From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 12 February 14 >

February 13

Inconsistent sports-related categories

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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

And:

Propose renaming:
Nominator's Rationale: Rename all to singular form in keeping with all other such geography Category:Sports sub- and sub-sub-categories, in which "sport" is (except for these exceptions) used in the singular. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 00:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose the first batch. "Sports" is American, and renaming categories to impose American English is deprecated. Osomec 01:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose all. Going by the "Commonwealth English" use of "sport", the first set of categories are fine as-is, since they refer to all sports in general and not specific ones. On the other hand, "X in Y" categories should use the most common version of X spoken in Y. I'd leave "Sports by country" alone as long as the parent category is "Sports". -- Vossanova o< 17:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose the first batch. Support the second batch except for U.S. categories as it is neater to have a standard convention with a few exceptions that have clear justifications, than a random muddle. AshbyJnr 14:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Heads up to a similar conversation over at WP:SFD. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose the first batch and all the U.S. related categories including Guam etc. Rename Category:Sports in Latvia to match the categories for other European countries. Hanbrook 02:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose all - consistency is nice but it is not God. Metamagician3000 04:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename Category:Sports in Latvia, Category:University and college sports in Canada and category:Sports in Israel. Oppose the rest. Wimstead 14:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:","

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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

This category makes no sense. Anthony Rupert 23:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Animated films conected to Motion films

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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

Unclear scope, misspelled, and the creator has not responded to my inquiry. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

