Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 19

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. Kbdank71 15:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Prussian people to Category:People from Prussia

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories, and the 2nd one (People from Prussia) seems to have been decided on in a previous debate over where to merge the "German natives of [foo]" categories into. It's also a bit more neutral because it's often contentious whether someone who lived in the former Prussia was "Prussian" as a nationality, but whether they were from the territory of the state of Prussia is merely a fact. Delirium 23:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The category could solely include Old Prussians, but the only biographical articles of that group that I am aware of are the leaders at Template:Prussian leaders. Olessi 21:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. // FrankB 04:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. But beware, Category:People from Prussia has many subcategories. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       19:37, 24 October 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Largo di Torre Argentina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorisation for a square in Rome. The available material does not warrant a distinct category and no merge is required since the article is otherwise categorised. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. // FrankB 04:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:06, 21 October 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. I know the cat wasn't tagged until recently, but the way it's going, and the precedent of the other "fictional foo" cats, it's unlikely that this would have a result other than delete. Kbdank71 15:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional visitor centers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The current content does not justify a distinct category and the category's sole member is already categorised in Category:Jurassic Park. In general, it's unlikely that a visitor center that exists solely in a work of fiction will be notable. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is a step too far. OCAT. Fictional restrooms next? A great scene from Jurassic Park also. Carlossuarez46 02:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 05:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Fictional carnivals and amusement parks per recommendations of mine in other nominations. It's got to go somewhere in the "Fictional (X)" tree. (This category isn't tagged, by the way.)---Mike Selinker 04:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tagged it now; I notified you of the nomination on 19 October but apparently forgot to tag the category. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:47, 25 October 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 upmerge per nom. Kbdank71 15:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Universal Century space colonies into (see below)

Nominator's rationale: The intersection seems to be too narrow to justify a distinct category. So, upmerge this category (2 articles) into Category:Fictional colonies (4 articles) and Category:Universal Century locations (2 articles), and perhaps even Category:Gundam space vessels (1 article). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to category: Gundam anime metaseries or other master category of the series,
  and consolidate all three (Delete).
     There is no reason they need broken out by type in a fictional milieu. One cat will do unless there are tens of a given type. // FrankB 04:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment as each sub-universe involves a new fictional universe with different fictional histories, but some common themes, merging all into one would be unwieldy. They also do not interlink, or inter-reference between universes. (ie. each timeline is a reimagining, or more extreme sort of unrelated reuse of some elements, of the concept) 132.205.99.122 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nomination.--Mike Selinker 16:17, 23 October 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional bridges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The current content does not justify a distinct category. In general, it's unlikely that a bridge that exists solely in a work of fiction will be notable. The sole member of the category (Bridge of Khazad-dûm) is already categorised elsewhere (Category:Middle-earth locations). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 02:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. // FrankB 04:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 05:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would think that in military fiction a bridge could become notable, as part of a battle. 132.205.99.122 19:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly, though I think it's more likely that the fictional battle will be notable, and the bridge would be noteworthy only in the context of the battle. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is empty.--Mike Selinker 04:41, 25 October 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 to Category:Supreme Court of Missouri judges. Kbdank71 15:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Justices of the Supreme Court of Missouri to Category:Judges of the Supreme Court of Missouri

