Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 29

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< September 28 September 30 >

September 29 edit

Category:Slovak heroes edit

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete, empty --Kbdank71 19:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slovak heroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, One man's hero is another man's villain. This category contained one article about an outlaw, which is now in category:Slovak outlaws. Brammen 23:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete - this cries out for citations (as does slovak outlaws), which is obviously not possible in a category. - jc37 06:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above (and perhaps listify with citations per jc37). David Kernow (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Janosik was an outlaw but he's associated only with flattering legends about the one "who takes from the rich and gives to the poor". Being outlaw is mere technicality (today he would be a populist politician). Pavel Vozenilek 22:38, 5 October 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 section.

Category:Natives of Durham edit

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 section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Natives of Durham to Category:People from Durham

  • Rename. For consistency with other similar categories. -- Necrothesp 22:30, 29 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 section.

X drivers from Brazil edit

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 section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated (to Category:Brazilian racecar drivers and Foo drivers) --Kbdank71 12:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Merge to Foo Drivers (note if merging IRL would need to merge to Indy Racing League). When these categories were created, the drivers were removed from Category:Brazilian racecar drivers and Category:Foo drivers so they are not in both parent and child. If these cats are deleted, the articles must be returned to the parents. --After Midnight 0001 19:10, 29 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 section.

Actors by television series subcategories edit

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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 19:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(within Category:Actors by drama television series)

(within Category:Actors by crime television series)

(within Category:Actors by comedy television series)

(within Category:Actors by science fiction television series)

(within Category:Actors by fantasy/horror television series)

(within Category:Australian television actors by series)

(within Category:British television actors by series)