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

Westminster constituencies in Wales

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

Propose renaming:
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, by adding "(Westminster) suffix to distinguish these constituencies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from the Category:National Assembly for Wales constituencies, as has been done with Scottish constituencies (see Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Scotland (Westminster) and Category:Scottish Parliamentary constituencies).
Note to those not from the UK: the Parliament of the United Kingdom meets in the Palace of Westminster, and the term "Westminster" is routinely used to refer to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The National Assembly for Wales is a devolved Assembly with limited powers of government in Wales, a bit like a less powerful of a state legislature in the USA. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Do they really need the "(Westminster)" in the title? The National Assembly is, well, an assembly and not a parliamnet. It is logical that Welsh parliament seat would be a seat at Westminster, unlike a Scottish seat, which could be for one of two distinct parliaments. Furthermore, any EU Parliament seats would likely be categorized differently, so I don't htink that they would be of concern here. youngamerican ( ahoy hoy) 20:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Reply the Welsh Assembly is gaining more powers, and is becoming more like a Parliament: the distinction between Assembly and Parliament may be a fine one. The Assembly's constituencies may understandably referred to in everday language as "Parliamentary constituencies", and the renaming would remove any ambiguity. We should use the category names to make things clear, rather than relying on readers being fully aware of the finer points of the terminology. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • If the National Assembly of Wales ever becomes a parliament in name (or at least function), I would support a rename. I would also support a rename if it could be shown that anyone is calling the assembly constituencies "parliamentary constituencies." As it is now, however, I must oppose any renaming. youngamerican ( ahoy hoy) 23:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose unless the Welsh Assembly becomes a Parliament. Disambiguation will mislead some people into thinking that it is already. Osomec 01:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • It's a mistake to think that there is a clear distinction between an "Assembly" and a "Parliament". The French National Assembly is only one of over forty countries listed at National Assembly whose Parliament is called a National Assembly; the Inter-Parliamentary Union's website includes a page of links to Parliamentary websites. Of then ten countries listed under "A", three call their parliament a "National Assembly"; under "B", five of the 16 countries use term "National Assembly".
      Since a national legislature may reasonably be called either a "parliament" or an "assembly" (or other terms such as "Congrss" "Chamber of Deputies" etc), the unqualified word "Parliament" will be ambiguous to many readers. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose In the UK context the purport of the distinction between the names of the Welsh and Scottish bodies is clear enough. Olborne 14:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose This is really a question of facts; unlike the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly is just that, an assembly. Members of the body are designated MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly), not MWP. On a factual basis (the only basis on which we should be operating— WP:OR, WP:V, etc) the only Parliament in Wales is the UK Parliament. If facts change then we should change with the facts, however this seems to be an unnecessary level of interpretation.
Xdamr talk 15:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Xdamr, I think you are right to want to stick to facts. So please can you provide evidence for your assertion that an Assembly is not a Parliament? Since you mention it, W:OR and WP:V do indeed apply here. Your view that appears to be the although the French parliament is called a National Assembly, the the adjective "parliamentary" could not be reasonably interpreted by a reader as being applicable to referring to the Welsh Assembly. Verifiable references, please? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
It's not a really question of referencing. The Welsh Assembly is called the Welsh Assembly, not the Welsh Parliament. The only other body in the UK that exercises jurisdiction over Wales and is known as a Parliament is the Westminster Parliament. As a result, electoral constituencies for the Welsh Assembly are just that, for the Assembly. Parliamentary constituencies in Wales are for the only Welsh 'Parliament', that of the UK. In consequence, so long as the Assembly is known as the Assembly, its electoral divisions are not cannot be called Parliamentary.
I understand your implied point, that there is no set definition of 'Parliament'—however this is not a question of definitions, it is a question of what these institutions are actually called.
Xdamr talk 19:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm afraid that you seem to have missed the point here, and I suggest that you re-read the nomination: this is not a proposal to categorise the NAW constituencies as "Parliamentary". The Welsh Assembly constituencies are named and categorised as such: it would be quite wrong to label them otherwise, because (as you rightly point out), the body is called "The National Assembly for Wales".
The need for differentiation arises because:
  1. the Welsh Assembly can be reasonably be seen as a form of parliament (one with limited powers, but then it's not the only parliament to have had limited powers); whether any of us conclues that we agree with that adjective is not the issue, the issue here is whether the distinction is clear to the reader;
  2. as a result of the ambiguity around the term "parliamentary", a reader may see the title "parliamentary constituency" and assume that it includes the NAW.
I think, though, that your focus on "what these institutions are actually called" might provide a way out. How about naming the Westminster constituency categories as "House of Commons constituencies" or as "United Kingdom Parliament constituencies"? Both of those labels are unambiguous and factually accurate. --00:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
No, no—I understood the nomination. My point is that (my circuitous arguments aside) it is only justified if there is room for confusion. Given that Wales, unlike Scotland, has no other Parliament than that at Westminster the change is unnecessary. The sole point of difference is, that you believe there is scope for confusion and I do not (aside from the completely uninformed reader, who is always susceptible to confusion). For such readers, the differences between constituencies can and should be explained in the articles—they, after all, will be the first port of call.
Xdamr talk 00:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - all of this discussion on semantics is entirely moot, since unlike in Scotland since the reduction, the Commons and Senedd constituencies are the same, and will still be the same going into May's election. Any division will create unnecessary duplication. Chris cheese whine 02:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Chris, the constituencies are not the same: they have the same boundaries, but operate under different electoral arrangements and have a different electoral history. That's why there are now separate articles for the NAW constituencies and the Westminster constituencies; this discussion is about about how the constituencies are categorised, not about whether those articles should exist (that would be an issue for WP:AFD). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Synagogues in La Serena

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

Category not used

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

Category:Rappers From Florida

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

Merge into Category:American rappers, or at least Rename to Category:Florida rappers, to match Category:Florida musicians. -- Prove It (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Banned books

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: salted. >Radiant< 16:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Block, as recreated deleted content. -- Prove It (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Banned albums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: salted. >Radiant< 16:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete, categories like these work better as referenced lists. We want to know banned by who, and why? -- Prove It (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and extensive precedent. Otto4711 15:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fauna of Europe by region

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

Propose renaming Category:Fauna of Europe by region to Category:Fauna of Europe by country
Nominator's Rationale: They are quite obviously not listed by region (Mediterranea, Baltic, Alps etc.). Circeus 15:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)}}} reply
  • Object. The fauna should be listed by region (because animals are hardly bothered by human borders, so anything present in one country is also likely present in the next one over). >Radiant< 16:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge this and all subcategories to Category:Fauna of Europe - See the proposals at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 12. Most of the animals in these categories are not found exclusively in one country or region but are instead very widespread. Some of the articles are already categorization disasters; see Eurasian lynx, golden jackal, and Raccoon dog for examples. Categorization by European country simply is not feasible, nor is it appropriate, as the animals' distributions have little to do with geopolitical boundaries. Hence, I suggest merging all articles to the continent level. Dr. Submillimeter 17:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose rename - Absolutely, this category should not be renamed to "x by country". If there are regional variants within, they should be maintained. If they are not being carefully maintained now, then upmerge per Dr. S. -- lquilter 01:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose rename since fauna are limited by geographic features, not political boundaries. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States presidential candidates from Massachusetts

