Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 16

< September 15	September 17 >

September 16

Category:Leaders of Ireland

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Irish heads of government. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Wilchett 13:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There are too many "leaders" and inclusion among them would be too contentious/factional. Cat belongs as "heads of government". Then again, that's still contentious. How about Paisley, when head of NI's assembly? Would he be an "Irish head of government"? Do you mean the republic? It's a tough knot to sort out. --Storkk 22:50, 22 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:Animal liberation movement → Category:Animal rights

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This came up after discussion of some points at WikiProject Stub sorting. The main article relating to this category is at Animal rights. Animal liberation movement is a specific subtopic of Animal rights, and the articles in this category deal with the latter rather than the former for the most part. A Category:Animal rights (currently a redirect to Category:Animal liberation movement) would also nicely parallel Category:Human rights. The wording of the category text also makes it clear that many of the articles in it relate primarily to animal rights.

IMHO, one of two things needs to happen - either (1) this category needs to be renamed (i.e., reversing the category redirect) or (2) it needs to be re-sorted as a subcategory of a new Category:Animal rights, with items not directly relating to the animal liberation movement moved to the parent category. Grutness...wha? 23:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grutness, you should have discussed this with Wikiproject Animal rights first. First you want to delete the stub (even though it had been proposed properly); then you want to rename the category. Why the sudden interest in this area? You argued elsewhere that the stub name must match the category name; that is surely process festishism taken to new heights. Anyway, I'm in the process of rethinking how to categorize the articles, and identifying our stubs was the first step process. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't rush this, as I want to discuss it with the WikiProject before we decide what to do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've done it; there's now an Animal rights category, and Animal liberation movement is a subcat. I'll start working out which should go where later, because it's not as obvious as it might appear. Please just drop me a note in future about things like this, rather than setting up all this process. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you think that I want to delete the stub type - I don't, and have never indicated that I did. But I do want it to be named in parallel with the permanent category. This isn't "process fetishism", it's to head off the repeated complaints that we get at WP:WSS about stub names and permanent names not matching. I'm not sure why this wasn't done when the stub type was created, but it definitely shopuld have been. So it was either a case of renaming the stub type or renaming the permanent category, and it made far more sense to test the waters here first and then go with the flow as far as the stub name was concerned. as to the "sudden interest in this area", why do you think I have a sudden interest in the naming of stub types? I've been one of the more active members of WP:WSS for over 18 months - and things can't be decided as to what to do with the stub type until there is certainty on the name of the permcat. And i did drop you a note, saying that things were being discussed at WP:WSS/D. The result of that discussion was to come here, as you would have known if you had followed up on that note. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You proposed the stub for deletion without checking to see whether it had been proposed properly. Now you've started another vote about a category name, when all you had to do was ask me, and I'd have done what you wanted, because I was planning to do it anyway. And it's now done. When the pursuit of process gets in the way of communication to this degree, it's not a good thing. As I said, in future just drop me a note. If what you want is within reason, I'll be happy to go along with it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have NEVER proposed the stub type for deletion. A perusal of the edit history of WP:SFD will show this. I started the debate about the category name here after discussion of the name at WP:WSS/D - a discussion which you had been informed of on your talk page. Up until now I have found you a polite and diligent editor, but my impressions of you are being seriously hindered by your false accusations. I am also deeply offended and insulted that you would suggest that I did not inform you that a discussion was taking place, or that I would have nominated this stub for deletion after it was pointed out that it was proposed and accepted. I advise you to check your facts before making baseless and scurrilous asccusations, and request that you cease from lying about my actions immediately. Grutness...wha? 06:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading what I wrote above, I apologise for going over the top. But you did thoroughly misrepresent what I have done and what my views are on this category, and I still find that deeply annoying. Grutness...wha? 05:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Animal rights. "Animal rights" is the less emotive term and the distinction seems slippery to me. Wilchett 13:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Wilchett Greg Grahame 01:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. One is the parent category, animal rights in general. One is a subcategory about the movement i.e. the people and groups. Grutness suggested above that I split them into two, so I did, otherwise I'd have left them joined. Now people are voting to merge? LOL! The next time I see one of those process versus product threads, I'll know to cite this as an example. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're doing it again!. I made two suggestions for this category - either create second one (which you did before discussion was complete, i.e., out of process), or rename the original category to Category:Animal rights. That second proposal now - thanks to you creating a separate new category - constitutes a merging of the original category into your new creation. Perhaps if you had waited until the outcome of this discussion was known, you wouldn't be laughing at people trying to clean up after you. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Grutness. Choalbaton 01:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Grutness on [UTC 23:44 19 Sep 2006]. Sensible solution, IMHO. Storkk 22:41, 22 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:Inactive bot on Wikipedia