  • Category:'Allo 'Allo! actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Absolutely Fabulous actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Afterlife actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:All About Me actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Always and Everyone actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Are You Being Served? actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Avengers actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Bergerac actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:The Bill actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Blackadder actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Blake's 7 actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Brookside actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Bugs actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Casualty actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Casualty and Holby City actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Cold Feet actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Coronation Street actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Crisis Command participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Dad's Army actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Doctor Who actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Doctor in the House TV actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Dream Team actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:EastEnders actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Emmerdale actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Family Affairs actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Fawlty Towers actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Gimme Gimme Gimme actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Grange Hill actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Green Wing actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Hollyoaks actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Howards' Way actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Jonathan Creek actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Last of The Summer Wine actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Merseybeat actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Mile High actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Minder actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Neverwhere actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:The Office actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Only Fools and Horses actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:The Prisoner actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Red Dwarf actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Space 1999 actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Touch of Frost actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Trial & Retribution actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Undercover Customs actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete categories and convert to lists, Per discussions in the cfd for Category:Actors by television series, this is an umbrella nomination to convert most or all of the "Actors by television series" subcategories into list articles. The reason is that, if most television series and films have their own unique category for actors, then many actors would end up with 30 or 50 or more categories at the end of their article; one category per show or film in which they appeared. Therefore rather than use individual unique categories to compile actors that appeared within a television series, I recommend using list articles, such as "List of actors that have appeared in 24 (TV series)". Using a list also has the advantage of allowing additional information about the actor to be included (eg. name of the character they played), as well as differentiating between "regular" star and "guest" star credits. I will compile affected subcategories above for discussion. Dugwiki 17:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, I'm still in the process of listing and tagging all the affected subcategories. I should have it complete this afternoon. Thanks for your patience. Dugwiki 17:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: find an actor in 30 such categories and I'll agree with your reason for deletion. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I agree with AnemoneProjectors - none of them are for films, and which actor will possibly be in 30 categories? Is it against any Wikipedia rules? Are they doing any harm? Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 21:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to reply, the point would be to do the conversion now rather than wait until the number of show-related categories grows to the point that it becomes more of a problem and is also harder to correct. As far as a hypothetical example, how about Tara Strong (IMDB listing) She's a voice actress with 197 credits to her name, many of which are television shows in which she played recurring characters. Now imagine if each of those shows had its own category called "ThisShow actors"; she'd end up with 100+ categories in her listing. Dugwiki 21:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And may I ask what's wrong with having a lot of categories? The point of categories is to group articles with similar ones, something that the subject of the articles have in common, which is applicable to these categories! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 10:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Categories are not the way to do this. Recury 17:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wrong use of categories. Attempt to turn WP into a database. 18:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. After seeing some actor pages with too many categories just promoting what shows they've been in, I have to say delete. RobJ1981 19:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with all the reasoning above. Also think that since lists can have more relevant information added to them, they would be more utilized by the average Wikipedia user. Just my two cents... --Ebyabe 20:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I almost nominated these a while ago, but I was too lazy. Agree with all the points made above. —Xezbeth 20:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Listify or Rename: People should not be added to these categories if they were only in one episode of the series. However, I do think the categories should remain for actors who played main characters and maybe recurring characters. I think it might be a good idea to rename the categories to things like Category:Actors who played main characters of That '70s Show so that editors are encouraged to use them correctly, and discouraged from using them on guest characters. It is still interesting though to see lists of actors who appeared in a series. Therefore, at the very least I think the categories should be converted into lists. If the categories are in list fomat, then people will still be able to find the information without the category section of an actor's article being filled with categories with little relavence to the actor. I would hope that, if the categories are to be deleted, that people wait to delete them until after they have been converted into list format. Q0 21:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree the categories should