Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 11 June 13 >

June 12

[edit]

Category:Lists of Australians in sport to Category:Lists of Australian sportspeople

[edit]
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, consistency. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of Australians in sport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Rename, per convention of Category:Lists of sportspeople by nationality. Postlebury 23:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Pejoratives and Hate Speech

[edit]
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 14:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Pejoratives and Hate Speech (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Redundant category. Category:Pejorative terms for people, Category:Discrimination, Category:Prejudices and Category:Profanity all already exist. Vassyana 23:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Persian cuisine to Category:Iranian cuisine

[edit]
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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge Category:Persian cuisine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Merge, These categories are essentially the same thing. In articlespace, Persian cuisine redirects to Iranian cuisine. I believe we should follow this example in the categoryspace as well. GentlemanGhost 22:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Schools of Theatre to Category:Drama schools

[edit]

Category:Theatre schools and training organizations to Category:Drama schools

[edit]
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 no consensus --Kbdank71 14:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge Category:Schools of Theatre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Merge as duplicates. The article is at drama school. Nathanian 22:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

More fictional wealth categories

[edit]
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; arbitrary inclusion. Category:Wealthy fictional characters was closed as delete. --Kbdank71 20:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion: Category:Fictional millionaires (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deletion: Category:Fictional billionaires (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Having a million (or billion) dollars (or pounds) is an arbitrary inclusion criterion. Is a person with 999,999 dollars really that different from a person with one million? But even if you're inclined to answer yes, these categories have a much bigger problem: Just how many Rigellian credits or Barrayaran marks must one have to be considered a millionaire? No one has provided us with exchange rates for Middle Earth or Ferenginar. Even if you ignore fictional monetary systems and exchange rates, the inclusion criteria is pretty vague. Someone who had a million pounds in 18th century Britain is a whole different animal from someone has a million pounds in 21st century Britain. And a character from a future Britain in a time of runaway inflation might be described as a "millionaire" to indicate his grinding poverty. "Millionaire" and "billionaire" are slippery, ill-defined concepts, and not appropriate for categorization.
Note: the related category, Category:Wealthy fictional characters, is also being debated here. I tend to agree that that category is subjective, but while contemplating the matter, I realized that these categories seem even worse, hence this nomination.
Note2: The billionaires category was previously nominated on April 17, but that debate was closed as no consensus, and I believe that this nomination raises some significant new points that were not mentioned at the previous discussion, so I don't consider this a hasty nomination. -- Xtifr tälk 21:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Vietnam War equipment to Category:Vietnam War military equipment

[edit]
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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge Category:Vietnam War equipment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Merge, redundant to the more specific "military equipment" category. jwillburtalk 21:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment Why wouldn't this be named 'Military equipment of the United States in the Vietnam War' to match the rename of the category just after this one? This proposed rename and the following one cannot both meet a standard. Hmains 02:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Vietnam War U.S. forces to Category:Military units and formations of the United States in the Vietnam War

[edit]
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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge Category:Vietnam War U.S. forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Merge, categories are redundant. The "Military units..." category follows WP:MILHIST naming guidelines found here. jwillburtalk 20:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Mississippi State Bulldogs basketball coaches

[edit]
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 reverse merge --Kbdank71 14:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Mississippi State Bulldogs basketball coaches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Redundant to the more specific Category:Mississippi State Bulldogs men's basketball coaches. fuzzy510 20:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Entrepreneurs

[edit]
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/merge/delete as nominated --Kbdank71 14:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Entrepreneurs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Entirely subjective category; at the moment a subcat includes Alexander Graham Bell who didn't even file his own patents. Upmerge this to Category:Businesspeople (although some, like Bell, should go to Category:Inventors). This should apply to all similarly named subcats. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, I propose to
Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Kreator

[edit]
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 14:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Kreator (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Delete - as with many recent CFDs for categories named for bands, this categroy is not needed to navigate the material. The articles in the various subcats are interlinked, there is an enormous navtemplate and the subcats are all in appropriate "by artist" categroy trees. Otto4711 19:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Railway stations in Ross and Cromaty

