Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 21



Category:Sky Sports News presenters

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * sky sports news presenters


 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_4
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_4
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_7
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_8
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_1
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_2
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_2
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_5
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_5
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_5
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_5
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_5
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_6
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_6
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_26
 * Delete as People by television network, a special case of performer by performance. -- Prove It (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all per nom. Broadcasters move between channels, and this sort of categorisation creates excessive category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete performer by performance, per nom. Carlossuarez46 06:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


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

Category:Streets in downtown Baltimore

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

The result of the debate was rename per Xtifr. Kbdank71 14:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * streets in downtown baltimore
 * Rename to Category:Streets in Baltimore, convention of Category:Streets by city. -- Prove It (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'd prefer Category:Streets in Baltimore, Maryland to match Baltimore, Maryland. Xtifr tälk 21:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Streets in Baltimore, Maryland, good idea from Xtifr. -- Prove It (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Streets in Baltimore, Maryland, per Xtifr. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per Xtifr. Carlossuarez46 06:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


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

Category:Foreign-born African Americans

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * foreign-born african americans
 * Listify within Foreign-born African Americans, place of birth is simply wherever the mother happened to be when her time came; interesting but non-defining, see also discussion of September 14th. -- Prove It (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, non-defining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete poorly named category. Wryspy 06:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or rename for the simple reason that African- or Carribean-born Americans are culturally distinct from native-born Black Americans, and this is well documented even in popular media. Kevlar67 15:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete not defining triple intersection. OCAT Carlossuarez46 06:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


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

Manila radio stations

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

The result of the debate was upmerge. Kbdank71 14:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * metro manila am stations to Category:Metro Manila AM radio stations
 * metro manila fm stations to Category:Metro Manila FM radio stations
 * Upmerge both into Category:Metro Manila radio stations, or Rename both as indicated. -- Prove It (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. -Danngarcia 18:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:Metro Manila radio stations. No reason to split these now. Vegaswikian 02:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


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

Category:FA Premier League

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

The result of the debate was rename per British Imperialism. Kbdank71 14:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:FA Premier League to Category:Premier League
 * Nominator's rationale:
 * Rename to match Premier League, categories should follow the new name. -- Prove It (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per both, although I could understand accusations of British imperialism etc, & wouldn't object to adding a British or UK or something. Johnbod 00:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


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

Category:Novels by Alan Bennett

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

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus to delete apparent at this time. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 13:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * novels by alan bennett


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Keep He has written a novella (short novel), 118 pages in the book according to a link at the article. As one would expect, D.H. Lawrence's novellas are classed in Category:Novels by D. H. Lawrence, so Bennett is ok too. Johnbod 23:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Books by Alan Bennett. Since a novella is most assuredly a book, renaming it to Books neatly sidesteps the contentious issue of whether it's a novel or not. Otto4711 20:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Except it was first published in the London Review of Books, a magazine that looks like a tabloid newspaper, so I don't know that helps. As we have novels categories, we should use them. He already has a "Works by ..." category, and as we know, many people think "Books by.." should be for non-fiction (and this is certainly fiction). Johnbod 21:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As we have novels categories, we should use them. Of course, if we rename them to Books by instead of creating artificial distinctions like "Books by has to be for non-fiction books which then requires a Novels by structure" then we wouldn't have them. We can create literally any category, that doesn't mean that we should create them or use them. Otto4711 23:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Just as EP = album for our purposes, novella = novel for our purposes.--Mike Selinker 14:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This, of course, begs the question: what are "our purposes"? To simplify for convenience's sake? (And if so, whose convenience?) To be imprecise? Or, worse, to misinform deliberately? Category:Symphonies by Ludwig van Beethoven is correct, Category:Symphonies by Marc Bolan is not. It's as simple as that. According to our own Wikipedia article, Alan Bennett is an English actor (stage and radio), a radio personality even, a playwright, television writer, screenwriter, he is gay and an alumnus of Exeter College etc., but he is not an English novelist. &lt;K  F&gt;  18:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He appears to be turning into one in his old age. The Uncommon Reader was published in the LRB this March, and the UK book is published just this month.  Citing Wikipedia categorisation, unfortunately, is among the weakest of all possible arguments for anything. Johnbod 19:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think I need any arguments for this, weak or otherwise. I seem to be the only one who has actually read The Uncommon Reader: it's called "A Story" . But if you are happy with it, categorise him as an Indian mathematician (after all, he may have counted some rupees during a trip to India). I've made my point, and I'm certainly not going to discuss this nonsensical point any further. &lt;K  F&gt;  19:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Est. naming convention for "Articles..." vs. "Wikipedia articles..."