Nominator's rationale: Rename, The court's website [1] and the Missouri Constitution [2] both indicate that the judges are called "judges" and only the chief is a "Justice". I suspect some of the other state cats here may be similarly misttitled. chaser - t 19:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Supreme Court of Missouri judges to Category:Missouri Supreme Court judges, convention of the parent category. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Political_office-holders not a better guide to convention here?--chaser - t 20:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, upon further examination, I dislike the "Category:(US State) Supreme Court (members' title)" format and prefer the format "Category:(title of the Court) (members' title)". Thus, I support renaming to Category:Supreme Court of Missouri judges. My second preference is "Category:(members' title) of the (title of the Court)" (i.e. Category:Judges of the Supreme Court of Missouri). As for your comment, it's not clear whether that convention applies to judges, since virtually none of the subcategories of Category:American judges follow it. Then again, that may just be a sign that the category tree needs an overhaul. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment--I rule this is a clear cut case of WP:IAR!
• Rename -- Justices to Judges for sure, prefer Category:Supreme Court of Missouri judges... but I had to flip a coin. // FrankB 04:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with the proposed alternative. I'll mass-nom the others after this closes.--chaser - t 00:33, 24 October 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:County roads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as categorisation by name. This categ only contains only one item, the category Category:Ontario county roads. The category text says that it is intended also to contain similar categories in the United States. Many countries have a similar system of lesser roads which are managed by local authorities rather than by a central govt agency, but difft jurisdictions use difft names to describe this sort of road. There may perhaps be a case for a series of transnational roads-by-what-authority-manages-them (although I doubt it), but if so the categories should be named in some generic fashion, not by the terminology used in some jurisdictions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- cat inactive and so is its founder. // FrankB 04:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:07, 21 October 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 to match article. Kbdank71 15:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Westphalia to Category:People from the Province of Westphalia

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Westphalia is a German region without exact borders, while the Province of Westphalia (the target of the category) was a specific administrative unit. Olessi 18:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. This should be taken up with a larger discussion of how to classify people from geographical/administrative units whose borders have changed. For now, it seems that the people in this category were born while there was such a place, although one was a toddler when it went away. This province for a while was controlled by larger entities Prussia notably, so these people are similarly "from Prussia". Ultimately, I don't think these are all that useful in the context of Germany where borders shifted and one could be "from" many different entities and never leave home - also using transitory geography for "from" categories can lead to POV issues - as anyone of these people in this category who was alive in 1933-45 could also be "from Nazi Germany" a category we probably don't need created. Carlossuarez46 02:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Disagree thouroughly with Carlossuarez46 on this, as a place does not go away—it would violate conservation laws! As a former historical region or entity, there are quite a few articles citing the history of such places, — and notable people from that time frame have biographies. Deleting the category would break precedent with a lot of organization of historical articles extant today.
Renaming to match the main article for the category is quite precedented and safe however. //FrankB 03:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding Carlossuarez46's comment about Prussia, the category is already a subcategory of Category:People from Prussia. For those seeking information about people from the modern geographic region, it is also a subcategory of Category:People from North Rhine-Westphalia. Olessi 21:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hopefully all this renaming and stuff is settled soon. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       19:39, 24 October 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. Kbdank71 15:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mazovia to Category:Masovia

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Masovia is the most common spelling for the territory on the English Wikipedia. Olessi 18:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Articles about the region (Masovia and Duchy of Masovia) use the spelling with s, not with z. Tankred 01:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect per nom's name. Hard redirects have been working since March or so, and adding a {{Category redirect|newname}} on same line as the various {R from ....} tags allow RobotG or other BOTs to make fixups. Three or four of us worked this out months before summer—including RobertG, I'd have thought it'd have found its way into SOP by now. (ask, I'll dig up the thread) // FrankB 03:48, 21 October 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 all. Kbdank71 15:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Disamiguation-Class Continental philosophy articles to Category:Disambiguation-Class Continental philosophy articles

