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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from the Virgin Islands to Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from the U.S. Virgin Islands

Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from the District of Columbia to Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from the District of Columbia

Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from American Samoa to Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from American Samoa

Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from Guam to Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from Guam

Rename, That's what they are: Delegates, not Members. —Markles 00:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. Oliver Han 09:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. They're not members. Doczilla 09:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom, for accuracy, per previous discussion on related categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 16. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from The Philippines to Category:Resident Commissioners from the Philippines

Nominator's rationale: Rename, That's what they are, Resident Commissioners, not Members. —Markles 23:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:TurboGrafx 16 game covers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - The name of the system has a - between the word and the number. TJ Spyke 23:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match TurboGrafx-16. Bencherlite 23:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jewish liturgy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Liturgy apparently only refers to public worship. "Ritual texts" comes to include things like the Haggadah of Pesach and (probably) zemirot which are not prayer per se. --Eliyak T·C 20:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Eliyak T·C 20:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Many of our texts are a mixture of prayers and praises which are not necessarily prayers. Example: the short (siddur) version of the 13 ikkarim of the Rambam. Is that liturgy? I support this proposal. --Rabbeinu 21:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated, cat redirect --Kbdank71 17:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sports in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Rename, Every other country's category is "Sport in..." Israel should follow the same naming conventions. NYC2TLV 18:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a case of American vs. British English. --Eliyak T·C 20:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In Israel we are taught the British English and we say Sport in Hebrew as plural. -NYC2TLV 02:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency. Every other country article isn't plural. I understand GA vs. RP concerns, but I feel that discussion should apply for the whole naming template, instead of on a category by category level.-Andrew c 23:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Andrew c and NYC2TLV. Oliver Han 09:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per NYC2TLV for consistency. DuncanHill 22:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Alex Middleton 17:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; needed for bots (?) --Kbdank71 18:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion

Template:GA, and its derivatives adds things to three categories: Category:GA-Class Good articles, Category:Wikipedia good articles and Category:Wikipedia CD Selection-GAs. These three are thus all functionally identical. Merge them all into Category:Wikipedia good articles.

The first of these is a subcategory of Category:Good articles by quality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) along with Category:FA-Class Good articles, etc down to Category:Stub-Class Good articles However, just to show how pointless this is, all of these are empty except Category:GA-Class Good articles. Delete the whole thing.

Finally, the page Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Good_articles_by_quality_statistics, which uses Category:Good articles by quality, should also be deleted. Vanished user ^talk 16:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Whilst I entirely fail to see the point of all the sub-cats of "Good articles by quality", (Category:Stub-Class Good articles etc being oxymorons and Category:GA-Class Good articles being a tautology), I'm reluctant to start messing with this field without input from the good people at WP:GA and I suggest that the nominator lets them know what's under proposal before this goes any further. Also, this is the wrong forum for deleting a page (the final suggestion). Bencherlite 16:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know about the page deletion, but if I didn't note that, I'd forget about it. =) I'll leave a note on the GA talk page. Vanished user ^talk 17:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. "Wikipedia good articles" is the original category name. Category:GA-Class Good articles is used by the v1.0 bot which requires a specific form for the category name. "CD-selection GAs" used to be a subset of GAs, maybe that has changed. Gimmetrow 18:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:FA-Class Good articles, that's sort of pointless since a GA promoted to an FA is removed from GA status, but as for the others, I think they might have to do with Wikiproject ratings, at face value they do seem a bit silly, but I know for sure the Chemistry wikiproject scale tries to ignore GA class compleatly, (So a Chemistry GA might be B or A class for the Chemistry template instead of GA class) and I don't know anything about the 1.0 or CD selection people's needs, they would probably know better than I would about whether their statistics page and categories should be deleted for redundancy or not. Homestarmy 18:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But none of the other categories have any articles in them, so they clearly aren't being used... Vanished user ^talk 23:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notice that the "FA-class good articles" and "Stub-class good articles" categories were careated by the V1.0 bot. Probably, if they are deleted, the V1.0 bot will create them again... Gimmetrow 23:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's find out: I'll delete Category:Stub-Class Good articles - it's empty, unlikely to ever be filled by definition, and we can always remake it. Vanished user ^talk 01:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments. The categories used by WikiProjects have the form Category:GA-Class chemistry articles or Category:GA-Class Puerto Rico articles. "Good articles by quality" makes sense in principle, first because good articles can be A-Class, second because various WikiProjects (most notably the WP 1.0 Editorial Team) may have different views about an article's quality for their purposes. However, in that case, the categories should not be added automatically by Template:GA. A similar comment can be made about Category:Wikipedia CD Selection-GAs. An interesting test would be to remove the categories from Template:GA and see if they depopulate.

