Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 17



Category:Drawings of sex positions

 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * drawings of sex positions


 * Nominator's rationale: Covered adequately by Category:Wikipedia images and WikiMedia Commons. Only has one image. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We have a Category:Restricted images which covers all the sex related things. Warning, don't click on any images at random to see what it is, or you might find something you don't want to see.  *Shudders*   D r e a m Focus  02:26, 19 December 2011 (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:Wikipedia illustrations

 * 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. No need to merge as the only content is the category above - itself deleted. The Bushranger One ping only 00:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * wikipedia illustrations


 * Nominator's rationale: Covered adequately by Category:Wikipedia images and WikiMedia Commons. Only contains one category which itself has one image. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 05:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Wikipedia images then delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2011 (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:Men's congregations of the Third Order Regular Franciscans

 * 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 to category:Men's congregations of the Franciscan Third Order Regular. I'm not seeing a clear answer in the text, so since Daniel seems to know what he's talking about, I'm going with his wording.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Men's congregations of the Third Order Regular Franciscans
 * I find the way someone re-titled a category I created to be awkward and suggest the re-naming I have proposed. Daniel the Monk (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This was speedily renamed to match Category:Third Order Regular Franciscans. I don't see your proposal for how you would like it to read, however.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What I am suggesting is "Men's congregations of the Franciscan Third Order Regular" which would be more accurate for this context. Daniel the Monk (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest -- Category:Third Order Regular Franciscan brothers as matching parent and sibelings better. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that the TOR has priests as well as brothers. Daniel the Monk (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2011 (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:Hockey by country

 * 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, no upmerge is necessary as each category here only contains subcats, all of which are already categorised in the logical upmerge targets.. The Bushranger One ping only 11:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * hockey by country


 * hockey in the united kingdom


 * hockey in wales


 * hockey in scotland


 * hockey in england


 * Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize individual country sports by the word "hockey." In all cases—even in the United Kingdom—the way we categorize is by type of hockey (field hockey, ice hockey, and roller hockey). These container categories group sports that are only tangentially related, and have their own trees inside the countries' sports categories. Category:Hockey by country contains only these UK categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Category:Sport in England by sport etc.--Mais oui! (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, we'll need to do that where necessary. So delete/upmerge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to appropriate parents, so as to eliminate this level of categorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Upmerge as appropriate. Occuli (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. All of the subcategories are otherwise categorized properly; there's nothing to merge. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 20:59, 17 December 2011 (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:Wikipedians supporting the car-free movement

 * 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: Speedy deleted per creator request. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * wikipedians supporting the car-free movement


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete User category based on a political position. These are not considered appropriate user categories since they do very little to foster collaboration and can be divisive (though this probably isn't the case here). Pichpich (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Delete I've added the Db-g7 template because I am requesting deletion. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 19:20, 17 December 2011 (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:Neda Agha-Soltan

 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * neda agha-soltan


 * Nominator's rationale: We do not need a category just for the two images used in the article. J Milburn (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete -- the article is now at Death of Neda Agha-Soltan, because her death was the only thing that was notable. We certainly doi not need a category for her.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete -- more appropriate for Commons. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 19:27, 17 December 2011 (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:Girl's Professional Baseball League

 * 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 - was C2A eligible. The Bushranger One ping only 00:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Girl's Professional Baseball League to Category:Girls Professional Baseball League
 * Nominator's rationale: Apostrophe is not included in name on the league's own website - fortunately, as it is grammatically incorrect here in English. Pam  D  09:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename per WP:NCCAT. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 19:29, 17 December 2011 (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:Burnt-out Wikipedians

 * 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. Normally we don't have Wikipedian categories that aren't specifically offering or looking for help in some way. The former group makes its expertise known, and the latter group makes its desire for that expertise known. This category falls squarely into the second group. The users are not merely complaining, they're offering the possibility that their complaint can be fixed. If it becomes a troll hole or leads to a rash of negative categories, then we can revisit. But I'll buy into the majority opinion and assume people in here are trying to work toward reducing their burnout or the causes thereof, and consider the existence of the category a positive thing.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * burnt-out wikipedians


