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 discussion was delete. I was ready to 'no consensus' this, or possibly relist it, when I took a look at the articles in the category. One is the definition, the other two are Americans who represented themselves in court. Per the discussion, much of the keep sentiment revolved around the fact that "litigants in person" is the legal british term. Not sure we should be applying british legal terms to Americans who represented themselves in America. No problem with recreation if more articles can be found or written that would apply. Also, the arguments for deletion based upon non-defining are compelling. The category intro states "These are people who have chosen to represent themselves in a court of law." So yes, by that definition, I could add myself to this category because I represented myself for a traffic ticket. That is certainly not defining. Kbdank71 16:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Litigants in person ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - non-defining. Otto4711 ( talk) 23:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep seems highly defining for these two, and many others who could be added - but not for everyone who has ever done it. Johnbod ( talk) 23:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Johnbod. Yes, anyone who's ever gone to small claims court or traffic court without a lawyer could be placed in the category, but if it's reserved for individuals for whom this classification is defining, which it should be, I see nothing wrong with the categorization. Snocrates 00:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete random characteristic which could not possibly be defining for enough people to warrant a category. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete not defining, as most people have repesented themselves in various court like situations - have YOU hired a lawyer to fight or pay your traffic or parking ticket? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 05:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Paying a ticket by post does not make you a litigant of any sort. Johnbod ( talk) 08:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Sure it does. You are pleading guilty to the charge. They just let you so plead and pay for convenience. Snocrates 08:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• • If kept, should be renamed something like Category:Pro se litigants or Category:Litigants in propria persona - the legal definition, but it's a bad idea anyway. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 05:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Maybe in American; Litigants in person seems the technical & official term in UK legal English. Johnbod ( talk) 08:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

"Pro se litigants" is the major term in AE for folks who represent themselves in court. Umm, that's a big difference b/w AE & BE, and non-lawyers aren't going to know what the hell any of those terms mean. Maybe plain English is better here: "Self-represented litigants" or "Litigants that represented themselves in court" (ugh) or -- well, any other suggestions? -- Lquilter ( talk) 13:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You also get "unrepresented litigants" in the UK, but actually I think "Litigants in person" is clearest. Johnbod ( talk) 14:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Possible Keep - "litigant in person" if the ordinary British English term. This applied even before the remnants of Latin and French Legal jargon started to be strongly discouraged in the last decade or so. I would suggest that the category should be confined (by a headnote) to the principle of appearing in person and to persons who have represented themselves in notable cases. They will be relatively rare. Professional advocates (barristers, solicitors, etc.) represnting themselves should similarly be excluded. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It is not clear that this category will grow. If it does, then in its present state anyone who has served as their own lawyer can be included. That would clearly make inclusion not defining. Later when there are more people who are notable for representing themselves, it can be recreated with an introduction that makes clear the intent of the category. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:27, 28 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 16:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Legal people to Category:Legal occupations

Nominator's rationale: Merge - category is duplicative and "legal people" is an ambiguous name. Otto4711 ( talk) 23:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comments "Legal people" includes litigants, who are not appropriately filed in "legal occupations". -- Lquilter ( talk) 23:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• More comments "Legal people" is a ridiculous name. If I am a litigant in a suit, does that make me a legal person? If I'm not a litigant, am I an illegal person? Something needs to be done with this. LeSnail ( talk) 23:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• I have removed all of the individuals from the category because they all had (or I added) a specific legal occupation category. I've also nominated Category:Litigants in person for deletion as non-defining. Otto4711 ( talk) 23:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep but transfer the articles under the main cat, now all apparently about jobs etc, to "Legal occupations". But the other biog sub-cats of course do not belong under "occupations". Johnbod ( talk) 23:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete a person who is sued or suing or charged with a crime can by no stretch of the imagination be considered a legal person. OJ Simpson is a football Player, an actor, alot of other things, but by no means a legal person. Everyone who would belong in this cat would better fit on the occupations cat, which is already nicely subcatted. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Okay, if we keep litigants, criminals, and law-related occupations, should we not have some category to collect them as "people" in the giant category morass that is Category:Law? If you think not, okay, delete; if you think so, maybe we should be renaming. -- Lquilter ( talk) 01:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You would put OJ Simpson in Category:Law??? Just delete it. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't think it's unreasonable to put criminal defendants, civil defendants, and plaintiffs into a biographical category under Category:Law. If I were in "Law" I would expect to see them there, in fact. The current name of course is terrible. -- Lquilter ( talk) 15:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Jerry, now that Otto has moved the real legal people. LeSnail ( talk) 04:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment The comments above raise a wider issue; looking at Category:Legal occupations, it is part of both Category:Occupations and Category:People by occupation. Some other types of occupations also have biog sub-cats, but most do not. To me it it is clear the trees should be kept separate, so we need an intermediate category to hold the bio sub-cats. Otherwise, at the very least, these occupation categories need to be renamed, if they hold all the biographies as well. Johnbod ( talk) 14:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Agreed (at least, separate trees is agreed; I think the trees should be connected). You'll see a lot of "X people" categories if you go rooting around in there. -- Lquilter ( talk) 15:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Connected, certainly - Category:Educational personnel is one way to do this. Johnbod ( talk) 15:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC")