However, I suspect that these categories are here for the convenience of processing information for WP 1.0, and that these categories exist simply because WP 1.0 regards Wikipedia:Good articles as a contributing WikiProject like any other. Even empty categories have a use: they contain the information that the category is empty! The categories are harmless from this point of view, so the case for deletion is not clear.

I've temporarily removed the cats from Template:GA and Template:ArticleHistory. Let's find out if this clears it. Vanished user ^talk 01:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does. Restoring cats to those two templates.... Vanished user ^talk 01:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion of the main Category:Good articles by quality. If you delete that the bot will no longer be able to compile information on this project. I realise that the name of this category is silly, but the bot doesn't know how to handle anything with a different name. However, it does seem that the bot can work without the empty categories like Category:Stub-Class Good articles - as long as that continues to be the case, then we don't really need them. The log should still pick up any cases where GA tags get vandalized. For other categories, the projects concerned should make that call; has BozMo been informed about the CD selection proposal? Walkerma 02:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Walkerma above, this category is needed for WP 1.0 bot. The name is silly to fit in the same framework as Category:Mathematics articles by quality, etc. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:JAG (TV series) episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:JAG episodes, to match JAG. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Tim! 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States abbots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Rename, per long-established convention for these categories. Sumahoy 15:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Tim! 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency. However, American can also mean anyone from the Americas. I believe US abbots is more accurate if it is meant to apply to just individuals from the United States. However, there are a half dozen other categories in the parent cat that are named "American..." -Andrew c 23:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename There are hundreds of such categories that use "American". Oliver Han 09:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Alex Middleton 17:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Actresses appearing in Hammer films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Delete - as overcategorization of actor by studio. Performers work for a variety of studios over the course of a career and categroizing by studio is impractical and leads to category clutter. Otto4711 14:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as overcategorization. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous actor per studio decisions. Pavel Vozenilek 15:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and redirect to it. Lugnuts 18:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No objections to listification if someone wants to take the time, but I certainly don't think it should be a necessary prerequisite to deletion. I do, however, have strong objections to making a cross-namespace redirect out of this. Xtifr _tälk 23:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per many precedents. Doczilla 09:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 21:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Perebourne 23:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ghostly International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Ghostly International artists, convention of Category:Artists by record label. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify and delete - as has been done when these categories periodically come up for CFD. While recording artists may tend to stay with one label longer than actors stay at studios, in each case the artist in question may work with a number of different entities, leading to category clutter. An annotated list article can include such information as the dates the artist was with the label and the material recorded there. Otto4711 14:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Tim! 16:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Fantômas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Delete - category is capturing material relating to both the fictional character and the band named for the fictional character, which isn't quite proper. Even lumping the two in the same category, the material is extensively interlinked and the albums subcat is und er the albums by artist category. This category isn't needed for navigational purposes. Otto4711 13:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band took its name from the Fantômas cultural phenomenon, therefore it can be considered to be a derivative of the Fantômas culture. But even if we disagree on that just remove the band and band related subcats and leave the rest in the cat. Fantômas is a huge franchise and it deserves its own category. This category tracks the Fantômas culture. With time other Fantômas novels, films etc. can be incorporated into the category and therefore the growth potential is there. Also don't forget we strive to make this encyclopedia truly international. Let's not kneejerkedly try to delete foreign stuff. Also as the creator of the category I would have appreciated a courtesy call to take part in the discussion. Dr.K. 15:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't appreciate your implication of WP:BIAS in the suggestion that this is a kneejerk attempt to delete the category because it's "foreign." Otto4711 16:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Answer to Comment above- Maybe I should have phrased it more delicately. It was meant as a figure of speech not as a notice of violation of Wikipedia policy on your part. Sorry. Dr.K. 