 * Nominator's rationale: Stuff and nonsense that does nothing to promote the Wikipedia community Biker Biker (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * keep Sometimes the Wikipedia rolling lynch-mob doesn't need promotion, it needs a recognition that it's broken. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Can improve collaboration by identifying people who publicly indicate (i.e. "cry for help") that their having issues and might want to discuss the matter. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Only one entry so far, but many others could be included in this.  D r e a m Focus  10:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. They exist. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia is a social phenomena, burn out happens. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 11:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep -- a harmless user category. I hope this is constituted as a user category; if not it should be moved to such.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, at least long enough to add myself. Antandrus (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep — Harmless. By adding themselves to this category, stressed users may be able to relieve tensions. If you notice someone show up in this category, it gives you a chance to express your personal support. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. And who has the time to search these categories to see who's in them? No-one who's making any real contributions to WP, that's who.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - perfectly reasonable and informative category. Mathsci (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't believe that this would meaningfully enhance collaboration. The fact that "it happens" or "it's true" is nice to metnion, but kind of irrelevant with respect to whether we should have a category for it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - part of being a community involves compassion and support for those who are finding the going tough, and helping to find editors who could use some help in returning towards being more productive contributors can certainly enhance collaboration amongst Wikipedians. I am only recently returned from a long break partly because this can be a very unfriendly and unsupportive environment.  I got a few helpful comments both on and off-wiki, for which I was grateful, but the experience had become overwhelmingly negative.  If a few categories like this can help remind us all that we are not only collaborators in an encyclopedia but also human beings and worthy of consideration as such then they have added to something which is often overlooked here.  EdChem (talk) 08:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not sure what drove so many users out of the woodwork but very few of the above reasons for keeping has any basis in policy. Per WP:USERCAT, user categories should be used to foster collaboration.  Only one person above actually argues that this is the reason why it should be kept, which is arguable.  I would tend to disagree that this fosters collaboration.  This is no different from every other category here that have a unanimous history of deletion.  I've been burnt out before, I maybe even a little burnt out now (in fact, discussions like this one where we see people who have never participated in a user category debate to argue keep because it's "harmless" is contributing to that burn out) but that's no excuse to air grievances via a user category.  The previously discussed categories for wikistress level and activity level have extremely similar arguments for deletion as this category.  While some above suggest that this would be a good method to identify users who need to be given some encouragement, I think being "burnt out" is far too broad of a classification to simply put users in a catch-all category like this to be able to effectively seek them out and find out what's wrong.  Someone may be burnt out because they are bored, others may be burnt out because of contentious debates, someone may be burnt out because they are annoyed their article additions keep getting removed.  Are we really proposing that such a category would be gone through by people to find out each individual's issue and try to help them with it? It's a nice thought but seems doubtful in practice, and isn't really "fostering collaboration" as per the intended use of user categories.  A userbox could be associated with this category (if it isn't already) and people could use "what links here" to find the list of users just as well, without running into the WP:USERCAT issue. VegaDark (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Category:Wikipedians who are burnt out after a thousand conversations just like this one. MastCell Talk 21:00, 21 December 2011 (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.

