Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 23: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:13, 24 March 2007

< March 22

March 24 >

March 23

Category:The Blackout

Delete, as unrelated subjects with shared names. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 00:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category appears to be being used for disambiguation, but that is not the purpose of categories. Choalbaton 00:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arrangers for Ella Fitzgerald

Merge all to Category:Music arrangers as overcategorization by job or project. Prolific arrangers could end up with dozens of categories if this categorization scheme is adopted. Otto4711 23:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Choalbaton 01:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gorsedd

Propose renaming Category:Gorsedd to Category:Gorseddau

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, "Gorsedd" is singular (see Gorsedd) and category names must be plural. The Wednesday Island 23:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Teletoon shows

Delete - there are three different channels called Teletoon and there is no indication whether the category is intended to be for one of the three or all of them. The show is mostly capturing programs shown in syndication, which is inappropriate categorization. Finally, there are lists either in the channel articles or in separate list articles which given the multiple channels strikes me as a better way to capture the information. Otto4711 22:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional plays

Propose renaming Category:Fictional plays to Category:Fictitious plays

Propose renaming Category:Fictional films to Category:Fictitious films

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Avoid ambiguity: category is for plays that exist within works of fiction, rather than plays with fictional content. Same reasons for "Fictional films". Croxley 21:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Category:Fictitious films is currently a redirect to Category:Fictional films, so that would only need to be fixed. Croxley 21:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both per nom - I was originally going to oppose this on the grounds that no one could be so dopey as to add a "fictional" category to a real play, but damn if half the articles in the category weren't for real plays. I guess we better check the film one too. Sheesh. Otto4711 23:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Fictitious films to Category:Fictional films, and leave the plays category alone. "Fictional" is the standard, and we should just make sure the header is clear.--Mike Selinker 01:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pages needing expert attention subcategories

Endorse rename per nom. These cats all sound pretty ridiculous as is. Wickethewok 21:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Long category names are annoying and the shorter versions are much clearer. — brighterorange (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'm fine with the renaming, just make sure that the templates {{Expert-subject}} and {{Expert-subject-cat}} get updated accordingly. If you need a hand doing that, lemme know and I'll take care of it. --Brad Beattie (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Looney Tunes people

Delete - improper categorization by project/studio. Otto4711 21:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vague category. Doczilla 23:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women writers

Discussed previously at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 27#Category:Women writers and deleted. New arguments, and some new relevant information, was presented at deletion review, where no clear decision was reached on overturning or endorsing. So this is here for further consideration of the merits. While both discussions should be read to be fully informed, the discussion at deletion review are undoubtedly more extensive.