[edit]
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 speedily deleted by J Milburn (author request). Bencherlite 22:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Railway stations in Ross and Cromaty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Category was created in error. Stewart 16:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Roman Catholic Primates of Scotland to Category:Archbishops of St Andrews and Edinburgh

[edit]
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, as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Primates of Scotland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Rename - The people are much more commonly referred to as the Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh. Even the Wikipedia article on the subject uses the "archbishop" name. The "primate" naming scheme is insane and will only confuse people. The category should be renamed accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 16:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Honorary Roman Catholic Primates of the United States

[edit]
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, redundant. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Honorary Roman Catholic Primates of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Delete - This category is redundant with Category:Archbishops of Baltimore. All of the articles in the "primate" category are also in the "archbishop" category. The title "archbishop" is much more frequently used for these people. The "primates" category will only cause confusion and should be deleted. (These misnamed or redundant categories seem endless.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Roman Catholic Primates of Bohemia

[edit]
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, as redundant to existing scheme. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Roman Catholic Primates of Bohemia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - *Delete - This category is redundant with Category:Archbishops of Prague. All of the articles in the "primate" category are also in the "archbishop" category. The title "archbishop" is much more frequently used for these people. The "primates" category will only cause confusion and should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Vozenilek (above) is mentioning an Orthodox one. There is Christopher (Pulets) of Prague, an escapee from the haphazard rounding up of 'primates', who is an (Orthodox) Archbishop of Prague and the Czech Lands. John of Rokycan is described as Archbishop of Prague and appears to be Hussite, categorised as Protestant. There is also http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/ which seems to have a lot of material (eg Category:Non-Chalcedonian_Bishops, not yet on this wikipedia). (I know nothing first-hand of any of these matters.) -- roundhouse0 18:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I am sorry, I disremembered of this (orthodox church in Czech republic cover 0,2 % of population). Statement John Rokycana was archbishop of Prague is easy questionable... --Cinik 19:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Saturday Night Live actors

[edit]
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. WP:SALTed, for good measure. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Saturday Night Live actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Previously deleted as part of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 25#Category:Actors by series. waffle iron talk 16:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Split Enz compilation albums

[edit]
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 and delete. (NB the cat is now empty anyways). --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Split Enz compilation albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Split Enz albums, convention of Category:Albums by artist. -- Prove It (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:The Apprentice episodes to Category:The Apprentice (US) seasons

[edit]
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 no consensus --Kbdank71 13:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Apprentice episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Dalejenkins 12:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • To expand on my above comment a bit, season-length summaries are IMHO properly categorized in an "episodes" category as part of the Category:Television episodes by series structure. They are in most cases functionally list of episodes articles. Renaming and repurposing this category under "seasons" opens up the notion of building yet another Category:Television shows by season structure, which doesn't add much in the way of navigation and fragments the articles. Note this CFD for a similar season summary category for American Idol which (with admittedly light participation) resulted in deletion and perhaps the start of a sentiment against season summary categories. Otto4711 17:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Arsenal F.C. fans

[edit]
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, overcategorisation by non-defining opinion; per consensus established. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arsenal F.C. fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as categorization by opinion about a question or issue. -- Prove It (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Hollins Alumni

[edit]
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, as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hollins Alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Hollins University alumni, to match Hollins University. -- Prove It (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Orthodox text editors

[edit]
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 14:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Orthodox text editors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as neologism ... linked webpage also defines both Western Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox editors. -- Prove It (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Edward Jones Key Figures

[edit]
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 13:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Edward Jones Key Figures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Edward Jones Investments people, convention of Category:People by company. -- Prove It (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Roman Catholic Primates of Denmark

[edit]
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, redundant. --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Roman Catholic Primates of Denmark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - *'Delete - This category is redundant with Category:Archbishops and bishops of Lund. The titles "archbishop" and "bishop" are more commonly used for these people. The redundant "primate" category is only going to cause confusion and should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 14:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Science awards to Category:Science and engineering prizes

[edit]
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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge Category:Science awards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Category:Science awards is a redundant category containing only four articles Jeodesic 14:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Primates of the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople to Category:Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople

[edit]
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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge Category:Primates of the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Merge - Category:Primates of the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople only contains Category:Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople and Latin Patriarch of Constantinople, which means that the "primate" category is an unnecessary layer of categorization between Category:Roman Catholic primates and the "patriarch" category. The categories should be merged together into Category:Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople to streamline navigation. Dr. Submillimeter 14:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Roman Catholic Primates of Belgium to Category:Archbishops of Mechelen-Brussel

[edit]
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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Primates of Belgium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Rename - The title "Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussel" is currently used for these people. Historically, the title "Archbishop of Mechelen" was used, but it appears that "Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussel" implicitly includes people who used the older title. In either case, this category should either be renamed as Category:Archbishops of Mechelen-Brussel or split into Category:Archbishops of Mechelen-Brussel and Category:Archbishops of Mechelen categories. I recommend using the "Mechelen-Brussel" name for all people in this category. Dr. Submillimeter 14:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - to the more usual name (using "Mechelen-Brussel"). -- roundhouse0 00:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Eminent Mohyals

[edit]
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, by creators request. -- Prove It (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eminent Mohyals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Mohyals. I thought we had decided against Category:People by caste. -- Prove It (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Previous discussions had established that people would not be categorized by caste. Dr. Submillimeter 14:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete Delete (see discussion below) - I am new to Wikipedia, but this seems totally inconsistent. The article on Mohyals itself needs to be redone a bit. Mohyals are not just a caste, they are a small, distinct and cohesive ethnic tribe from one specific geographic area, speaking one specific language with an acute sense of their tribal history, like the Sials, Pashtuns, Memons or Bishnois. There are Muslim, Sikh and Hindu Mohyals - who share a strong ethnic identity in common. Unless we are also deleting List of Rajputs, Category:Pashtun_people, Category:Memon_people, Category:People_from_Assam, Category:Belgian Americans and Sial (tribe) - all of which are tagging individuals by ethnic identity. -- --Jklbot 03:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I am not really happy about categorizing people by ethnicity, either, especially in the case of Category:Belgian Americans. Dr. Submillimeter 09:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I understand your sentiment, but this needs to be a little nuanced. It feels wrong to me, for instance, to delete List_of_Cajuns or go into Sioux and delete the listing of famous Sioux individuals. Ethnic identity is usually a crucial defining characteristic for people that come from small, cohesive groups (which the Mohyals and Cajuns are, though of course Cajuns are much bigger/6-times more numerous than the Mohyals). At the same time, I agree about the repugnance of looser general/caste/racial classifications, which a "list of latinos" or "list of brahmins" would be. I feel that if it is a smaller, tighter tribal affiliation ("Famous Brooklyn Musicians") that denotes continued recent shared tribal identity, it's okay; if it's broader, spread over a larger area, it's objectionable. How about this as a rule - if the name of every living member of a group could be listed in an average metropolitan phonebook, it's okay. Maybe a million people or less. Agree/Disagree? --Jklbot 19:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lists and articles have different criteria from categories, so don't mix up your arguments. Lists by ethnicity are generally far more acceptable than ethnic categories. One option here, in fact, is to "listify" this category. Xtifr tälk 21:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete- changed see below. Not a caste. The main Category:Indian people by ethnic or national origin has 24 sub-categories, many with lots of sub-categories. Johnbod 22:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks, I created a new subcategory called "Mohyal People" alongside dozens of the other categories in there. Basically, borrowed the template from Jat People. I am fine with deleting "Eminent Mohyals." I can do it myself, if we have concurrence here. --Jklbot 06:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we are agreed. I realized that only an administrator can delete a category (correct?). Would appreciate it if someone on this discussion would do it. Thanks --Jklbot 20:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Eastern Orthodox minor churches and movements to UNKNOWN

[edit]
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 no consensus --Kbdank71 13:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Eastern Orthodox minor churches and movements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Rename - The word "minor" has POV problems, and the phrase "churches and movements" is cumbersome. The category clearly needs a new name. However, I have no suggestions for a new name. I hope a name will develop in a discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 12:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Lithuania hills

[edit]
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, as proposed. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Lithuania hills to Category:Hills of Lithuania
Category:Lithuania hills (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Hills of Lithuania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to standard form for categories of physical features. It should be noted that even on the most generous possible interpretation there are no mountains in Lithuania. Haddiscoe 11:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Canadian Press Newsmakers of the Year