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Inactive bots on Wikipedia --Kbdank71 13:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Bots not currently active. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge both to Category:Bots not currently active on Wikipedia or Category:Inactive Wikipedian bots per 132.205.44.134 and jc37 below...?~~
(Speedy-)rename both to Category:Inactive bots on Wikipedia. David Kernow (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC), amended 02:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC), downgraded to suggestion 09:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC), expanded 09:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC), converted to "vote" 10:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Category:Active bot on Wikipedia which also needs a merger. I'd go a step further and ask whether we even need these subcategories. A merger of all of those mentioned into Category:Wikipedia bots might suffice. --kingboyk 13:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Active bot on Wikipedia → Category:Bots currently active on Wikipedia or Category:Active Wikipedian bots...? David Kernow (talk) 02:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Merge both to Category:Active Wikipedian bots? - jc37 02:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - They may be bots created by Wikipedians – perhaps some are not...? – but where are they active...? (Too subtle...?) Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The nice thing about using "Wikipedian" is that it can be interpreted as "of Wikipedia", whether talking about a user, or a bot. (And since both, in this case, use user accounts, the parallelism works even better.) - jc37 09:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Understood; have amended suggestion accordingly. Thanks, David (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        ...On third thoughts, have just speedy-requested Category:Active bot on Wikipedia to Category:Active bots on Wikipedia (seems sufficient) and re"vote"d above. David (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        While I prefer category:Active Wikipedian Bots (ditto Inactive), I won't contest the speedy nom. (So if it requires is a "second"... so seconded : ) - jc37 10:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel that this category requires "Wikipedia" in the name to separate it from a legitimate article category. (Perhaps, robots in fiction that are famous for being inactive or somesuch) 132.205.44.134
- More for the sake of identifying Wikipedia-related categories; have amended my support above accordingly. Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:Inactive Wikipedian bots. (Note wikipedia -> wikipedian.) - jc37 02:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - nod, same as above : ) - jc37 09:14, 23 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:Fictional Smokers

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

Delete, Seems like a trivial category with few interesting entries Tortilla22 20:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Golfcam 22:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or at least rename to Category:Fictional smokers, as specified as current speedy rename. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "fictional smokers". It's at least as interesting as "fictional chickens". There is already a great deal of fictional characters categories. GilliamJF 00:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fictional smokers per above.
Abstain. David Kernow (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC), abstaining 02:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, especially since Category:Smokers has been deleted twice. Not a defining characteristic. - EurekaLott 03:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and EurekaLott Twittenham 19:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a meaningful characterization; we don't categorize non-fictional people by character traits either. >Radiant< 22:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fictional smokers. I'm against delete because smoking is made a notable or central characteristic of several fictional characters.--T. Anthony 05:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But it is trivial in most cases, and there is no way to stop it becoming overpopulated with trivial cases. Greg Grahame 01:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is true of nearly every category. Even something sensible like Category:British actors could be added for whimsical or foolish reasons like "well she did do theater in college." You just take it out of articles when it's trivially added.--T. Anthony 18:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - But that problem is far more serious in some cases than others. When the category is trivial in the first place it isn't worth the hassle. Especially since in reality cleanup will always lag behind miscategorisation, and probably to an ever increasing degree. Choalbaton 01:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 01:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not because it's trivial, but because the term "smoker" is subjective. What if they eventualy quit? Or don't take it up until the end of the story? Or only try it once? --Masamage 03:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments above. Choalbaton 01:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should be a canonical example of ~~list~~/~~cat~~/~~whatever~~-cruft. --Storkk 00:14, 23 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:Dartmouth Jack O'Lantern alumni

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Rename. Runcorn 20:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Dartmouth Jack-O-Lantern alumni", I just moved the article to the proper title, and was cleaning up the "what links here" page. I noticed that this category uses the incorrect name, so I propose renaming. See Talk:Dartmouth Jack-O-Lantern for page move discussion. GTBacchus^(talk) 19:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I have NO opinion on this, but considering my user name, I just had to vote on it Mad Jack 02:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I nominated the move of the article, and this would be the correct way to write it. Dylan 23:50, 22 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:Tourist huts of Norway

