Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 12 February 14 >

February 13

Inconsistent sports-related categories

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep most, no consensus on a few. Perhaps if someone feels strongly s/he could renominate the three listed by Wimstead for separate CFDs? -- RobertG ♬ talk 16:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming:
Nominator's Rationale: Rename all to plural form in keeping with all other such Category:Sports sub-categories that aren't geographical. Nothing whatsoever to do with US vs. UK English, simply consistency. If someone wants to propose renaming all such categories to "sport", that's OK too, as far as I'm concerned - the point is simply that they need to stop being just completely random. Right now we have a de facto convention to use "sports", except in the cases below, where we use "sport". Not ideal, but at least easy to remember. The random naming isn't. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 00:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

And:

Propose renaming:
Nominator's Rationale: Rename all to singular form in keeping with all other such geography Category:Sports sub- and sub-sub-categories, in which "sport" is (except for these exceptions) used in the singular. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 00:11, 14 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:","

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as WP:CSD G1.

Category:"," ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category makes no sense. Anthony Rupert 23:29, 13 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Animated films conected to Motion films

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Animated films conected to Motion films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unclear scope, misspelled, and the creator has not responded to my inquiry. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:12, 13 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Westminster constituencies in Wales

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. No-one who contributed to the debate, except the nominator, was convinced that there is ambiguity between National Assembly for Wales constituencies and Welsh parliamentary constituencies. -- RobertG ♬ talk 12:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming:
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, by adding "(Westminster) suffix to distinguish these constituencies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from the Category:National Assembly for Wales constituencies, as has been done with Scottish constituencies (see Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Scotland (Westminster) and Category:Scottish Parliamentary constituencies).
Note to those not from the UK: the Parliament of the United Kingdom meets in the Palace of Westminster, and the term "Westminster" is routinely used to refer to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The National Assembly for Wales is a devolved Assembly with limited powers of government in Wales, a bit like a less powerful of a state legislature in the USA. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Do they really need the "(Westminster)" in the title? The National Assembly is, well, an assembly and not a parliamnet. It is logical that Welsh parliament seat would be a seat at Westminster, unlike a Scottish seat, which could be for one of two distinct parliaments. Furthermore, any EU Parliament seats would likely be categorized differently, so I don't htink that they would be of concern here. youngamerican ( ahoy hoy) 20:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Reply the Welsh Assembly is gaining more powers, and is becoming more like a Parliament: the distinction between Assembly and Parliament may be a fine one. The Assembly's constituencies may understandably referred to in everday language as "Parliamentary constituencies", and the renaming would remove any ambiguity. We should use the category names to make things clear, rather than relying on readers being fully aware of the finer points of the terminology. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • If the National Assembly of Wales ever becomes a parliament in name (or at least function), I would support a rename. I would also support a rename if it could be shown that anyone is calling the assembly constituencies "parliamentary constituencies." As it is now, however, I must oppose any renaming. youngamerican ( ahoy hoy) 23:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose This is really a question of facts; unlike the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly is just that, an assembly. Members of the body are designated MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly), not MWP. On a factual basis (the only basis on which we should be operating— WP:OR, WP:V, etc) the only Parliament in Wales is the UK Parliament. If facts change then we should change with the facts, however this seems to be an unnecessary level of interpretation.
Xdamr talk 15:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Xdamr, I think you are right to want to stick to facts. So please can you provide evidence for your assertion that an Assembly is not a Parliament? Since you mention it, W:OR and WP:V do indeed apply here. Your view that appears to be the although the French parliament is called a National Assembly, the the adjective "parliamentary" could not be reasonably interpreted by a reader as being applicable to referring to the Welsh Assembly. Verifiable references, please? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
It's not a really question of referencing. The Welsh Assembly is called the Welsh Assembly, not the Welsh Parliament. The only other body in the UK that exercises jurisdiction over Wales and is known as a Parliament is the Westminster Parliament. As a result, electoral constituencies for the Welsh Assembly are just that, for the Assembly. Parliamentary constituencies in Wales are for the only Welsh 'Parliament', that of the UK. In consequence, so long as the Assembly is known as the Assembly, its electoral divisions are not cannot be called Parliamentary.
I understand your implied point, that there is no set definition of 'Parliament'—however this is not a question of definitions, it is a question of what these institutions are actually called.
Xdamr talk 19:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm afraid that you seem to have missed the point here, and I suggest that you re-read the nomination: this is not a proposal to categorise the NAW constituencies as "Parliamentary". The Welsh Assembly constituencies are named and categorised as such: it would be quite wrong to label them otherwise, because (as you rightly point out), the body is called "The National Assembly for Wales".
The need for differentiation arises because:
  1. the Welsh Assembly can be reasonably be seen as a form of parliament (one with limited powers, but then it's not the only parliament to have had limited powers); whether any of us conclues that we agree with that adjective is not the issue, the issue here is whether the distinction is clear to the reader;
  2. as a result of the ambiguity around the term "parliamentary", a reader may see the title "parliamentary constituency" and assume that it includes the NAW.
I think, though, that your focus on "what these institutions are actually called" might provide a way out. How about naming the Westminster constituency categories as "House of Commons constituencies" or as "United Kingdom Parliament constituencies"? Both of those labels are unambiguous and factually accurate. --00:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
No, no—I understood the nomination. My point is that (my circuitous arguments aside) it is only justified if there is room for confusion. Given that Wales, unlike Scotland, has no other Parliament than that at Westminster the change is unnecessary. The sole point of difference is, that you believe there is scope for confusion and I do not (aside from the completely uninformed reader, who is always susceptible to confusion). For such readers, the differences between constituencies can and should be explained in the articles—they, after all, will be the first port of call.
Xdamr talk 00:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - all of this discussion on semantics is entirely moot, since unlike in Scotland since the reduction, the Commons and Senedd constituencies are the same, and will still be the same going into May's election. Any division will create unnecessary duplication. Chris cheese whine 02:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Chris, the constituencies are not the same: they have the same boundaries, but operate under different electoral arrangements and have a different electoral history. That's why there are now separate articles for the NAW constituencies and the Westminster constituencies; this discussion is about about how the constituencies are categorised, not about whether those articles should exist (that would be an issue for WP:AFD). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:25, 15 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Synagogues in La Serena