Indexes of topics

 * 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. I note the objections, but this would have qualified under Speedy renaming criterion C2C. Broadening the scope helps with inclusion of non-article content, and I can't see why that would be a bad thing. The articles are not consistent; compare Index of auditing topics and Index of gardening articles. All are topics, so that's the way I'm going.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming:
 * Category:Indexes of articles to Category:Indexes of topics
 * Category:Indexes of biographical articles to Category:Indexes of biographical topics
 * Category:Indexes of engineering articles to Category:Indexes of engineering topics
 * Category:Indexes of mathematics articles to Category:Indexes of mathematics topics
 * Category:Indexes of philosophy articles to Category:Indexes of philosophy topics
 * Category:Indexes of religion articles to Category:Indexes of religion topics
 * Category:Indexes of articles by country to Category:Indexes of topics by country
 * Category:Indexes of articles by U.S. state to Category:Indexes of topics by U.S. state
 * Propose merging redundant category Category:Indexes of articles by region with Category:Lists of topics by region and renaming to Category:Indexes of topics by region
 * Nominator's rationale: The names need to be "Index" not lists, per main category Category:Indexes of articles and more importantly because they're not regular, free-form list articles, but bare alphabetical indexes. The majority of new ones being created are named "Index of...". And it needs to be "topics", despite current name of main category, because more and more indexes in these categories are named with "topics", since a large number of these indexes are indexing more than articles (portals, categories, maps, etc., etc). "Articles" in their title is a misleading misnomer. Even in individual cases where it isn't yet, it probably eventually will be; meanwhile, the more general "topics" is never inaccurate, even when an index is presently just of articles. PS: Other subcats (like Category:Indexes of business topics‎, Category:Indexes of sports topics‎) are already in the target name style. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment "Indexes" or "Indices"? 76.65.128.198 (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No reason to use an increasingly obscure latinism. I bet a dollar that every dictionary I have gives "indexes" as a valid, non-slang word in modern English. That said, if everyone wanted "indices", I'd rather have that and get the renames done otherwise, than have the proposal stall. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Though I disagree with the proposal, I agree with SMcCandlish that "indexes" is a valid plural, and that it is clearer than "indices". We should keep it the way it is, because it is quite obviously the plural of index, while many young readers might not recognize "indices" as such. The Transhumanist 20:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment "Indices" is the correct plural. However, I have grave doubts as to the value of any of the underlying articles, and thus wonder whether they should exist at all.  Lists are useful in that they can contain a redlink for an article that ought to exist, but once they have all been created, they serve little purpose: categories do the job much better.  There are exceptions to this:
 * Persons given an award, because we do not like award categories and a list can place them in chronological order, which a category cannot
 * Successive holders of a public office: these used to be bare lists of names and dates, but have increasingly been converted to tables, often with a photo and additional information. These provide a useful measn of finding out (for example) who was British Ambassador to FRance in 1835, and of completing succession boxes.
 * I expect there are otehr cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That might be the case, but there are lots and lots of these articles, and I'm at least trying to get them named consistently. I wasn't proposing that they all be deleted. I think that would be a different discussion. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 01:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Both spellings are correct, although they have different meanings. "Index" itself has two distinct meanings and the plurals follow this: the position of an entry in a list (plural indices) or else a list used to catalogue some items (plural indexes). In most cases, outside computer programming, indexes is thus the one correct plural. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Unless someone is going to make a project out of correcting ALL the links, please just leave it alone. I speak mainly for the philosophy list. Greg Bard (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what AWB and bots are for. All category name changes result in cleanup (unless they were empty). That cleanup will be required is not a rationale against renaming. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 01:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Update: The reason this is a mess is that a former Category:Lists of topics appears to have been merged into Category:Indexes of articles as redundant (I can't find a CfD about it, but the articles are of two clearly different patterns, depending on their names). What didn't happen in this earlier attempt at cleanup was an examination of what name of the merged category would make the most sense. It's clearly Category:Indexes of topics for the reasons I've given above (or Category:Indices of topics, though fewer people will know what that means, and no one minded "Indexes" or it would have been CfR'd). Some of the articles in there now, especially "lists of x topics" pages, are actually subtopical outlines, not indexes or lists, and I've been moving them to Category:Outlines where they belong. When this is done there won't be anything in this directory but alphabetical inde[x|c]es of topics. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 01:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There are 600+ indexes of articles, and these categories support them. Until the articles are renamed (with community consensus), the category should match the articles.  See Portal:Contents/Indexes.  Please keep the categories the way they are.  The Transhumanist 20:07, 27 December 2011 (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:Films set in the Southern United States

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * films set in the southern united states


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. If you look at Culture of the Southern United States, you see that there is no accepted definition of Southern United States. Instead you see that it is some configuration of three groups of states and the definition probably changes over time.  This makes for a poorly defined category.  It is possible that a renaming or some period focus can fix that, but I'm not seeing a way at this time.  So delete unless the discussion here leads to a solution. There are similarly named categories on other topics.  The conclusion here would affect those, but I'm not sure that the decision here would apply those other categories with the same result. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Seems this could affect not just "Category:WHATEVER of/in the Southern United States" categories, but any "Category:WHATEVER of/in WHERE EVER" any time someone wants to question the definition of "WHERE EVER". That could be pretty problematic. Are you seeing this differently, and if so, in what ways? How is this one not a Pandora's Box? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 01:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm pretty sure "southern United States" = "the former (as appropriate) Conferedate States of America" - it's a pretty clear definition standard (the "neutral" status in the "late unpleasantness" of Missouri and Kentucky notwitstanding). - The Bushranger One ping only 11:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If true, then this is a good case to rename to Category:Films set in the Conferedate States of America. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. By-state categories are enough. We don't need to manufacture a region category when we know in what state most films are set.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2011 (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:Lists of Wikipedia requests for comment