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was speedied. the wub "?!" 21:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tourist huts of Norway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) The single entry for this category (Category:Tourist huts of Norway) was pruned this week and a new category titled Category:Tourist huts in Norway created. Not worth a battle—this alternate title is acceptable to me. As the originator of Category:Tourist huts of Norway, I support deletion. Williamborg (Bill) 19:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~This can be speedied. "...in..." is standard WP naming for man-made structures. Grutness...wha? 23:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)~~ Speedied - Williamborg (Bill) 00:12, 17 September 2006 (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 page.

Subcategories of Category:People_by_nationality_and_religion

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename all. the wub "?!" 12:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing a rename of the following categories:

This is the convention that all categories under Category:People_by_nationality_and_religion (except those above listed) follow. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. GilliamJF 18:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Golfcam 22:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Greg Grahame 01:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all except for the Jewish categories. Since we have "Italian Americans", "Greek Americans", etc. and the same for Canadians, it would be best if the category name for that fit with the other ethnicity-American category names. Mad Jack 02:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Calsicol 17:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all without excepting Jewish cats. It is easy to argue that "Muslim" is as much (at least almost) an ethnicity as "Jewish". --Storkk 00:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course "Muslim" is not an ethnic group. It's silly to claim that it is. Muslim Lebanese and Christian Lebanese are of the exact same ethnicity, for instance (just as caucasian English Muslims, African Muslims, and Arab Muslims are definitely not of the same ethnic group). I hope it doesn't mean that all the sub-categories would be renamed to something like "American Jewish actors". That's pretty silly, and contrary to, say, "Italian American actors" or "Irish American actors". Mad Jack 01:09, 23 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:Asian Underground artists

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename per nom. the wub "?!" 12:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Asian Underground artists to Category:Asian Underground musicians

Rename, In keeping with Category:Musicians by genre convention. All articles in the cat describe musicians, as opposed to other types of artists. Anirvan 18:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Asian Underground musicians and music groups as not all articles may be on individuals...? David Kernow (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. "Musical groups" can be created as a subcategory if needed. Calsicol 17:39, 21 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:Wikipedia indefinitely blocked users with a significant edit history

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

Delete, Many users in category have no edits, WP:DENY. 72.139.119.165 18:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It only serves to glorify these people.--Runcorn 18:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DenyRecognition. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 22:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand it, this category was created as an alternative to just deleting the user pages of banned users. This means that ordinary users can check the discussion pages etc, in order to investigate why decisions were made, or why they were banned. So, if the category is removed, does that mean that the user pages will be deleted? If that's the case, I would vote keep -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the user pages can be kept (there is a list of banned users). Just the category will be deleted. 72.139.119.165 22:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete... Cat could be useful and/or interesting (if it were populated with "users with a significant edit history"). Seeing what those people did to get indefbanned would be instructive to newbies. Right now, I'm going with Runcorn, Pathoschild and 72.139.119.165. --Storkk 22:15, 22 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:Lists of mythical things

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Mythology-related lists. the wub "?!" 12:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lists of mythical things to Category:Mythology-related lists

Rename, to either Category:Mythology-related lists or Category:Mythology lists in order to match other lists categories. Also, this category deals not only with "things" but with concepts, etc. GilliamJF 18:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - per Category:Culture-related lists. There are categories following both schema. But the articles overwhelmingly have the words "list" or "lists" first. In addition, is changing from myth/mythical to mythology/mythological a good idea? - jc37 18:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per GJF. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 03:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. So blatantly clear that it makes one wonder why there isn't a "Speedy Rename". Storkk 22:16, 22 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:Double quasars