The deletion review was marred by Canvassing, and all editors are strongly encouraged to make absolutely certain that they do not violate this rule as regards this discussion. This is a technical nomination, I have no opinion on the merits. GRBerry 20:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for biased lack of gender neutrality as per the previous discussions. Ravenhurst 22:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe this was already answered in the DRV:
  WP:CATGRS suggests that gender asymmetries in categories - such as that which would pertain if Category:Women writers existed and Category:Men writers didn't - should sometimes be allowed (the example there is Category:female heads of government), and not denied a priori as sexist. In this case, the asymmetry results from the fact that historically women writers have been a fairly self-conscious minority, and is visible today in the larger number of academic courses devoting themselves to literature by women than those devoting themselves to literature by men. I'd have no objection to having a men writers category if there were sufficient interest in properly maintaining it (here I should perhaps confess a bias - I'm a male writer myself!) - but when both categories existed it's a fact that the women writers category was much more satisfactorily populated. Dsp13 13:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  I'm not yet sure of the utility of this category, myself, but I am going to insist that previous answers are not summarily dismissed. — coel acan — 00:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This category was properly deleted and the restoration was improper as there was no consensus to restore it. The additional arguments put forward were all irrelevant to the categories merits (or lack thereof) as a category, ie as a navigational tool. Osomec 22:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Osomec, please could you address the specific tests set in WP:CATGRS? Specifically, in what way do you believe that the evidence is "irrelevant" to those tests? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't going to be a speedy deletion, because GRBerry already decided there was enough support for a relisting from DRV. No one is going to wheel war by speedy deleting it. So you might as well discuss the category instead of the DRV result. — coel acan — 00:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as a notable field of scholarly research, per Women's writing in English, and as an important classification of writers, regardless of whether they are studied from a feminist perspective or not; indeed, as noted at the DRV, some of the historical study of women writers has been critical of previous feminist accounts. (Note: in the previous CfD for this category, I supported deletion, but was persuaded by the new evidence that I was wrong).
WP:CATGRS is explicit that "a gender-specific category should only be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic", and the scholarship in this area is clear that it does have relevance (although, naturally, scholars may disagree about what relevance!)
Please note that WP:CATGRS says that "Generally, this means that the basic criterion for such a category is whether the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources" ... and that "The criterion of whether an encyclopedic article is possible should be the gauge". In this case the article Women's writing in English meets that test, and Ravenhurst's comment about "bias" is a POV remark of no relevance to the test set in the guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there's a pretty solid case that WP:CATGRS allows for this category, per the evidence in the DRV. I have a different concern (which it needn't fall upon you to address, but you're the first keep !voter). It might not be odd to have an article about the history of women in writing; people expect such an article. But it seems to me that while it has historically been an issue, it is not surprising to anyone today that there are female writers. I wonder if this categorization embalms an older way of thinking: there are writers (normative, no adjective) and then there are women writers (exception, needs an adjective). Who's left in category:writers? Men, because men are normative; men are just "writers". Might that (not only POV but inaccurate) message be inferred? Would this disadvantage be worth the advantage of sorting, when, instead of a list, this message is displayed at the bottom of every female writer's article? — coel acan — 01:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt recreation. Doczilla 23:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a recreation. It is back from DRV. — coel acan — 00:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I can't see any grounds for recreation. This category does not serve any practical navigational purpose. Those who wish to have a category is this field are overlooking that the appropriate category on the field of study would be called Category:Women's studies, and they haven't gotten round to creating it yet. Choalbaton 01:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the nomination? This isn't a recreation and it can't be speedy deleted. It was relisted from DRV. — coel acan — 01:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We should only categorize by gender when the inclusion of one gender is remarkable (e.g., Category:Female baseball players). There's nothing remarkable about a writer being a woman; it's entirely possible that there are more female writers than male ones at this point.--Mike Selinker 01:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (It should be speediable, whether or not it actually is). The policy referred to by coel is incompatible with Wikipedia:Neutrality, so it needs to be changed. Wikipedia should not follow the pattern of academia, as academia's priorities notoriously veer to the left, and neutrality has no place in them. In Wikipedia on the other hand, neutrality is fundamental.CalJW 02:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Looney Tunes directors

Delete - an improper categorization of people by project. Otto4711 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another performer by performance type category. Doczilla 23:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and many similar discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:James Bond directors

Delete as an improper categorization by project. Otto4711 20:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another performer by performance type category. Doczilla 23:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historians of religions

Category:Historians of religions to Category:Historians of religion

Merge - redundant category. Otto4711 19:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I have a question, for anyone who can answer it. Is this sort of obvious merge something that needs to be handled by a CFD and a five day waiting period, or is it sufficient and acceptable to just stick up a {{category redirect}} and be done with it? — coel acan — 22:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Osomec 22:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ski resorts in Australia

Propose renaming Category:Ski resorts in Australia to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Australia

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for consistency with other by-country categories, and (hopefully) forthcoming renaming of the parent category. See other ongoing discussions:

2007_March_20#Category:Ski_resorts

2007_March_20#Category:Ski_resorts_in_Canada

2007_March_20#Category:Ski_resorts_in_Scotland

2007_March_19#Category:Ski_resorts_in_Serbia

All of these should be made consistent with the numerous other "Ski areas and resorts of ..." categories. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Osomec 23:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mountains and hills of Leinster

These categories are redundant given the existing by-county classification (Category:Mountains of Cork, Category:Mountains of Kerry, etc.). Their only useful purpose could be as an intermediate in the hierarchy between Category:Mountains of the Republic of Ireland and the county categories, but there are few enough counties for that not to be necessary. There is no Category:Mountains of Ulster, which might have complicated things by including the mountains and hills of Northern Ireland. A request for comment at Wikiproject British and Irish hills has produced no disagreement so far. Stemonitis 19:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge all to Category:Mountains of the Republic of Ireland. Since there are only 26 counties in the Republic of Ireland, there is no need for an intermediate layer of categories; and, per nom, the set if kept should logically be completed by a Category:Mountains and hills of Ulster, which would cause confusion as a cross-border province. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Category:Mountains of the Republic of Ireland, but it might be worth adding "and hills" as per the English categories. Choalbaton 01:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Murdered Iraqi children

A singly-occupied category, seemingly created to have further categorization of single article. — pd_THOR