be converted to lists. (I clarified that in my vote above). I don't want the information in these categories lost; I just want it converted into list form. I also agree that, if possible, the categories should be first converted into a list, and THEN deleted. However, once the lists are created, I see no benefit to keeping the categories around, and in fact allowing the categories to propogate will probably cause problems as I described in my nomination. Dugwiki 21:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up (Phew! I finally finished tagging all the cats.) One quick note; although I'm nominating deleting all the subcategories, do keep the parent Category:Actors by television series because that is where all the list articles would be placed. So it becomes a category filled with list articles instead of a category filled with subcategories. (In fact, the lists would presumably go under the corresponding subcat, such as lists for comedies going under Category:Actors by comedy television series). Dugwiki 21:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think if all the subcategories are renamed, then the main category should be renamed Category:Lists of actors by television series to indicate it is a category of lists. Q0 22:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good suggestion on the new name, Q0, assuming the categories are converted into lists.Dugwiki 23:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Listify - Mainly per User:Q0, due to this nomination and the nominator calling this a "vote" I feel compelled to notify that I have lost all respect in this user after his prior category shuffle in the prior week which I did not mind. The nature of the categories should be for main characters only, however. The best course of acion would of been a request at the project, not a CFD thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, I just used the word "vote" above as a figure of speech; I never implied that CFD is strictly a voting process. I'm also not sure what "shuffle" you're referring to, but if you have an issue with something I edited recently feel free to let me know on my talk page or on the page I edited. Finally, I created this nomination based on feedback from the Category:Actors by television series cfd, and also as a means of compiling all the affected subcategories in one place. In fact, the only thing unusual about this nomination is its size. thanks/ Dugwiki 22:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you even have any idea how many TV show WikiProjects there are? Just because not every single little person was notified means that the logic behind the nomination should be ignored. Major WP:POINT. People "voting" keep just because "no one asked me first" is insane. -- Ned Scott 23:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per previous discussions. Tim! 22:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you link the previous discussion on the subcategories for reference, Tim? The only discussion I found was to delete the overall parent category, which isn't the recommendation. I'm not saying you're wrong; I just can't seem to find the discussion you're talking about when it comes to the subcategories. Thanks. Dugwiki 22:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh-so-very-keep. Firstly, it's been decided, time and again, that cats and lists are not necessarily redundant. A list of cast and crew is great, but where would these people all go if we deleted the cat? Category:Actors? We subcategorize for a reason. It would be ridiculous to move all these people up in the category scheme. - Che Nuevara 23:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To answer the question, the actors themselves would remain under either Category:Television actors or the appropriate subcategory of Category:Television actors by nationality. In addition, the lists replacing the subcategories would all be sorted under Category:Actors by television series, and the actors would of course appear on those lists as well. So no, the actors wouldn't be moving "up the scheme" to just "Actors". Dugwiki 23:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you realize how huge that would make Category:Television actors? Look at the list of categories up for deletion -- it's a rather large number as it is. Category:Television actors would become useless as a category. - Che Nuevara 06:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually the category size wouldn't change at all. All of the actors in the above subcategories are already listed (or should already be listed) either under Category:Television actors OR under a national subcategory. There's no shuffling or adding of additional categories occuring; these actors are already in the category you're talking about. So Category:Television actors would remain exactly the same size as it is now. Dugwiki 12:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. -- Ned Scott 23:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Editors have spent hours and days categorizing all of these actors by their series, and I find it nice to be able to just go into a category and find out who's appeared in a show. Actors are defined by their series, not just their names, and to delete the categories would undermine this as an information source. Nate 01:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I've found them useful and I can't imagine this being clutter if the categories are used in the right way. As stated above, they need to be RESTRICTED to the main and recurring cast. Several users are adding guest stars to these categories, and they should NOT be in them. Many of these categories need to be cleaned up to remove guest stars and a note should be placed on the parent category stating that guest stars should not be included. Appearing in a show for one or two episodes is really not a notable characteristic. But other than that, I think being a part of the main or recurring cast in a notable television show is a notable characteristic. --musicpvm 03:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I didn't create Category:Star Trek actors subcategories for it all to be erased. These are a useful navigation tool. NorthernThunder 03:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, Category:Star Trek actors isn't currently on the list for deletion/listifying. It's not a subcategory of Category:Actors by television series because it crosses multiple media types (television, movies and video games). I intentionally left this out along with the other subcategories of Category:Actors by series that cross media types. So don't worry, your category isn't actually up for discussion here. Dugwiki 11:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This nomination leaves a bad taste by only choosing television series, for example Star Trek actors is not up for deletion, whereas Doctor Who actors is: Doctor Who has been on television, radio, webcasts, and audio dramas, there aren't just subcategories to cover those types of media. Tim! 19:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that these categories are very useful for finding other actors with the same shows and finding out more about them. Also, list articles who mot be very encyclopedic. ISD 07:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete - The format: [[List of characters on <name of TV series>]] (compare to (List of characters on The West Wing) This way, the characters are what is listed, with who portrayed them. It's a win-win. - jc37 06:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding navigational concerns - I see a couple of replies that talk about it being nice to be able to find other actors with the same shows and find out more about them. I agree, that is the sort of search capability you want. However, I want to point out that, far as I can tell, putting the cast list in a list article offers that same navigational ability as putting them in a category. Remember, the idea would be to replace the categories with lists, not delete them entirely. In fact, a list provides more functionality because it can include all the cast, including guest stars, and list things like character names and episode appearances. So my question is this: in this instance, what navigational advantage do the categories offer that a cast list article doesn't provide? Dugwiki 12:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you arguing that all categories should be deleted, because "lists are superior" could apply to every single category. What is wrong with these categories compared to any other category that we have? Tim! 10:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see: Wikipedia:List guideline, Wikipedia:Categorization, and most specifically read: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. - jc37 19:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And what specifically on any of those pages relates to these categories in particular? Tim! 21:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was responding to:...because "lists are superior" could apply to every single category... - The links, especially the last one, show clearly the pros and cons of categories and lists. - jc37 22:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per User:Mrschimpf, also some actors can't be on the lists as they have only had minor roles (characters with no given name etc.) - so they're not on the appropriate lists... Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 12:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One advantage of a list over a category is that it would allow you to seperate and include regular cast and guest stars/minor actors (similar to how IMDB does cast lists, seperating the two). A category, by contrast, makes no such distinction, so you either end up having both regular cast members confused with guest stars, or you have the category including only regular cast members and losing the information about who might have made a guest appearance. Hopefully that addresses your concern that "some actors can't be on the lists", but it's possible I misunderstood what you meant so if not feel free to reply. (P.S. Who is User:Mrschimpf? I don't see a comment from her above. Just curious.) Dugwiki 12:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If a guest character does not have a name, the name of the actor who played the character can still be added to the list. I thought that the main emphasis of the lists would be the names of the actors, and other information like the name of the guest character, and the episode the character was in would be secondary information. One advantage of lists to categories is that lists can include people who do not have articles, but categories cannot. Q0 15:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've read the discussion, and do agree that these categories should have more stringent inclusion guidelines, to emphasize that they're only for regular actors in a particular series, and not for anyone who may have had a minor guest-starring role, unless such role is a major part of their notability. I also think that having "List of" articles is a good idea, for the reasons mentioned above about being able to include additional information (time appeared, name of character, etc.). For those rare situations where an actor has appeared in so many shows that it actually causes category clutter on their bio page, perhaps it would be worthwhile making a guideline like, "In those cases, only the 5 most notable shows in the perspective of that actor's lifetime career should be included. In other words, if the soap opera General Hospital got a fair amount of notoriety for having Elizabeth Taylor as a guest star, then she should appear on the List of General Hospital actors page, but shouldn't have Category:General Hospital actors on her bio, since it's not one of the most important things that she was known for in her career. Bottom line though, I do think that the categories serve a useful purpose, and should be kept. --Elonka 20:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I haven't read all the comments on this page but I agree with Elonka and ISD at least. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and stick to lists which can be properly cited. If an actor's involvement in a program is sufficiently noteworthy, the category becomes redundant because the actor's article will name the show and the cast list will name the actor. This isn't TV.com. See WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a database. Doczilla 05:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. >Radiant< 10:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the categories add information of interest, and are easier at hand for the user than lists would be.Bjones 17:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. These are all redundant with the actors' lists of appearances and the articles' cast lists. If an article's list of cast members is harder to navigate than a category or if an actor's article doesn't give context to their role in a TV series, that's a reason to improve the article, not to create yet another narrow, fannish category. As noted, many of these actors (especially voice actors) will be in dozens of categories if these are kept and fully populated. If these categories are kept, I see no reason why Category:Actors by film shouldn't be fully populated with a category for every film. Ludicrous, yes, but so are these categories. Category:Television actors and its more specific subcategories are more than enough to replace them. -Sean Curtin 19:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all They are useful. Michael 20:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have read through the various comments. My problem is that this information may be better presented by lists. People aritcles are already clogged with categories for everything and we really need to do something to manage the growth. This is just a start. With a listify we lose nothing and provide a more professional looking product. I don't see how the categories are more useful here. It is far easier to update one article for changes then to update several articles. Add to that the ability to add other information like seasons, regular role or guest and lists should win hands down. Vegaswikian 03:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All - three reasons. Firstly, its a "verging on the racist" nomination - why just nominate the Brit's and the Aussie's for listification, why not the Americans and Canadians and everyone else out there? I think perhaps the nominator realises that the resultant list/s would be too long - have you seen the number of actor changes on a popular Aussie/Brit soap? Secondly, because the resultant lists would be poorly maintained - some new editors just stick their new addition at the top of a list, while a category is at least maintained alphabeticaly. Thirdly, its very scientific/encyclopedic - you can prove they were on a series, where as lists are used for less encyclopedic issues. Plus the lists would get full of one-episode actors, let