Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 27: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:56, 28 July 2007

< July 26	July 28 >

July 27

Category:Film directors by religion

Category:Film directors by religion - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This is a case of Overcategorization by religion and/or ethnicity. Most of the directors are completely secular in their film-making, and even if they weren't there is little evidence that THEIR actual religion is manifested in whatever religious iconography there might be in the film. Take Paul Thomas Anderson's (who is lapsed) Magnolia. I don't think Jared Hess's Mormonism had any affect on the making of Napoleon Dynamite. Or the atheist Stanley Kubrick's reincarnation scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey makes him a Hindu. How is his ethnic identity relevant for the intersection. Therefore all of these intersections are equally irrelevant. Upmerge to relevant categories. Bulldog123 23:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial intersection of religion and profession, while an artist's cultural background and personal beliefs may influence his/her art, it is a far cry to suppose that everyone of a particular religion shares the same background and beliefs and that they influence his/her art in the same way or to the same extent: finding Jean Cocteau, Federico Fellini, Buster Keaton, and Mel Gibson in the same category just illustrates the point. Carlossuarez46 00:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Dominictimms 14:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fauna of Solomon Islands

Category:Fauna of Solomon Islands - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Redundant (existing cat is correct Fauna of the Solomon Islands, covered by existing cats, created in error by me. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but you can do a creators speedy self-delete for this. Johnbod 22:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - as per the speedy-listed parallel cat for flora. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People Killed by Lord Voldemort

Category:People Killed by Lord Voldemort - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Category:Harry Potter characters already contains many subcategories. It is overcategorization to further categorize characters by their killer. musicpvm 19:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per July 23rd (and many previous) discussions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both. Johnbod 22:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both, and no people were killed by Lord Voldemort, some fictional characters were killed. Can we keep reality real and fiction fiction? Carlossuarez46 01:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overcategorization, not of real-world importance. 17Drew 01:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Basketball (soccer) video games

Category:Basketball (soccer) video games - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: AFAIK no such sport exists, and if it does, the category needs clarification. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Interesting idea though. Johnbod 22:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Dragon: Jake Long

Category:American Dragon: Jake Long - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for a TV series. Not needed for what will soon be a single subcat and a single article. Otto4711 18:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Dragon: Jake Long episodes

Category:American Dragon: Jake Long episodes - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - all of the episode articles have been merged and redirected to a single list article, which doesn't require this category. Otto4711 18:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as this cat is basically empty, doesn't this qualify for a speedy deletion? CaveatLector^Talk 05:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Phil of the Future episodes

Category:Phil of the Future episodes - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - all the episodes have been merged and redirected to a single list article, which doesn't require this category. Otto4711 18:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Now that the individual episode articles are gone, there's no need for the category. 17Drew 23:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Runestones, Sweden

Propose renaming Category:Runestones, Sweden to Category:Runestones in Sweden

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to a more conventional form. All the related categories should be renamed in the same way, but I don't have time to list and tag them all just now. Maybe tomorrow. Hawkestone 18:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Circle Opens

Suggest merging Category:The Circle Opens and Category:The Circle of Magic to Category:Emelanese books

Nominator's rationale: Subcategories are a bit small: Emelan is the name of the world where these books take place, so all the books will fit in there, including the non-quartet books SarekOfVulcan 16:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Smoking

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 Withdrawn, by nominator. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, single-item category, not really needed. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Tobacco is where all this hangs out. Johnbod 16:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probably created under the assumption that a better version hadn't already been created. Onnaghar (sch-peak) 16:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, Smoking was not in Category:Tobacco, nor was that in Category:Addiction. Hmmmm. Now they are. Johnbod 16:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because smoking had been confined to being a mere dabpage until only about two weeks ago because the tobbaco enthusiasts and the cannabis aficionados couldn't get along in the same article.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This category is seven days old and you're already this eager to delete it? This, along with smoking is an attempt to bring together information about smoking in general, not just tobacco smoking. I've already added a few more articles and one additional category. Peter ^Isotalo 16:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make that three categories so far. Peter ^Isotalo 16:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that it's populated, I'm fine with it. I withdraw my nomination. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:35, 27 July 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.