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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

Delete, not pertinent intersection by location: Why Massachusetts? Circeus 13:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Williams people

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

Propose renaming Category:Williams people to Category:Williams Formula One team
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - It is impossible to guess what or who Williams is supposed to be without looking at several articles in this category. The rename will make the category's purpose much clearer. Dr. Submillimeter 13:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Founding Fathers of the United States

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

Category:Founding Fathers of the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - According to Founding Fathers of the United States, this category may contain "the political leaders who signed the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution, or otherwise participated in the American Revolution as leaders of the Patriots." The inclusion criteria are overly-broad. Several other categories already specify exactly what these people did to contribute to the foundation of the United States (such as Category:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Category:Signers of the United States Constitution). These specific categories are very useful; Category:Founding Fathers of the United States is too broad, open to vague interpretation, and ultimately less than useful. It should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 12:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There is no single authoritative set of criteria for declaring someone to be a Founding Father or not, and the differences in the criteria are based on which groups to include— delegates to the Constitutional Convention or only signers, members of the first federal Congress or only of the Continental Congresses, etc. Most of the entries fit into one or more of the current subcategories, and for those who don't, well, I don't think most historians would count Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine as Founding Fathers though they were influential contemporaries.- choster 18:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete in favour of the more specific categories. Olborne 14:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a useful container category, which needs a major tidyup. I have clarified the categ's definition by pasting in the text of the lead para of the article Founding Fathers of the United States. The category would be much more useful if the inappropriate multiple classification was removed; this cat should not be used for articles such Thomas Jefferson, who is already in Category:Continental Congressmen and Category:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
    It might be better to label this category as only a container categ, or a categ only for people listed in the article " Founding Fathers of the United States", but even if all that was done was to remove the multiple categorisation, it would still be useful. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per choster AshbyJnr 14:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Just because there are some questions as to who should qualify doesn't mean the category itself is not valid. It's certainly an important part of history. Bbagot 19:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - grey areas but seems workable. Metamagician3000 04:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If this is kept it will soon be in need of another "major tidyup" - and that's assuming that it receives the first one. Wimstead 14:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Most of the people in this category are also in one or more of its subcategories in any case. Craig.Scott 23:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cantabrian mythology

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

  • Delete: It seems this recently created category only features articles of the Asturian mythology category. Since it only predates the contents of the aforementioned category, I suggest to delete this one and, if necesary, improve the Asturian mythology articles with the appropriate references to the Asturian mythologic influences in Cantabrian folklore. There's no need to have two different names for only one category of articles. -- · Ravenloft · (Talk) 11:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - or at least rename. Is this Cantabrian, Cantabrian, or Cantabrian? Grutness... wha? 00:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
It is this Cantabrian -- · Ravenloft · (Talk) 10:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
That was a rhetorical question. My point is that "Cantabrian" is so ambiguous that the current name is next to useless. Grutness... wha? 05:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes, I thought it was a rhetorical one but... heh, you never know. -- · Ravenloft · (Talk) 12:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional Kazakhstani people

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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

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

Possibly keep if anyone can demonstrate that this will ever be used for non-Borat stuff in the not-too-distant future, otherwise Delete. AnonMoos 13:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Categories exist for many other nations, useful as it is inclusive of Fictional Asians. Could be populated more in future. Neonblak 01:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep being underpopulated is not sufficient rationale for deletion. Lesnail 03:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - a category of one is near enough to being an empty category. Metamagician3000 03:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