alone animals: Yuk! A poor nomination, based mainly on the practicalities of maintenance of such information. Rgds, - Trident13 18:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to reply quickly, "Brits and Aussies" aren't the only nominations. Please reread the subcategories above; it included all the categories, most of which are US shows. Secondly, the nomination didn't have anything to do with "maintainence of information", it is due to the potential for the number of categories per actor article to grow out of control if most individual television series are allowed to have unique categories for cast lists. Finally, I understand your concern about automatic-vs-manual sorting of entries, but also consider that there is objective, useful and easily verified information such as character name and first appearance date that can be included in a list that can't be included in a category. Dugwiki 22:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, unless the person who suggeste this is prepared to keep EVERY list up to date. Categories allow you to move quickly from one actor to another, without having to go to the list's own page. Alphabetical order and general tidiness is difficult to keep on a list. --MartinUK 23:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To reply to the "going to the list's page" comment, consider that there is basically no difference between "going back to the list's page" and "going back to the category's page" when you want to view another actor on the same show. It takes exactly one click on the Back button in both cases from the article you're reading. Also, adding an actor to a list or removing an actor from a list isn't more difficult than adding or removing them from a category; both require editing an article. The only difference is that in one case you're editing the actor's article, and in the other case you're editing the cast list article. In terms of time spent editing per change, though, it's the same. Finally, note that there is currently no one person keeping EVERY CATEGORY up to date, so the fact that one person won't maintain the same number of list articles isn't relevant. In both cases, the maintainence is done by editors interested in the particular topic or project.Dugwiki 22:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I feel that categories are much easier to maintain than lists. When a new editor creates an article for a particular actor, it's fairly intuitive to add categories for that actor's shows. It's not always intuitive to add the actor's name to a particular "list" article, which may have an unusual name, may or may not exist in the first place, and may or may not have been kept up to date. Though having said that, I still think that having both mechanisms, a list and a category, is the proper way to handle this, rather than forcing a choice of one or the other. --Elonka 23:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All and Listify. As Wikipedia continues to grow exponentially, List articles are going to be the least cumbersome method for database info such as this. --Satori Son 18:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest keep imaginable. --FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 19:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definately keep - it's clear and very helpful (Kyleall 22:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong, strong, STRONG keep, per above. SergeantBolt (t,c) 22:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rather consider them individually but as a group, Keep. Mallanox 17:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep all. This is what categories are for. Lists are a pain in the ass to maintain. --- RockMFR 19:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I actually believe that this can be interesting, if somewhat trivial info. After reading this debate, I proposed the following on the village pump (see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#minor categories): why don't we make a slight change to the wiki software (and this is really not a hard thing to implement) so that articles can be categorized into minor categories. The article would indeed lie in the category and would be accessible when browsing that category. However, when reading the article, you would only see by default the most meaningful categories. There could be a "show all" button which allows one to see all categories. Simple enough solution I think. With that system both the actors that hold main roles in a given series and those that only have secondary or guest-star roles would lie in the category. But, at least by default, that category would only appear as part of the article for actors whose part in that series was significant enough. That does not prevent a user who is more specifically interested in that actor to see all categories. By the way, if you like that idea, I'd love to hear from you on my talk page or on the village pump in the relevant section. I think this could be a decent improvement to the categorization system. Pascal.Tesson 22:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can just see the major-minor category edit-warring now (shudder). - jc37 22:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard that argument but frankly I don't know why people are so pessimistic. A simple guideline or a note on the page of certain categories would say: actors that have only secondary roles or were guest stars in the series should be categorized with the "minor" option. Why do people always assume that edit-warring is inevitable? Pascal.Tesson 08:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some of the comments above say that lists are harder to maintain than categories. I think lists are easier to maintain. If I want to add a bunch of actors who appeared on a telelvision show, when in list format, I can do all my editing in one place. In category format, however, I would have to edit the articles of each person I am adding to the category. Q0 22:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's a great and correct point - so here's the counter argument. Because Lists are so easy to add to, they are more fallable to poor maintenance - why stick it in alphabetic order, why not just stick it where you feel at that moment? Most of us here in this debate have 1000+ edits experience - these types of lists will be attractive to mainly non-registered editors. Putting that point aside, the second problem is that you can add anything to a list - so what happens if the second unit directors niece has a walk on by part to pay her college dues: do we list her? In a list we clearly can (but I didn't think that was the point of Wiki to be the ultimate source of everything); where as who is going to write her a bio page just to put her on a category - and even if they do, the bots will pick up a poor/small/unlinked bio. I can see where this proposer is trying to get at - some Bio's do look more like lists of categories than Bio's. However, its the practicalities of maintenance that worry me in such a "youth-fan(atic)" dominated area. I think this has been a great debate, but its brought up some issues which are outside the bounds of a simple "keep/delete" page debate. Best Rgds, - Trident13 00:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If we do end up keeping them, a few of them need to go through the renaming process so they all follow the same format ("actors" vs "cast" vs "cast members", etc). --- RockMFR 05:53, 6 October 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 section.