Afghan people

Rename all per conventions of Category:Afghan people, and Category:Afghan people by occupation. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename all per nom & convention. Johnbod 16:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per nomination anc conv. Onnaghar (sch-peak) 16:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Definitely. Do the same for Uzbeki and the other relevant -stans if necessary. Bulldog123 03:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famicom games

Suggest merging Category:Famicom games to Category:Nintendo Entertainment System games

Nominator's rationale: Merge, The Famicom is the Japanese brand name for the Nintendo Entertainment System. The two consoles have no appreciable differences in terms of their hardware or software design. The are the same machine. There is regional lockout, but that is a common feature on many other consoles as well. Additionally, there are no seperate categories for the TurboGrafx-16 and the PC Engine, given that they are the same platform as well. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 14:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep separate There are a few reasons that these should be separate: (1) Some games were only released for the Famicom (not sure offhand if there were any exclusive NES releases; probably the Color Dreams games were?). If we merge then we'll simply be incorrect: "Bird Week" was never a NES game. (2) I disagree that the Famicom and NES have no appreciable differences. A good list is at Nintendo Entertainment System#Regional differences. Because of these differences, some games could never work on one or the other system without a substantial change in hardware or software. (All cartridges, minimally, needed an adapter to work in the other system.) (3) Many games were released for the Japan and US markets with substantial differences (Bionic Commando being a good example) beyond simply translation. (4) If things these are true of TurboGrafx-16 and PC Engine, then I would argue that they should have separate cats too. It's fine to merge two similar articles (eg. Famicom and Nintendo Entertainment System) because we can then explain their differences, but a category does not give us the ability to do so. If we could come up with a name for a parent category (category:NES/Famicom games, category:2A03-based titles) then such a category with two subcats for category:Famicom exclusive games and category:NES exclusive games would also be a fine solution. (PS. I think we've discussed this same merge before?) — brighterorange (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment see also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_15#Category:Famicom_games. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current FBI Top Ten Most Wanted Fugitive

These kind of categories require continual maintenance, and are bad for printed, mirrored, or CD distribution.

Merge into Category:FBI Top Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, or at least Rename to Category:Current FBI Top Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom There is a list, with mugshots, at the main article, although one captured on May 12 has not been replaced yet, I notice. Johnbod 14:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Hmm. Isn't the same thing true of category:Living people? Perhaps category:FBI top ten most wanted fugitives and category:Former FBI top ten most wanted fugitives would suffice. — brighterorange (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Living people exists as a special exception ... note the unique and unprecedented result of the January 19th discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom - Onnaghar (sch-peak) 16:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom - "current" categories should not be used (outside of electrical or water flow). Carlossuarez46 01:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fantasy novels by Diane Duane

Category:Fantasy novels by Diane Duane - Template:Lc1

Category:Science fiction novels by Diane Duane - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Too-specific: Category:Novels by Diane Duane should work fine. SarekOfVulcan 13:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: These categories have been emptied by the nominator just before the nomination was made Johnbod edits just now 15:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have been re-populated. --Kbdank71 15:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and downmerge main cat to Category:Young Wizards. The nom cats are both empty, but the main "novels by" cat is duplicated at Category:Young Wizards, which seems a valid member of cats for childrens and fantasy series. Young Wizards should be made the sub-cat, and those novels (which may be all of them) removed from the main cat. Johnbod 14:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They were not empty yesterday. SarekOfVulcan did that, then turned around and slapped CfD on them. Also, downmerge is not applicable, as her Star Trek novels (and others which do not yet have articles) do not fit there. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Down merge is appropiate for the Young Wizards series, which is most of them. Those not duplicated in the YW cat should be left in the main Novels cat. Johnbod 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - But certainly keep Category:Novels by Diane Duane which is more than adequate as is. It is odd that these nominated categories are empty though. Has someone just emptied them? :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a couple of novels & it seems not. The novels cat would be fine if it did not duplicate entirely the Young Wizards cat, which it is not connected to. We shouldn't have two near-identical cats that can easily be tied together. Johnbod 14:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have no problem making Category:Young Wizards take the place of the fantasy subcat if someone can confirm that all her fantasy novels are indeed part of this series. Note, however, that this poses a problem if she writes a non-YW fantasy novel. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, only the duplicated ones should be down-merged. There are 2 (at least) Star Trek novels which should stay in the main cat. I would not oppose a different sub-cat for these in the future if there are enough articles, but this does not seem to be the case yet. Johnbod 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This would leave us with Category:Science fiction novels by author → Category:Novels by Diane Duane → Category:Young Wizards—which is illogical, and no aid to navigation. There are potentially over a dozen articles for the scifi subcat. Retaining subcats may leave us with an underpopulated category, but having sensibly navigable categories is worth it, IMO. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the YWs are also in two series categories, and I think you have to draw the line somewhere.