[edit]
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 13:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Canadian Press Newsmakers of the Year
Category:Canadian Press Newsmakers of the Year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - This is an honor that goes to people who are so famous that they win many awards and honors anyway (such as Wayne Gretsky and Pierre Trudeau). These people generally are not famous because they won this honor, so it is not a defining characteristic. Moreover, a complete list already exists at Canadian Newsmaker of the Year. This category should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Japanese buses

[edit]
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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Japanese buses to Category:Bus transport in Japan
Category:Japanese buses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Bus transport in Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename - The category should be renamed to follow the convention used for subcategories of Category:Bus transport. (As it is currently named, this could be interpreted as referring to Japanese brands of buses.) Dr. Submillimeter 10:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Bus routes subcategories

[edit]
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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Bucharest bus routes to Category:Bus routes in Bucharest
Propose rename Category:Bucharest trolleybus routes to Category:Trolleybus routes in Bucharest
Propose rename Category:Japanese Highway Bus routes to Category:Highway bus routes in Japan
Propose rename Category:London bus routes to Category:Bus routes in London
Nominator's rationale: Rename - The convention for most public transport by city categories is to use "method in city" (e.g. Category:Transport in Bucharest). These categories should be renamed for uniformity. Dr. Submillimeter 10:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:London buses

[edit]
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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:London buses to Category:Bus transport in London
Category:London buses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Bus transport in London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename - The names of the categories should be renamed to match the parent category, Category:Bus transport in England. Note that this category refers to bus transportation in London in general and not specifically to London Buses, the organization that manages bus services. Also note that categories on public transportation in cities are generally not named after the management organizations that operate the services. Dr. Submillimeter 10:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Category:London bus types/models probably needs splitting off as a sub-cat. Johnbod 23:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The articles on specific bus models probably should not be placed in this category, as they are used in many locations besides London. MCW Metrobus and Volvo B10M, for example, shows those specific models being used at multiple locations outside of London. Categorizing buses according to which cities use them is not feasible, as the list of categories for each locale that would be placed in each article would be very long. It would be best to remove the bus model articles from this category. Dr. Submillimeter 08:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be bothered to research it, but as I said above, I think "London bus" is precisely how most of the world knows these, "double-decker" being restricted to those countries that actually use them widely. Johnbod 22:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A search for "London bus" at Google turns up mostly articles that refer to buses in London, not double-decker buses. Again, I strongly suggest using Category:Double-decker buses for double-decker buses, which, according to a Google search, is used as a term for buses outside of London. (I can cite specific pages if needed.) Dr. Submillimeter 12:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Johnbod and I reached an agreement on this issue. Double-decker buses are now listed in Category:Double-decker buses, and buses used in London transport are listed in buses in London. However, Category:London buses still contains some general bus transport articles that belong together, and the category should still be renamed. Dr. Submillimeter 14:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Elves of Dragonlance and Category:Humans of Dragonlance

[edit]
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 to Category:Dragonlance characters --Kbdank71 13:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their sibling cats are called "Dragonlance deities" and so forth, so would suggest renaming these to "Dragonlance elves" and "Dragonlance humans" for consistency. Aside from that, I'm not convinced of the usefulness of subcatting Category:Dragonlance characters by race. >Radiant< 09:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be overly opposed, myself, to simply eliminating these categories (particularly elves) and putting all the article contained in it to the Dragonlance characters category. I would also go with renaming them as proposed by the nominator. DoomsDay349 15:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Primates of the Montenegrin Orthodox Church

[edit]
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, as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Primates of the Montenegrin Orthodox Church to Category:Metropolitans of Montenegro
Category:Primates of the Montenegrin Orthodox Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Metropolitans of Montenegro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename - The articles in this category use "Metropolitan of Montenegro" to refer to the people in this position. The category should be renamed accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 09:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Primates of the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate of Peć (Serbia)