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Typographical error. And there are about 20 other categories with the same error. Can they all be cleaned up? They are all subcategories of Category:Disamb-Class articles. —Markles 17:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename as obvious typographical error. Yes, the rest can be cleaned up, but (unless the closing admin feels like putting in some unpaid overtime) they will needed to be listed at the "speedy" section of CFD. Bencherlite^Talk 00:37, 24 October 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. Kbdank71 15:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Radio stations in Philadelphia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: over categorization. Philadelphia FM and Philadelphia AM navboxes provide listings of stations in this market and are far more useful than categorization such as this. Rtphokie 16:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - there are a number of city-based subcats for various states, including a few more for Pennsylvania. Are you suggesting that all radio station by city categories should be deleted? Otto4711 17:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, they should all be deleted. Lists of radio stations by state are being actively maintained and categorized, these city and market based categories aren't and they are incomplete as a result--Rtphokie 21:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Categories and templates aren't mutually exclusive. It is the current standard for radio stations to be present in a singular geographic category, which is city-specific in large metropolitan areas (not per policy but by precedent). These categories prove to be especially important in radio station-intensive states such as Texas and California. As there are 50+ stations currently residing in this category, Philadelphia is clearly a radio station-intensive area. JPG-GR 08:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JPG-GR and fact that stations go out of business, but will still have historic articles; admittedly they could be grouped in a "out of business" cat of some sort, that would be over-categorizing, as the station call letters are held off the "market" for a long while by the FCC, hence, the template and cat serve different collection purposes. Buying the noms argument is a dangerous precedent, imho. Templates link —categories classify, albeit with linking. // FrankB 03:41, 21 October 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 15:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:TSSAA Member School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association members, or Delete as non-defining. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename or delete. Since essentially all secondary schools in the state are members of TSSAA, the category is non-defining and I see no particular value in having it.--Orlady 21:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Orlady. Clearly no need to list every school in two categories. Vegaswikian 00:18, 24 October 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Characters Portrayed by Leslie Nielsen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_12#Category:Steven_Blum-potrayed_characters
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_12#Category:Fictional_characters_by_actor_and_subcategories
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_26#Category:Billy_West-portrayed_characters
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_19#Category:Fictional_characters_portrayed_by_the_opposite_sex
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_22#Category:Characters_portrayed_by_Johnny_Depp

Delete, we don't do Characters by actor, see previous discussions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as overcategorisation, per nom and precedent. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. We just don't do this. Doczilla 00:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 02:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:06, 21 October 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:People from Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, to match Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Wilkes-Barre is and always has been a formal hyphenated name. // FrankB 03:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Correct category Category:People from Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania already exists. Olessi 16:14, 22 October 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. Kbdank71 15:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Republic of Ireland political parties to Category:Political parties in the Republic of Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Rename, per convention of Category:Political parties by country. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom's precise and accurate explanation. Bencherlite^Talk 00:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Should this perhaps be merged into Category:Political parties in Ireland? I know that Ireland can refer to the entire island (inclusive of Northern Ireland), but I'm not sure if that's the case here. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:08, 25 October 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 all as nominated, except Category:Springs in Idaho, which is empty. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Hot springs in Alaska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Hot springs of Alaska
• Category:Hot springs in Arizona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Hot springs of Arizona
• Category:Hot springs in Arkansas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Hot springs of Arkansas
• Category:Hot springs in California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Hot springs of California
• Category:Hot springs in Colorado (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Hot springs of Colorado
• Category:Hot springs in Florida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Hot springs of Florida
• Category:Hot springs in Georgia (U.S. state) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Hot springs of Georgia (U.S. state)
• Category:Hot springs in Idaho (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Hot springs of Idaho
• Category:Hot springs in Montana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Hot springs of Montana
• Category:Hot springs in Nevada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Hot springs of Nevada
• Category:Hot springs in New Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Hot springs of New Jersey
• Category:Hot springs in New Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Hot springs of New Mexico
• Category:Hot springs in North Carolina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Hot springs of North Carolina
• Category:Hot springs in Oregon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Hot springs of Oregon
• Category:Hot springs in South Dakota (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Hot springs of South Dakota
• Category:Hot springs in Utah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Hot springs of Utah
• Category:Hot springs in Virginia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Hot springs of Virginia
• Category:Hot springs in Washington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Hot springs of Washington
• Category:Hot springs in West Virginia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Hot springs of West Virginia
• Category:Hot springs in Wyoming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Hot springs of Wyoming
• Category:Hot springs in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Hot springs of the United States
• Category:Springs in Alabama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Springs of Alabama
• Category:Springs in California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Springs of California
• Category:Springs in Florida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Springs of Florida
• Category:Springs in Idaho (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Springs of Idaho
• Category:Springs in Montana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Springs of Montana
• Category:Springs in New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Springs of New York
• Category:Springs in West Virginia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Springs of West Virginia
• Category:Springs in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Springs of the United States
• Category:Texas springs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Springs of Texas