Yes, they were just emptied by SarekOfVulcan. Emptying a cat while a CfD is going on is poor form, IMO, because if the cat is retained then one has to go back and recat everything. That on top of that fact that it prompts exactly these "it's empty, go ahead and delete" comments in CfD! ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. Furthermore, he/she just removed "by DD" to leave them in the main Fantasy/sci-fi novels category, which is not even reducing the number of categories involved. Johnbod 15:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Johnbod 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice SarekOfVulcan is on Editor Review here btw, and also that Kdbank71 is kindly repopulating the cats. Johnbod 15:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it doesn't make any sense (to me) to have mixed fantasy-and-scifi novels in Category:Fantasy novels by author and Category:Science fiction novels by author. Diane Duane has written about a dozen of each (AFAIK) which is enough to justify distinct categories. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My apologies for the recat -- I should have let it run its course. If this had been an AfD, I would have known not to do that... And Diane has definitely written non-Young Wizards fantasy -- it just hasn't been WPed yet. Further justification for original nom -- Orson Scott Card has written both, but only has Category:Novels by Orson Scott Card, which appears in the "Science fiction novels by author" category.--SarekOfVulcan 16:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters who met untimely deaths

Delete, we don't categorize fictional characters on life or death, see also previous discussions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, plus "untimely" is extra-specially vague. Johnbod 13:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this is a remake of Fictional deceased characters etc. Which have already been deleted. Really only characters who are already dead and remain dead throughout a piece of fiction should be in this kind of category.--NeilEvans 13:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also note that Kkbhe (talk · contribs) first created "Deceased TV Series Characters", then created "Fictional murder victims" immediately after that was deleted, and has now created this one. I'm finding it hard to assume good faith here, however, it should be noted that no warning was ever left on that user's talk page regarding the CfDs for these cats. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please, please, please delete Bulldog123 23:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parents who murdered their children

Propose renaming Category:Parents who murdered their children to Category:Parents who committed filicide

Nominator's rationale: Rename, The category would be better served if it could include people like Andrea Yates who, though guilty of filicide are technically not guilty of murder. Nosleep1234 09:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, I believe most people would be looking for the broader category, even though "murder" is a legal term with a specific definition that excludes the given example. However, "filicide" is an obscure (though precise) term; I'd suggest Category:People who killed their children instead. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, but I like ChristTrekker's suggestion better than the nom's.--SarekOfVulcan 18:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISSF sport shooter categories

Category:Rifle shooters, 300 m events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Rifle shooters, 50 and 10 m events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Pistol shooters, 50 and 10 m events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Pistol shooters, 25 m events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Running Target shooters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Proposals: I propose merging the first two into Category:ISSF rifle shooters, merging the third and fourth into Category:ISSF pistol shooters, and renaming the last one to Category:Running target shooters.

Nominator's rationale: As I've stated at Category talk:Sport shooters, I think the overlap between the rifle categories and the overlap between the pistol categories are too large. The proposed way, we catch the most real distinction between ISSF shooters, namely that between rifle and pistol (very few shoot both). The ISSF in Category:ISSF pistol shooters is needed to distinguish it from Category:IPSC shooters, and I think pre-emptively using it for the rifle category as well is in order. As for the last category, it's simply capitalization. While I do think that the actual event names, 50 m Running Target and 10 m Running Target, should be treated as proper nouns, "running target shooters" is more general and should not be capitalized. Oh, and I should probably mention that all this mess was caused by myself, a long way back, so apologies for that. -- Jao 09:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional locations