[edit]
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 nomination. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Primates of the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate of Peć (Serbia) to Category:Patriarchs of Serbia
Category:Primates of the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate of Peć (Serbia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Patriarchs of Serbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename - The articles all use "Patriarch of Serbia" to refer to this position, and the corresponding Wikipedia article is Patriarch of Serbia. The category should be renamed accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 09:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Primates of the Autocephalous Greek Cypriot Orthodox Church

[edit]
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, as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Primates of the Autocephalous Greek Cypriot Orthodox Church to Category:Archbishops of Cyprus
Category:Primates of the Autocephalous Greek Cypriot Orthodox Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Archbishops of Cyprus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename - The title "Archbishop of Cyprus" is used in all of the articles within this category as well as in the article List of Archbishops of Cyprus. The category should be renamed accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 08:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Primates of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch

[edit]
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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Primates of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch to Category:Greek Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch
Category:Primates of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Greek Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename - The title used by these people is "Patriarch", not "Primate of the Patriarchate". Even the corresponding article is named List of Greek Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch. The category should be renamed accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 08:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Wealthy fictional characters

[edit]
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. Nothing has changed since I closed the 2006 dicussion: this category is still extremely subjective and certainly not NPOV. Who determines which characters are wealthy? You? Me? Whose standards are we using? Can you verify any of this? --Kbdank71 20:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wealthy fictional characters - This category was nominated on 2007 May 15. In looking over that discussion, I note that no one mentioned that this was previously nominated for deletion on 2006 Oct 12 with a result of Delete. Now while consensus can change, I think being aware of previous discussions is helpful in making a fair and knowledgable decision. In addition, the last nom resulted in No consensus, which doesn't preclude a renomination, and even if that were a concern, it's been nearly a month, so I don't consider this a hasty renomination.
In any case, "wealthy" is subjective, as noted in both previous discussions. See also: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Subjective inclusion criterion. - jc37 01:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, not this again! Why go over the whole thing again when most people said Keep? (sigh) Angie Y. 03:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subjective inclusion criterion. WODUP 03:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC) I've commented below. WODUP 16:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Determining which characters are "wealthy" will require editors to make subjective judgments about characters. While some characters could be clearly identified as "wealthy", the identification is less clear for other characters. (Imagine doctors or lawyers being listed in this category.) Hence, the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 08:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. If consensus is to keep, it should probably be renamed to Category:Fictional wealthy characters, since "Fictional X" seems to be the standard. An alternative possibilty which might be feasible is Category:Fictional millionaires or Category:Fictional billionaires, since that would remove the POV element. Grutness...wha? 10:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm. Seems they already exist. In which case, there's no need for this category anyway. Grutness...wha? 10:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: We discussed this before. "Millionaire" and "billionaire" are, in addition to being an arbitrary inclusion criteria, ill-defined , vague terms. Just how many Rigellian credits or Barrayaran marks must one have to be considered a millionaire? No one has provided us with exchange rates for Middle Earth or Ferenginar. Even if you ignore fictional monetary systems, the inclusion criteria for the millionaires category is pretty vague (and not just for the fictional ones). Not just dollars vs. pounds vs. euros: does someone with a million lira or pesos qualify? There have certainly been currencies where being a "millionaire" means you might be able to feed your family for a week! Heck, even if you ignore exchange rates, someone who had a million pounds in 18th century Britain is a whole different animal from someone has a million pounds in 21st century Britain. "Millionaire" is a very slippery concept. "Wealthy", on the other hand, is a pretty straightforward concept, and being wealthy is frequently a very defining characteristic, especially for fictional characters. If this category is a bit arbitrary (and I'll admit there's some truth to that accusation), it is, nevertheless, a million times better than the "millionaires" or "billionaires" categories. Or, that is to say, it might be a million times better once you factor in the exchange rate. :) Xtifr tälk 11:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good points all. I might even be a millionaire if I lived in Japan and calculated it in yen. Grutness...wha? 01:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about merging their contents into this'un? That sounds much better. ^_^ Angie Y. 03:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is very often the most fundamental defining characteristic of fictional characters. The millionaire and billionaire categories are fundamentally flawed, and are not acceptable substitutes. Indeed they should both be merged into this category. Haddiscoe 12:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The closure of the 12 October 2006 debate as "delete" very clearly did not reflect a consensus, indeed it wasn't even a marginal decision, but simply a bad and incorrect closure. It is to be regretted that this category is weaker now than it was then, but it can be rebuilt. Choalbaton 13:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Xtifr and Haddiscoe. RegRCN 16:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wealthy is subjective: is Archie Bunker wealthy? He owned a home in Queens New York where the median home price is nearly $500k, seems wealthy to me, and all those M.D.'s on all those shows, heck M.D.'s average $200k incomes, and lawyers, not to mention the ones that may get more of us to agree (the Ewings, the Dynasty characters, the Falcon Crest set, the Jeffersons, Pipi Longstocking, the Howells from Giligan's Island, etc.), which adding to the subjectiveness is the utter uselessness of the category as too many fictional characters are "wealthy". Carlossuarez46 16:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the closure of the 12 October 2006 debate as "delete" very clearly did not reflect a consensus, indeed it wasn't even a marginal decision, but simply a bad and incorrect closure. And the billionaire and millionaire categories are quite confusing. Angie Y. 16:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Xtifr and Haddiscoe. Lugnuts 18:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep It is about time that the persecution of this perfectly good category stopped. I believe it has been deleted without consensus twice. As I said last time: "This has been around before, and the argument put forward is the opposite of the actual position. "Millionaire" and "Billionaire" are actually elastic and largely unverifiable: a million or a billion whats? And when? And who is counting? How can you equate a million Victorian British pounds with a million 2007 Zimbabwean dollars. "Millionaire" and "Billionaire" are not useful concepts before the 19th century. Furthermore, "Millionaire" is no longer a valid term for wealthy in the 21st century, but a contemporary British fictional character certainly doesn't need to be a sterling billionaire to be conspicuously rich. "Millionaire" excludes Mr Darcy, who is perhaps the character in English fiction most famous for being wealthy. He lived in an era when wealth was measured by income (he had "Ten thousand a year"), and his implied capital was less than a million pounds. On the other hand "Wealthy" is a simple concept that can be applied to all cultures and eras. Sure it's fuzzy round the edges, but so what? It's much better than the alternatives, and we are not exactly dealing with a highly contentious politicised area of the category system." Honbicot 22:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — a month seems far too short to start again. Shouldn't there be a time limit on renomination, e.g., several months at least. — Jonathan Bowen 00:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Honbicot. Casperonline 21:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per several. Also it's too soon. Johnbod 23:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subjective, crufty, and stupid. Come on people, stop wasting out time with these painfully shitty categories. -- Ned Scott 03:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt recreation. Delete vague, subjective category. Judging who is "wealthy" invokes POV. Any inclusion criteria would violate policy against arbitrary inclusion criteria. Furthermore, the name is wrong. It would have to be fictional wealthy characters, not wealthy fictional characters, because they are only fictionally wealthy. Doczilla 08:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you are in favour of out of process deletions and opposed to running Wikipedia by consensus? As you cannot genuinely believe that the last deletion was legitimate, it sure looks that way. Haddiscoe 14:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As the CfD guidelines clearly state, a CfD discussion is not a vote. The consensus among the handful of people who vote in a given discussion can fail to be in line with the greater consensus and precedent behind Wikipedia's project goals and guidelines. "Wealthy" is clearly a subjective term, no matter how many people like it. Doczilla 00:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The person who closed the debate in October 2006 did not use this argument, but just pretended there was a consensus when there wasn't. You seem to think that consensus belongs solely to people who are wise enough to share your opinions. Guidelines are subject to interpretation and are not binding, and in any case they are generally written by just a handful of people. The level of subjectivity here is very low. Haddiscoe 01:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many wealthy fictional characters. ANNAfoxlover 14:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. It doesn't matter if you're a billionaire, millionaire, etc. Those numbers are confusing. What does matter is that you're affluent and have all the comforts and benefits of wealth. Angie Y. 14:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "wealthy" is subjective; millionaire is arbitrary and ill-defined. (The people writing "keep per Xtifr" seem to be misinterpreting my argument against the millionaire cat as endorsement of this one.) What we need is some categories that are neither subjective nor arbitrary for these characters. Perhaps something like Category:Fictional businesspeople, Category:Fictional magnates, Category:Fictional tycoons, Category:Fictional financiers, Category:Fictional bankers, and/or Category:Fictional investors. Xtifr tälk 20:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two of those categories are subjective, and the other four do not necessarily denote wealth. You are effectively admitting that the concept behind this category is sound and useful, and you haven't come up with a better option. Oliver Han 10:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh-uh. I don't think that's good enough. The terms "Millionaire", "billionaire", etc. are the subjective terms, while "wealthy" emcomappasses the whole spectrum. You need to see through oters' perspectives. And besides, you just said the things I just said. ;) Angie Y. 20:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that wealth is a relative (and rather elastic) term. The poverty level in the United States is far above the median income in just about any country outside the "developed" world, and big chunks of it as well. A poor man in Belgium, for example, is quite wealthy by Congolese standards. And "wealthy" doesn't account for people who acquire or lose their fortunes; are they wealthy or poor? Horologium t-c 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. Angie Y. 22:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not making your own case by pointing that out. By saying that the other person's view is just opinion, you're illustrating the fact that the term is subjective. Wryspy 04:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People are wealthy if their wealth defines them in the context in which they live. That is consistent. As for people going from rich to poor or the other way round, if that debars a category, we should delete every single occupational category, as no-one has an occupation at birth, and many people retire before they die. Oliver Han 09:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is fact. The poverty line for a single person in the US is $9800/year; for a family of four, $20000/year. I am not going to spend a lot of time looking for income levels for Africa, South America, and South Asia, but those numbers represent high incomes in those regions. I didn't voice a !vote one way or the other on this issue, for a number of reasons, so please don't lash out at me or slag me because I point out something inconvenient. Horologium t-c 23:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the category page to include that the characters are wealthy in the context of the works of fiction in which they appear. This makes it a little more objective; inclusion won't depend on wealth as defined by the Wikipedian who adds the category. It's not perfect (there may or may not be cases in which wealth in the context of the work is disputed), but it's better. WODUP 16:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wealth" refers to some accumulation of resources, whether abundant or not. 'Richness' refers to an abundance of such resources. A wealthy (or rich) individual, community, or nation thus has more resources than a poor one. Richness can also refer at least basic needs being met with abundance widely shared. The opposite of wealth is destitution. The opposite of richness is poverty.

Case in point. Angie Y. 14:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a harmless, fun, and useful category. It should also be quite straightforward to use: fictional characters are defined by wealth if their wealth is a feature of the story. There's usually little doubt as to whether or not this applies, so this is not a subjective category. Some of the comments make it seem as though people feel that this category is making some kind of sociological statement, but what the category is really about is fictional function. Anyone who disagree with any entry can always take it out, but this is hardly a fraught, politicized category, so edit wars don't seem probable. The only drawback I can see to the category is that it will grow really large, but that can be dealt with by subdividing it. There's nothing to get worked up about here, because they are only fictional characters after all. Annandale 02:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree! For example, Veruca Salt is from a rich family. Her parents give her whatever she wants. And Princess Morbucks, and Karin Kanzuki, and Toph, and...oh, I could go down the list forever! I also agree that the millionaire and billionaire categories should be merged into this one because some of the subjects of the articles in those categories (e.g. Mr. Salt, Veruca's father) don't specifically say how much money they have in their nest eggs. Angie Y. 04:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but renamed to Category:Fictional wealthy characters per Oliver Han. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as suggested as by Oliver Han and per usual wordorder of Category:Fictional characters. "The question is whether the author creates the character with wealth as a defining characteristic", per A Musing in the last discussion. That may cause disagreements about whether a particular entry into the category is justified, but no more so than with other editing disputes, surely, and certainly not enough to require deletion of the entire category. Bencherlite 23:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Quackdave 17:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Mexican Executive Branch of Government

[edit]
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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Mexican Executive Branch of Government to Category:Executive branch of the Mexican government
Category:Mexican Executive Branch of Government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Executive branch of the Mexican government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename, The current name does not comply with the style guidelines. The proposal is based on the form used for similar U.S. and German categories. Perebourne 00:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_12&oldid=1084320235"