Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 6

< December 5	December 7 >

December 6 edit

Pre-revolutionary wars of the United States edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Military history of the Thirteen Colonies. David Kernow (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matches with higher cat Category:Pre-revolutionary history of the United States, avoids confusion with Spanish-American War, etc. as a Wars of American Colonization vs. Wars of America as a Wee Colony... vs. Various Wars in North America by Various Colonizing Powers jengod 23:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, the convention for war categories is to categorize only by the contemporary participants, and to only cross historical lines at the "Military history of ..." level. (In other words: these are not "Wars of the United States", because there was no United States at the time; in the same way that the Norman invasion of England is not labeled as a "War of the United Kindgom", despite being part of the UK's military history.) At the same time, some such category is fairly useful here. As, in addition, some of the articles here are not wars at all, I would suggest that we rename this to Category:Pre-revolutionary military history of the United States and nest it directly under Category:Military history of the United States, rather than under Category:Wars of the United States. Kirill Lokshin 02:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of the category also seem to include the military history of Canada as well - it might be better to have a more generic name, although none really spring to mind. Carom 04:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm guessing that the Canadian ones are those that cover wars which included both; the better option might be to create a corresponding Category:Pre-independence military history of Canada and just double-tag the relevant entries. Kirill Lokshin 04:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Works for me.Carom 04:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Pre-revolutionary military history of the United States per above discussion. Carom 04:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Pre-revolutionary military history of the United States per above discussion. jengod 04:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different Rename to Military history of the British colonies in Northern America + military history of the Dutch, Russian, French and Spanish colonies in Northern America. The USA is the larger part of it, but it did also affect what is today Canada, which for some time was part of the British colonies in Northern America. If we establish here a precedence for a category of nonexistent political participants we could also label the military history of the Achaemenid Empire , the Parthian Empire, the Sassanid Empire and the Persian Empire as Pre-republican military history of Iran or the military history of the Incas to pre-colonial military history of Bolivia and Peru etc. Wandalstouring 05:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference here, of course, being that the Incas, Sassanids, etc. were states in their own right (and thus get categories as other states do), while the British/French/etc. colonies were not.
- As far as the name, I suppose Category:Military history of the British colonies in North America might be possible, but it seems sort of arbitrary; why not lump in the British presence in the Carribean, then, given how closely related it was in a military sense? Conversely, you could go the other way and deal with each cluster of colonies separately; in this case, we'd wind up with something like Category:Military history of the Thirteen Colonies. Kirill Lokshin 05:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Military History of the Thirteen Colonies in Northern America is OK. Another precendence would be India or South Africa why should they have different rules for labeling their military history? Although the result would be rather arbitrary. Wandalstouring 06:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is getting rather far afield from the original proposal, but, building off the proposals outlined above, we could set up categories for all the colonial powers - something like Category:Military history of the British colonies that would be a child of Category:Military history of the United Kingdom, and could, if neccessary, be subdivided be region. This might be workable in conjunction with Category:Pre-revolutionary military history of the United States, and the articles could be double-tagged. Carom 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Once again Pre-revolutionary history of the United States is a very bad precedence and supported by no reglementations we had so far. You do have to take into account that every former colony in the world will establish just the same classification system and that would be a major problem. Wandalstouring 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not convinced that it would be a Bad Thing to have similar categories for other former colonies - the point being that I think we can identify the European colonies as distinct from other forms of expansion, especially as they are usually (in my experience) treated as such in the historical literature. Also, you've noted a couple of times that you think setting some kind of precedent here would be bad, but I'm not sure why you think this. I think that, ultimately, we will want a category system that offers useful axes of navigation for as many areas of military history as possible - the pre-independence history of modern nations (specifically those modern nations that were formerly colonies) is, I think, a useful and interesting axis. While this is something of a sidenote, I'm not entirely sure how the thirteen colonies category that you supported above would be any different in terms of setting a precedent - I don't see any real difference in substance between my proposal and Kirill's proposal (the name may be different, but I don't think it makes the slightest difference to the repercussions of the category). Carom 22:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The difference in the name is essential. We stick to the political units existing at that time and the way they were labeled. If we start naming after naming backwards from future offsprings we are very likely running into OR and NPOV issues. For example Nigeria and Biafra. The slight difference in using names for the contemporary units instead of foreshadowing something is the better solution in my opinion. With what argument do you want to tell a imaginary Confederate nationalists that there shouldn't be a Pre-revolutionary military history of the Confederate States of America and a Pre-independence military history of the Confederate States of America and a Post-war military history of the Confederate States of America? Wandalstouring 06:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't know if the Confederacy is really related to what we're talking about here. I was under the impression that we were trying to determine what to call an article on the military history of the part of North America that would later become of the United States. This is a very specific geographic and temporal location (approx. 