Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 13



Category:Internet services shutdown by a legal challenge

 * Propose renaming Category:Internet services shutdown by a legal challenge to Category:Internet services shut down by a legal challenge


 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: rename per nominator, there are other opinions so further discussion may be necessary. Conscious (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Shut down" (verb) versus "shutdown" (noun). I guess Category:Internet service shutdowns by a legal challenge would not make sense since the articles in it are about services, not about their shutdowns. GregorB (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Listify and merge to Category:Defunct websites. I'm less than sanguine at the notion of establishing categories on the basis of why a particular website became defunct. Otto4711 (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Another name issue. The name "Internet Services" to me suggests ISPs rather than websites. The scope is not clear. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. E.g. Napster is a member of this category, and it is not a website. The name is a bit unwieldy. Another option is "Internet properties", as in Category:Internet properties by year of establishment. GregorB (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable, presumably www.enron.com and www.arthurandersen.com are both shutdowns based on legal challenges. Way too broad, subjective, and inviting of POV additions. Why things shutdown is often a constellation of factors, legal challenges being one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak speedy rename per comments and spelling issues in title. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * strong rename it should clearly be "shut down" instead of "shutdown", the latter makes no sense at all. ImperviusXR (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - This seems to me to be something that would work better as a list; I'm honestly not sure that it's "defining" or even subject to a neat definition since it's such a vague set of concepts. That said, if kept, the name needs to be improved. (1) It's not "by" a legal challenge; it's "because" of one. (2) Propose "Internet sites" over "Internet services". I dislike "Internet properties" and would rename the other tree, too. --Lquilter (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Epic metal albums

 * epic metal albums


 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete. Conscious (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: "Epic metal" now redirects to "power metal," so it's not a valid genre. Plus, there are only 2 items in the category. Managerpants (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete subjective POV. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Media by Media categories

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: no consensus, suggest renominating these for consensus, if there is one thing that you can all agree on is that these are a mess. Kbdank71 14:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Category:Media based on media
 * Category:Media in media
 * Category:Media by source
 * Category:Lists of media based on media
 * Category:Lists of media based on books
 * Category:Lists of media based on comics
 * Category:Lists of media based on films
 * Category:Lists of media based on plays
 * Category:Lists of media based on television programs
 * Category:Lists of media based on video games
 * Category:Lists of books based on media
 * Category:Lists of comics based on media
 * Category:Lists of television programs based on media
 * Category:Lists of video games based on media