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is effectively the categorization of a late 1990's band with their namesake, which is a character from a series of French films. This is a confusing way to categorize things. The category should probably be deleted in favor of links and explanations in the various articles. (Also, Otto4711 has nominated many categories for deletion that resemble this one. This is not an effort by Otto4711 to target French cultural information for deletion, and his actions should not be interpreted as being motivated by bigotry.) Dr. Submillimeter 21:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I guess the clarification above about my intentions and the subsequent deletion of the contentious sentence were not clear enough. Dr.K. 22:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Dr.K. you and I are good. Dr S was, I assume, just trying to address the arguments presented and there's nothing personal in his comments. Otto4711 03:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I just wanted to re-emphasize that Otto4711 is not motivated by xenophobia, mainly for the benefit of other people reading this discussion. My comments were not intended to be an accusation against Dr.K., and I acknowledge that he has apologized for his comment. Dr. Submillimeter 09:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No problem guys. Thanks for the clarification. It's no big deal. I apologise for the tardiness of the response but I was busy making my points on the other aspects of the discussion and quite frankly I didn't see your comments as I was expecting any additional replies to be at the bottom of the section not in the middle. The reason I replied to Dr. S was that I did not want this to escalate further since I saw the b word, not because I thought Dr. S. was making a comment about me. Anyway, thanks again and take care. Dr.K. 12:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I looked at this category and I did a double take. Was I just looking at a disambiguation page? No, it was a category. A disambiguation page would serve the exact same purpose as this category. I agree that grouping of something that shares a same name isn't the point of categorization (but is the point of dab). -Andrew c 23:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OC#Unrelated_subjects_with_shared_names. A category is not a disambiguation page. The ones that actually are related can be otherwise linked through article. Doczilla 09:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As per policy quoted by Doczilla it states: However, a category may be useful if the people, objects, or places are directly related. For example, a category on a specific Jones family would bring together multiple related articles. Other than the band, the novel and the three movies are directly related because they depict the adventures of the same hero. There are also many other movies and novels that are not yet included in Wikipedia that also depict Fantomas' adventures which could also be included in the category. Conclusion: Take the band out. Leave the rest of the family inside the category. New members may be also coming in the future. Dr.K. 10:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional clarification To help illustrate this further I restate the policy by substituting the word Fantômas for Jones and leaving out terms that do not apply: However, a category may be useful if the objects are directly related. For example, a category on a specific Fantômas family (editor's note: family of objects) would bring together multiple related articles. It should be clear by now. Dr.K. 10:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Applied Example and related question If Category:James Bond exists why not Category:Fantômas? Dr.K. 11:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If Category:James Bond was used for things that took their name from James Bond but were otherwise unrelated (such as a band named James Bond), then it would be inappropriate categorization by name. However, almost all of the articles in Category:James Bond appear to be directly related to the character or the stories that feature him. Besides which, the analogy with Category:James Bond is not quite accurate. A more appropriate analogy for Category:Fantômas would be categorizing Duran Duran in Category:Barbarella, which would confuse many readers. Dr. Submillimeter 12:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks Dr. S. Point made, accepted and action follows. I am taking the band out of the cat. All remaining articles are now directly linked to Fantomas. Is this ok now? Dr.K. 12:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment I just reverted two recently made changes that deleted the category Fantomas from the articles of the Fantomas novel co-authors. Now the category has 6 close family members: The two authors of the Fantomas novels, the article of the fictional hero of the novel Fantomas and the three Fantomas movies based on the hero of the novel. The rock band and albums being distant cousins can be removed but that still leaves a vibrant family of six with many more members waiting to come in. Dr.K. 12:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The general consensus has been not to categorize authors by their works. This has become very messy in the past. Dr. Submillimeter 12:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Thanks for the point. But the question arises why are James Bond authors under the James Bond category? Having said that please rest assured that I am not here to waste too much time on these rather esoteric arguments. I just want to clarify a few things. Dr.K. 12:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not work with me. I usually go nominate the other stuff for deletion. Category:James Bond authors is now nominated for deletion. Note that many other similar categories (especially for writers who have worked on comic books and TV series) have also been deleted. See Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Dr. Submillimeter 13:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The French have it: Catégorie:Fantômas. Why not us? Dr.K. 13:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The other-language versions of Wikipedia are not necessarily held to the same standards as the English-language version. Dr. Submillimeter 13:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yes but now the cat is cleaned up and all the members are closely associated with each other as they all relate to the novels and films of the central hero Fantomas. As I mentioned above many more works about Fantomas have not found their articles yet on the english Wikipedia and should populate it well into the future. All of this and more points to one direction: Keep the category.Dr.K. 14:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The category now contains so few articles that it really is not needed for navigation anymore. Dr. Submillimeter 15:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Granted. Is there a cutoff number of articles below which no category should exist? Because if this number exists then I am going to recreate the category once it reaches that magic number. I think we are making progress. Dr.K. 15:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to comment above - Wikipedia does not really have a set size for categories, but a category for four articles is not really necessary. Why not just use links in the texts of these articles? (Also, be careful recreating the category, as that could be interpreted as disruptive editing.) Dr. Submillimeter 11:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So I take it that:

