the singles by year categories.--Mike Selinker 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Much tidier. Valiantis 13:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Will all of the others need to be tagged before any merge?  If so, can someone start tagging?  We probably need to have the entire list at close of discussion to list for the bots.  Vegaswikian 16:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a big change, so I wanted to make sure that everyone wanted to do this before listing the rest. Let's wait a couple days to make sure we have consensus.--Mike Selinker 19:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm happy enough for a merge where the singles and songs categories are coterminous at present, but - as pointed out in the nomination - there are others where this is not the case. In the case of The Beatles in particular, the current organisation has considerable advantages, and I can imagine that the same might well be true for several other artists whose album tracks are notable enough to have separate articles. So basically merge all those currently coterminous definitely, but others should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I kept track of the ones where the singles and songs categories aren't nearly equal, or one doesn't way overwhelm the other. Those are only category: The Beatles songs, category:The Beach Boys songs, category:David Bowie songs, category:Green Day songs, category:Nirvana songs, category:Oasis songs, category:Prince songs, category:Queen songs, and category:Radiohead songs. These may be deserving of lists or special recategorization.--Mike Selinker 14:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Saw the renaming tag on a couple of cats I work with, and it was a relief.  &mdash; Catherine\talk 17:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Gotta get Duran Duran right. (Actually, that Duran Duran discography could serve as a template for what happens with The Beatles, etc. That's fine work, Catherine.)--Mike Selinker 18:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. Well argued nom and this issue has troubled me in the past too. A headsup has been posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles as I see some discussion about whether The Beatles might be an exception. --kingboyk 09:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Very clear points; the distinction between "single" and "song" seems to be (with noted exceptions) something less than encyclopedic. Go for it. --Mashford 15:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I know my 1 little keep won't matter against all the above comments, but in my experience, namely, trying to make templates for song navigation, knowing which were singles was essential. Without the category, I would have had to check every single article (this was about the Beatles, who have an article for just about every song in existance, so that's no small task). -Goldom (t) (Review) 17:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge WITH EXCEPTIONS There are a number of artists for which it is important to note the differences between songs, singles, B-sides and so forth. The rules for whether an artist is important should be documented and made accessible somewhere. At least the artists on ]'s list a few comments above would need to be covered by the exceptions. This comment is NOT in support of a straight merge and should not be taken as such. Note that while I really like how [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine did the Duran Duran discography, that seems a separate topic (The Beatles discography while different, is also a fine piece of work...) + +Lar: t/c 18:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on the above two comments, I'd be fine with holding off on the subcategories of category: The Beatles songs, category:The Beach Boys songs, category:David Bowie songs, category:Green Day songs, category:Nirvana songs, category:Oasis songs, category:Prince songs, category:Queen songs, and category:Radiohead songs for now, to give time to figure out what to do with those. I moved those into a separate list of categories to be kept at least temporarily. It's up to the admin whether those are changed or not.--Mike Selinker 21:40, 16 June 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 page.

Category:Deceased fictional characters
<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 of the proposed deletion of 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 (no merge) --William Allen Simpson 01:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguous, broad, and so sparsely populated I find it difficult to believe it is useful. Lkjhgfdsa 00:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Spoilerific! - EurekaLott 02:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No living/dead categories for fictional people.--Mike Selinker 06:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Chicheley 06:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per reasons above, and many others. ×Meegs 07:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom etc plus if it is populated earnestly, most fictional characters will die eventually. (And to show EurekaLott and Mike Selinker that I am not entirely insane. :) ) -Lady Aleena @ 19:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I do like the point that most fictional characters will die eventually. Let's see, if Anne of Green Gables was published in 1908, and Anne is 16 at the end of the novel, then that makes her ... 114. Yup, probably dead by now. :^) --Mike Selinker 01:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as useless. Carlossuarez46 20:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Rossrs 11:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Category:Deaths in fiction, restricted to notable deaths described in the fiction, like Little Nell, might be useful, but would be very large. Septentrionalis 17:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Just seems unnecessary. Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 17:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Really a nonsensical category, as fictional characters are always alive in some part of some fictional work, unless they're introduced as already having died before the story began, or if they're undead, blah blah blah.  And sometimes after their death is depicted, a subsequent story brings them back; so do we put Spock or Superman in this category?  Worthless.  I like Lady Aleena's point above as well.  Postdlf 20:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. MakeRocketGoNow 17:57, 12 June 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 page.