Comment something needs to be done, but I doubt if it is just deletion. There are far too many categories here, and many names are not good. How extensive has the replacement of earlier schemes been? Johnbod (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: the naming is anti-intuitive, is being used to replace category names that do make sense (Lists of films by source|British sitcoms was replaced with Television programs based on media|Films, Category:Lists of media based on television programs|Films and List of films based on media|Television), is being used by one person. I've asked them to explain the categories, but they haven't.  Possibly a rename is in order, but I can't see the point of the categories as they exist. Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I really have no way of knowing how extensive this is. I just know that every day for a week or more some article on my watchlist has been updated.  It's one person and they seem to have a plan, but I'm really not sure what it is.  I suggested deletion but since I'm completely sure what the point of the changes are, I'm happy to see something else done. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone needs to ask User:Stefanomione what their plan is and what this is all about - same thing is true of the Category:People by medium tree that I have included for discussion above. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  12:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did ask, but have had no reply. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I went back over 2000 edits and found "no" examples of a reply to a question made to this user (User:Stefanomione). Seems like someone a little out of control. I may be wrong but please correct me if so. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  14:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Looking at Category:Television programs by source it seems that that page has been usurped by the Media re-cating, so it's basically useless now, which is sort of my point. TV shows by source makes sense to me TV shows by media doesn't. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - which is why this debate is so important. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  12:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Reorg - totally agree with Johnbod's comment above this desires more than just deletion. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  12:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Categories above are too disparate: Category:Media by source ≠ Category:Media in media ≠ Category:Media based on media . We should split up this discussion. Stefanomione (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the debate - What would you suggest and can you explain/justify the scheme(s). Also bear in mind the Category:People by medium tree above. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  15:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When there is a list (ex. Category:Lists of television series), very often there is a category (ex. Category:Television series). So why are the lists Category:Lists of media based on media nominated for deletion, but the categories in Category:Media based on media aren't ? Very strange also that the Category:Lists of media based on films is nominated for deletion, but the Category:Lists of films based on media isn't. The naming of the categories isn't so anti-intuitive as stated in the rationale above. Beside this point, I want to mention that both (categories and lists) encompass the categories in Category:Media by source - So, here the discussion should be split up. Stefanomione (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree the "List" categories are different from the others but I don't think we should split the debate. I think the list categories are all too small, and should be merged, but I will wait before making an overall !vote. The sorting within these categories is very poor also. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So, let's propose a merge (Category:Lists of media based on media + Category:Media based on media ) : the categories won't be poor anymore (and very useful - look at the Category:In popular culture-entries. Stefanomione (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should be merging into "ddddd by source" :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  17:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge: agreed, X by source makes much more sense. Duggy 1138 (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge: all the Media based on X back into Works based on X as they originally were. In some cases the category will need to be recreated. Duggy 1138 (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this tree needs an entire re-think and do-over, so let's start with a blanks slate. I have some doubts about the objectivity of X based on Y on the edges, but will accept that certainly some films are based on books, etc. So the underlying categories seem to be proper, it's just how to organize them and to title them. "Films (Books, etc.) adapted from another medium", or borrowing from The Oscar's various formulations of screenplays: "Films (books, etc.) based on Material from Another Medium" or "Films (Books, etc.) based on Material Previously Published or Produced". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: On the objectivity point - yeah, it comes up... is the Hitchhiker's Film based on the original radio series or the later television series, etc. But those are problems for later editors.  I still think that Films (Books, etc) by source works, because it's a category to collect sub-categories.  Once you categorising actual articles it becomes Films based on Television Programs and doesn't need the clunky wording.  The AAs have that wording because they include adaptations, remakes and sequels and have to make that clear in the wording.  We don't have that problem.  Also, since we're starting from scratch I think that new naming plans need to be developed or exisiting ones adhered to.  I've seen Fiction used to mean Books, stories (writing) whereas a film can be fiction, too.  And you imply Book, but that's dubious... we have series of books, novels, novellas, short stories, stories not published in book form and who knows what else that will come up.  I like Literature as the unbrella for this, although, I admit it has a conotation of quality writing.
 * In regards the clean slate... I don't know. It is a mess at the moment.  Media by Media is wrong, but the Works by source that it replaced was flawed but worked.  I think out all the Media by media stuff back into Works by source, delete Media by media and then rework Works by source to remove problems in it.
 * Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

<hr style="width:50%;"/>
 * Delete. This is a mess and needs work.  I think that deleting these categories would be the easiest way to clean this up.  Once these are gone if someone wants to go back and straighten things out, feel free to do so. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Wireless

 * The result of the discussion was: reverse merge. Kbdank71 14:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Wireless to Category:Wireless communications
 * Nominator's rationale: Both categories claim to be top cat for Wireless, which creates some confusion. Leo Laursen ( T ¦ C ) 08:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'd lean to Category:Wireless since that matches the main article.  In that article it clearly spells out Wireless communications as a specific class.  So Category:Wireless communications should become the child category with some cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong support, but there is a lot more work to be done. Wireles, mobile, telecomunications, mobile software, telephony, etc. are very loose terms, with different meanings per country.  I have been error on the side of lots of nested categories, but I've been violating parent child.  I recomend we merge it all into main category, Mobile.  Mathiastck (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We need to be careful here. While all mobile is wireless, not all wireless is mobile. So we need to structure the categories with care.  Clearly shortwave is not mobile but is wireless. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would be OK with Category:Wireless as top, and remove it from Category:Mobile computer, Category:Mobile, Category:Mobile phones and Category:Wireless communications. I guess that "mobile" is the word of choice for anything wireless these days, but strictly speaking wireless doesn't have to be mobile.—Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 00:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, strictly speaking, wireless doesn't have to be mobile, and vice versa. You can wirelessly get internet on your home PC, and the Game Boy is pretty mobile.  I think Cellular is a subset of Wireless, but Cellular has been abused to refer to most wirless usage with more then one tower.  Mathiastck (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess one problem is that terms like "wireless" and "mobile" are used in context where the specifics are implied. When taken out of context it have to be supplied, like wireless communication, mobile computing or mobile telephony. It's easy to round up content for a super category like mobile or wireless, but where does that category belong in the existing category tree? If we can't find a logical place, maybe it is because we don't need it. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 23:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought that mobile as used these days is the common name for a cell phone. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