• Delete poorly named as corporations are often refered to as a "legal person", then of course we have illegal people in the eyes of the Immigration departments. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 05:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Very good point -- the corporations issue has tricked my eyes every time I laid them on this category. If you like that, look at Category:Legal_entities which is defined as "This category contains articles related to juristic or natural persons." -- Lquilter ( talk) 13:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment - this whole category tree is a mess, and needs sorting out. We have "judges" in several places; different kinds of attorney (counsel, etc.) in diferent places. Executors are among "legal occupations" (most of which concerns professions), but executor is not a profession. Most of the articles in this category shoule be sorted into appropriate subcategories, but we do need a parent for the whole tree. If that is what this category becomes, I would say Keep. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per the above discussions. If the tree needs cleaning up then deleting this category is a start. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:28, 28 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was delete, duplicate category. Kbdank71 16:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Mauricio de Sousa ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category is improperly categorizing the works and characters of the person. It should either be deleted or renamed, repurposed and cleaned up to be placed in the Category:Works by artist structure. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Merge almost everything to the "Monica's Gang" sub-cat, where in fact they all seem to be already. There seems to be 1 article on another work/series. Johnbod ( talk) 23:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, eponymous OCAT. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 05:15, 25 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 16:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Actors who died in their 20s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:NOT#DIR in the unencyclopedic cross categorization clause and WP:OC#NARROW. Based entirely on a Yahoo news article which the user asserts creates significance. Redfarmer ( talk) 22:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete. As well as the reasons give by the nom, precedent points to not categorizing death by occupation ( the dead pro wrestlers discussion), let alone categorizing death by occupation by age at death ( the athletes who died before retiring discussion). Thanks again to ProveIt for his helpful index. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Sad current events notwithstanding, this is overcategorization by irrelevant intersection ("died in 20s" and "actors"). -- Lquilter ( talk) 22:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete and salt as a virtual recreation of Entertainers who died in their 20s which has been deleted three times. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per all above, and thanks to Otto for finding that link. I couldn't remember where it was. LeSnail ( talk) 23:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete, as non-defining irrelevant intersection. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete rediculous combination of cats... how about "Australian Actors who died in their 20s face-down in a New York hotel room bed and who were found by a masseuse". Clear overcategorization. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep– This is a useful and specific category, (not an overcategorization), - particularly to anyone researching celebrity culture, child stars, and/or early fame. And it could be, with a little cross referencing, sadly, rather well populated. How else would one find this information? The best, most detailed articles here don’t do a stitch of good if the categories which allow the information to be organized and indexed in a way that is retrievable and searchable are deleted. (Hey, I think "trees" is an overcategorization, let's just call it "green stuff"). J. Van Meter ( talk) 02:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: If this type of information is needed, it can be found at List of people who died before the age of 30. — Myasuda ( talk) 19:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Put in another way: according to WP:CG: 1. Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles. Make decisions about the structure of categories and subcategories that make it easy for users to browse through similar articles. This category does just that. J. Van Meter ( talk) 04:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The only problem with that rationale is that trees have a commonly defined definition in their field and it is very easy to verify their similarities. What similarity is there between River Phoenix (who died of an accidental overdose), Jonathan Brandis (who hanged himself), and Heath Ledger (who died of an apparent overdose suicide)? Other than they're all dead and they died in a certain arbitrary age in their lives (death's a part of life, sad but true, and they could have just as easily died on their teens or their 30s) in a certain decade of their lives, they really don't have terribly much in common. And we're not even going back to some of the older subjects in the cat, like Marilyn Monroe and James Dean. Someone wanting to research child stars who died by accidental means or by suicide would be much better advised to cross check the American Child Actors cat with the death year cats to avoid missing anyone who didn't die in this arbitrary age range. Redfarmer ( talk) 07:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • To push this even further, Sharon Tate is in this cat. She really does not have anything in common with the ones I quoted above. She was murdered by the Manson family. [User:Redfarmer|Redfarmer]] ( talk) 07:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Comment:With that rationale, you could delete every category. What does Reese Witherspoon have in common with Andrew Carnegie? Nothing. But they both appear in the Category:Scottish-Americans. What does Tim Conway have in common with Carl Icahn? Nothing. But they're both in the Category:American racehorse owners and breeders... As I said below, I think a "People who died in their 20s" category would solve the valid "design problems" mentioned here. J. Van Meter ( talk) 15:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. We've said three times that this type of category is badly designed.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 08:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete Recreation of previously deleted category (or variant). Lugnuts ( talk) 08:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• RenameThen why not change Category:Actors who died in their 20s to People who died in their 20s ? --(PS. Marilyn Monroe was in her 30s). J. Van Meter ( talk) 12:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I'm against renaming. We would still have a case of WP:OCAT as age is pretty irrelevant when it comes to death. People of all ages dies. It's just an arbitrary number in this case. Redfarmer ( talk) 15:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Hello left hand, meet right hand - while you're discussing the deletion of this category, another discussion is occuring simultaneously to delete the article/list Actors who died in their 20s. If they are both deleted, information which is currently easily indexed will be lost. J. Van Meter ( talk) 12:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

That's completely irrelevant per WP:LOSE. Redfarmer ( talk) 15:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Three points there, Redfarmer: 1) WP:LOSE is an essay (and many would say a very poor one) not policy, 2) It is almost impossible to make sense of in the section linked to, 3) insofar as an intelligible meaning can be extracted, it refers to different circumstances from those here. Johnbod ( talk) 14:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't know why you think it's hard to make sense of. The user has been arguing both here and on the AfD discussion regarding a similar article that we should not delete the article because it is useful and because we will lose the information. Those are the only arguments the user has put forth thus far. Redfarmer ( talk) 21:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete again for the same reasons as it was deleted three times (thrice) before. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 05:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - The entire "death by" category tree is of limited value, and frankly, is almost offensive in terms of thinking about how people are defined. It is a rare person who is defined by their death to the extent that they are defined by their life. To group people by the trivial characteristic of readers' ghoulish interest in those who lived fast, died (or were murdered) young, and left good-looking corpses is distasteful and doesn't even have the advantage that some of the death categories (e.g., deaths by lung cancer) of actually having a meaningful impact on the person's life, work, occupation, family, identity, and attitudes. -- Lquilter ( talk) 16:49, 27 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was speedy delete, CSD#C3 (category populated only by deleted template - not a rationale I've had a reason to use before, so thanks!). Bencherlite ^Talk 22:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Wikipedia cleanup sections ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty and redundant. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:24, 23 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 16:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Disney Legends ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. List exists. J. Van Meter ( talk) 17:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete, overcategorization. Plus, this is a private company, honoring people who made contributions to that company. It's almost like a cross between a "published list of bests" which are also routinely deleted and self-promotion. -- Lquilter ( talk) 17:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete employee of the month Johnbod ( talk) 23:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete no encyclopedic purpose. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:35, 24 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was delete. As mentioned, a list exists. Just because the award is not mentioned in the biography is not a reason for keeping. It would have taken less time to add the award to the bio's it is missing from than to have this discussion about the missing information. Kbdank71 16:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Sarah Siddons Award winners ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. List exists. J. Van Meter ( talk) 17:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. WP:OCAT by award-winner. Q for nom -- Is this a WP:POINT? Or a change of heart? -- Lquilter ( talk) 17:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Regardless of nom's answer to the Q above, it's a valid deletion nomination. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment Looking at the list in the main article Sarah Siddons Award and the "what links here", there seem to be about 8 winners who are in the category, but do not otherwise mention the award in their articles. I accept the category is OCAT by precedent etc, but the award is equally fairly distinguished and ought to be mentioned in the biog of every winner, which it is not yet. So a deletion now will result in the loss of useful encyclopedic information, which only someone starting from the main article is likely to be aware of. I would like to know how deleters propose to address this (a not uncommon situation)? Johnbod ( talk) 23:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, they're listed in the article, all of them, and alphabetically too, which is more than the category can could say ("Liza Minnelli" listed under "L"). So why not use a "what links here"? -- Lquilter ( talk) 00:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