• James Bond is allowed to have his own category but Fantomas is not.
• The French have a Fantomas category but we cannot. (So much for interwiki standards and cooperation).
• There is no minimum number for articles for a category to exist yet we arbitrarily set it at four (4) so that we can delete the Fantomas category.
• The Fantomas category is by definition small because French culture is under-represented in english Wikipedia but we do not want to give it a chance to grow.
• Even when it grows past the arbitrary number of four I will be accused of disruptive editing if I recreate it.

I hate to argue the point ad-infinitum but I think we should give French culture a chance to grow more naturally and organically within the english environment. Dr.K. 12:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corollary to comments above As a consequence of the four article rule de facto imposed here, any category with a population less or equal to four articles must now be deleted. Dr.K. 13:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• First, I think you need to take a step back from this situation because you are taking this nomination very personally. That said, if you look at the material that's in the James Bond category, you'll see that it's very complex and far-reaching and it would be very difficult to link all of the material in it together through a method other than categorization. Compare that to this category, which has a small amount of material which is all easily interlinked with each other through the text of the various articles. This CFD does not establish any hard and fast rule for the minimum number of articles that a category must caontain to exist. That is a big red herring. No one is accusing you of anything. That's another red herring. Otto4711 15:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment above Hi Otto. Thanks for your assurance. No need for the clarification. I am very aware that noone accuses me of anything. I was speaking hypothetically in reference to the comment from Dr. S (quote): as that could be interpreted as disruptive editing. I was not addressing this point to Dr. S in any way. The level of this debate is great and that of the participants even better. I feel very comfortable exchanging ideas with everyone involved. I would not have participated under any other conditions.