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * lists of wikipedia requests for comment


 * Nominator's rationale: No significant incoming links; I can't see how this category is supposed to be used, nor why it should be allowed to live on even while empty. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: It would not be deleted when empty if it were used as long-term policy tool of some kind. If it isn't actually being used as one and is empty, the why not speedily delete it? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The empty category tag worries me - perhaps it does have a legitimate use that I am unaware of. Hence the CFD. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No objection; we may as well delete it. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2012 (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:Wikipedia:Authority control (persons only)

 * 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 to Category:Wikipedia articles with authority control information. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia:Authority control (persons only) to Category:Articles with authority control information
 * Nominator's rationale: The current name is bad: we're not one of these wikis that likes that awful "double-namespace" naming style for categories. (Also, as an aside, can someone please find a good parent category for this?) — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd suggest Category:Articles with biographical authority control as a name. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment it's a maintenance category for Authority control, so it should contain "Wikipedia Authority control", or at least "Wikipedia"... like Category:Wikipedia Authority control (biographical). 76.65.128.198 (talk) 10:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Alt move to remove ambiguity and per WP:HYPHEN. I don't see the need for "Wikipedia" in there, which "Articles" already implies. It's not like it's about something different from Authority control. Parent could be . – Pnm (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Wikipedia articles with authority control information. Wikipedia maintiance categories are supposed to contain "Wikipedia". - The Bushranger One ping only 00:56, 26 December 2011 (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:New Page Patrolling Tutorial

 * 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. Userspace pages are not supposed to be categorised. The Bushranger One ping only 01:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * new page patrolling tutorial


 * Nominator's rationale: Personal user project; does not require its own category. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment if this were kept, it would need to be prepended with "Wikipedia" to indicate it is not an encyclopedic content category. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete -- When you look at the two (user) articles, they have no content except a logo. "WP:New page patolling tutorial" might make a useful article (if something does not already exist), but it does not need a category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2011 (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:Fictional universes