My point is that if the category is removed, you will never know, and have no way of knowing, that the 8 odd actresses won it, starting from their articles, unless someone adds this info to the articles, which no one seems to be proposing to do. Johnbod ( talk) 01:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure this argument really avails category-keepers anything much, because this argument could be made against deleting anything: it's an exception that would swallow every deletion-related rule. But I don't like losing useful information, either, so I suppose we should be saying "and link to list from award-winner articles" as part of recommendation. -- Lquilter ( talk) 01:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep and the alphabetical order is easily fixed using magic word for default sort in an article. This category is not a random or irrelevant intersection, and as described above has use for editors to know to go add these details to the articles. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• User:Johnbod makes an excellent and valid point above regarding the loss of encyclopedic information due to the deletion of this category. I change my vote to Keep. J. Van Meter ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - overcategorization by non-defining minor award. Otto4711 ( talk) 14:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep per my comment above, at least until all articles have the info, at which point it could be deleted. Johnbod ( talk) 17:30, 28 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 16:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:World Wrestling Entertainment venues ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination. Was listed incompletely on November 13. See this related discussion which was apparently intended to cover this one but it was not listed in the discussion. Vegaswikian ( talk) 17:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete we don't categorize venues by each of their myriad uses. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - most if not all arenas are multi-purpose so categorizing per purpose is unworkable. Otto4711 ( talk) 05:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per all reasons stated. This is analogous to performers by performance: venues by, umm, venuance. Delete. -- Lquilter ( talk) 17:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment just wanted to note that I ran across a similar category Category:WrestleMania venues. Anyone interested in that one?- Andrew c  ^[talk] 23:54, 28 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was rename to Category:University departments and faculties in Sri Lanka. Note to Peter: I've been pulled to DRV for less. What seems obvious to you may not be to others. Wikipedia isn't going to crumble if we wait another week on this, or anything else. Kbdank71 17:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Faculties and Departments in Sri Lanka to Category:University faculties and departments in Sri Lanka

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Child of Category:University and college departments, which has other children by various names. Open to further naming suggestions. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename but I think to Category:University departments and faculties in Sri Lanka mainly because "d" comes before "f" but what do others think? Sting au Buzz Me... 07:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Sting au. As far as I can reason, the ordering would be arbitrary either way, so we may as well default to alphabetical. Snocrates 23:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

To clarify: I'm good with Category:University departments and faculties in Sri Lanka as well. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename to University departments and faculties in Sri Lanka. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• REname - as last few. Whether it was "dept and fac" or "fac and dept" hardly matters and the Admin ought to have closed it first time around. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:03, 26 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was delete, the rationale template no longer categorizes images into this category. Kbdank71 16:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Images Using The Rationale Template to Category:Images using the rationale template

Category:Images Using The Rationale Template ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Image needs to be renamed to Category:Images using the rationale template or something similar cause the capitalization is wrong. — Save_Us † 09:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Delete - Egoistic. Since this is substituted, probably somone wants to know what pages its on or how many times its been used. But that defeats the point of substituting it in the first place.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete no encyclopedic or collaborative purpose for this category. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:43, 24 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 16:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Obsolete psychological theories ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A theory might not be mainstream but obsolete implies there is absolutely no one who believes any part of it, highly unverifiable. Tstrobaugh ( talk) 18:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Another nom who has improperly emptied the category & removed the parent cats, contrary to procedure. Current title certainly sounds POV, but how are we to discuss it now? The previous condition should be restored before we do. Johnbod ( talk) 20:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Are you saying that I should have left incorrect categories on article pages? That is also against wikipedia policies. I just wanted the empty category deleted. If you want to see what was there just look through my user history. You can't really want me to restore everything? Could you also show me in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Procedure where I have edit "contrary to procedure"? Thanks. Tstrobaugh ( talk) 21:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

We debate whether they are incorrect here - which we are now unable to do. Yes I can really want you to restore everything - see the comments of others below too. Why should we all have to pick through your user history? Johnbod ( talk) 02:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I agree that the term "obsolete" as applied to a psychological theory is inappropriate. For future reference for the nominator, there can be a fine line between category cleanup and emptying the category. It's probably best, if you think the category itself should be deleted, not to clean it up to the point of emptying it. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I would have liked to see what was in the category before making a decision. It's possible there would be a decent rename that could have been proposed. Snocrates 23:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Parent cats restored pending outcome of this discussion. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks, but still no contents. Johnbod ( talk) 02:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure what articles were removed from the cat? I agree that the nominator should not have removed these. I would also like to request that these be reinstated pending outcome here. User best able to do that is the one who removed them. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Articles restored to category under discussion. Tstrobaugh ( talk) 14:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Many thanks! Johnbod ( talk) 22:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep, maybe rename There is in fact a whole tree of Category:Obsolete scientific theories. Some of these are probably being consigned to the dustbin of history rather early, like Id, ego, and super-ego - there must be some true-believing Freudians left, surely? Or Type D personality - type A is also here, but not B. For me the question is whether there is enough left to justify a category, & if there is a better name. Personally I am sure there are many articles that could be added here, but I'm open to a rename - presumably to cover all the "obselete" cats. Johnbod ( talk) 22:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• What objective standard shall we use to decide that a theory is "obsolete"? Otto4711 ( talk) 02:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually I see Superseded scientific theories is the main article, with a definition, which might be a better name. Fortunately we only have to decide if a standard is possible, not apply it here, and I think it is. Phrenology for example, must be obselete or superceded by any standard. Johnbod ( talk) 03:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep Some of the theories mentioned seem to have little to no support nowadays. Which is as good a definition of obsolete as any. The List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts also suggests the addition of graphology to the list. Dimadick ( talk) 18:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete POV, what objective standard shows that a theory is obsolete? Some people still believe in a flat earth, alchemy, astrology, that the mood is made of green cheese, and all sorts of other things that many of us would think obsolete. But not to those who believe.... Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete as ambiguous and POV. In addition the term obsolete may well be misleading in this case. I have no objection to a new category being created that does not have these category name problems and has objective inclusion criteria. I think that the nature of problems with the current category argues for a delete rather then a keep or rename in an attempt to fix the listed problems. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment as described above, the less POV term "Superseded" could be used. There is also an entire tree of these for various fields. Why pick on this one? We should consider the whole tree, after notifying the Science projects, who I think will not be best pleased to have phrenology etc put back into their main categories. Johnbod ( talk) 00:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete ambiguous and inherantly POV. It invites content disputes and would likely be used to tag another editor's article. No clear definition for obsolete for a theory. Just because a counter-theory may be mainstream, and nobody is publishing a new book on a theory does not necessariy make a theory obsolete. This cat does not serve an encyclopedic or collaborative purpose. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment Those claiming POV need to reconcile this with these Arbcom decisions:

(a) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed_decision#Obvious_pseudoscience; (b) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed_decision#Questionable_science; and (c) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed_decision#Generally_considered_pseudoscience. - and many other decisions here and at AfD. I don't see much sign that the deleters above are aware of the considerable WP history around these issues. Johnbod ( talk) 13:12, 28 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was delete all. Kbdank71 16:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:NFL 1990s All-Decade Team ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:NFL 1980s All-Decade Team ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:NFL 1970s All-Decade Team ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:NFL 1960s All-Decade Team ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:NFL 1950s All-Decade Team ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:NFL 1940s All-Decade Team ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:NFL 1930s All-Decade Team ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:NFL 1920s All-Decade Team ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by award or honor Lists already exist at main articles. Otto4711 ( talk) 23:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep. This seems major enough to warrant categorization. Whether a list exists isn't that important to me; the weight of the category is.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't know what "the weight of the category" means. -- Lquilter ( talk) 17:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete OCAT by award; listify if you must but the awards cats pollution on bio pages is shocking. Does WP keep statistics on whether anyone follows those links? Or whether the normal user can even find a useful link among the crap? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