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 13:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Category:Binary quasars and Category:Double-imaged quasars already do the job of this category, and are better located (either in Category:quasars or Category:Multiply-imaged quasars). Category:Double quasars is simply redundant. Mike Peel 15:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete ~~per above Storkk 17:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)~~ per comments below Storkk 22:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: new information below ~~compels me to renunciate my delete opinion above~~. I'm certainly not saying "keep," though... just leaving the question to the mob. :-) --Storkk 22:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd certainly say "keep" if I thought that this had any chance of being populated. I strongly disagree with User:George J. Bendo (below) that cats should be kept even if quasi-empty. --Storkk 22:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear duplication.--Runcorn 18:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are not redundant, as they are actually different things. "Double quasars" separate from the other two, are two distinct quasars that are close to one another, vis-a-vis double star (see the non-binary definition). Whereas a binary quasar requires that the two quasars are actually gravitatinally linked, a la binary star. 132.205.44.134 04:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Double quasar, although not commonly used, would refer to two different quasars that appear in nearly the same place in the sky. Binary quasars would be two different quasars that are gravitationally bound to each other; these would be a subset of double quasars. "Double-images quasars" (which sounds idiotic and should be renamed "gravitationally lensed quasars") refers to one quasar that is gravitationally lensed to produce two images; this is not a double quasar. The three things are different entities and should be given different categories (even if the categories do contain hardly anything). George J. Bendo 06:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. The definition should be linked on each category page, and anything misfiled should be promptly moved. --Masamage 07:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and action per comments George J. Bendo and Masamage. Cain Mosni 18:59, 20 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:CSIS

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 12:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Canadian Security Intelligence Service, due to CSIS. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename; potential for confusion with the significant Center for Strategic and International Studies.-choster 13:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, strongly. (never seen "strong rename", so won't use it ;-) ) Storkk 22:30, 22 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:Partners In Crime

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this category is trying to be - it looks to be criminal duos, although most of the articles are just titled after one person. At the very least it needs renaming, possibly to Category:Criminal duos, or it could be deleted altogether. — sjorford ++ 12:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While this category, if kept, needs at the very least a minimal rename to remove the spurious capitalization, since I doubt that all criminal partnerships have only two members, so criminal duos is not a good choice for a rename. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Category:Criminal duos could be a good category, but only for instances where there's a single article about the two criminals. Scanning Category:Duos, the only criminals that I see are Bonnie and Clyde, but we probably have others elsewhere. The Hillside Strangler would belong too. This cat should probably be deleted, but I'm not certain. ×Meegs 23:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or listify. Categories cannot show the relationships between pairs of people, so this needs to go. - EurekaLott 16:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but create new Category:Criminal duos. There are hundreds, and they're distinct. Unlike "Partners in Crime", which could include almost anybody at all. On the other hand, a better title might be Category:Members of criminal duos, since very few duos have their own article. --Storkk 22:37, 22 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:Bantams Breed Chickens

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 12:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bantams Breed Chickens to Category:Bantam chicken breeds

Rename, Proper capitalization, pluralation, and grammaration. The category is a bit small and has only one parent, but I can see adding a category for dwarf breeds of all types as a second parent, so I'm not nominating an upmerge into its parent. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Storkk 17:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Though it makes me happy how it's a sentence right now. --Masamage 03:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Choalbaton 01:35, 20 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:Banned films

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, The category is unclear - almost every film can have been banned somewhere. Including a film in this category without explanation is misleading and unhelpful. Beardo 00:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I get your point. On the other hand many categories have ambiguous inclusion criteria and that's not such a big deal. Interested users can always look at the article and see how, when, where and why it was banned. And if that's not convincing, the editor can also remove an article from the category. I'm not sure I see a better alternative except creating multiple cats like Films banned for sexual content, Films banned for excessive violence, Films based for political reasons and so on. Pascal.Tesson 00:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article Banned films already exists and it covers this topic much better (without the ambiguity as it states exactly where the films were banned and for what reasons). --musicpvm 01:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (and I think Pascal.Tesson's alternative is a good one) mostly for the reason that the Banned films article is almost completely unsourced (and, I suspect, based largely on rumor, speculation, and folklore); at least if the category is used there is some impetus to cover (and source) the banning in the film's article. I would like to improve banned films but it will take a lot of work. --MCB 06:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most, if not all pages link back to the Banned films article for further clarification. I don't think there's been a single film that has had a worldwide ban, and a ban seems to be specific to a country or region. Pretty much what Pascal.Tesson said. --Lugnuts 14:18, 16 Sep 2006
Delete per Beardo. Note that "banned" could be interpreted very freely and almost every movie could be claimed to be "banned" in some form. Did you know The Day After was not allowed to be shown in Czechoslovakia under rule of communist party? It was often mentioned by propaganda, though. How about The Blue Angel? Which movie is not banned in Noth Korea? Pavel Vozenilek 18:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Lugnuts 18:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep—Useful category for researching banned material; this is what an encyclopedia is for. Sure you can always find strange examples where it can be abused. But stick to the actual purpose of categorization—to allow researchers to find related material easily—this serves that purpose. If it grows too large or has too many obscure appendages like movies banned in Timbuktu, then it can serve as the nucleus to create subcategories as needed to differentiate reasons for banning. Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 19:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's good one for the researchers: Dallas (TV series). Televized in Romania during Ceauşescu's era. Very popular as a way to escape from everyday misery. When economic troubles grew up this was an easy target for explained ideologically cut. Now: does this belong into this category and who's to decide? If added, how does a researcher infer the background story? Should there be Category:Films banned in Romania during era of Nicolae Ceauşescu one day? The categories are not intended as a database tool and do not fit well with inherently fuzzy classification. Pavel Vozenilek 21:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Vozenilek - of course Dallas (TV series) doesn't belong in this category. The give away being that it's a TV series and NOT a film! Lugnuts 10:24, Sept 17 2006