Delete because it was for just one person. Hiddenhearts Sign Here! My Talk 19:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to say "Upmerge to Category:Iraqi murder victims" but the only article is already included there. Dugwiki 19:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it along with the rest of the Category:Murdered children tree. Otto4711 19:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the Category:Murdered children tree; this a category with, sadly a lot of potential for growth. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's the size of the parent that determines whether a subcategory is needed, not the size of the subcategory. Osomec 00:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coptic saints

Propose renaming Category:Coptic saints to Category:Coptic Orthodox saints

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Propose changing name because I had not thought that there was a Coptic Catholic Church, and category was created to specifically list saints of the Coptic Orthodox Church. Coptic Catholic saints will fit in the Category: Catholic saints. John Carter 18:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, for disambiguation. — coel acan — 22:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Extinct Rivers

Propose renaming Category:Extinct Rivers to Category:Former rivers

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Capitalization and correcting name to be in line with similar categories. – Swid ^(talk

Category:Narcissism

Propose DeleteThis seems a totally superfluous and irrelevant category. Since listing for MFD (my error) an anon AOL user has suddenly started frantically adding some rather bizarre, and often totally irrelevant, articles to this categorySpecial:Contributions/172.191.147.254, but I don't honestly think that makes it any less superfluous and meaningless. Zeraeph 17:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subjective, potentially libelous category. Doczilla 23:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I hadn't even thought of that aspect, though it had occurred to me that, in many cases, inclusion of an article would be entirely pejorative, as well as misleading --Zeraeph 23:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restrict - seems to be doing a fine job of bringing together articles on the topic of narcissism. I assume the concern is that the category might get added to a living person's biography, triggering WP:BLP concerns. So note in the category description that the category is not to be added to articles for people. Otto4711 23:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People claiming to have psychokinetic abilities

Propose renaming Category:People claiming to have psychokinetic abilities to Category:Purported psychokinetics

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - to match other recently renamed categories on similar topics (purported psychics, purported mediums). Would not be opposed to deletion. Otto4711 15:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - weren't all categories with "-kineticist" and "-kinetics" changes to "with -kinesis" in the fictional character categories because the other endings weren't real suffixes or something?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering that as well. Is psychokinetic properly used as a noun, and if so is it used to mean a person with the power? --Minderbinder 16:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to "Purported psychokinetic people" if there is a strong objection to using "paychokinetic" as a noun. Otto4711 20:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the term "purported" carries a presumption of falsehood, and the category system should not be used to convey POVs. A discussion of whether or not it it is possible or a person to have psychokinetic abilities belongs in the category text or in an article, not in the categ name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't personally have a strong preference one way or another between "purported" and "claimed". However, I do think that all similar categories should use the same naming scheme. So whichever phrase is used it the categories in this scheme which don't use it should be renamed to match. Dugwiki 19:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Purported" carries the assumption of falsehood. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per purported psychics. "Purported" does not carry an assumption of falsehood. It is a neutral term neither supporting nor denying the claim. Honestly, I think it's kinder than "claim". Doczilla 23:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That may well be true on a strict understanding of pure and educated OED usage, but I think it does carry negative connotations to the ordinary person. Choalbaton 01:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Category:Purported psychokinetics or Category:Purported psychokinetic people, whichever is grammatically preferred (they both sound okay to me). I don't think anything has changed in the language since the last CFDs. — coel acan — 02:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mountain ranges of Central America and the Caribbean

Part of the "mountains by continent" category scheme, except that "Central America + Caribbean" is not a continent. Note that every mountain range in here is also already in a category by country. >Radiant< 14:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Grouping Central America and the Caribbean together like this is inappropriate. The categorization by country is probably better here anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 15:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've recategorized it now into Category:Mountain ranges of North America (since Central America and the Caribbean are generally considered part of North America) instead of Category:Mountain ranges by continent, which was incorrect. I think we should keep this category, since there are mountain ranges on some of the Caribbean islands (e.g. Carbet Mountains) which need a "mountain ranges" category instead of just being lumped into the mountains-by-country categories. Perhaps it could be renamed Category:Mountain ranges of the Caribbean, if a separate "Category:Mountain ranges of ..." were to be created for each Central American country (only Category:Mountain ranges of Costa Rica currently exists). It's much simpler to keep the current category as is. --Seattle Skier (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Airports in the Middle East and Category:Airports in Central America and the Caribbean