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 12:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category not used

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rappers From Florida

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge into Category:American rappers and Category:Florida musicians. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:American rappers, or at least Rename to Category:Florida rappers, to match Category:Florida musicians. -- Prove It (talk) 16:03, 13 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Banned books

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: salted. >Radiant< 16:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Block, as recreated deleted content. -- Prove It (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
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:Banned albums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: salted. >Radiant< 16:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete, categories like these work better as referenced lists. We want to know banned by who, and why? -- Prove It (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
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:Fauna of Europe by region

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Fauna of Europe by region to Category:Fauna of Europe by country
Nominator's Rationale: They are quite obviously not listed by region (Mediterranea, Baltic, Alps etc.). Circeus 15:16, 13 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States presidential candidates from Massachusetts

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:United States presidential candidates from Massachusetts ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, not pertinent intersection by location: Why Massachusetts? Circeus 13:27, 13 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Williams people

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Williams people to Category:Williams Formula One people. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Williams people to Category:Williams Formula One team
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - It is impossible to guess what or who Williams is supposed to be without looking at several articles in this category. The rename will make the category's purpose much clearer. Dr. Submillimeter 13:18, 13 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Founding Fathers of the United States

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Founding Fathers of the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cantabrian mythology

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply

It is this Cantabrian -- · Ravenloft · (Talk) 10:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
That was a rhetorical question. My point is that "Cantabrian" is so ambiguous that the current name is next to useless. Grutness... wha? 05:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes, I thought it was a rhetorical one but... heh, you never know. -- · Ravenloft · (Talk) 12:15, 15 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional Kazakhstani people