Propose renaming Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations to Category:ASEAN
Nominator's Rationale: Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 05:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
acronyms are also used for NATO, CARICOM.-- 23prootie 02:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose, Not a well known acronym. It most certainly does NOT qualify for speedy rename. -- Prove It (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Support ASEAN is sufficiently well known that it should not be expanded. 70.51.8.159 05:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Maybe to some, but clearly not to many. I had no idea what it was until I moved all of these discussions from speedies after they were contested. Vegaswikian 05:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
      • The very first time I ever heard of it was when I nominated it for the speedy rename that expanded the abbreviation. -- Prove It (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose − Not well known acronym. If I were to ask a random 100 people on the street what ASEAN stands for, perhaps two or three would know it (this is my assumption). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
And where's that, if you ask in Kuala Lumpur or in Singapore, most would probably know what it means. Since it's an Asia-centered category, I believe Asians have a bigger say.-- 23prootie 00:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment: − Asiocentricism is exactly why I opposed it. If you asked 100 Malaysians about the "CFL", I imagine none of them would know what it is. However, in Canada, we know this is the "Canadian Football League". The Wikipedia article is named "Canadian Football League" and if we left the article named "CFL", Malaysians (and millions of others) would not immediately know what this article was about. Same applies to ASEAN. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment. Um. the Wikipedia article is Association of Southeast Asian Nations, so if don't know what ASEAN is you could always check it there.--- 23prootie 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
P.S. Your comment doesn't really connect with the discussion, this discussion is about a category not an article.-- 23prootie 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Also, the Canadian Football League is relatively short.-- 23prootie 20:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Object, do not use abbrev. >Radiant< 14:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Abreviations and/or acronyms are used for international organizations such as Category:NATO, Category:CARICOM, Category:APEC, Category:CIS, Category:OECD, Category:Comecon, and etc., etc., etc.. If you want to use the long form then you should also change all of these.-- 23prootie 00:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment to all: It's not about being "well-known" , it's about usage and since ALL articles there, with the exception of the main article, use "ASEAN", I think it's appropraite. Also the BBC and the CIA factbook uses ASEAN, as seen here [1] (well at least MOST of the article) and here [2], so if they're not valid sources then what else.-- 23prootie 00:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
P.S. If you search Google, you will get 16,300,000 results for ASEAN, so if that's not well known enough, well...-- 23prootie 00:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Anyway if you want to use the "long form", you might as well rename all the articles and categories there becuase I'm sure I'm not going to do it.-- 23prootie 00:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • The number of renames is not a deciding factor, selecting the correct name is where the concern should be. Once this is done, the bots will deal with any needed renames as along as all of the categories are listed. Vegaswikian 22:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment. I would really like to see you comment on my other comments. and please add sources. Thanks!-- 23prootie 20:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to ASEAN. The same as we should use "NATO" (for example) rather than spelling it out. In such cases, the are more commonly used than the full name. Metamagician3000 02:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Use the correct name. Vegaswikian 08:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. Both are correct but its better to use the shorter name to avoid clutter. Anyway, forcing one's opinion without citing any sources is POV. So if "ASEAN" is used by a well-known media organzition such as CNN], I think it's safe to assume that it is also correct.-- 23prootie 20:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy rename please. I do believe I have given enough sources to support my argument, if you do not believe them that's your problem...-- 23prootie 20:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sports events of the ASEAN

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

Propose renaming Category:Sports events of the ASEAN to Category:Sports events of ASEAN
Nominator's Rationale: Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 05:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment:For trade blocs you do, see above. or do you have double standards.-- 23prootie 00:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Support proposed renaming - no one would say "the ASEAN" any more than they would say "the NATO". Metamagician3000 02:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:White Rappers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: taken with a grain of WP:SALT. >Radiant< 16:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:White Rappers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Organizations involving ASEAN

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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

Category:Secretary Generals of the ASEAN

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

Propose renaming Category:Secretary Generals of the ASEAN to Category:Secretaries General of ASEAN
Nominator's Rationale: Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 05:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment:You can't use Southeast Asia because it is too broad and most, if not all, the articles listed there deal specifically with ASEAN.-- 23prootie 02:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Support renaming - no one calls it "the ASEAN". It is always "ASEAN". It is exactly analogous to NATO. Metamagician3000 02:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Heritage Parks of ASEAN