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

The result of the debate was I'm very wary of saying we've created a new naming convention based upon what amounts to two responses, but considering nobody opposed the new convention after almost two weeks of discussion, feel free to either put them up for renaming, or per the new convention, make the change (just let Rich know first).. Kbdank71 14:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

*NOTE: The "unclear importance" has an open debate, started yesterday by same nomhere, so is an improper nomination. Maybe relist after that closes, or get that nomination withdrawn & added here. Johnbod 13:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nominator's "rename all such categories to shorter versions" rationale for adding a new convention to the category naming conventions: Clearly we need to establish a convention and add it to the conventions document mentioned at WP:CSD (i.e. as a new subsection of Naming conventions (categories)). Current usage is strongly (4:1?) against the redundant "Wikipedia..." being prepended, and we are presently in a morass of inconsistency.  Let's just eliminate it. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 08:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Response: Disagree strongly; they are entirely unrelated nomenclature issues. The debate opened here is liable to take a long time to settle out, and has nothing to do with that specific category in particular, which also happens to need another kind of rename, affecting it and only it, that is unlikely to be controversial and (regardless) will not conflict in any way with the proposal here. I think you may have missed that I greyed out the original nomination, copied from CSD/Speedy for background purposes; the proposal here is not to rename the handful of categories listed, but to draft a cat. naming conventions addition. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 11:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unrelated or not, it is against procedure, for obvious reasons, to have two open debates on the same category. The nominator does not control the issues or course of any discussion here. Johnbod 03:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There is one debate open on a category, which also happens to be mentioned above in the greyed-out copy of the rescinded speedy nomination that started this topic off; and there is a proposed change to the category naming conventions. Quit lawyering, please. (Note I do not say "lawyering", which is an accusation of bad faith. I don't believe you are acting in bad faith, just acting like a lawyer here, being very, very persnicketty about minutiae and procedure; given that around 95% of what WP:CFD does is quite trivial to begin with, please consider that this may be a bit too persnicketty.) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 10:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll let others judge who is being the Wikilawyer here! Johnbod 13:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you actually reading what other people write here or simply skimming for keywords? It appears to be the latter, since I made it doubly-abundantly clear that I was not applying the term "wikilawyer" to you.  You might want to consider refraining from further disruption of deletion debates with angry (or angry-seeming; I'm not psychic) reactions to material that you are clearly not actually paying sufficient attention to understand well enough to respond to appropriately and  meaningfully. Your participation in both this thread and the related Sept. 14 one has been remarkably non-sequiturial, as well as vitriolic for no apparent reason. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 22:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * THIS debate, from your nomination::Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance to Category:Articles with topics of unclear importance
 * THE OTHER debate, from your nomination::Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance ... to Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability.... I don't think I'm missing anything!  All the heated language has been yours. Extraordinary! Johnbod 22:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we've just been talking past each other, due to a different conception of what constitutes a conflicting debate. I apologize for my part in the discussion being hotter than necessary.—  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 02:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note The other debate is settled now, so none of my comments above apply any more, though I can't think of a way to strike-through without making the above look even odder than it already does. Johnbod 23:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Right I'm just striking mine, and removing the greyed-out claptrap which is already archived elsewhere. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 02:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Currently relevant responses begins here.


 * Rename all per nom. The word 'Wikipedia' is indeed redundant. -- roundhouse0 13:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename all, unless someone can direct me to an article on Wikipedia that isn't a "Wikipedia article". PC78 10:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * NOte: I think we shoudl take Roundhouse0's and PC78's comments to be in the nature of "Support !votes for the proposal, as actual renames aren't proposed yet. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 02:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: I'm relisting this, since the categories weren't tagged. This needs to be done, esp for the subcats mentioned.  --Kbdank71 18:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree with tagging: This is not a rename nomination; it is a proposal to add a point to the category naming conventions. The separate mass rename nomination would come after the point is added to the conventions, otherwise there is no basis for a rename. :-) Even hunting up all of the affected categories will take some time. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 02:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment this is very unclear. What is being proposed? Can some example categories be provided? If these are administrative categories, they should include "Wikipedia" in the category name to differentiate them from the regular article categorization scheme. 70.55.87.147 16:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop and think Firstly there is value in having a way to discriminate content cats from admin cats, secondly we are also looking at way s to do away with these cats in favour of whatlinkshere pages. Thirdly the move today was badly botched, and still needs a load of work doing on it, so if the decision is to move these cats, please please don't just move the cat page and the talk and think it's done. Rich Farmbrough, 21:09 23 September 2007 (GMT).