As far a your point about James Bond you are right. James is a much bigger commodity and so it does have its own better populated categories. Fantomas is a smaller commodity in the english world but still is a cultural phenomenon that took Europe by storm in the 60s (and even before that as novels), spread to the rest of the world and even today fan clubs exist in some countries. I alone contributed the three out of the four articles in the category. If someone contributes a few more this category will reach a higher population. I know the articles are interlinked but given the potential for growth, its interwiki presence etc. why not keep it and see it grow instead of deleting it and recreating it in the future since no hard minimum population criteria exist. Dr.K. 16:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Just for clarification, I stated that the recreation of the category "could be interpreted" as disruptive editing. If the category's contents were significantly different, then it would not actually be a recreation, although the creator would have to explain this. At this point, I suggest that Dr.K. focus his energies on writing articles about the subject instead of fighting to keep this category. I will even offer to recreate the category myself if he can convince me that he has generated enough articles to populate the category. (Also note that the new articles should be well-referenced and lengthy articles, not a series of stubs that are created just to justify having the category. I have already seen another user do this.) At this point, I am not going to comment further. Dr. Submillimeter 17:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply to comment above and clarifications A few clarifications are in order here. First I thought that we were having a debate and not a fight, therefore arguing a few points pro and con should be perceived as a discussion and not a fight. Second as my contributions show the vast majority of them are in mainspace and not in talkpages. That means that I don't normally debate, therefore my energy is already focused in the right direction despite the suggestion. I do not profess to be an expert on Fantomas and my contributions have been limited to these three start class articles. I did not write these articles just to create a category. Creating articles for the sake of categories is an interesting but should we say novel concept for me. I will not elaborate further except to say that citing other users as examples to pin motives on me that I never contemplated is not exactly something that I expected from this debate. Categorising articles, even small, should not be frowned upon. I thought Wikipedia welcomed any contribution irrespective of size. Finally if we follow logic this category must be kept. I thought that this was the objective of this debate. Dr.K. 17:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Dick Tracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Delete - content is all extensively interlinked and categorized; category is not needed for this material. Otto4711 13:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 00:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 21:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vatican (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Vatican City, or Delete, note that Vatican is a disambiguation page. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Tim! 16:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Merge into Category:Holy See instead, as it is more relevant to the contents of this category. Oliver Han 09:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the sub-cat is already in the VC category, so it is only the single article. But the Vatican city and Holy See seem to work oddly - they VC is a sub-cat of HS, but the nobility surely belong in HS. Merge article to Category:Holy See Johnbod 22:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. No need for this category. I'll leave it to the closer to choose which of the proposed categories is the correct target. I don't think it really matters much. The important thing is to delete this category. The subcategory has been nominated for deletion, so its presence may not influence the decision. Vegaswikian 02:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:X-kan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Rename - The term "X-kan" is slang. The proposed name would be more formal. (However, the Bujinkan at least emphasizes that it teaches much more than Ninjutsu.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Andrew c 01:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Americans - What a broad category! Besides the concerns listed in the similar comics-related categories below, we now have every example of a fictional character presumed to be "American"? So will this potentially include every TV series character, every film character, every novel character, every video game character, etc. that are considered to be "American"? - jc37 09:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 09:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of the large Category:Fictional characters by origin categorisation scheme, though it would be good to remove any presumed Americans. Tim! 16:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - but only because the entire structure isn't under discussion. I'm not convinced that in the vast majority of cases the country of origin of a fictional character is so important that it requires categorization. Otto4711 22:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep without prejudice against a broader nomination, per Tim and Otto. Simply poking small holes in an existing structure like this leaves us in an inconsistent and confusing state. Let's discuss them all if we're going to discuss. Xtifr _tälk 23:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  "Inconsistant and confusing state" - Huh? how? Did you all miss that this category has the potential to include all American TV series characters? All American film characters? Essentially every American character in media will be duplicated in this single category. We're going to be duplicating entire categorisation structures with this single category. (And doesn't this violate WP:OC#Intersection by location?) - jc37 05:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and sort by state wherever possible to avoid over-population of the main category. — CharlotteWebb 23:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nationality is a fundamental characteristic of both real and fictional characters. Oliver Han 09:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep without prejudice, per Otto & Tim & Xtifr; we should tee up the debate about all these. Unlike real people, whether nationality is a fundamental characteristic of fictional characters is entirely dependent on their creators/authors: sometimes this characteristic is never discussed or doesn't exist (e.g., fictional characters in universes without "nationalities"). Carlossuarez46 21:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to Category:American comics characters --Kbdank71 17:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional American comics characters

Category:Fictional Americans in DC Comics

Category:Fictional Americans in Marvel Comics

Category:American comics characters

While lately comics book publishers have attempted to become more international in scope, Most of the "stable" of most American comics publishers feature "American" characters. In addition, often the nationality of the character is never given, one just "presumes" that a fictional city (if named at all) is located in one's home country, or at least the country of the publisher. Also, Category:American comics characters could apply to anyone who has been characterised in comics. Nearly every celebrity has, from Bob Hope to The Beatles to Michael Jordan. If this information is deemed relevant, it would be better suited to a list, per WP:CLS, since citations/references would be necessary.