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 05:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Category:ASEAN Heritage Sites to Category:Heritage Parks of ASEAN-- 23prootie 05:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Change to Category:Hertitage Sites of ASEAN or Category:Heritage Parks of ASEAN- the term "The ASEAN", though seeming to be correct, is not standard form. Grutness... wha? 05:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Changed it! Actually I'm not sure if I should use "the" or not so I needed a second opinion. Thanks!-- 23prootie 01:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Oppose, since "ASEAN" is an acronym. Better use "Association of Southeast Asian Nations" instead. -- Howard the Duck 15:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment, many categories use acronyms in their names (for example Category:NATO Secretaries General) and besides using "Association of Southeast Asia Nations" will make those categories unnescessarily long.-- 23prootie 00:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Since NATO is at NATO, perhaps that's why. Also, there's a dispute of whether to use ""Organization" and "Organisation". If you want, to make it shorter, make "Southeast Asia" instead of ASEAN so that it will include Timor-Leste. -- Howard the Duck 02:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply
          Comment:You can't use Southeast Asia because it is too broad and most, if not all, the articles listed there deal specifically with ASEAN.-- 23prootie 02:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Oppose ASEAN is not a country. If "ASEAN Heritage Site" is an official and important designation then leave the category at the correct name. If it is not the category should be deleted. Abberley2 16:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The title "ASEAN Heritage Sites" is to ambiguous and may include articles (such as Angkor and Borobudur) that are not listed in the website main site, since ALL the "sites" listed in the website are national parks then the title is appropriate.-- 23prootie 02:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Notable British railway junctions

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

Propose renaming Category:Notable British railway junctions to Category:British railway junctions
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, , Per WP:NCCAT; presumably only the "notable" ones are in Wikipedia.. After Midnight 0001 04:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • 'Rename' word "notable" not needed Ulysses Zagreb 09:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename - As stated above, only notable junctions should be listed in Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter 12:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename - As above. Pickle 18:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename, though it is rather likely that all British railway junctions are in Wikipedia, so there is some point to this category. However use of "notable" in category names is to be deprecated. Choalbaton 23:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per the above. Coemgenus 16:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per above. Metamagician3000 02:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Notable people of World War 2

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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

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

Delete Bluap 04:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Birds of Africa