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

Citizens of Uzbekistan

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

The result of the debate was '''rename to Uzbekistani. According to Demographics of Uzbekistan, The nationality of any person from Uzbekistan is Uzbekistani, while the ethnic Uzbek majority simply call themselves Uzbeks.. These categories are subcats of "People by nationality" and "People by nationality and occupation", and not "by ethnicity", hence the rename'''. Kbdank71 15:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * uzbekistani people
 * uzbek people
 * uzbekistani people by occupation
 * uzbek people by occupation
 * Merge ... what is the correct name for citizens of Uzbekistan? We should find out which is correct and then use it consistently from then on ... At least one of these should become a redirect. -- Prove It (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and define - "Category:Uzbek ..." should refer to Uzbek people, and "Category:Uzbekistani ..." should refer to the nation of or people from the nation of Uzbekistan. Most Uzbekistanis are Uzbek, but not all Uzbek, live in Uzbekistan. Baka man  16:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and define per Bakaman - most of my sample appeared to conform to this already. Johnbod 20:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The emerging consensus above conflicts with the logic applied to the Afghan categories, where "Afghan" was preferred to "Afghanistan". See Afghan_politicians, Afghanistan singers and Afghanistani musicians. I don't have much preference either way, but consistency may be a virtue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with whatever is correct. In the case of Afghanistan, it says in the constitution that citizens are Afghan.  In this case, I've seen Uzbek, Uzbeki, and Uzbekistani.  I've put the question to the WikiProject and so far it's looking like Uzbekistani may be preferred. -- Prove It (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename using Uzbekistani I think that Uzbek is ambiguous in that it is also an ethnicity to which not all Uzbekistan citizens belong - much as Czech was used interchangably but ultimately ambiguously for Czechoslovak while the union was extant. Carlossuarez46 06:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


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

Some animals in literature

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

The result of the debate was '''delete/rename per nom. Thanks to Mike for doing the grunt work checking.'''. Kbdank71 15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Category:Badgers in literature
 * Rename Category:Bats in literature to Category:Silverwing trilogy (all part of this trilogy)
 * Delete Category:Bears in literature
 * Delete Category:Cats in literature
 * Delete Category:Deer in literature
 * Delete Category:Dogs in literature
 * Delete Category:Jackals in literature
 * Delete Category:Leopards in literature
 * Delete Category:Lions in literature
 * Rename Category:Martens in literature to Category:Fictional martens
 * Rename Category:Otters in literature to Category:Fictional otters
 * Rename Category:Raccoons in literature to Category:Fictional raccoons
 * Delete Category:Tigers in literature
 * Rename Category:Weasels in literature to Category:Fictional weasels
 * Delete Category:Wolves in literature


 * Nominator's rationale:
 * UPDATE: I've added all the rest of the categories. Where there are still articles that need "fictional (X)es" categories, there's a renaming suggestion. Where there are none, a deletion is recommended.--Mike Selinker 23:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand. Why are you suggesting outright deletion for many of these rather than merger? Have you alrady gone through Category:Bears in literature to verify that all of its character articles are also direct members of Category:Fictional bears? ×Meegs 11:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's exactly why. I went article by article to make sure we weren't leaving anything out of either "Fictional (x)es" or "Characters in written fiction" (if such a category was appropriate).--Mike Selinker 15:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Looking through what's listed to date, there seems to be a flat missaplication of the categories in some cases: the Farthing Wood characters are articles about the animated series, not the source book and "Kit Cloudkicker" is solely a creation for an animated television series. For most of the categories it seems more appropriate for the characters to be out-merged into the proper "Fictional " and Lit, as suggested for the Silverwing characters, categories. I do have a worry about this though, especially with the material Disney has taken a hand to. There is a stance with regard to television and comic book characters to not categorize characters by series unless it is absolutely clear that the material is self contained. Because of Disney's use of, for example, Baloo, there maybe resistance to putting the character into a "Jungle Book" category for fear of having to put it into categories for everything else Disney has used it in. There is also the cat category... In all honesty, given the prevalent use in lit, I can see this category, as well as "Dogs in lit" and "Horses in lit" as being valuable research tools. - J Greb 17:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I go through the articles, I'm watching for the misapplication you describe, which I've corrected in quite a few cases. I think the argument about comic book characters doesn't hold for animated characters. In those environments, it's a surprise when characters from different stories interact. In comics, it's the central dynamic.--Mike Selinker 23:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm worried about it mainly with the character's Disney has touched given that company's penchant for reusing characters outside of their literary context. Purely based on single literary works or series, it makes more sense to apply the category. - J Greb 00:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Several of the nominated categories were emptied by 125.164.187.41. I've not reverted the IP user's changes (except his/her removal of the CfD notices) since this discussion may end in with a consensus to delete; if there is no such consensus, the emptied categories should be repopulated rather than deleted per CSD C1. – Black Falcon (Talk) 16:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But how can we discuss categories properly if they have been emptied? Johnbod 16:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked the user's edits, and he/she is making sure the articles go into "Fictional (X)es" rather than deleting the category. So under the theory that this nomination is a foregone conclusion based on the results of the previous nomination, maybe we should just close it and finish out this process. I nominated it, so I'm not going to make that call. (As an unfortunate side note, this user's edits did render my SIlverwing trilogy suggestion moot, so that will have to be done manually.)--Mike Selinker 17:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I fully support deletion of Category:Badgers in literature as there is only one entry. MelicansMatkin 03:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete how much about the animal must the fictional work be? I can get my mind around Moby Dick being about whales, and Jaws about sharks, but isn't Dracula about bats, nearly any western about horses in some sense, and where do we draw the line? If we cannot objectively know what's in and what's out, the cat ought to go. Carlossuarez46 06:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