<hr style="width:50%;"/>
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Reverse Merge Category:Wireless communications to Category:Wireless. Once that is complete, work on cleaning up the erst of the structure. Mobile generally is used for phones and related devices and should be a child tree.  Is not wireless always some form of communication?  Vegaswikian (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what a reverse merge is, but I prefer keeping Category:Wireless and ditching Category:Wireless communications. Mathiastck (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A reverse merge is the opposite of what was proposed. So you support a reverse merge based on your comments. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge Wireless to Wireless Communications The category Wireless doesn't make any sense to me.  You could put virtually anything in it.  Dogs, newspaper, laundry detergent, peat moss, water bottles, candles, tennis shoes, etc. etc. etc. don't contain wires and could therefore be included in the category.  If it is referring to communications devices that don't rely on wires, then that concept should be reflected in the title.  The term "wireless" needs context in order to be interpreted correctly.  Cacophony (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:2007 UCI Track World Championships
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:2007 UCI Track World Championships to Category:2007 UCI Track Cycling World Championships
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To fall in like with, UCI Track Cycling World Championships, 2007 UCI Track Cycling World Championships and so on. SeveroTC 13:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Mosques in the Arab World
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 07:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * mosques in the arab world


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Cat:Mosques by country already organizes these by country. There's no need for this additional multi-state division, especially since no other multi-state divisions (e.g., by continent) even exist. Darwinek (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think I recently voted against keeping the equivalent World Heritage Site category, but I'm less sure about this one. It should only consist of by-country sub-cats (& the odd general article on architecture etc) however. I'm not sure that banning "Arab World" sub-cats is not unintentionally POV, as this is a very real concept for Arabs.  The WHS & maybe ? a wildlife cat I seem to remember recently are rather different, as the subjects were much less to do with exclusively Arab culture  Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. By country covers this. If we need to group the Arab world, then do it at the country level. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete superfluous, as are several other similar recently created categories. There are no corresponding categories for other regions. — Zerida 01:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Geologic formations
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: n/a, change already made per discussion. Kbdank71 14:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Geologic formations to Category:Geological units
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Broaden scope to include groups, series, supergroups etc. Verisimilus  T  12:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you provide some examples of articles or subcategories that you believe would fall under this expanded scope? Otto4711 (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, Windermere supergroup, Ludlow Group, Newark Group, Bala Series. None of these are formations in the stratigraphic sense. Verisimilus  T  22:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there some reason why we wouldn't want to create Category:Geologic units as a parent, retain the formations category as a subcat and create additional subcats like Category:Geologic series? Note that Geological unit is a redirect to Geologic unit and the category name should match the article name. Otto4711 (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would favor a subcategory from unit to formations and series and groups. At least separating them out will make it easier to grasp the scale of each unit, whether it be a large regional unit that is several hundred feet thick, or a small localized bed of material. Would beds and smaller units than formations be placed in formations or another subcategory of that? -- Riffsyphon1024 (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That would make sense, my reason for not proposing it was that there aren't many articles that would fall into the subcategories. The hierarchy is also an issue: formations, beds and supergroups are subcategories of "unit", but a formation should not be included in a "supergroup" category - each formation is a subdivision of one specific group, not of groups in general.  So the hierarchy would be:




 * (not:)