Both part of the "airports by continent" categorization schema. Apart from the question if that schema is really all that useful considering we have "airports by country" already, I'm quite sure that "Middle East" and "Central America + Caribbean" aren't continents. We shouldn't start categorizing by semi-arbitrary groupings of countries (e.g. "airports of Western Europe", "airports of the Basque Peninsula" etc). >Radiant< 14:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I particularly find the Middle East confusing for categorization. The area that may be called the "Middle East" is highly variable; it could be confined to the southwest section of Asia, or it could extend from Libya to Pakistan. I also do not understand why Central America and the Caribbean are grouped together. Dr. Submillimeter 15:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Temporarily, I've recategorized Category:Airports in Central America and the Caribbean under Category:Airports in North America (since Central America and the Caribbean are generally considered part of North America) instead of Category:Airports by continent, which was incorrect. No such fix is possible for Category:Airports in the Middle East, since it contains countries in Asia and Africa right now. Unlike the "mountain ranges" issue above, the airports seem best served by having only the "Airports by country" and strict "Airports by continent" classifications, with no arbitrary sub-continental or semi-continental categories like the two in question here. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all listed and the by continent ones. The by country category is sufficient. Vegaswikian 19:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as requested. Ravenhurst 22:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of minor characters

Should be "minor fictional characters". >Radiant< 14:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match parent category. Not sure the distinction is truly necessary though, since nothing comes to mind that would ever fit into a category call lists of minor non-fictional characters. --tjstrf talk 16:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent category Yeah, the category names should match. Although I have to wonder, isn't "non-fictional character" kind of an oxymoron? Dugwiki 19:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename, and consider moving parent cat afterward. The distinction between a fictional character and a non-fictional character is minute and basically irrelevant as far as most stories are concerned. In stories that mix the two, the logical article structure is almost always a simple "list of characters," not one list of fictional characters and another list of non-fictional characters. Thus, not only is this unnecessary verbiage, it's also inaccurate if there are any non-fictional characters in these lists. SnowFire 21:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you would find in say, South Park.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Everything else uses the designation "fictional characters that can do/are/belong to/share in common X"(see prefix index), so if you want that move to be made you're going to have your work cut out for you. Besides, what you are describing is already covered in a category called Category:Fictional characters based on real people. --tjstrf talk 00:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fair enough. I'm not sure how or when that got put in place, but consensus can change and all that. SnowFire 02:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gay porn stars

Category: Gay porn stars to Category: Male performers in gay porn films

Rename New name avoids the possibility of misinterpreting the category to indicate a performer's sexual orientation and brings the category in line with the renaming of main article page: Male performers in gay porn films—Chidom ^talk 11:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the article is List of male performers in gay porn films. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per previous discussion. No one's going to mix this up, no one's stupid enough to think this necessarily means "porn stars who are gay".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, we already discussed this. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category name and main article name should match I don't have a preference between one name or the other, but a category's name should almost always match its associated main article. So if the category name is kept, then the main article should be renamed, and vice versa. Dugwiki 19:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per previous discussion. Gay porn stars who are gay should also be categorized in the appropriate LGBT actor category. Otto4711 19:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as "gay" refers to the pornography, not the star and that is not clear from the current category name. If not renamed, then it should only contain porn stars who are gay, and Category:Bisexual porn stars should be created for porn stars who are bisexual (as subcategories of Category:Porn stars refer to the star, not the porn). — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That complicates things because a lot of the time sexual orientation is never disclosed. If they're actually gay, then Category:Gay people from such and such a place will also be on their article.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New Zealand playwrights

Moved from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy: (Chidom)

Category:New Zealand playwrights to Category:New Zealand dramatists and playwrights Haddiscoe 19:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the basis that category names should not be tautological. Dramatist redirects to Playwright. If this change is being proposed for the sake of consistency with categories for other countries, then it is the others which need to be changed. dramatic 09:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Should the other categories by changed to "dramatists" or "playwright". The standard form solves that problem. Casperonline 15:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To 'playwright' as the significantly more common term. The use of the conjunction 'and' implies that they are not one and the same, whereas every dictionary definition I can find defines dramatist as a playwright. If you insist on both, then 'Dramatists or Playwrights' would make more sense. dramatic 09:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Basic speedy. The reasons for using this compound name are pretty obvious and were agreed on years ago. CalJW 02:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the discussion on that is where?...dramatic 09:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, and per convention of Category:Dramatists and playwrights by nationality. If someone wants to challenge that convention, then it should be done by a group nomination for Category:Dramatists and playwrights by nationality and its sub-categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename Osomec 15:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Underpopulated Politics categories

Moved from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy: (Chidom)

Category:Underpopulated Politics categories to Category:Underpopulated politics categories Cloachland 14:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the grounds that the two similarly named categories for sports and music have been moved from speedy. All three should have the same result. Otto4711 03:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearcut speedy. Abberley2 12:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets the speedy renaming criteria. Casperonline 15:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The others will be renamed to the same form, but this is a speedy regardless. CalJW 02:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename Osomec 15:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per WP:CSD C2. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of US Air Medal