In one of the math awards cat CFDs, a user (i think salix alba?) used http://stats.grok.se/ on a cat page and on the list page. It was a really effective use of statistics to demonstrate utility -- or in that case, lack thereof -- of a category page. -- Lquilter ( talk) 17:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - "All-star" teams of various types are so common these days that they have diluted the entire brand. Ahem. Therefore, delete as over-categorization by a non-defining award. -- Lquilter ( talk) 17:41, 27 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was rename to Category:Alumni by tertiary institution in New Zealand. Kbdank71 17:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Alumni by university or college in New Zealand to Category:Alumni by university in New Zealand

Nominator's rationale: In New Zealand, colleges are high schools. See College#New_Zealand for confirmation. High school alumni categories are part of a different tree. All of the subcats are alumni by university, and it is parented by Category:People by university in New Zealand. LeSnail ( talk) 03:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Not defining for the vast majority of persons. (Oh, and may there be a pox upon the larger scheme of categorization.) Snocrates 03:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Renameto Category:Alumni by tertiary institution in New Zealand - the nominator is mostly correct. However, various tertiary institutions are known as colleges. Lincoln University was Lincoln College until fairly recently, and most teachers' colleges and polytechnics still use the term. The nominator is right inasmuch as the majority of "colleges" in NZ are high schools. Grutness... wha? 00:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom, even though it breaks the convention of Category:Alumni by university or college parent cat. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Alumni by tertiary institution in New Zealand per Grutness.- gadfium 18:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment (Nom) I like Grutness's rename at least as well as the one I proposed. LeSnail ( talk) 22:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. The proposed name is a reasonable compromise with the others in the parent category. The exception here is necessary. Category:Alumni by tertiary institution in New Zealand is overly wordy and will be confusing to many readers. In this case the simple and shorter name is the better choice. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • That's as may be, but it also largely defeats the purpose by rescoping. In order for this to effectively be part of the tree of alumni of universities and colleges worldwide, surely it needs to include tertiary colleges in New Zealand. Unfortunately, the term college has a wider meaning in NZ, and the only effective way around that is to specify that the category is for tertiary institutions in general. That would make it clear that Te Aute College (a high school) is not included, but Dunedin College of Education (a tertiary institution) is included. Grutness... wha? 00:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I misread that part on the overlap. For now I'm undecided on the target but still support a rename of some kind. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
      • How about Category:Alumni by university or tertiary college in New Zealand? Still wordy, but more obvious, and it gets around the problem with the meaning of college. Grutness... wha? 00:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply
        • Does anyone actually use the term "tertiary college"? I've never heard it and we shouldn't be making up names for things. LeSnail ( talk) 16:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply
          • It's a bit difficult to google, since there is an institution called New Zealand Tertiary College, and most of the ghits are for that. However, it seems that the NZ National Library uses the term. It seems to use it to refer specifically to private institutions though, and specifically doesn't use the term for polytechs - so we could be back to square one. Grutness... wha? 23:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Alumni by tertiary institution in New Zealand per Grutness. This seems the best option so far, and indeed the present name will not do. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 19:40, 28 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 16:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:American Basketball Association (1967-1977) coaches to Category:American Basketball Association (1967-1976) coaches

Nominator's rationale: The ABA went defunct in 1976. This is one of the sub-categories mentioned at [1]. Myasuda ( talk) 14:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom for accuracy. Snocrates 23:44, 23 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 16:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:American Basketball Association (1967-1977) playoffs to Category:American Basketball Association (1967-1976) playoffs

Nominator's rationale: The ABA went defunct in 1976. This is one of the sub-categories mentioned at [2]. Myasuda ( talk) 14:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom for accuracy. Snocrates 23:44, 23 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 16:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Home Depot to Category:The Home Depot

Nominator's rationale: Article was recently renamed to official company name. The category should reflect the name of the company and article. Jauerback ^dude?/ _dude. 14:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - appears to be almost entirely people who worked for the company at some point. People can and do work for multiple companies in the course of a professional career. Categorizing people by company is overcategorization. Otto4711 ( talk) 18:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete unnecessary; what else would go in: all the brands they carry? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment I have no problem with the deletion of the category, if that's the consensus. I just submitted this here for a rename for consistency purposes only. Jauerback ^dude?/ _dude. 19:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Question Are you folks suggesting the deletion of the entire Category:People by company tree? This doesn't seem any worse to me than any of those. LeSnail ( talk) 22:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• While I haven't looked at every category in that structure, I have looked into some of them previously and yeah, I think that many of them should probably be deleted. I don't see a lot of difference between categorizing businesspeople by their employers and categorizing entertainers or broadcasters by their employers. We've deleted scores of broadcaster by network categories, not to mention all of the actors by series etc. categories. Otto4711 ( talk) 23:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• I'm inclined to agree with you, except that for some people, their entire claim to notability comes from their association with a certain company. LeSnail ( talk) 16:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• I think something that captures "people by association with an organization" (or some variant thereof) can definitely capture a defining aspect of people. Especially back in the day, when people more often tended to work with the same company for their whole lives, or when someone founded or had principal role in a company. In practice, however, I think it's awfully difficult to maintain such a category (and such a category tree). Because of course editors will naturally start to apply categories whenever there is any association, not just a defining one. -- Lquilter ( talk) 16:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Eponymous overcat; no need for this one. Once people like Tony Stewart, whose connection w/ HD is slim (Stewart's racing team is sponsored by HD), are deleted, there will be very few articles in the category, and all of them will be sufficiently linked from the article on Home Depot. -- Lquilter ( talk) 16:56, 24 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 16:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Unnatural human deaths in the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - we do not appear to categorize deaths on the basis of human vs non-human. "Unnatural" raises the question of POV. Otto4711 ( talk) 13:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Lugnuts ( talk) 17:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete unnatural is subjective; being eaten by an alligator or croc seems perfectly natural if one crosses paths with one, e.g., Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• rename to Category:Unnatural deaths in the United States. It is clear from Unnatural death that the term is properly used; it is not an unusual term (see any dictionary) and certainly not POV. Hmains ( talk) 05:01, 24 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was rename to Category:Accidental deaths by location. Kbdank71 16:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Accidental human deaths by location ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - we do not appear to categorize deaths based on human vs non-human. Otto4711 ( talk) 13:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Accidental deaths by location or upmerge to Category:Accidental deaths. Lugnuts ( talk) 17:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Lugnuts, second choice upmerge per Lugnuts. Grouping likes alike seems generally OK, but not all plane crashes are accidental (9/11 comes to mind), while not all firearms deaths are purposeful either. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Accidental deaths by location if there is some objection to stating the fact that all the articles involve humans. Do we want accidental animal deaths included here with humans? Hmains ( talk) 05:05, 24 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was rename to Category:Drug-related deaths in the United States. Kbdank71 16:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Drug-related human deaths in the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - we do not appear to categorize non-human deaths. The utility of this category is unclear. Otto4711 ( talk) 12:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Drug-related deaths in the United States or upmerge to Category:Drug-related deaths. Lugnuts ( talk) 17:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Drug-related deaths in the United States as suggested by Lugnuts. There seems to be sufficient number of these to dump the US ones together. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Drug-related deaths in the United States if we do not want to state the obvious that all the articles involve humans. Shame. Hmains ( talk) 05:09, 24 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 16:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:28 Days Later ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a film series. Everything is interlinked through text and template. Otto4711 ( talk) 12:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom; only 4 articles & all are already linked. -- Lquilter ( talk) 15:08, 29 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 17:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Lists of earls