Category:WPSU edit

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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. David Kernow (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:WikiProject Soviet Union to match Wikipedia:WikiProject Soviet Union. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:05, 29 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 section.

Babel user box categories edit

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Babel user box categories.

Category:Toho Kaiju who never fought godzilla edit

Category:Toho Kaiju that never meet godzilla edit

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete both. David Kernow (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a good idea to categorize kaiju by who they have not fought or meet. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:48, 29 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 section.

Category:Ceramic Artists edit

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 speedy merge. David Kernow (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Ceramists, usual name for ceramic artists. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:02, 29 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:Board games gameplay and terminology edit

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 section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 12:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Board games gameplay and terminology to Category:Board games gameplay and terms

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

Category: Taipans edit

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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus (and not tagged) Tim! 08:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Taipans

  • Delete, since this is a category that will never contain more than perhaps seven articles: way too small. It would be a better idea to later create a (sub)category for "Australian elapids", which would include all articles related to Australian venomous snakes. --Jwinius 13:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I fail to see how 7 is too small. If you look at the categories under WikiProject ships, they have way smaller categories. 70.51.10.94 04:13, 2 October 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 section.

Category: Films from the west with Asian characters edit

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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete Tim! 08:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films from the west with Asian characters

  • A bad precedent, and not really a suitable subject for a category. JW 12:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, might be a topic for an article or a list in there somewhere, but not a category. Recury 13:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague with malformed name. David Kernow (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep How else does an Asian American keep track of films that have Asian characters? --Sugarcaddy 16:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is a demand for that there should be a specialist site for it. It is not Wikipedia's business. Brammen 18:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overcategoristion. Allowing this level of detail would lead to films being in hundreds of categories. Brammen 18:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete - While interesting, this could potentially include a lot of films, depending on how one defines "with asian characters". On a list each appearance can be cited and explained. - jc37 06:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unmaintainable list. Doczilla 05:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clutter-maker. Piccadilly 20:49, 6 October 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 section.

Category: Kylie Minogue films edit

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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. Tim! 08:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kylie Minogue films

  • Delete as with other "Films by star" categories". JW 12:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Brammen 18:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doczilla 05:51, 1 October 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 section.

Category:People without spleens edit

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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete Tim! 08:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People without spleens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, as I don't quite see how this is a useful categorization for biography articles, i.e., as a navigation aid between similar articles. Kinu t/c 04:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This has to be a joke. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 05:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Joke or not (and I presume not), it doesn't seem encyclopedic. --kingboyk 12:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, borderline Speedy Delete - timing indicates that this could be viewed as an "attack category" related to Chris Simms. I don't know if CSD A6 can strickly apply to categories. --After Midnight 0001 18:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and WP:DAFT Grutness...wha? 23:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - part of the trend of celebrity illnesses InvictaHOG 02:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listify only if wanted, and only with citations. - jc37 06:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete this pointless and largely unconfirmed category. Surely this is a joke. Doczilla 05:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This even includes a fictional character in with real ones. Good subject for an article linked to the spleen page.
  • Delete - At best a potential list, with citations. Rgds, - Trident13 10:42, 6 October 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 section.