Unlike most other source-specific subcategories of category:Fictional locations, these do not conform to the "(X) locations" format, and they should. (The Railway and Thomas categories have uncomfortable overlap, so maybe there's another solution there.)--Mike Selinker 07:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Category:Firebird book series (and subcat) articles are cat'd by template so naming is kept internally consistent. If this is to be changed (and I tend to agree that it should be, for general consistency) then this case needs to be handled carefully. Flag my talk page if you'd like my attention on this when discussion is complete. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since that category has only one article in it, that category could also could be deleted and the article placed in both Category:Fictional locations and Category:Firebird book series.--Mike Selinker 17:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--SarekOfVulcan 18:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose some Firebird should be Category:Firebird book series locations, and Robert E. Howard wrote other things than Conan, so this should be called Category:Hyborian locations. 132.205.44.5 19:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True enough, but the category actually only contains things from the Conaniverse. I altered the FIrebird one, though I'd probably still delete it.--Mike Selinker 20:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hyborian would include Howard's other works in that universe, such as Kull, and the Age of Conan books now coming out, as the Hyborian Age represents the world the works are set in. 132.205.44.5 21:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, OK. I changed the nomination.--Mike Selinker 21:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Various different suggestions. First, I like most of the changes the nom has suggested, except that the name sounds a bit clunky and not like a refined encyclopedia. Maybe Category:Fictional locations (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) as an example? Also, for some particular categories listed here: Rename the Robert E. Howard category to 'Conan the Barbarian locations '. Delete Category:The Four Lands and category:Realms in the Worm Ouroboros These categories are nearly empty. Also Keep Realms in Mortal Kombat ('Realms' in this case has a subject-specific meaning). It's kind of difficult to apply the 'locations' of 'fictional locations' to all of these articles, because they just don't seem to come off as an encyclopedic tone. For instance, Category:Geography of the Forgotten Realms or Category:Geography of Middle-Earth sounds much better, but this doesn't work for items like Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Thomas the Tank Engine CaveatLector^Talk 05:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Many of these cats are named for their source work of fiction, but others are named for a fictional universe or region (and in some, the distinction is not important). For the second set (including Middle-earth, Narnia, Oz, Morrowind), I think it is best to maintain the "x of y" construction that is deeply established in our corresponding real life categories dedicated to geographic regions such as Category:Categories by continent, Category:Categories by country, and Category:Categories by region. If consistency among Category:Fictional locations is important, then I suggest the renaming them all "x of y". ×Meegs 12:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A fair point, Meegs. My suggestion, then, would be to make them all "(X) locations," where X is a real-world fictional source. So we make "Chronicles of Narnia locations" and "Land of Oz locations", and dump Morrowind into "The Elder Scrolls locations" and Santhenar into "The Three Worlds locations", and make the Conan one "Robert E. Howard locations". This might also require revisiting the Middle-earth decision, which you also objected to.--Mike Selinker 13:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion is better, and is something I could go along with, but it's not without problems. "X of Y" has the advantage of being able to handle both cats named for worlds and ones named for source material, as well as avoid some awkwardness. I'm not sure what its downside is. Whatever the cats are called, though, I do agree that at least most of the time the latter system makes for more naturally scoped categories. For example, if we had an article for Dorothy's farmhouse, we surely wouldn't want it categorized apart from the Emerald City.

Oh, and as for that recent M-e discussion, don't worry, the nominator seems to have ignored the result and renamed the categories anyway >:-< ×Meegs 15:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose some, particularly . As an MK fan, in the games they are called the realms and realms is much better in this case than "locations", and any MK fan would agree. And don't rename until an official consensus is reached...In other cases, "settings" did sound alot better, and look at what you request renaming of before putting it up. (Edgar Rice Burroughs locations doesn't even make sense...)C. Foultz 16:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sworn virgins

Category:Sworn virgins - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: There does not seem to be a significant demand for this higly non-standard category. meco 07:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly a category could be made round this, but this is not it, nor the name for it. Does not include Nun, and was Mary sworn as such? I think not. Johnbod 14:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - empty - too general, vulnerable to vandalism. Onnaghar (sch-peak) 16:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Category for the sake of categories. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what about second virginity ? It would seem if you swear celibacy you belong in this category. As the Virgin Queen Elizabeth I, became virgin, after already having had sex. It would be better if it was a category for people famous for being virgins or virginal, as a subcategory for people famous for being celibate in some portion of their lives. 132.205.44.5 19:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pointless category. However the subcategories: Virgin Mary and Vestal Virgins, are worthwhile. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not needed; not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 01:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reggae hip hop songs