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Recently created and unnecessary category (currently being populated by maker), doubling up on pre-existing categories, such as Category:Earls, and the semi-tautologous ("Earl" is just the word for a British or Irish "count") category Category:British earls. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 12:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep This is part of an attempt to subcategorise the large Category:Lists of office-holders (or more exactly its subcat Category:Lists of nobility). Category:Earls will contain individual earls, whereas Category:Lists of earls is for lists of earls, a different thing. There is Category:Lists of counts as well. This seems OK to me, if not particularly inspiring. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 18:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

  Category:Earldoms does what you're looking for. This is just category spamming. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 19:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment I have been following with interest the activities of user:71.186.3.123 who populates these list categories created by User:EstherLois. Taking the first one, Earl of Albemarle - this obviously goes into category:earldoms. However it also contains a list of earls and this list (which in some cases might be a separate article) might reasonably be put in Category:Lists of earls. I personally think it's neater to make a redirect List of Earls of Albemarle and put this into Category:Lists of earls (which I have done for this one case). There are a lot of these categories of lists ... -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 21:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete, seems to be much the same as Category:Earldoms. — Ashley Y 01:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Is this a test case or just an attempt to remove at random a subcategory of Category:Lists of nobility? -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 10:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep Roundhouse0 is precisely correct. Each of these articles contain lists of said Earls. They help aleviate the massive cat of Lists of Office Holders. Yes, Roundhouse0's idea is probably best, to create re-directs. But for now, Keep this cat. EstherLois ( talk) 22:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Delete - as Ashley Y has said, this covers exactly the same ground as Category:Earldoms. We do not need both, and I would suggest that the "Earldoms" is the better (and probably more complete) category. Most titles have an article on the title as a whole, which sometimes has some narrative, but ends with a list. These disambiguation pages are a useful navigation tool. However, this category is adding nothing. Accordingly I agree with the view of -- roundhouse0. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The category Category:Lists of earls is part of the subcategory tree of Category:Lists of nobility whereas Category:Earldoms is not. The 2 categories are accordingly not the same - if Category:Lists of earls is deleted then navigation in Category:Lists of nobility will be restricted. Is it suggested that Category:Earldoms should become a subcat of Category:Lists of nobility? -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 01:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You could have soft links within the category pages. Category:Earldoms could have something in the text saying see also Category:Lists of nobility, and vice versa. You could also just put Earldoms in Lists of nobility. It depends whether the pages are more lists of the earls, or whether they are free-form text articles describing the history of the earldom (and going into more detail than just the earls - eg. covering the estates, the architecture, the politcs, etc.). You could also have a category of just redirects, so people effectively see a clone of the category in one place, and the real category in the other place. That still doesn't help people get from the articles to the parent of the clone (redirects) category, so the softlink is still needed (or put Earldoms in Lists of nobility and let people following the category tag at the bottom of the Earldoms category). Carcharoth ( talk) 19:55, 27 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 16:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Jaws films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary category for a film series. The films are linked through textlink with no need for the category. Otto4711 ( talk) 11:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:07, 23 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was speedy delete as empty / housekeeping. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from Janaury 2008 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Misspelling Jfire ( talk) 07:14, 23 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was delete all. Kbdank71 16:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Actresses with posthumous work ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Actors with posthumous work ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Actors with posthumous work; actors includes actresses. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I think the difference in relative numbers between actors and actresses is notable MickMacNee ( talk) 10:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete both - that an actor happened to die before a film in which s/he appeared was released does not rise to the level of categorizable. A list article which can include details of the situation is better. RIP Mr. Ledger. Otto4711 ( talk) 12:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Could you point me to this worthy of categorization policy please MickMacNee ( talk) 12:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

WP:CAT, WP:CATFAQ, WP:CLS, and in particular see WP:OCAT -- the top of WP:CAT describes categories as "defining" and WP:OCAT gives a lot of examples of the kinds of things that are not typically defining. -- Lquilter ( talk) 14:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I was aware of a few of those pages, and on further review I don't see any outstanding case therein that would put this cat as being squarely non-notable. Deaths of actors are notable (especially when premature as they are likely to have been in this case), posthumous work is notable, plus these deaths often change the films advertising, public reception, post-production etc, as has already been speculated and noted with The Dark Knight. It is most certainly not a trivial event. As an aside, categories that could be replaced by lists is also not a valid argument in most cases I've seen, cats and lists are not mutually exclusive, the related list is complementary, not a reason for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I have added Category:Actors with posthumous work to this nomination and reiterate my suggestion that both be deleted. Otto4711 ( talk) 18:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Point me to a specific example in the above policies that compare to the nature of this category. I am frankly amazed that anyone can dismiss an actor dying before their film is released is a trivial event. MickMacNee ( talk) 19:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Nobody's saying it's a trivial event. What's being said is that it isn't a categorizable event. Categories serve very specific purposes on Wikipedia; "random characteristic these people happen to have in common" is not one of them. Bearcat ( talk) 19:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I use the example below, any man in the street could tell you what links these actors, hardly a random association. Christ I created this category because I expected it to exist, it took less time to create the category than to eventually track down the list that everyone seems to think is much more appropriate. It's not apporpriate if you can't find it from the articles about the actors that feature on it. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

That you expected it to exist doesn't mean it should exist. That the typical man on the street could immediately name it as a distinction that these actors happen to share doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. Would you seriously expect to find this category in the Encyclopedia Brittanica? Wikipedia is not Entertainment Weekly — this is a grouping that belongs on a celebrity directory, not on an encyclopedia. Bearcat ( talk) 22:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

My God. First of all, Brittanica is paper, and as such does not have categories. I would think they do mention if an actor dies during a film though, and not refer you to a magazine. As for comparing this information to something only worthy of entertainment weekly, that's frankly ridiculous. MickMacNee ( talk) 22:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

First of all, Brittanica is paper Yeah? Looked at http://www.britannica.com/ lately? Bearcat ( talk) 23:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Do they use categories? Can we compare some articles? MickMacNee ( talk) 23:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete not defining - the timing of an actor/actress demise relative to the release schedule of his/her next film, tv show, etc. is not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• You would need to delete List of works published posthumously and possibly List of people who died onstage if time of death is not relevant. I think 9 out 10 people could commonly tell you what Bruce Lee, Oliver Reed and now Heath Ledger have in common. MickMacNee ( talk) 19:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• The standards for lists and categories are different. The deletion or retention of these categories does not necessarily mean that a particular list should or shouldn't be deleted. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

This comment is just completely vague, and doesn't explain the difference between these specific articles. Why is the list self sustaining and not the category? MickMacNee ( talk) 20:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Because the standards for lists and categories are different. They serve different purposes, and relate to the article in different ways. A category marks and defines an article in a way that a list doesn't, because it's listed right on the article itself. Category:Australian film actors is a defining characteristic of Heath Ledger. Category:2008 deaths is a defining characteristic of Heath Ledger. Having died with an as-yet-unseen performance still in a post-production booth somewhere, however, is certainly a moderately interesting footnote to his death, which is why it's valid as a list, but it isn't a defining characteristic of his life, which is why it's not valid as a category. That's the difference here. Bearcat ( talk) 22:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

That is basically your POV and refers to no policy that I am aware of. I can't believe you can separate these defining characteristics so easily. Are you seriously suggesting dying during filming is a footnote? What a daft statement. I guarantee more people are aware that Bruce Lee and Oliver Reed died during filming than of any other defining characteristic as you put it that may be on their article. For example, for Oliver Reed: Deaths by myocardial infarction and People from Wimbledon. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

No, it most certainly is not my POV; it's core categorization policy that isn't open to interpretation. That an actor died with an unreleased film in the can may be interesting, it may be famous...but those aren't categorization criteria. The fact alone simply does not define the actor the way his nationality, his hometown or the medium in which he worked does. The fact that a random member of Joe Q. Public may be able to pick a particular fact out as the common element in a list of actors does not, in and of itself, justify using that fact to categorize people. Bearcat ( talk) 23:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

What about say, Murdered hip hop musicians, Directors who committed suicide or Musicians who died on stage then? What is the difference? Why would anyone be interested in these categories but not actors who died during filming? Why would anyone care more that a certain director committed suicide, rather than the fact Oliver Reed died making a film? Or does it have to be murder/suicide? I am failing to see any worthwhile difference at all, again it just looks like a POV interpretation of what is and isn't notable about a person. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Bad analogy. This category would be comparable to "Hip hop musicians who were murdered while recording an album" or "Directors who committed suicide while working on a film" — neither of which, you'll notice, exists. The categories you listed are straight "manner of death" categories which aren't comparable to this one. Bearcat ( talk) 23:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Perhaps this is the test case for those categories then, for example, Singers with phostumous work, Elvis, 2Pac and the like. Musicians who died on stage is extremely similar to that. Also, from a category Directors who commited suicide you could infer some may have left posthumous work, which is not somehting you could determine from Australian actors or Deaths in 2008 MickMacNee ( talk) 00:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

No, this isn't a test case for those. Both of them have been tried before and deleted, which means they were the test cases for this. Bearcat ( talk) 00:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete as non-defining and WP:OCAT. This kind of thing is what lists are for. Bearcat ( talk) 19:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Again another completely vague point. Why a list and not a cat? It's a complete mystery to me from this comment why you think one is acceptable and not the other. Why would a reader expect Oliver Reed and Bruce Lee to have their association in a list and not a category? MickMacNee ( talk) 20:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Lists and categories have two different purposes, and consequently different standards to determine their appropriateness. This does not meet the standards for categories. Bearcat ( talk) 22:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Again that's just an assertion of your POV, completely vague and not testable at all. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Again that's just an assertion of your POV. Nope. Standard practice. Nothing whatsoever to do with my opinion. Bearcat ( talk) 23:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

If it's standard practice why are you having difficulty directing me to any policy that says exactly what you assert above, bar the rather obvious statement that lists and cats are different? I have seen more statements to the effect that lists and categories are complimentary and are not mutually exclusive than explaining the difference in standards to be applied, wherever they may be found. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

WP:OCAT has been pointed out to you more than once. Bearcat ( talk) 23:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I see no section in OCAT that even vaguly applies. Non-defining isn't applicable - anyone, scholar or dunce could tell you what links the people being categorised. And once again, death during filming has ramifications beyond mere administrative footnotes, so its certainly notable. And it's certainly not triva. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

"anyone, scholar or dunce could tell you what links the people being categorised" is not what defines the validity of a category. The number of people who can name the point of commonality among various topics does not inherently make something an encyclopedic categorization schema. And while an actor dying during production of a film may have ramifications for the films, it is not a defining characteristic of the actors. Bearcat ( talk) 23:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Categories are for navigation, what use are they then if they don't make common associations that most people would identify with? What higher purpose do they serve as a schema? How many times do you look straight to the bottom of an article to find associations with other articles? You wouldn't expect to see Oliver Reed in the see also section of Bruce Lee, but you would expect an over-arching category for their notable manner of death. MickMacNee ( talk) 00:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Categories are not solely a navigation scheme; they're also a classification scheme that inherently marks and defines the article. Some people would also expect a category for "People who are rumoured to be gay" to be present at the bottom of articles on certain celebrities, but that doesn't mean it belongs there. Some people would expect a category for "People with missing toes" to be present on John Denver, Jason London and Alessandro Zampedri, but that doesn't mean it belongs there. The job of a category is to classify people by encyclopedically defining characteristics like the year they were born, the year they died, the country they were from, their occupation, etc. — the job is not to represent every individual fact that a person happens to share with other people. And for the record, dying with an unreleased film in the can is not a manner of death. Suicide is a manner of death. Plane crash is a manner of death. Political assassination is a manner of death. "Manner of death" means cause of death — having completed a film that will end up being released posthumously is a tangential circumstance surrounding Heath Ledger's death, not the cause of his death. Bearcat ( talk) 00:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

This was never meant to be comparable to a manner of death category. That comes out of trying to find comparable categories that have passed the mythical criteria for existence (god forbid we waste valuable Star Wars server space for real life information), seeing as it seems so off the wall that anyone could possibly want to link these people in a book of notable facts. As for the toes thing -as per the quoted policies, that would be trivial categorisation, as for the gay thing, that is self evidently rumour and not citeable. Considering this defining feature obsession, is it a defining feature of the works then, the films etc, that they were released posthumously, such that there might be say a posthumous films category, or is that a no no too? I am really struggling to find a way of how you link Oliver Reed and Bruce Lee from their articles pages without a cat, and am in awe of this absolute and total resistance to use the wikimedia for what it was designed, making links between articles. Simple dismissal of the relation as non-notable/trivial/random and thus not worthy of an easily identifiable link just astounds me. I have seen far far worse relations and waste of space in WP than this, a relation that immediately came to mind on hearing this news. Dark Knight will definitely see a change in promotion, sales figures and legacy due to this notable fact about the lead actor, and his legacy will most certainly be defined by his upcoming posthumous performance, effects that have happened and will happen again and again. Asserting anything else is just frankly rule-lawyering and diminishes the usefullness of WP for everybody. MickMacNee ( talk) 00:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, you're correct that a category for people with missing toes would be needless trivia. That's why it's a valid comparison: this category under discussion is also needless trivia. Bearcat ( talk) 02:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Just plainly incorrect. There's no other way to refute that sort of blinding nonsense. MickMacNee ( talk) 03:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