Also, Category:Archie Comics characters and Category:United States-themed superheroes are subcats, but I'm not listing them because they really don't fall under the same problems/issues. - jc37 08:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom for overcategorization. I have never thought these categories made sense. When most DC and Marvel characters are Americans, it's non-defining. Just put them under the already-existing Category:Fictional Americans if you care about their nationality. When they're already categorized as DC and Marvel characters, this is redundant. We don't have Category:Fictional Americans in NBC sitcoms, do we? Doczilla 08:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep American comics characters, but possibly merge the remainder into that one category. Tim! 16:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge all subcats to Category:American comics characters. Keep the parent cat but only because the entire structure is not under discussion. I'm not convinced that the country of origin of most comics characters is significant enough to warrant categorization. Otto4711 22:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge all subcats per Tim and Otto, The parent cat seems to be part of an existing structure, and poking holes in such structures leaves us in an inconsistent and confusing state. Such structures should, in general, be discussed as a whole, or not at all. However, the subcategories are clearly overcategorization. Xtifr _tälk 23:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge all subcats per Tim. -Sean Curtin 05:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (Grins at the idea of suggesting WP:ALLORNOTHING - See the top of my talk page) - Actually, the point here is that non-amercian comcs characters are the exception, rather than the rule, when it comes to comics characters. So while it may be notable to know which characters are French or German, it's not very useful to have the American ones so categorised. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing them all listified. - jc37 05:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete these should go whether or not we get rid of the whole scheme as hinted at by Otto, Tim, as nn characteristic. Carlossuarez46 21:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge some "Fictional Americans in DC Comics" and "Fictional Americans in Marvel Comics" seem largely pointless. "Archie Comics characters" shouldn't be upmerged as it is an important subcat of Archie Comics and should not have been listed under "Fictional American comics characters", equally "United States-themed superheroes" is solid and can be policed using the list so I'd move it up to "Category:American comics characters." Equally, "American comics characters" should be a useful category but seems to be underused (as some others are in that general category) so needs work not deletion. (Emperor 01:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:England National Game XI players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Rename, This team has now had three names; the England Semi-Pro team; the National Game XI, and now England C. The proposed name is more descriptive and more adequately covers all three. ArtVandelay13 00:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related page moves. ArtVandelay13 00:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename makes sense, "England C" or "England XI" only covers those two names of the team. Kingjamie 20:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename is certainly desirable. The team appears to be called England C national football team. I would thus suggest Category:England C national football team players. The presetn title does not even indicate what sport they play, but how is WP ensuring that the ambiguous sport "football" is correctly divided into its different versions - American, Austrialian-rules, Rugby, and Association (soccer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)
• Rename good call Bigmike 20:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentThe link to the official site for this team [1] still shows them to be called the England Nationall XI team and not England C. As far as I can tell there is no source on the article to show where the name England C has come from or that it is used. Yet the page on the FA's website for the team only talks about the England National XI team. If I am missing something here then I apologise, but it does seem odd to say the least.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 01:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. This BBC news story from early June says that the name change takes effect at the start of next season.

Reply thanks for that as I couldn't find anything about the change of name. It does seem odd though that the FA website has nothing. But still if the name is changing and given that they could well change it yet again on a whim, then Rename as per nom. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 23:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, so we don't have to go through this every time the team name changes, and to allow notable players to be correctly categorized, rather than by using a team name that they never played for. Bencherlite 08:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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