Category:Monster movies edit

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 section.

The result of the debate was Keep Tim! 08:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monster movies to Category:Monster films

(comments from CFDS): *Category:Monster movies to Category:Monster films Mallanox 23:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I agree that in general "film" is preferred, I think in this case "Monster movies" might be the more common term? (Probably due to alliteration.) - jc37 21:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, it is the vernacular but a glaring exception if you wander around Category:Films by genre. Mallanox 23:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree (as I mentioned above). Though I don't know if exceptions are "bad" in this case. Perhaps we should CfR this one? - jc37 09:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a look at my talk page, even the creator of the cat thinks it would be better changed. By all means, change to CfR if you wish. Mallanox 22:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that I agree with the alliteration comment. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, I do really like consistency but "Monster movie" is a common term and the article is at Monster movie. Recury 13:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They may be films, by they are generally known as Monster movies. Not every entry under the parent needs the same name thought thta is generally desired. There are valid reasons for exceptions. Just look at transport/transportation for a good example. Vegaswikian 19:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as noted in my comments above. I think that this should be the allowable exception to the rule. - jc37 06:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, suggest a note included on the category's page to deter future renomination by explaining its "non-standard" name. David Kernow (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Jc37 has done I will reassert my opinion that this should be renamed. I would point out (again) that the creator of the category agrees with the rename. If we don't have consistency we'll end up in a mess which will make categorisation for those who work from uncat, very difficult. We could end up with Chick Flick, Skin Flick, Blue Movie and all sorts of assorted suffixes. Mallanox 11:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Monster movies article is one which is quite new, it also makes reference to Fantasy movies and Horror movies, both of which are categorised with the suffix of "films" and link to articles called Fantasty films and Horror films. Mallanox 12:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Although "films" might better fit many other kinds of motion pictures, "monster movies" is a classic term. Who calls them monster films? Ever. I'm a fan of monster movies. Doczilla 05:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency's sake. The article in question should also be renamed to match existing naming conventions. As already noted, the category's creator agrees with the rename. -Sean Curtin 19:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I am normally an advocate of changing pages based on WP:Naming conventions but this is definately an exception and the conventions "are not carved in stone", they are just guidelines. The guidelines also refer to about films not types of films. This is definately the proper term to use because of it's use. Cbrown1023 23:14, 4 October 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 section.

Category:Fictional orcs edit

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 section.

The result of the debate was Rename. Tim! 07:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional orcs to Category:Orcs

  • Rename, Orcs are an invention of modern fiction, namely J. R. R. Tolkien, thus we do not need a Fictional orcs category to differentiate from the normal or legendary Orcs category (even though there is no such thing at this time). A analogous category would be Category:Klingons. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've placed a question on the Old Catholic Church talk page in reference to the ORC. but in addition to them, check out Orc (disambiguation). However, that said, if it's Orcs (plural and secondary letters lower case), then I suppose we shouldn't have ambiguity. - jc37 06:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Methinks it might be time for your lie-down, Mr/s jc...? ...!  Chuckle, David Kernow (talk) 09:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I went to the zoo (cringes at the pun possibilities). - jc37 00:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. All orcs are fictional. Doczilla 05:42, 1 October 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 section.

Category:Inheritance characters edit

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 section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Inheritance Trilogy characters Tim! 07:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Inheritance characters to Category:Characters from the Inheritance trilogy

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

Category:Inheritance events edit

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 section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Inheritance Trilogy events. Tim! 07:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Inheritance events to Category:Events of the Inheritance trilogy

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

Category:Inheritance places edit

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 section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Inheritance Trilogy locations Tim! 07:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Inheritance places to Category:Locations in the Inheritance trilogy

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_29&oldid=1223924127"