It is not a defining characteristic of the actors. Bearcat ( talk) 03:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Strongly oppose There is so much crap being talked here about the difference between lists and categories, it's completely un-supported anywhere. Lists and categories are not mutually exclusive, there are not separate standards on what can be put in a list or a category. I challenge anyone here to produce a policy that says differently. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Further comment. I'm just deeply saddened and depressed and demotivated that people think deleting this cat helps WP in any way. I came to the heath ledger article on his death and expected a category like this for, you guessed it, navigation purposes (this is what categories are for after all), and on finding nothing like it, I eventually found the list. I am not kidding when I say it took less time to populate this cat than find and decipher the list that supposedly serves a better and more worthy purpose for grouping these actors on WP. I am gradually realising there is a large difference in philosophy between editors who wish to spend their time contributing, and admins that merely patrol Afd, DRV, Cfd etc making vague unfounded and unsourced policy statements. Despite the inevitable outcome of this process no-one will ever convince me that this cat is a random association of unrelated articles and WP is served by its destruction. MickMacNee ( talk) 21:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete both certainly not a defining characteristic of anybody who would have this cat applied to their article. The category itself self-voids it as a category. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete both per nom and many of the other above comments. Snocrates 00:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Somebody explain how you get between these actor articles without this category, using links within the articles themselves. To explain, think what I had to go through to find the List of posthumous works article after starting at Heath Ledger That is, trying to think of an article name that covers the topic (without thinking of the obvious to it appears only me, an actor category), then obviously failing at that, I just entered posthumous, to get the posthumous disambig page. Now, note that posthumous works was only wikilinked to the list by me later, so on initialy finding a reference to posthumous works with no wikilink to the list, I am still stuck. However, I did find the Category:Posthumous works on the page, through which I eventually found the list, through which I am expected to deduce the actor names from what is quite a bit of surrounding text (as opposed to clear category entries). Ironically, serial category destroyer User:Otto4711 has even tried to remove that category link today. So, I have found the list. With this experience, and taking on board the above comments and usual nodding dog votes about how the list is the only acceptable article, is it now to be taken as read to say that, if this category is deleted, I can add the List of posthumous works article as a see also section to each actor article? Or is this whole attempt at linking related articles a complete dead loss? MickMacNee ( talk) 01:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Do not attack editors who express opposing opinions. Discuss categories here, maybe even articles, policies, guidelines, but not editors. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

It is not an attack, it is an accurate description of their edits today, unless you wish to dispute this description. MickMacNee ( talk) 03:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

"serial category destroyer" = attack, "nodding dog votes" = attack. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I assume that I was the target of the "nodding dog votes" comment, since it came immediately after my comment and my user name is, well ... the name of a dog. Like Jerry, I see MickMacNee's comments as an inappropriate attack and suggest that if he's trying to make any headway here, attacking other editors and/or their opinions is not the way to do it. He's losing any sympathy he once may have had. Snocrates 06:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I have a better idea: why don't you explain to us why "getting between these actor articles without this category, using links within the articles themselves" is even necessary. Bearcat ( talk) 02:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Because unlike your assertion, it is not a trivial link. It's quite disturbing that you seem to believe there would be equal citable coverage about actors having missing toes compared to actors who have had posthumous work released. I can't see how you can possibly think this is a trivial association. And this is ignoring the fact that linking articles is the whole point of wikimedia, even for the most tenuous of relations. MickMacNee ( talk) 03:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You do not need a way to get from Heath Ledger to Vic Morrow and back via directly-embedded links in both articles. It's just not necessary in an encyclopedia. And I never said it was trivial; I said it's not category-defining. Bearcat ( talk) 03:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Again, that is completely your own opinion, just like many people might think it not necessary to have a link between all deaths by myacardial infarction, or all people from Wimbledon. It's an obvious link, as already pointed out, more so probably than many other categories provided on actor pages, and not excluded by any part of WP:OCAT without some very fine tooth picking and hair splitting. But like I have already said, if you think the server space is that precious, it's just sad, and helps nobody in the long run. MickMacNee ( talk) 03:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I would also be interested to know your opinion on whether the relations provided through and the status inferred by Category:Posthumous works are necessary/trivial in the same way. I don't see how The Dark Knight can be said to have the 'defining feature' as you want to call categories, of being a posthumous work, if you don't confer the same status to the actor whose death made it a posthumous work. MickMacNee ( talk) 03:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, we all know. The difference is some of the editors here try to get rid of some of it. It's not terribly helpful to stray from discussing the category in question here. Snocrates 07:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, yes, yes, I am well aware of OSE, but then what else is there to use as a point of discussion when people point blank refuse to acknowledge basic requests to explain over and above their obvious POV that this is a trivial association, or expand to give a specific policy exmaple that prevents its creation, further than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, because these procedures are infested by repetive robots who think deletionism adds anything, and resort to the same pointless wall tactics, like OSE. Ironically OSE is the exact argument being used to defend not having this category, how does that work? You can quote examples but I can't?. Categories are not mutually exclusive to lists, they do not have a mythical higher place in WP. The nodding dog wasn't a reference to you, it's a reference to this shitty cabal that just lazily nods along with as above votes without actually addressing the specifics of the case. This project is completely fucked with these continual railroad deletions of perfectly valid efforts to improve, it's completely non-sensical to think any of these procedures are helping anyone add to the project. Seriously, given some of the ridiculous arguments above do you think anyone watching would ever want to create an article in here? Something was missing, I added it. I notice absolutely no-one in this debate has contributed a single positive comment about how to do this without a category. That should tell you everything about the prevailing attitude in here, and why most of the voters seem to do nothing else but railroad deletions all day. MickMacNee ( talk) 11:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Lol, I suggest you "chill". You're continuing to attack other editors, and it's getting a bit more, um, wacky. You have your opinions, which judging by your language you hold very strongly. Others have theirs. WP is governed by consensus, and none of us always get out own way. It doesn't call for a fit. (What the ... I think I had a very similar conversation with a 4-year-old this morning. I'm repeating myself.) Snocrates 21:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I notice absolutely no-one in this debate has contributed a single positive comment about how to do this without a category. And you have yet to come up with one genuine reason why we need to do it in the first place. All you've done is dismiss any disagreement with your position as blind POV that didn't merit an actual response. That kind of attitude isn't going to make anybody terribly inclined to change their minds. And nobody said that categories have a higher place in Wikipedia than lists do, either — they serve different functions, not superior and inferior ones. Bearcat ( talk) 23:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Incorrect. I have asserted guenuine reasons under notability, defining quality, non-triviality and navigation, and I have given other examples of this kind of cat. I have requested specific policy sections that prohibit this category, none are forthcoming. I have requested other ways to provide this cat with list links, none are forthcoming. Lists and cats have most certainly been compared on a heirarchical merit basis here, again without citation. All I see here is personality issues being held above improving content, any disagreement over weight of argument will remain POV on both sides when you blindly invoke WP:OSE, and fail to provide specific policy sections. Stating that the fact an actor died during filming is non-defining/trivial/tabloidpress/fancruft is frankly indefensible. It's just lazy railroading in the guise of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. MickMacNee ( talk) 00:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Firstly: the fact that an actor died during filming can be a defining characteristic of the film. It is not a defining characteristic of the actor. Secondly: you have provided false examples that aren't parallel to this sort of category. Thirdly: you have not explained how this category improves Wikipedia's content; you've simply asserted that it does, over and over again, without making even the slightest attempt to explain how it does so. Fourthly: you have not explained why we actually need a navigational scheme that allows people to one-click their way to other actors who died with an unreleased film still in the can; you've simply asserted that it's necessary without even making the slightest attempt to explain why. And finally: of course you're not going to get "valid" arguments against this type of category if you reflexively dismiss every argument that's given to you as a priori invalid before you even hear it. It's EOD for me; even I know enough to eventually stop talking to brick walls. Bearcat ( talk) 01:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