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

Category:Artistic gymnastics at the Olympics

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

The result of the debate was merge into category:Gymnastics at the Olympics. Kbdank71 15:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * artistic gymnastics at the olympics


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Also, adding the following (the above statement is true, except for the mergeto tag on the 2008 articles)
 * rhythmic gymnastics at the olympics


 * trampoline gymnastics at the olympics


 * Delete per my nom Neier 14:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge all into category:Gymnastics at the Olympics. Other multi-discipline sports (e.g. canoeing/kayaking, cycling with road/track/mountain, etc.) all use a single category for their Olympic results pages.  Andrwsc 21:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge all. Same as above. I think that others at WP:OLYMPICS would tend to agree this this proposal as well, as it has been a long-standing "tradition" for us to keep multi-disciplined sports together in one article or category if possible. Jared   (t)  &ensp; 12:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


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

Category:British Package Holiday Resorts

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

The result of the debate was delete. --cjllw  ʘ  TALK 13:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * british package holiday resorts
 * Delete, as non defining (many are towns, not resorts), or at least Rename to Category:British package holiday resorts. -- Prove It (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not a defining characteristic. Vegaswikian 04:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Competitors for France at the 1900 Summer Olympics

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

The result of the debate was delete, empty and per precedent. Kbdank71 14:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * competitors for france at the 1900 summer olympics


 * Nominator's rationale:


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

Category:Competitors for France at the 1908 Summer Olympics

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

The result of the debate was delete, empty and per precedent. Kbdank71 14:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * competitors for france at the 1908 summer olympics


 * Nominator's rationale:


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

Category:Competitors at the 1908 Summer Olympics by country

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

The result of the debate was delete, empty and per precedent. Kbdank71 14:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * competitors at the 1908 summer olympics by country


 * Nominator's rationale:


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

Category:Games featuring China

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * games featuring china


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete, not a defining characteristic. Combination  19:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Video games set in China and make sub-cat of Category:Video game locations. Nominator's confidence it won't expand seems entirely misplaced to me. Johnbod 00:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The category refers to games that include China in some form; not necessarily being set in China. -- Scottie_theNerd  17:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * True; a few would have be left out. But the category definition as it stands is too vague and broad I think. Johnbod 19:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hence its CFD. Using China as a video game location would be for a different category. -- Scottie_theNerd  01:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


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

Category:Prominent conservative research groups in the United States
<div class="boilerplate 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Conservative think tanks based in the United States. Kbdank71 14:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * prominent conservative research groups in the united states


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename to Category:American conservative think tanks or Category:American conservative research groups, which is really what the category seems to be. The "prominent" requirement is superfluous because that standard should already be met if the article exists in WP. Apart from a naming problem it seems to me to be a legitimate way of categorizing. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but perhaps rename Possibly the necessity that a subject be notable will deal with the prominent question. I just didn't want to see the major institutions lost in a forest of splinter groups. Fred Bauder 16:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename - Given that we already have a Category:Think tanks based in the United States — which I've just added as a parent category for the one we're discussing — it seems to me that the proper name for this category should be Category:Conservative think tanks based in the United States. As for the definitional info, "prominence" can be dispensed with, as already noted. However, I just had to remove two Aspen Institute articles which some anon. IP had recently added to the category. So there should be some instruction regarding use of the term "conservative". Cgingold 23:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to one of these suggestions, preferably Category:Conservative think tanks based in the United States per all above. Johnbod 00:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per choster - Things on wikipedia should be notable and prominent. Baka man  22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I originally suggested new names but I agree with Cgingold's renaming suggestion for the sake of consistency. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per Johnbod; "prominent" is a synonym for notable and as such is superfluous. Carlossuarez46 06:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


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

Category:Articles which may be biased
<div class="boilerplate 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. Judging by the annotation added when the category was created, it seems to have been done in a fit of pique, or else with a wink. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 13:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * articles which may be biased


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete per discussion of June 4th. -- Prove It (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per both. A very dubious category. Johnbod 00:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. On WP everything may be biased. Pavel Vozenilek 04:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone. — <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">xDanielx T/C 03:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete category which may be biased. Wryspy 06:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete every article may be biased - if it wasn't last time you looked, don't blink :-P, in other words, not needed. Carlossuarez46 06:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Carlossuarez46 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.