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * fictional universes


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete This was deleted previously (see here but more importantly here and here. In the April 2007 debate, the consensus for deletion is pretty clear. On the other hand, 2007 is a long time ago on Wikipedia and people's perceptions may have changed. For my part, I still find the deletion arguments quite convincing. To quote the nominator at the time "Any piece of fiction by definition takes place within a fictional universe so any article about a piece of fiction could be categorized here." This makes the category both ill-defined and overly broad. Pichpich (talk) 05:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment is there a place to categorize universes that are fictional? (as oppose to the corpus of works from a particular setting; instead a "universe" in the physics sense, defined in fiction. (such as Earth-12 from DC Comics, or Thirdspace in Babylon 5, or fluidic space from Star Trek) ) We have a category for fictional planets, countries, etc. (NOTE: the category under discussion does not fulfill this purpose, but the ambiguity in naming leads to this question) 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Its a place to list all Wikipedia articles which have "universe" in their name and which are fictional universes, or are otherwise solely about a fictional universe. There are quite a number of those.  The reasons for eliminating this years ago, have no bearing now.  There are even several list articles listing Wikipedia articles for fictional universes.   D r e a m Focus  06:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note, there are currently 41 articles in this category. Most of them have the word "universe" in their title, or in the opening description of them.   D r e a m Focus  06:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as overly broad unless it can be redefined. If it's specifically universes that exist only in fictional work, then OK, but not for putting things like Middle-earth and Star Wars Expanded Universe together. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fictional universe clearly defined itself in its own Wikipedia article.  D r e a m Focus  07:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are currently 31 articles that use the exact words "fictional universe of Middle-earth". [] Its already called that everywhere.  D r e a m Focus  14:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * keep This is a clearly understood term within fiction. Agatha Christie's Poirot didn't exist in our universe, so per the original nominator we should list Belgium as one of these fictional universes. Yet no rational person (i.e. outside WP AfD) would claim this. Fictional universes are a well-established and clearly recognised concept, applied only to worlds like Tolkien's or Roddenberry's, not simply ones where new characters are invented within the existing world. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete – being 'clearly understood' is not a sufficient reason for a category. Having 'universe' in the name brings to mind WP:OCAT. And merely asserting that reasons valid in 2007 are not valid in 2011 is optimistic rather than persuasive. Occuli (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I said that are a fictional universe, regardless if they had that in their name or not. And the previous discussion  had a rather split vote, with those withing to delete arguing that it was too broad of a topic and included any fictional series.  That isn't a problem here, since I'm only listing entries that are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article dedicated solely to their fictional universe.   D r e a m Focus  14:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as a re-created category. Otherwise delete as too broad and too vague. I read the old debates and I don't see as how anything has changed in the intervening years that addresses the problems that led to the initial deletion. 76.204.89.32 (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC) — 76.204.89.32 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Whatever one thinks of the category, I don't think speedy deletion makes sense since the debate is almost five years old and wasn't one-sided. In spirit, that speedy deletion criterion is more meaningful for articles since the consensus on what constitutes an acceptable article is much more stable. Pichpich (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Dream Focus. Fictional universe is the particular thing that the subjects of all included articles are defined as, not merely what the articles are titled.  The definition of fictional universe to mean a "shared" fictional world necessarily precludes fictional worlds depicted in only one work of fiction, and the brilliance of our editors is more than capable of limiting this category to actual articles about fictional universes instead of articles that merely mention fictional universes.  So the concerns about its breadth are misplaced; it has no risk of including articles merely on any work of fiction unless we are overrun by the illiterate.  postdlf (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep since fictional universe is a well-established enough article and is being applied in a consistent enough manner as a definitional characteristic that the category will be both useful and non-moronic. Given the main article and list article and such, and the fact that, yes, this is very clearly a sci fi/fantasy/horror term of art, people will just keep recreating it, because it makes sense, and editors and readers with interest and knowledge in those spheres will expect it to be there, just like they'd expect Category:Steampunk to be there or whatever. This is not a case of SHAREDNAMES at all, or the list articles and main article wouldn't exist either, just like there is no List of rock stars named James.  I sense some delete !votes here are mainly about dislike of deleted things eventually coming back and being kept, not about whether it has finally been shown that this category makes sense. That the term is "clearly understood" isn't the rationale for keeping it.  It's that its a clearly-understood (i.e. applicable as an inclusion criterion) term that has real-world, rational use, so people will expect it to be reflected in the encyclopedia like other such categorizers. The fear that every article about fiction will end up in there doesn't have any traction, since any article that is not about a fictional universe per se, is excluded automatically.  Poirot can't be included, since he's a fictional person, not a fictional universe. Even Lilliput isn't a fictional universe, it's a fictional island.  Let's not be paranoid.  Show me this category in 6 months filled with stuff that does't belong there, and I'll say "delete". — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 02:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)  PS: The more I look at the category the more useful and sensible I find it, provided every "WHATEVER series" of 3 novels doesn't get added to it. Most of the entries presently in there definitely belong. Vanity additions of "my favorite author's works even though no one thinks of them as a fictional universe but me" would be the only potential problem. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 02:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The category contains exactly what one would expect - Buffyverse, Foundation universe, Middle earth, &c. It is therefore not over-broad or ill-defined.  The category will obviously be used where the background or setting has a separate article, not for every work of fiction.  Common sense seems to be working just fine here. Warden (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per  SMcCandlish and Warden.  The category is well defined, and if there are superfluous entries they can just be removed.  I can't imagine  how there could *not* be a "fictitious universe" category in Wikipedia.  --George100 (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2011 (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:Cultural heritage by countries

 * 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: Speedy C2C. The Bushranger One ping only 08:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Cultural heritage by countries to Category:Cultural heritage by country
 * Nominator's rationale: convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * rename, would have thought it could be speedied. Tim! (talk) 11:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Rename per nom.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 05:15, 19 December 2011 (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 with biographies in Te Ara
<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 G7. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * people with biographies in te ara


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is for people whose biography is found in Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand. As such it is overcategorization of people by mention in a single source. We don't categorize subjects by what other encyclopedias or other works mention them or discuss them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: I created this for use in conjunction with WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/NZ/Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, but that was before I discovered DNZB, which actually turns out to be even more useful than the category for my purposes. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2011 (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.