Rename all per conventions of Category:Landforms of the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. LeSnail 15:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• rename all per nom. I created many of these categories, naming them to match several pre-existing catgegories. 'Of' will match the convention, however. Hmains 20:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom // FrankB 03:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:01, 21 October 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 to Category:Hot springs of Japan. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japanese hot springs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Hot springs of Japan, convention of Category:Landforms of Japan. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. LeSnail 15:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:02, 21 October 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 as nominated. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philippine Museums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Museums in the Philippines, as duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Based on contents it looks like it was created by someone who didn't realize an appropriate cat already existed, and there's nothing in the cat that justifies a distinction. --lquilter 12:01, 20 October 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 relisted on oct 25. Kbdank71 15:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cavite Actors and Actresses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Upmerge into both Category:Filipino actors and Category:People from Cavite, or at least Rename to Category:Cavite actors. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge into both parents per nom. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning towards Rename per nom to Category:Cavite actors. It seems like a reasonable subcategory to both its parent categories, if renamed per WP style. Filipino actors category is pretty large, and a regional subcat seems reasonable on the face of it. (We have Category:American actors by state, for comparison.) Similarly, Category:Cavite people would have 22 articles if it were upmerged, but they all fall into either actors or politicians, so it seems reasonable to have two professional cats. --lquilter 12:14, 20 October 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Category:Doctor Strange (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• nomination - delete - this article is poorly populated, due to the fact that there is little material that falls exclusively to Dr. Strange. There is, optimally, upto ten supporing characters and villian combined, all of whom could be well navagated through the character page. Currently, the category is essentially orphaned, save a link to a stub which should at this point be merged into another article and will be recommended. 66.109.248.114 09:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is really no need for this - there are some films and the like but still nothing that isn't in the main article and even then the category would be thin. Not ever comic titles needs its own category and this is an example of just such a one. (Emperor 11:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete unnecessary category per above. Doczilla 00:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing here that can't be included in the main article -- 69.182.73.240 07:10, 23 October 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional parks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The current content does not justify a distinct category. The category's sole member (Dream Park) probably does not belong; the subject of the article is not a fictional park, but a novel and/or a role-playing game. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above--victor falk 04:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 02:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 05:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I moved Dream Park to the more accurate Category:Fictional amusement parks (also under review), so this one can be deleted as empty.--Mike Selinker 16:16, 23 October 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 15:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fawlty Towers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorisation for a television series. Per precedent, eponymous TV categories are not needed when they include only 'characters' and 'episodes' subcategories, the main article, a list of episodes, a list of characters/cast members, and a navigational template. The articles are more than adequately interlinked by the template alone. The other two members are either already otherwise categorised (Fawlty Towers (hotel) appears in Category:Fictional hotels and is linked via Template:Fawltytowers) or miscategorised (Wooburn Grange Country Club is a real location where the series was filmed, so placing it in this category is overcategorisation of the form 'location by performance'). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 02:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:03, 21 October 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 15:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional gas stations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The current content does not justify a distinct category. The category's sole member (Corner Gas) is actually miscategorised; the subject of the article is a real television sitcom, not a fictional gas station, and is already otherwise categorised. In general, it's unlikely that a gas station that exists solely in a work of fiction will be notable, especially since real-life gas stations only rarely are. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom--victor falk 04:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - such stations achieve fame through a book, film, TV series, etc., not as independent entities. --Orange Mike 19:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per good grief this is ridiculous. Doczilla 00:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 02:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. // FrankB 03:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sure, that one makes sense.--Mike Selinker 04:42, 25 October 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 14:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wacky Races (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - this is an animated version of performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 03:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 02:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:05, 21 October 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. Kbdank71 15:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Planets located at the center of the universe into Category:Fictional planets