Delete; see Banned_films#Pakistan. Are we going to put every Indian and American film with an article, and without a Pakistani governmental exception, in this category? And that's not even counting the fact that everything is probably banned in North Korea, as Pavel Vozenilek mentioned. The article on banned films covers the subject well enough, no need for a hard-to-maintain category. Picaroon9288 19:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many different films are banned in too many different places for this to work. Golfcam 22:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is too much use on Wikipedia of the word "controversy". GilliamJF 00:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Far too many things are banned in some place or other by some group or other, that's not encyclopedic information. We can list important controversies in the articles themselves, but this categorization is meaningless. >Radiant< 11:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a rather naive category. Twittenham 19:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The absurdity of this category has already been explained. Greg Grahame 01:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something more specific. Perhaps "United States banned films" or something similar. "English-language banned films." --Masamage 03:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous users. Choalbaton 01:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above editors, and also because the additional ambiguity of whether a film edited as it appeared in country A must be edited differently (say to remove nudity or violence or whatever) to appear in country B is the originally edited film "banned"? Carlossuarez46 02:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to all the problems already mentioned. Calsicol 17:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a legitimate category, to say that nearly every film has been banned somewhere is hyperbole. Banning of films is a part of the culture surrounding film making. As with most artforms, film pushes boundaries. This category in many ways collects films that were ahead of their time and too out-there for contemporary audiences, or more often, their governments. Categories exist for banned books, comics and other types of media, Banned films should stay. Mallanox 22:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too broad category, due to way too wide and heavy banning of films. Prolog 22:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Rethink... Category:Films banned by country. I suppose I'll get drowned out here by the deleters, but I seriously think that's the best option, with subcats, e.g. Category:Films banned in Ireland, etc. --Storkk 00:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per the various comments above concerning specificity. Banned by <specific country>, or banned by <specific organisation> would be necessary for accuracy. - jc37 02:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see this seems headed for deletion but I have to say I find it a bit sad. For all the imperfections of the category, and I do have to agree with some of the arguments for deletion, it's still the type of category that I, and many others, enjoy browsing through on Wikipedia. We do know that there's something kind of arbitrary and unprecise about it but I think we all trust the main article to explain things in detail. Maybe we can indeed create subcategories that would be more meaningul (although in that case we still want to keep this one as a parent-category) but this is the kind of quirky information cluster (like this one) that Wikipedia is a nice source of. Like I said, I don't entirely disagree with the delete opinions but I still think this is an overzealous kill of a category that has nice potential. Pascal.Tesson 06:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are any of the supporters of deletion able to justify the deletion of banned films while banned books etc is untouched? Mallanox 13:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - (typically when making such an accusation of "unfairness", one usually at least adds a link to the comparative material : ) Parentheticals aside, if you have issues with "banned books", feel free to list it for CfD as well for discussion. - jc37 17:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to do just that but I couldn't work out how to do it without ending up with the whole of this page in the Banned book category. Mallanox 14:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done (I think!) added the CFD to Banned books [[1]]

Comment I've added a note on the category restriction to say that the cat should be restricted to articles which document the ban. I'm not sure this will sway too many in favour of keeping but, hey, I can try! :-) Pascal.Tesson 04:41, 25 September 2006 (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 page.