On point 1, again that is your own POV on this mythical interpretation of defining characteristic, again without explicit reference to policy. I have given many examples of situations and narratives where this is considered a defining characteristic of the actor. On point 2, the analogies are not false, and comes down to basic splitting of hairs, Died on stage or died during filming: no practical difference to a normal person. On point 3 and 4 combined, firstly I can just as easily say you haven't explained the reverse positions. I have given you a real world example of the use it can be to a reader, and given the known case that lists and cats are not mutually exclusive, but complementary. Basic linking of the association is necessary for this notable, non-trivial, historical and factual information, the alternatives shown up as extremely cumbersome. Again this is very hard to explain any further when OSE is put up as a wall so as not to acknowledge similar uses of categories, or it is compared to Entertainment Weekly fancruft - if this is not a priori then I don't know what is. This category is as defineable and focused as you are ever likely to see, and is neither too large or too small either. MickMacNee ( talk) 01:43, 25 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 16:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:American Basketball Association (1967-1977) to Category:American Basketball Association (1967-1976)

Nominator's rationale: The ABA disbanded in 1976. Myasuda ( talk) 04:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Some of this category's subcategories need the same renaming done, and other subcategories don't have the dates at all, which is liable to cause confusion with the newer ABA. Snocrates 04:22, 23 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was rename to Category:BlackHawk (band) albums. Kbdank71 15:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Blackhawk albums to Category:BlackHawk albums

Nominator's rationale: The band's name is spelled with both a capital B and a capital H, as evidenced by their official website, All Music Guide, and many other sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 03:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom (and also mention BlackHawk (sic)). JPG-GR ( talk) 05:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• What about it? Are you trying to say that the page on the band should be moved from BlackHawk (band) to just BlackHawk, since it's (apparently) the only thing that uses that spelling variation? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 04:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:BlackHawk (band) albums to match the main article BlackHawk (band). Vegaswikian ( talk) 08:00, 26 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:PIHA teams to Category:Professional Inline Hockey Association teams

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per parent Category:Professional Inline Hockey Association. Snocrates 03:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. JPG-GR ( talk) 05:46, 23 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Green Bay-Appleton to Category:Radio stations in Green Bay, Wisconsin

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with other radio station categories, the state name should be included and the name of the Arbitron radio market for this region is "Green Bay, Wisconsin." Four of the included stations are licensed to Appleton, but each of them easily reach the town of Green Bay. JPG-GR ( talk) 02:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:53, 28 January 2008 (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.

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 discussion was rename all. Kbdank71 14:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming:

Category:ASW aircraft to Category:Anti-submarine aircraft

Category:ASW aircraft 1930-1939 to Category:Anti-submarine aircraft 1930-1939

Category:British ASW aircraft 1930-1939 to Category:British anti-submarine aircraft 1930-1939

Category:ASW aircraft 1940-1949 to Category:Anti-submarine aircraft 1940-1949

Category:British ASW aircraft 1940-1949 to Category:British anti-submarine aircraft 1940-1949

Category:Japanese ASW aircraft 1940-1949 to Category:Japanese anti-submarine aircraft 1940-1949

Category:United States ASW aircraft 1940-1949 to Category:United States anti-submarine aircraft 1940-1949

Category:ASW aircraft 1950-1959 to Category:Anti-submarine aircraft 1950-1959

Category:British ASW aircraft 1950-1959 to Category:British anti-submarine aircraft 1950-1959

Category:French ASW aircraft 1950-1959 to ‎Category:French anti-submarine aircraft 1950-1959

Category:United States ASW aircraft 1950-1959 to Category:United States anti-submarine aircraft 1950-1959

Category:ASW aircraft 1960-1969 to Category:Anti-submarine aircraft 1960-1969

Category:British ASW aircraft 1960-1969 to Category:British anti-submarine aircraft 1960-1969

Category:Italian ASW aircraft 1960-1969 to Category:Italian anti-submarine aircraft 1960-1969

Category:Japanese ASW aircraft 1960-1969 to ‎Category:Japanese anti-submarine aircraft 1960-1969

Category:Soviet ASW aircraft 1960-1969 to Category:Soviet anti-submarine aircraft 1960-1969

Category:ASW aircraft 1970-1979 to Category:Anti-submarine aircraft 1970-1979

Category:British ASW aircraft 1970-1979 to Category:British anti-submarine aircraft 1970-1979

Category:United States ASW aircraft 1970-1979 to ‎Category:United States anti-submarine aircraft 1970-1979

Category:ASW aircraft 1980-1989 to Category:Anti-submarine aircraft 1980-1989

Category:International ASW aircraft 1980-1989 to Category:International anti-submarine aircraft 1980-1989

Category:ASW aircraft 1990-1999 to Category:Anti-submarine aircraft 1990-1999

Category:International ASW aircraft 1990-1999 to Category:International anti-submarine aircraft 1990-1999

Category:British ASW aircraft to Category:British anti-submarine aircraft

Category:French ASW aircraft to Category:French anti-submarine aircraft

Category:International ASW aircraft to Category:International anti-submarine aircraft

Category:Italian ASW aircraft to Category:Italian anti-submarine aircraft

Category:Japanese ASW aircraft to Category:Japanese anti-submarine aircraft

Category:Soviet and Russian ASW aircraft to Category:Soviet and Russian anti-submarine aircraft

Category:United States ASW aircraft to Category:United States anti-submarine aircraft

Nominator's rationale: Rename to expand acronym. "ASW" is not a well known acronym among the general public. jwillbur 01:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom and redirect the first one (ASW aircraft). — Travis ^talk 02:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom. Snocrates 03:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom. JPG-GR ( talk) 05:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I agree that the average reader won't know that ASW stands for "anti-submarine warfare". However, I want to be sure that we get this right -- so I'm wondering if there's any sentiment for using the full expansion, i.e. Category:Anti-submarine warfare aircraft. Cgingold ( talk) 11:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Like if there are aircraft that are used to fight submarines but aren't designated ASW? In my experience, ASW is a bit imprecise; different divisions of militaries have some ASW aircraft, rather than there being ASW divisions. So I think ASW is more functional than designatory, so I'd just rename to "(X) anti-submarine aircraft."-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom and redirect the first one (ASW aircraft). JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:23, 24 January 2008 (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.