Propose renaming Category:Reggae hip hop songs to Category:Dancehall songs

Nominator's rationale: "Reggae hip hop" is not a genre one encounters very often. My guess is that the user who created the category is referring to dancehall, a precursor to hip hop music that is derived from reggae. Ragga songs would also be an appropriate rename (ragga is a subgenre of dancehall that focuses on electronica). I should probably note that although there aren't many songs in the category, that's because it's underpopulated, not because it's a narrow field that should be deleted. 17Drew 03:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:California porn stars

Category:California porn stars - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Overly specialized category. Most (if not all) of the people within this category are also within the parent category Category:American porn stars. Additionally, there are no other state categories of this nature - e.g., Delaware porn stars. Tabercil 03:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Overcategorization. - Crockspot 04:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's parent caregory, Category:American porn stars, is already overpopulated and should be diffused. It is also incorrect what the nominator states that there are no other state categories of this nature, and the enormity of Category:American porn stars suggests that there should in fact be more, not fewer. __meco 07:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no maximum category size, and a parent category should not be subdivided just because it is big if the subcategories are more of an obstacle than an aid to navigation. Everyone should be in a national category, and there U.S. porn industry is basically one industry. Dominictimms 12:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Category:California actors This category is not meant to subdivide Category:American porn stars. Rather, it is part of the scheme for Category:California people by occupation which subdivides all people under Category:People from California. So discussion of Category:American porn stars is irrelevant to keeping or deleting the category - the relevant parent category in this case is Category:California people by occupation. Now that being said, in reviewing this I noticed the category should be a subcategory of Category:California actors and I'll make that change momentarilly. Also, depending on your point of view, I could maybe see upmerging this category into Category:California actors if you wanted to lump all the porn stars in with the conventional actors. So I'm ok with either keeping this category or upmerging into Category:California actors. Dugwiki 14:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we should seriously discuss whether a category can be too overpopulated that we must or should create subcategories and if we do, on what basis should this be done – geographically, temporally, by race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, special feature (whatever seems appropriate to the topic), haphazardly? This comes up repeatedly and we should address it systemically - or at least attempt to and put down some items to consider - rather than ad hoc. Carlossuarez46 01:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think one should ever say one must create sub-cats to break them up, but it is certainly something I am prepared to take into account in considering a category, which clearly is not everyboy's view. In this case I don't think geographical location is a suitable way to divide American actors - I don't suppose it is something you always know, plus no doubt they move around from time to time. But gay porn stars (or whatever) is a suitable way to divide either American or Californian actors - if you don't know they are one, then you don't know much about them. The first criteria should be that the sub-cat is by some quality that the user is very likely to be aware of - eg the recent African-American singers/A-A musicians debate. Johnbod 03:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dungeons & Dragons authors

Category:Dungeons & Dragons authors - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - as with other "Franchise authors" categories. Variation of performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 01:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hideo Kojima games

Category:Hideo Kojima games - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Personally, this category is a bit pretentious and unneeded. If people wanted to known about the games Hideo Kojima worked, they could just read his article in Hideo Kojima and follow the links there. I certainly haven't see "Category: Shigeru Miyamoto games" or "Category: Hironobu Sakaguchi games", who are arguably just as well known. Jonny2x4 00:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Crockspot 04:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't see any other similar categories, but it is not imediately obvious to me why leading game designers, as he appears to be, should not have their work categorised as film directors do. Can any one explain? Johnbod 14:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 218: / Line 218: @@
 :::Oh, and as for that recent M-e discussion, don't worry, the nominator seems to have ignored the result and renamed the categories anyway >:-< '''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 15:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose some''', particularly [[Category:Realms of Mortal Kombat]]. As an MK fan, in the games they are called the realms and realms is much better in this case than "locations", and any MK fan would agree. And don't rename until an official consensus is reached...[[User:C. Foultz|C. Foultz]] 16:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Oppose some''', particularly [[Category:Realms of Mortal Kombat]]. As an MK fan, in the games they are called the realms and realms is much better in this case than "locations", and any MK fan would agree. And don't rename until an official consensus is reached...In other cases, "settings" did sound alot better, and look at what you request renaming of before putting it up. (Edgar Rice Burroughs locations doesn't even make sense...)[[User:C. Foultz|C. Foultz]] 16:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 ==== Category:Sworn virgins ====