Nominator's rationale: I don't think that we should categorise on the basis of claimed location at the centre of the universe. Different works of fiction have different conceptions of the universe and space-time, and sometimes even assume the existence of multiple universes. If kept, rename to Category:Fictional planets located at the center of the universe, to clarify that these are planets that exist solely in works of fiction, or something similar (is there a phrase that succinctly captures the meaning of the phrase 'located at the center of the universe'?). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--victor falk 04:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Considering that there is no such thing as the "center of the universe", if we were to keep this category it would have to be renamed to something like Category:Fictional planets located at the supposed center of the universe. Besides, there are only 3 articles about such imaginary planets, so it doesn't pass the size test either. Cgingold 12:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 02:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if kept, this should be renamed Category:Fictional centers of the universe or Category:Fictional locations representing the center of the universe. 132.205.99.122 19:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Fictional planets, and add as an item in WP:DAFT. --Orlady 01:34, 24 October 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 14:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorisation for a fictional country; the two members are adequately interlinked. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 02:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. // FrankB 03:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:King's Quest locations, newly created for this and other articles.--Mike Selinker 04:49, 25 October 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 14:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional tea houses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The current content does not justify a distinct category. The category's sole member is miscategorised: the subject of the article is a real novel/play/film, not a fictional tea house, and is already otherwise categorised. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 02:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 05:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (I created the article and I no longer believe it deserves its own page) --wayland 23:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agreed that an article about a play doesn't need to be characterized by the words in the title.--Mike Selinker 04:43, 25 October 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. Kbdank71 15:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Magic Schools to Category:Fictional magic schools

Nominator's rationale: I think that there may be value in preserving a distinction between fictional 'magic' schools and other types of fictional schools, the category title needs to make clear that this is about schools that exists only inside works of fiction. The current title includes real places that teach magic (illusion) as well as those that claim to teach magic (paranormal). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, per nom -- could be a category for schools of magic that teach escapes and card tricks, et al. // FrankB 03:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Very logical.--Mike Selinker 04:49, 25 October 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. Kbdank71 15:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Samurai Jack to Category:Samurai Jack episodes

Nominator's rationale: Rename - all but two of the 50+ articles are for episodes. Rename to reflect that and relocate the two non-episode articles. Otto4711 01:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relocate Samurai Jack and List of characters from Samurai Jack and rename to Category:Samurai Jack episodes per nom. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:44, 19 October 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 14:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Press Gang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for the material. Otto4711 00:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and precedent. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above--victor falk 04:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  

• Comment as a heirarchy, the category is fine, but the nom. didn't suggest way of handling the well populated sub-category of Cast members
  2) Since the category is indubitably recognizable in the parent, English children's TV shows, and it is quite possible this one can and will have episode articles that would then have no place to go in a category, I say let the status quo ante stand for another year or so. If still empty then, then delete.
     Further, the main article is under the scope of Four TV wikiprojects , indicating likelihood of added material going forward.
  

• Keep-- I talked myself into it above! <g> // FrankB 03:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The cast members category is nominated for deletion, because per hundreds of precedents such a category is performer by performance overcategorization. Episode articles should go into Category:Press Gang episodes and be located in the parent Category:Television episodes by series. The four wikiprojects are free to continue to administer the sole article which resides in this category. Otto4711 01:32, 22 October 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 14:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Real World cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Road Rules cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Press Gang cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - per extensive precedent against cast member categories. Otto4711 00:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Performers by performance venue, and vice versa. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 02:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 05:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:04, 21 October 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.