This had an earlier discussion here, which yielded no consensus. Suggested options include (1) rename to Category:Recipients of the United States Air Medal to avoid abbrev, (2) rename to Category:Recipients of the Air Medal since there aren't any other air medals worldwide, and (3) delete as a low-level and not particularly notable award. >Radiant< 10:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Recipients of the Air Medal if kept. Unsure about deleting based on the late research from the previous nomination. 19:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:The Bold and the Beautiful cast members

This looks like a recreation in some way of a previously listified and deleted performer by performance category. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 09:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per other performer by performance categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another performer by performance category. Doczilla 23:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Manga locations

Propose renaming Category:Manga locations to Category:Anime and manga locations

Nominator's Rationale: Rename to match parent and sibling categories Category:Fictional elements from anime and manga Category:Anime and manga weapons, and Category:Anime and manga characters --tjstrf talk 09:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television festival

Propose renaming Category:Television festival to Category:Television festivals

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, pluralize --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 08:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename Osomec 15:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Festivals. If there's no Television festival article, why bother with a category with two articles? --Vossanova ^o< 16:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename It now contains 7 articles, and googling shows that there are plenty more television festivals out there. Ideally category:Festivals should be fully diffused by both country and subject. Choalbaton 01:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Uncategorized

Propose renaming Category:Uncategorized to Category:All uncategorized pages

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, this category is named too similarly to its parent category, Category:Category needed. I propose that Category:Uncategorized be made into a soft redirect to Category:Category needed, and that the current population of Uncategorized be moved to Category:All uncategorized pages, which would clarify the contents and purpose of this category. Resurgent insurgent 08:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - maybe instead Category:Uncategorized pages? I question the need for the word "all" in the name of the new category. Would support changing the current name, though. John Carter 14:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pagan texts

Delete, as ill-defined and arbitrary categorisation. Although this cat nowhere defines just what a 'pagan text' is supposed to be, by its use thus far it would seem to embrace any religous or spiritual text outside of the Abrahamic tradition. This would include such an array of unrelated documents and religions that it could hardly be considered useful (if it is not actually a rather arbitrary ethnocentric division). cjllw

Delete,This category seems completely ethnocentrical. What exactly defines a pagan text? its being non-christian? Then the majority of the worlds religious texts qualify for inclusion in this category. The term "pagan" is normally a value statement meaning "barbaric" and "non christian" - that is not grounds for a category in wikipedia.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 00:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subcategoryu "neopagan texts" makes sense since that is a name neopagans use. But this category suffers from all the problems outlined by the nominator. — coel acan — 02:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel Animation

Rename to Category:Marvel Comics animation. -Sean Curtin 04:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support use of the full name.—Chidom ^talk 11:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel Animated Universe

Moved to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy; change of case is non-controversial.

Category:Fantasy worlds

Delete as per discussion for Category:Fictional settings here. The only distinction between these two categories is that one is general-purpose, while the other is limited to fantasy fiction. -Sean Curtin 04:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - Category:Fictional settings is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_22#Category:Fictional_settings. The nominator may have wanted to nominate another category instead, in which case he should probably create a new entry on this page so as to avoid confusion.
- Comment I believe he meant to nominate Category:Fantasy worlds instead, per this edit. I have changed the nomination text based on this assumption, but the nominator can correct it if I'm wrong. Resurgent insurgent 09:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right. New entry entered today. -Sean Curtin 23:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 80: / Line 80: @@
 :*Did you read the nomination? This isn't a recreation and it can't be speedy deleted. It was relisted from [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 18|DRV]]. <span style="white-space: nowrap">— [[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant: small-caps">l</span>]][[User talk:Coelacan|acan]]</span> — 01:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Delete.''' We should only categorize by gender when the inclusion of one gender is remarkable (e.g., [[:Category:Female baseball players]]). There's nothing remarkable about a writer being a woman; it's entirely possible that there are more female writers than male ones at this point.--[[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] 01:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Speedy delete''' (It should be speediable, whether or not it actually is). The policy referred to by [[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant: small-caps">l</span>]] is incompatible with [[:Wikipedia:Neutrality]], so it needs to be changed. Wikipedia should not follow the pattern of academia, as academia's priorities notoriously veer to the left, and neutrality has no place in them. In Wikipedia on the other hand, neutrality is fundamental.[[User:CalJW|CalJW]] 02:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 ==== Category:Looney Tunes directors ====