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional Kazakhstani people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Category made solely for Borat. Unlikely others will be added. Ocatecir 09:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Possibly keep if anyone can demonstrate that this will ever be used for non-Borat stuff in the not-too-distant future, otherwise Delete. AnonMoos 13:58, 13 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations to Category:ASEAN
Nominator's Rationale: Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 05:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
acronyms are also used for NATO, CARICOM.-- 23prootie 02:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose, Not a well known acronym. It most certainly does NOT qualify for speedy rename. -- Prove It (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
And where's that, if you ask in Kuala Lumpur or in Singapore, most would probably know what it means. Since it's an Asia-centered category, I believe Asians have a bigger say.-- 23prootie 00:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment: − Asiocentricism is exactly why I opposed it. If you asked 100 Malaysians about the "CFL", I imagine none of them would know what it is. However, in Canada, we know this is the "Canadian Football League". The Wikipedia article is named "Canadian Football League" and if we left the article named "CFL", Malaysians (and millions of others) would not immediately know what this article was about. Same applies to ASEAN. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment. Um. the Wikipedia article is Association of Southeast Asian Nations, so if don't know what ASEAN is you could always check it there.--- 23prootie 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
P.S. Your comment doesn't really connect with the discussion, this discussion is about a category not an article.-- 23prootie 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Also, the Canadian Football League is relatively short.-- 23prootie 20:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Abreviations and/or acronyms are used for international organizations such as Category:NATO, Category:CARICOM, Category:APEC, Category:CIS, Category:OECD, Category:Comecon, and etc., etc., etc.. If you want to use the long form then you should also change all of these.-- 23prootie 00:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment to all: It's not about being "well-known" , it's about usage and since ALL articles there, with the exception of the main article, use "ASEAN", I think it's appropraite. Also the BBC and the CIA factbook uses ASEAN, as seen here [1] (well at least MOST of the article) and here [2], so if they're not valid sources then what else.-- 23prootie 00:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
P.S. If you search Google, you will get 16,300,000 results for ASEAN, so if that's not well known enough, well...-- 23prootie 00:42, 14 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sports events of the ASEAN

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Sports events of the ASEAN to Category:Sports events of ASEAN. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Sports events of the ASEAN to Category:Sports events of ASEAN
Nominator's Rationale: Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 05:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment:For trade blocs you do, see above. or do you have double standards.-- 23prootie 00:11, 14 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:White Rappers

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: taken with a grain of WP:SALT. >Radiant< 16:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:White Rappers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was going to ask for speedy renaming to Category:White rappers but then it occurred to me that the term "white rapper", while meaningful to some extent is a tad suspect. Frankly, besides the capitalization issue, I'm not sure how I stand on this one but I'm sure others will be more opinionated. Pascal.Tesson 05:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

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:Organizations involving ASEAN

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Organizations involving ASEAN to Category:Organizations revolving around ASEAN
Nominator's Rationale: Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 05:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment:You can't use Southeast Asia because it is too broad and most, if not all, the articles listed there deal specifically with ASEAN.-- 23prootie 02:36, 13 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Secretary Generals of the ASEAN

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Secretary Generals of the ASEAN to Category:Secretaries General of ASEAN. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Secretary Generals of the ASEAN to Category:Secretaries General of ASEAN
Nominator's Rationale: Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 05:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment:You can't use Southeast Asia because it is too broad and most, if not all, the articles listed there deal specifically with ASEAN.-- 23prootie 02:36, 13 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Heritage Parks of ASEAN

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:ASEAN Heritage Sites ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 05:01, 13 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Notable British railway junctions

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. -- RobertG ♬ talk 10:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Notable British railway junctions to Category:British railway junctions
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, , Per WP:NCCAT; presumably only the "notable" ones are in Wikipedia.. After Midnight 0001 04:52, 13 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Notable people of World War 2

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Notable people of World War 2 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Likely created by someone who was not aware of Category:People of World War II. Also, the only article in this category is also in a sub-child of the existing category. After Midnight 0001 04:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete Bluap 04:52, 13 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Birds of Africa

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Merge all into Category:Birds of Africa, see Red-billed Firefinch, Green-winged Pytilia for examples, see also related discussion. -- Prove It (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
These regions are based on the article Afrotropic. Maybe a more uniform format would be Category:Birds of Africa (the Sahel and Sudan), Category:Birds of Africa (southern Arabian woodlands), etc. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I support Twas Now's idea of making new subcategories. However, this would mean i have to redo the whole categorization which i have had spent almost one whole morning. Haha. Luffy487 08:26, 13 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Enemies of Batman