 * and this would probably create a unit category devoid of articles. (I don't know if this is an issue!) Verisimilus  T  08:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem at all to have a category that serves as a container category for subcats with no articles in it (although of course Category:Geologic units should house at least the article Geologic unit). Otto4711 (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, that sounds the way to go then, thanks. Verisimilus  T  14:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For future reference, you should really wait until the CFD closes before implementing changes like these. Otto4711 (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is my first time tinkering with CFDs. I'll bear that in mind in future! Thanks, Verisimilus  T  09:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Indian women diplomats
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: upmerge to Category:Female diplomats. Kbdank71 14:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest Merging - Category:Indian women diplomats has only one member. Suggest merge into parent category Category:Female diplomats.  Mikebar (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge also to Category:Indian diplomats. This is the only subcat of  Category:Female diplomats.  Johnbod (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete triple intersection of sex, nationality, and occupation. OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As always, he means upmerge! Johnbod (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to the double intersections Category:Indian diplomats and Category:Female diplomats. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Mobile phone standard
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: merge per Vegas (Mobile telephone redirects to Mobile phone). Kbdank71 15:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Mobile phone standard to Category:Mobile telephony standards
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge, The two categories cover the same area, and anyway the name should be in plural. Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 07:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attnetion Leo, but I am personally against the term Telephony, in any context. I'm biased against the term.  Mathiastck (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge Category:Mobile phone standard and Category:Mobile telephony standards into Category:Mobile phone standards. Mobile telephony is a redirect to mobile phone. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It involves a little more work, but an excellent solution that I can support. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support merge into new cat name per Vegaswikian Mikebar (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically it should be Category:Mobile telephone standards. Otto4711 (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Incarcerated celebrities
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Incarcerated celebrities to Category:Formerly incarcerated celebrities
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Most celebs in this list are not currently incarcerated (with some exceptions). Another editor raised a WP:BLP concern over a subject who is no longer incarcerated having the "Incarcerated" tag, which I agree can be confusing without going to the cat page and seeing that the intention was to include former and current.  In addition to renaming this category, we could either create a new category ("Currently incarcerated celebrities) or reuse "Incarcerated celebrities."  Granted, there is a maintenance cost with this approach, in that as folks are released from custody, there cat would have to be updated.   OhNo itsJamie  Talk 03:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. And how is this defining?  Since they are celebrities they are already notable.  Maybe listify with dates of incarceration and the reason would be a better approach.  Vegaswikian (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment We could rename both categories to use "people" or "persons" instead, if "celebrity" seems redundant. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate to repeat myself, but how is this defining even with the name change? Do you realize how many people have been incarcerated? To try and police this so that only those few where this may be defining would be impossible. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete  Rename . The name "Incarcerated Celebrities" says they "are" incarcerated, as opposed to "formerly were" incarcerated. It is inaccurate and negative labelling. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC) (I support rename or delete, but prefer delete.) Wanderer57 (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We generally don't categorize based on a time sensitive state. What happens if your rename was made and someone is later incarcerated again?  It would be inaccurate to say that they were 'Formerly incarcerated' since they are currently incarcerated.  Simply too many problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We both mention the inaccuracy issue. It cuts both ways. However, continuing to label a person "incarcerated" when they no longer are, is a greater fault than saying "formerly incarcerated" when they have been reincarcerated. A greater fault as a) it is a more negative statement and b) in most cases the first type of error would persist far longer. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete altogether. We've been through several versions of this one already. Doczilla (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename. As I have stated on the category talk page, maintaining a separate category for celebrities who are currently incarcerated is probably going to be less of a maintenance problem than some imagine. __meco (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not defining since it includes too many individuals.  In addition it is not defining for most unless you included their booking photo which is clearly not defining for an encyclopedia.  In addition it would be a maintenance nightmare no matter how you try to restrict it. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Vegaswikian. Otto4711 (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment this will likely be deleted, but essentially because we don't like it. Many of these celebrities are better known for their incarceration(s) than the trivial race/ethnicity/religion/eating habits categories that various editors here hold sacrosanct. Think about it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I don't like it because I think it inaccurate and negative labelling. In my earlier note, I supported Rename. Delete now seems to be on the table as well. I would support Delete over Rename.  Wanderer57 (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Carlos, they're even better known for their various performances; e.g., Paris Hilton. We don't do performers by performances, despite its defining-ness, because of other reasons. --Lquilter (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Vegaswikian - Mikebar (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:People from Epsom and Ewell (district)
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: keep.  A sampling of district categories shows that while the district category is not appended with "(district)", the "people from" categories are. Kbdank71 15:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:People from Epsom and Ewell (district) to Category:People from Epsom and Ewell
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename, excessive disambiguation not used on either the article on the district or the district category. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep for consistency. All the "people from" categories by local government district are suffixed "(district)" to maintain the category hierarchy between settlements and districts. Many local government districts in England have the same name as one of the settlements within them. MRSC • Talk 17:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see there is Category:People from London by district and even Category:People from Ealing by district but I don't find a general categorisation in England of people by district. Could you give examples where 'district' is appended (outside London - E & E seem to be (just) outside London)? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have now found Category:People from Birmingham, England (district). There ought to be a parent category Category:People from England by district to collect together such entities. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.