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

Merge all into Category:Birds of Africa, see Red-billed Firefinch, Green-winged Pytilia for examples, see also related discussion. -- Prove It (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all − I'm not sure birds recognize and abide by political boundaries. It's good to see you didn't include Madagascar! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
These regions are based on the article Afrotropic. Maybe a more uniform format would be Category:Birds of Africa (the Sahel and Sudan), Category:Birds of Africa (southern Arabian woodlands), etc. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I support Twas Now's idea of making new subcategories. However, this would mean i have to redo the whole categorization which i have had spent almost one whole morning. Haha. Luffy487 08:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Different countries in Africa have their own lists of species of birds, which may or may not be found in another countries. It is for the benefit of the community to categorize different species of birds according to their countries instead of lumping them into one big Africa continent. As regarding to examples which ProveIt has illustrated, these two species are the common species of estrildid finch found in almost all parts of Africa but not all. There are rare species of estrildid finch which could only be found in a few countries in Africa. See Anambra Waxbill, Cinderella Waxbill, Shelley's Crimson-wing, Black-lored Waxbill, [[Green Avadavat]] for examples. Luffy487 07:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all to Category:Birds of Africa - The political boundaries of Africa have no relevance to the distributions of animals, making this categorization irrelevant. Furthermore, since animals are found in multiple countries, these types of categories lead to category clutter. Subdivision by ecoregion would be nice if the birds were strictly constrained to the ecoregions and if the ecoregions were actual regions designated in peer-reviewed scientific journals. However, the regions proposed by Twas Now are unreferenced. Moreover, Twas Now does not suggest how to subdivide countries into the ecoregions. Given these shortcoming of the alternate proposal, I recommend merging into Category:Birds of Africa. Dr. Submillimeter 10:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. Birds by nature do not pay attention to human country borders, so it is not practical to categorize them by that. We could instead categorize by habitat. >Radiant< 14:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Obvious keep all It's the way they are used that is a problem, NOT the categories. Heck, we have Category:Flora of the United States by state and Category:Flora of the United States AND a division by region of the latter, and it works just fine! Why couldn't this? Look at Great Appalachian Storm of November 1950 for a great example of such a categorization that is truly difficult to fix. Circeus 15:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It is nice to be able to see all the birds of Nigeria, for example on one page somewhere. Whether that's a list or a category isn't so important, but it would be a shame to lose the ability to see information organized that way. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or use new categories. Lumping everything into one category 'Africa' is a joke, and not a funny one. The existance of species that are cosmopolitan is no reason to get rid of categories that are small, you may as well get rid of all categories in the world because the Barn Swallow is found in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia. I'd suggest some categories based on regions (like East Africa, Southern Africa) others based on endemic bird regions (like the Albertine Rift Valley, the Cape Region) and others based on discrete country endemics and island groups (Ethiopea, Seychelles, Comoros). Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - See the discussion on Category:Birds of Sierra Leone at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 12. Someone else found referenced material on scientific ecoregions and ecozones that would be more appropriate for categorization than either the current categorization by country system or a system of categorization by regions made up on Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter 10:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as a necessary preparatory step towards creation of a new system as outlined above. Choalbaton 23:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all as Wikipedia should not be biased against countries that are less represented in the editor population. There are enough birda to populate the categoreis well, and birdwatchers from these countries or visiting these countries will be interested. GB 06:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - This is not really about the preferences of people in Wikipedia. For example, I currently live in Europe, and I have nominated several related categories on European fauna for merging into general "fauna of Europe" parent categories. Dr. Submillimeter 11:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Feedback - I wonder why is there two seperated discussions on this topic? See Category:Birds of Sierra Leone at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 12. I would appreciate if someone would merge these two discussions together and speedily end this discussion. I am still in the mid-way of categorizing those articles. Luffy487 09:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all - The sources are generally arranged by country, not by biome regions. I have two books on "Birds of Kenya". Bird counts and studies are done within political regions. For example look at this Tanzania Bird Atlas Project. It's a useful and practical way to find birds by area. - Parsa 23:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all for now. I agree that having a bird in 80 different country categories is a really bad thing now, but until we have thought up a workable solution, I don't think we should delete what we have. Bioregions are a seductive idea, but I don't think they will really work, since there is no standard list of bioregions that everyone can agree to. Also it would be quite hard to figure out which of the standard bioregions a bird belongs to if the sources on that bird don't use the same system. My opinion is that we should try for clickable maps linking to the categories of birds by country, and then not have the countries listed in the category section. For instance, you could look at the range map for the Great-crested Wikibird, and note that it lived in Algeria, and click on the Algerian part of the range map, and pull up Category:Birds of Algeria. I really think categorization by country is, while arbitrary, the only viable solution. Bird counts and studies are done within political regions, just as Parsa says because there isn't a better way to do it. At any rate, let's not rush into deleting the information that we have. Lesnail 03:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - I disagree that no alternative to categories exists for navigation. Listing the birds in a given country in a list article would be just as useful but would not pose the same navigation problems. Dr. Submillimeter 09:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment - So, you are right. We could listify this. But are you suggesting that we get rid of all categories of fauna by geography (except maybe endemic fauna categories)? This might be ok, in fact, but there would be a lot of list to update by hand if, say, one species got split into two. Categories would be much nice for this, if we could work out a system for them. Lesnail 22:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Comment - Making an update in "list by country" articles for the subdivision of a species does not seem like it would be all too difficult. Dr. Submillimeter 09:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment - Having accurate and up-to-date lists of birds for each country would be very difficult. Adding a category (or categories) to a new article is much easier and keeps the category lists current. The only negative I see is that some common species might end up with a huge number of country categories. I still think these bird lists by country are useful to the public. - Parsa 00:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge All. Why should Africa be any different then the rest of the world. Vegaswikian 06:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Enemies of Batman

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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

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

  • Delete as per nom. As noted on the cat talk page this is a recreation of the deleted cat Batman villains. Is a "Speedy" appropriate even though the cat name differs? — J Greb 03:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Bluap 04:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete recreation. Yes, J Greb, speedy is appropriate when the difference in name is an obvious attempt to circumvent a prior CfD. Doczilla 05:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It is not an attempt to circumvent or bypass anything. "Enemies" and "villains" are entirely different. Just because one word is subjective doesn't mean anything resembling it is also subjective; "enemies", for instance, is not. Cosmetor 01:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. Intentionally or not, it does recreate a previously deleted category. "Enemies" is also subjective - what makes one character an enemy and not another? And how are switching alliances accounted for? Would we have to have "former enemy" and "current enemy" subcategories? That way lies more clutter still. H. Carver 01:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete if you can't have Batman villians then you can't have Batman enemies. If you wanted to create such a category you'd first need to reopen the debate on the range of categories and reach a consensus. ( Emperor 01:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)) reply
  • Keep − How else will we know who to watch out for? Why, just the other day Doctor Achilles Milo approached me, but I knew to watch out! And it's all thanks to this marvelous category. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC) → (For those lacking a sense of sarcasm, this is actually a vote to delete) reply
  • Delete -- substituting a POV and unprofessional word for a subjective word does not address the reasoning behind the deletion of the previous version of this category. The comics project is avoiding mass categorizations of "comics characters by X" anyway. ~CS 19:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral Off hand most of the names seem to be pretty Batman specific. But if the comics project has made a decision to avoid these classifications, then this category would probably be inappropriate Bbagot 20:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete - recreated category (with change of name). Metamagician3000 02:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The name difference is more important than you imply. It completely redefines the category into something with no POV issues. Cosmetor 07:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • um... is this the same Keep you stated up the debate, or is it replacing that one? (sm humor here...) — J Greb 07:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Note to administrator - Cosmetor has voted three times. Do not count this vote. Dr. Submillimeter 20:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This looks too much like a recreation of "Batman villians". People in comic books change alliances frequently; categorizing them this way does not work. Dr. Submillimeter 20:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Instead of focusing on what it looks like, focus on the very important difference of "villain" (subjective) and "enemy" (objective). It's not just a name change; it's a significant change in meaning. Also, fiction is static. If a fictional work is written, then it remains written even if a sequel is written in which the circumstances change. For example, say a book is written about a man who is possessed by a demon; at or near the end of the book, the demon is exorcised from him; then, a sequel to the book is written, and he remains unpossessed. Does this man still fit into Category:Fictional possessed? Yes, because the book in which he was possessed has been written. Cosmetor 09:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • And thats a third... you going to add another one every other day? Or do you think it's time to start using "Comment"? (smaller point of humor, growing point of disbelief) — J Greb 10:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • In that vein... Comment/question: Are you on this tact because it's your oppinion that DC Comics are less complex than Marvel comics? Down page you state you're forgoing promoting the term "antagonist" since the material deals with a complex body of fiction. The same holds true here. This body of fiction is also complex and makes "pigeonholing" characters, even by way of literary terms, as a POV exercise. — J Greb 10:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Note to administrator - Cosmetor has voted three times. Do not count this vote. Dr. Submillimeter 20:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Thunderbolts

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all.

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

Delete all - "Thunderbolts" per all previous CfDs calling for delete and listify of super-teams; team is already listified. "Artists" and "writers" because comics artists and writers may work on dozens of different titles. Categories for every title is excessive and will lead to unreasonable clutter. Otto4711 02:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete all per nom. on every count. Doczilla 08:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all The first looks like a recreate. The others suffer the pitfall of the "Actor by series" cats: too open to category creep given the number of titles and properties published. — J Greb 19:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Strikes me that this is an attempt to refocus such cats away from the characters and towards a general listing for the title. For this reason I'd suggest putting it under Category:Marvel Comics titles to reflect this. ( Emperor 22:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)) reply
    • That only covers the issue with the parent, not the writer and artist cats. Further, I would submit such a refocus requires clear delineation of what can and cannot be included and a pruning of the parent to prevent it from becoming a de facto recreation of the "member of" category. It also would require that the cat be actively and heavily patrolled to enforce the focus. — J Greb 23:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment I agree, as I've said on the Comics Project talk page [3] using Category:Justice League as an example of what can be done here (and elsewhere as there seem to be other cats that also need to be headed off at the pass). ( Emperor 23:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)) reply
  • Keep per Emperor. -- Djsasso 06:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all - The decision to not categorize characters by team has been endorsed by WikiProject Comics because characters have been members of many teams; we should follow their lead. The categorization of artists and writers by project is infeasible, as writers and artists work on many projects over the course of their careers. (Imagine the category clutter on Stan Lee, for example.) Dr. Submillimeter 10:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per Otto4711 - Metamagician3000 04:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Marvel Comics villains

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

Category:Marvel Comics villains to Category:Marvel Comics supervillains
  • Merge, As per previous discussions, the originating category should be removed. Primarily due to the inherent POV issues with "villain". Since the destination category already exists and previous discussions have note found a POV issue with the term "supervillain", the articles should be re-located there. J Greb 01:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom and numerous precedents. Otto4711 03:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom -- Djsasso 06:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. Metamagician3000 02:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge I'd ordinarily suggeste a rename to Marvel Comics antagonists, but Marvel Comics is so complex that it would be unfeasable. Many of the characters who are primarily antagonists to others have also appeared as protagonists in titles of their own. Cosmetor 10:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_13&oldid=1088721658"