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. I don't know much about Batman, but the consensus here appears to be that "Enemies of Batman" is no less a matter of interpretation than "Batman villains". -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Enemies of Batman ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Something of a backdoor recreation of the recently deleted "Batman villains" category. Even if this is taken as a new category, I would contend that "enemies" categories are bad precedent. In most cases, supervillains come into conflict with multiple superheroes, which could lead to a proliferation of "Enemies of" categories. The same arguments that have been made against "villain" and "antagonist" categories apply here. Otto4711 03:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per nom. As noted on the cat talk page this is a recreation of the deleted cat Batman villains. Is a "Speedy" appropriate even though the cat name differs? — J Greb 03:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Bluap 04:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete recreation. Yes, J Greb, speedy is appropriate when the difference in name is an obvious attempt to circumvent a prior CfD. Doczilla 05:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It is not an attempt to circumvent or bypass anything. "Enemies" and "villains" are entirely different. Just because one word is subjective doesn't mean anything resembling it is also subjective; "enemies", for instance, is not. Cosmetor 01:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. Intentionally or not, it does recreate a previously deleted category. "Enemies" is also subjective - what makes one character an enemy and not another? And how are switching alliances accounted for? Would we have to have "former enemy" and "current enemy" subcategories? That way lies more clutter still. H. Carver 01:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete if you can't have Batman villians then you can't have Batman enemies. If you wanted to create such a category you'd first need to reopen the debate on the range of categories and reach a consensus. ( Emperor 01:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)) reply
  • Keep − How else will we know who to watch out for? Why, just the other day Doctor Achilles Milo approached me, but I knew to watch out! And it's all thanks to this marvelous category. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC) → (For those lacking a sense of sarcasm, this is actually a vote to delete) reply
  • Delete -- substituting a POV and unprofessional word for a subjective word does not address the reasoning behind the deletion of the previous version of this category. The comics project is avoiding mass categorizations of "comics characters by X" anyway. ~CS 19:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral Off hand most of the names seem to be pretty Batman specific. But if the comics project has made a decision to avoid these classifications, then this category would probably be inappropriate Bbagot 20:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete - recreated category (with change of name). Metamagician3000 02:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The name difference is more important than you imply. It completely redefines the category into something with no POV issues. Cosmetor 07:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This looks too much like a recreation of "Batman villians". People in comic books change alliances frequently; categorizing them this way does not work. Dr. Submillimeter 20:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Instead of focusing on what it looks like, focus on the very important difference of "villain" (subjective) and "enemy" (objective). It's not just a name change; it's a significant change in meaning. Also, fiction is static. If a fictional work is written, then it remains written even if a sequel is written in which the circumstances change. For example, say a book is written about a man who is possessed by a demon; at or near the end of the book, the demon is exorcised from him; then, a sequel to the book is written, and he remains unpossessed. Does this man still fit into Category:Fictional possessed? Yes, because the book in which he was possessed has been written. Cosmetor 09:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • And thats a third... you going to add another one every other day? Or do you think it's time to start using "Comment"? (smaller point of humor, growing point of disbelief) — J Greb 10:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • In that vein... Comment/question: Are you on this tact because it's your oppinion that DC Comics are less complex than Marvel comics? Down page you state you're forgoing promoting the term "antagonist" since the material deals with a complex body of fiction. The same holds true here. This body of fiction is also complex and makes "pigeonholing" characters, even by way of literary terms, as a POV exercise. — J Greb 10:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Note to administrator - Cosmetor has voted three times. Do not count this vote. Dr. Submillimeter 20:04, 19 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Thunderbolts

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all.

Category:Thunderbolts ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Thunderbolts writers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Thunderbolts artists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all - "Thunderbolts" per all previous CfDs calling for delete and listify of super-teams; team is already listified. "Artists" and "writers" because comics artists and writers may work on dozens of different titles. Categories for every title is excessive and will lead to unreasonable clutter. Otto4711 02:46, 13 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Marvel Comics villains

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Marvel Comics villains into Category:Marvel Comics supervillains. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Marvel Comics villains to Category:Marvel Comics supervillains
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_13&oldid=1088721658"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE