The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete both. Kbdank71 13:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Lifeboats in Northern Ireland ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category is of towns with lifeboat stations - renaming it to a correct name such as 'Towns in Northern Ireland with lifeboat stations' would create a silly category. ninety: one 21:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comments – 'Lifeboat stations in Northern Ireland' might be a reasonable name. However there is already List of RNLI stations which seems to handle the info better. There is Category:Lifeboats in Ireland as well. Occuli ( talk) 22:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Unless somebody can make a very persuasive argument for keeping it, I'd say this (and the other category) should probably be deleted. Is this truly such a noteworthy and distinctive feature as to warrant categories? How many other features of towns and cities should also be categorized? How about Category:Towns with drive-in theaters or Category:Towns with bowling alleys? Or perhaps Category:Towns with crematoria? I'm not really poking fun here, just asking "where do we draw the line"? I think the list is much better in this case, in any event. Cgingold ( talk) 00:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- "Lifeboat stations in Northern Ireland" would make a reasonable category, if there was any liklihood of it been populated, but some one has added this category to towns, without even bothering to add text to say that tehre is a lifeboat station there, let alone creating an article on it. I think there may be one article that properly belongs here Lough Neagh Rescue, and would need to be upmerged, if it did not already have good categories. The parent Category:Lifeboats in the U.K and Category:Lifeboats in Ireland (no further content) and should be deleted too, as should Category:Lifeboats in the Republic of Ireland which is as bad as the nominated one. Category:Lifeboats on the other hand is about individual vessels and should be kept. Peterkingiron ( talk) 01:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete both this category and Category:Lifeboats in Ireland (now tagged) per above. Having a lifeboat station is rarely a defining characteristic of towns (perhaps it can be for small villages, but it certainly is not for a city of 70000). A list of RNLI stations already exists, so there is no need to listify. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 18:02, 23 September 2008 (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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename; redirect kept. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Deaths from renal cancer to Category:Deaths from kidney cancer

Nominator's rationale: Kidney and renal mean the same thing. Kidney is a more common usage, and there are more articles in the kidney category than renal category. Scott Alter 17:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom, but keep the renal cancer category as a redirect. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:43, 21 September 2008 (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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Knights of Portugal to Category:Portuguese knights

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match every other knights by country/nationality category. Otto4711 ( talk) 16:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Johnbod ( talk) 23:10, 20 September 2008 (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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Presidential places related to George Washington to Category:Places related to George Washington

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The places themselves aren't "presidential" as such. — Wknight94 ( talk) 14:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - vague inclusion standard. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Otto; although ... should this be upmerged into Category:Buildings and monuments honoring American Presidents? While the nominator's rename suggestion is technically accurate, "places related to George Washington" (e.g. North America) is too vague. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 05:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• If merged it will need to be selective as a number of the included places aren't honoring Washington. Otto4711 ( talk) 01:52, 24 September 2008 (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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete; upmerge Theory of Deep Democracy to Category:Democracy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Theory of Deep Democracy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete: (More cleanup of Category:Democracy). This category has only two articles, with very little prospect of more being added since it's a rather narrow subject for a category. The main article, Theory of Deep Democracy, doesn't have any other valid categories (they're all red-linked), so it should be upmerged to Category:Democracy. (It's also in serious need of Wikification, etc.) Cgingold ( talk) 10:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete and merge, as nominated. I created this category to fix a redcat for the creator of the articles in it - User:DenverU. He does not seem to be active anymore. DuncanHill ( talk) 13:09, 20 September 2008 (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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete, creator was notified. Kbdank71 13:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Vote Bank ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Gender Discrimination in Democracy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete Both: I think this must be the strangest thing I've ever come across when it comes to misconceived categories: You wouldn't know it from their names, but these two categories are in fact identical twins in terms of of their contents. (In all likelihood, the creator simply did not understand what he was doing, as they were created within one minute of each other.) Category:Vote Bank is completely nonsensical -- the name doesn't bear the slightest relation to its contents. The articles in Category:Gender Discrimination in Democracy do seem to have something to do with "gender discrimination", but I'm afraid I don't discern a valid rationale for the category. The articles are already included in other relevant categories, so I don't see any real use for this one. Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold ( talk) 10:40, 20 September 2008 (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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Zimbabwean legislation. I don't know if you folks are overthinking again or you're on to something. Then again, it's Monday morning, and that buzzing in my head may just be from lack of coffee. I'm wondering if I should just make my "have nothing or little to do with the close" comments as small like this to set it apart from the close. Cause less drama? god I need coffee . Kbdank71 13:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Zimbabwean laws enacted after 2000 to Category:Zimbabwean laws

Nominator's rationale: Rename. As there is no specific category for laws passed before 2000 I think the rename as proposed would fit quite nicely into Category:Statutory law by country whilst removing an arbitrary division. Tim! ( talk) 09:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Zimbabwean legislation, which is more clear and specific than "laws". Renaming to "laws" would be better than making no change at all, however. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge to Category:Zimbabwean law—2 of the 3 articles are already there—in the absence of an established Category:Legislation by country category scheme. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 05:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I think that Category:Statutory law by country is in effect the same as Category:Legislation by country so I oppose the upmerge you suggest. I am neutral towards Good Olfactory's alternative suggestion of legislation as both forms appear to be used. Tim! ( talk) 16:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I really shouldn't edit when I'm that tired... Thanks for pointing that out; I had not noticed the second parent category.
      Still, the category scheme is not "established" in the same way that Category:Conservation by country is established, so the presence of a few articles does not necessarily justify the existence of the category (most of the subcategories contain at least 10 articles, whereas this one contains just three). However, it might be a good idea to develop such a category scheme, so I'm not really opposed to renaming. If the category is renamed, shouldn't the target be Category:Zimbabwean statutory law, so that it matches the parent category? – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 16:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
      • I am thinking maybe renaming Category:Statutory law by country to Category:Legislation by country might be better to match the majority of its contents, followed up by a rename of the ones which do not match, but I'll wait to see how this one ends. Tim! ( talk) 17:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
        • While the majority of the category's contents use "legislation", the category itself is a subcat of Category:Statutory law. Moreover, wouldn't renaming to "legislation by country" limit the scope to laws enacted by legislatures and exclude laws imposed by executive decree? – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 19:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
          • Interestingly Category:Legislation is a category redirect to Category:Statutory law. The latter is a fair point and not something I had considered. Statutory law might well be better, and if necessary categories could be subdivided into legislation and executive decrees at a later date (probably not necessary at the current time). Tim! ( talk) 17:30, 25 September 2008 (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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete (note, I'm not going through the trouble of trying to figure out the template to remove the articles from the category; I'm going to delete the cat, someone else can edit the template to remove the redlink). Kbdank71 13:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Webby Award Nominees ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: OCAT. With the companion Category:Webby Award winners, all winners are also listed, or eligible for listing, here. If anything, the winners category should logically be a child of this category since all winners are nominees. But that would be rather confusing. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom; not defining—even being a winner may not be defining. Note that deletion of this category will require some tweaking to the template which is generally creating the category on article pages. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:35, 28 September 2008 (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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep, without prejudice to a nomination along the lines of what Wulf Isebrand suggests. (Fifth time will be a charm?) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:South Tyrol to Category:Province of Bolzano-Bozen

Nominator's rationale: Rename (or redirect) to match the name of the main article ( link to previous nomination). Suppar luca 07:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment That's at least the fourth time we discuss this category. You're a very insistent guy. ;) -- Wulf Isebrand ( talk) 10:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Oppose The category "South Tyrol" is a subcat of Category:Tyrol, because it is a part of the historical region (former part of the County of Tyrol until 1919, predominantly German-speaking, distinct identity and cultural features etc.). The name "Province of Bolzano-Bozen" is the Italian name of the political entity (Italian province), which is coextensive in area ("South Tyrol" is furthermore also used as a part of the co-official German and the Ladin name of the province. The category for the larger Italian (political) region is also named Category:Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. --). -- Wulf Isebrand ( talk) 10:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Oppose for the same reasons as the last x times. See you all in 3 months. Johnbod ( talk) 11:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment I would support a merging of the two categories, if the name of the new category reflects both aspects (part of the historical region AND political entity of Italy). It would be a subcat of Category:Tyrol, Category:Provinces of Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol and Category:Provinces of Italy. This endless naming dispute would thereby hopefully come to an end. My preference for the name is Category:Province of Bolzano/South Tyrol (or the other way round Category:South Tyrol/Province of Bolzano). -- Wulf Isebrand ( talk) 12:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Oppose as I feel sure I did before - use common English name unless there is a pressing reason otherwise, which I do not see in this case. DuncanHill ( talk) 01:13, 21 September 2008 (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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional Japanese villains ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Precedent: "Fictional villains" was deleted on 23 January 2007. Nohansen ( talk) 06:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - per nom and extensive precedent. Otto4711 ( talk) 16:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per precedent - it's problematic to define fictional characters as "villains" and to categorise fictional characters by nationality, so doing both in combination is doubly problematic. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 19:58, 23 September 2008 (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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Trio albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete The collaborations of Dolly Parton, Emmylou Harris, and Linda Ronstadt resulted in two albums being called Trio ( Trio and Trio II), but they were billed as three artists individually not as the group, Trio (country music band). Looking up the Grammy award info and RIAA certification confirmed this. Wolfer68 ( talk) 05:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Delete. Agreed, the group is not officially called Trio. Also, the category could also be confusing due to the existance of the German band Trio. Simon12 ( talk) 04:24, 21 September 2008 (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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Christian capitalists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I've had a hard time trying to understand what "Christian capitalism" is, but I think I've determined that this category is meaningless besides the fact that is categorizing people in the intersection of those who are (1) capitalists; and (2) Christian (at least nominally). As such, it is overcategorization by non-notable intersection of religion and other feature. Christian capitalists are not treated any differently that capitalists of other religions; religion is typically irrelevant in most capitalist systems. If I'm wrong, and there's some sort of ideology called "Christian capitalism" that I'm not aware of, please let me know. Otherwise, I think its creation may have resulted from a misunderstanding of the relevance of the other intersections that are subcategories of Category:Christians by ideology. Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Strong delete. Completely meaningless intersection of two gigantic categories, one of which is hard to define (is every business person a capitalist? everyone with a 401k?). Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Delete in my opinion, a piont of view pushing category. Sebastian scha. ( talk) 14:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - If for no other reason than because there is no parent Category:Capitalists -- and probably for good reason. Cgingold ( talk) 11:57, 28 September 2008 (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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Woohookitty ^Woohoo! 10:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Films titled "It" ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorization by shared name. All are films, but otherwise there are unrelated, apart from the fact that they all are named "It" (or at least the shortened name of the film is "It"). Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. What do you know -- another misconceived category that has no parent cats. (What a surprise!) Perhaps a nav-box for these films in place of the category? Cgingold ( talk) 11:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Burn with fire - that is to say, delete. No navbox as the films are unrelated to each other beyond sharing a word in their title. Otto4711 ( talk) 16:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete I created it at the suggestion of an editor, who half-way created it. I imagine that there are really not too many films with this title anyway. Since I am the unfortunate creator, I would guess that this should help you decide. I don't see why you had to go through all the touble of a CfD.-- Drboisclair ( talk) 18:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. the It disambig page functions like this anyway.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 01:03, 24 September 2008 (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.

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: relisted on 29th. Kbdank71 13:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Rename Category:Literary characters by genre of work to something.

For one thing, the convention would seem to be "Fictional characters...". But, I'm not sure if perhaps this should merely be UpMerged/Deleted. (See also Category:Fictional characters by genre.) - jc37 04:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Waiting on discussion. - jc37 04:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename: to Category:Characters by genre. DionysosProteus ( talk) 22:30, 24 September 2008 (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.

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: relisted on 29th. Kbdank71 13:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional characters by narrative structure

I think that this cat makes it more difficult to find the member cats, not easier. If kept, this should be renamed, at the very least. - jc37 04:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• UpMerge/Delete as nominator. - jc37 04:25, 20 September 2008 (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.

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: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

UpMerge Category:Stock characters by characteristics to Category:Stock characters

The "characteristics" for inclusion aren't identified. It seems any stock character which was deemed to have characteristics was included in this cat. I might posit that all stock characters have characteristics, something inherent in labelling them stock characters. - jc37 04:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• UpMerge as nominator. - jc37 04:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge - As noted by the nom, stock characters are defined by having a particular (set of) characteristic(s), so this subdivision of Category:Stock characters does not really work. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 20:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• UpMerge: as nominator. DionysosProteus ( talk) 22:32, 24 September 2008 (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.

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: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

UpMerge Category:Stock characters by medium to Category:Stock characters.

This cat merely includes comics and superhoeroes/villains. And many of the members of the parent apply to the comics medium. So this is essentially needless duplication. - jc37 03:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• UpMerge as nominator. - jc37 03:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge per nom - this additional category level does not facilitate navigation. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 20:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• UpMerge: as nominator. DionysosProteus ( talk) 22:33, 24 September 2008 (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.

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: consensus to rename, no consensus to what. Considering this has been on-going for over 2 1/2 weeks, but isn't really going anywhere, I suggest a renom in the near future, perhaps one at a time if that will help to gain consensus. Kbdank71 14:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Comic book alternate universes

While I think I understand the intended inclusion criteria, this needs a rename at the very least. For one thing, alternate to what? The company's "mainstream universe"? Our RL universe? (If that seems far-fetched, consider that (at one point in time), that was Earth-prime in DC Comics.)

Category:Comic book alternate futures

Similar problems to the one directly above. Needs a rename at least. (Merging both may be an option as well.) - jc37 10:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment - waiting for discussion. - jc37 10:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  Category:Parallel universe (fiction) added per User:Hiding's suggestion below. - jc37 00:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - given the constant resets, reboots, re-imaginings and retcons, not to mention time-travel storylines, pretty much every story in comics could be said to take place in an "alternate" future. Indeed, Marvel's What If (comics) series is premised on the notion that every action and decision a character makes leads to a different alternate universe, so for Marvel at least, literally every issue they have ever published is based in a future that's "alternate" to every issue published previously by virtue of the actions and decisions made in the previously published issues. Otto4711 ( talk) 16:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment — I think there is something of merit here, but it really needs a narrowed focus. Otto's premise is valid — most works of fiction relies on some degree of divergence with the real world. By that they represent an alternate timeline or universe. That being said, there are specific stories and story lines where "Alternate history/timeline/reality" is the primary selling point. The hitch is weeding these out. As for example of What If..., to be fair, the article on the comic is a valid example of using "alternates" as a primary plot device. That doesn't mean that there should be an "mini-article" for each issue, or that the "Alternate versions of <comic character>" articles that highlight What If... highlights. - J Greb ( talk) 22:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment Whole structure needs a rethink, from Category:Parallel universe (fiction) down. That's an appalling name for a category and why I hate disambig phrases in category names. It leaves us with Category:Parallel universe (comics) as the best approach. Or maybe that is the best approach. I guess the thing to think about is what we want to categorise. We've got the Days of Future Past storyline, the What If? series, Elseworlds, Almagam, Crisis, Multiverse and so on and so forth. Maybe Category:Parallel universe (comics) is the best way forwards, although you wouldn't and shouldn't subdivide further, and it should be limited to those where the plot or purpose is related to the parallel universe concept. I don't think we need to get overly concerned with Ottos' points, with apologies; they are tending towards the long tail which I think we could agree be docked. Maybe "Multiple Universes" is better. I'm trying to think my way around this. The point about what is alternate to what is perhaps a blind alley; any work which introduces the concept of multiple universes and is notable for an article would be what we are referring to; the multiple universe facet would need to be decided through independent sourcing or editorial consensus. After all, what is alternate to our universe and what are we alternate to; it's a matter of context. Haven't we talked of a Settings in comics category? Alternate futures and alternate realities are both settings. Just some initial thoughts. I oppose deletion simply because it limits recreation potential through WP:CSD. Hiding T 11:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Previous discussion regarding categorizing "fictional universes" that after two CFDs resulted in Category:Fictional universes being deleted. No idea if anyone will find these discussions helpful but the subjects are similar. Otto4711 ( talk) 14:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep I'm more than willing to agree that the name may need to be changed, I'd suggest to "Comic book universes". Various publishers, such as DC and Marvel have each created a base "universe" for their characters, in which there is a consistent back story, set of characters and story arc. A common mechanism to recreate the characters or to create a new story line or to combine disparate characters is to place them in a separate "universe" (a la DC's Earth-Two and subsequent reimaginings). These universes are notable and have dozens of articles providing descriptions of these worlds. It is irrelevant how many of these articles exist or how often they are propagated by publisher decisions. As these articles exist, are notable and are defined by the fact that they are "Comic book universes", a category ought to exist to allow them to be properly organized. Other than a WP:IDONTLIKEIT appoach by the nominator and other participants, not a single attempt has been made to offer a fig leaf of a Wikipedia policy that would require deletion of this category. Alansohn ( talk) 22:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  One problem with "comic book universes" is that it's less-than- precise in naming. For one thing, it would include the "mainstream" universes as well.

  Also, arguing for the "notability" of the members is fine for those articles. But just because several articles related to a topic may be "notable", doesn't necessarily mean there should be a category grouping related to that topic.

  I had started to write a rather lengthy response concerning your accusation of IDONTLIKEIT, but I think it's better it I leave it unsaid, and just remind you that this is a discussion, and my initial comments were to wait for the comments of others. - jc37 23:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  The question is that there is a perfectly valid reason to categorize a group of articles related to a common subject. What Wikipedia policy requires deletion of this category? Alansohn ( talk) 02:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  Well, first, I was not promoting "deletion" when I nominated these, but a discussion concerning a restructure of "some kind".

  But if you're really set on this, I suppose someone in favour of deleting these could make comments about fancruft and WP:OR, and possibly even WP:CRYSTAL (though that's tenuous, and almost humourous).

  That said, I'm not in favour of deleting the information, though in one case (alternate futures), I'm suggesting a change in how that information is presented. By turning a category into a list, we allow for the ability to place these contextuallly in relationship with the universe that they may be an "alternate future" of. Explanations, comparisons, references, citations, and just all-around better readability for these.

  "The question is that there is a perfectly valid reason to categorize a group of articles related to a common subject." - No, actually. As has been shown time and again at WP:CFD, that alone is simply not enough of a reason to categorise something. See, for example, WP:OC. Several of the category examples on that page could make the same argument, but we simply don't categorise anything and everything just because we can. That has years of repeated consensus. - jc37 19:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comments - One thing that stands out for me is that these are storylines/story arcs, or a "part" of a storyline/story arc. If Category:Parallel universe (fiction) is kept (and at this point, I think perhaps it should, though more discussion on that welcome), then I agree with Hiding that renaming Category:Comic book alternate universes to Category:Parallel universe (comics) is probably the way to go. The more I look at Category:Comic book alternate futures, the more I think it should be listified/deleted. (Otto's points and J Greb's followup points are well taken.) For example, DC's current policy seems to be that all future storylines are considered to be "in motion" (perhaps with a nod to Yoda : ) - so all versions are "alternate versions". And further. nearly every entry is either Marvel, or DC, so perhaps making two lists (one for each) would be appropriate. If listified, the names should probably be something like List of DC Comics storylines set in the future and List of Marvel Comics storylines set in the future, or something like that. - jc37 23:29, 24 September 2008 (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.