1605-1776). It is also related to a peculiar historical phenomenon, namely the widespread efforts of European nations to colonize "uncivilized" parts of the world. I don't really follow your arguments about the Confederacy - approving categories for countries that were colonies, but are now independent does not, in my opinion, weaken an argument for opposing the construction of categories for segments of countries that failed to secede or gain independence. However, if you are adamantly opposed to the use of "United States" in the category name, I don't see any reason for dragging this out any longer. I am perfectly willing to support either Category:Military history of the British colonies in North America or Category:Military history of the Thirteen Colonies. Ideally, both woud come into play - this would result in a new "branch" of the category tree, and the latter would be a child of the former - another potential child would be Category:Military history of the Dominion of Canada (or something, the naming history of the Canadian colonies is slightly more complex). Carom 17:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Category:Military history of the Thirteen Colonies would be a good idea, IMHO. jengod 19:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double rename, now that ya'll mention it: Rename Category:American colonial wars to Category:Military history of the Thirteen Colonies; rename Category:Pre-revolutionary history of the United States to Category:History of the Thirteen Colonies. I never cared much for that "pre-revolutionary" name, as it smacks of old-fashioned Whig history, American style. Reminds me of a deleted scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian, when one shepherd asks another, "Is it AD yet?" —Kevin 19:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Funny & I like this. Seems like an excellent compromise that solves the problem of clarity, i.e. Wars of American Colonization vs. Wars of America as a Wee Colony... vs. Various Wars in North America by Various Colonizing Powers jengod 21:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User bilingual edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pointless category, especially given it has only one member — Superbfc 23:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pointless. Use two userboxes. (Userbox warlording should be discouraged, IMHO.) By which I mean excessive boxing, not excessive mocking of those who box to excess. --Quuxplusone 00:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - proper use of babel boxes will do a better job Jenny Wong 19:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not necessarry. -RiverHockey 22:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Ego Defense Mechanisms edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete by move to User:A Kiwi/Ego defense mechanisms. David Kernow (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article(?) in the Category namespace. Unpopulated as a category. ~ BigrTex 23:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what is this doing here? Jenny Wong 19:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by renaming to User:A Kiwi/Ego defense mechanisms. David Kernow (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Second Life Residents edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. David Kernow (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The apparent purpose of this category is to categorize everyone that plays or has played Second life. People are placed in this category based on the criteria at Resident (Second Life). This blurs the distinction between fantasy and reality, given that nobody can actually be a resident of a game. Even if the name were changed to "Second Life players", it seems (to me) like an rather arbitrary or even frivolous categorization scheme; fancruft perhaps. As nominator, I should note that I had some debate with the creator of this category at User talk:Shotwell#removing_categories. shotwell 23:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and listify. Particpation in this game/virtual reality experiment/whatever-label-it-should have is not a defining charactersiustic of any of the people categorised. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. "Resident" (capital R) is the term they've chosen to identify themselves, so it's appropriate. The cat itself is definitely arbitrary, but no more so than nationality or occupation; and for some of those people (Anshe Chung, e.g.), Second Life does appear to be an occupation! :) However, since most or all of the cat's members are already listed in the Second Life article, it doesn't seem really necessary; and this seems like the kind of cat that will rapidly fill up with Wikipedia users' vanity or user pages, which is a bad thing, so purely from a maintenance standpoint I see an argument for listifying and deleting. --Quuxplusone 00:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "Resident" is the term used by both the users of the Second Life platform and a term used by Linden Lab. Robin Harper is the employee who applied the term originally. The members are in fact listed in the Resident (Second Life) article.Signpostmarv 05:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I'm not a player of this game, I think that the game's notability as a social phenomenon justifies the categorization of notable people as players, or, if you prefer, "residents". It's particularly appropriate for the one article where I reverted a removal of this category, Lawrence Lessig, who is a notable proponent of the open source philosophy - a philosophy shared somewhat by Second Life where possible. Nihiltres 01:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. So I'm confused as to why his Second Life participation has yet to be included in the text of the article. Is the fact worth mentioning in his biography? If not, then we shouldn't categorize him this way. This goes for nearly all the articles in the category. There typically needs to be some supporting text in the article to warrant inclusion in a category. A completely different wikipedia article isn't enough. shotwell 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Signpostmarv 05:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC) :[reply]
  1. SL is not a game. As such, the term "players" is incorrect.
  2. Lawrence Lessig was actually responsible for kicking Linden Lab up the ass and encouraging them to give the Residents IP rights over their content.

Keep. Signpostmarv 05:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Categorisation articles on people under Category:Second Life is incorrect
2. The number of articles on people who are SL Residents will increase in the near future, and over time.(as demonstrated by this list)

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

Category:Football (soccer) deaths edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. — CharlotteWebb 02:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seriously, what's the purpose of this category? Footballers, like everyone else, eventually die - and right now, the category just contains a seemingly random selection of deceased footballers. If the category was intended for footballers who died during a game, there already exists a category named Deaths in sport. --Badmotorfinger 22:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chicheley 08:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm ok with Category:Deaths in sport to handle the unusual cases of atheletes who die while actually playing the game, but there's no need to subcategorize all dead people by occupation. Dugwiki 16:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree with Dugwiki; alternatively the creation a subcategory such as ~~Category:Football (soccer) players who died while playing~~ Category:Football (soccer) players who died while playing a game or some such would be fine as well. But a category for all dead footballers is ridiculous. Qwghlm 11:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; we have Category:Footballers who died before retiring for unusual deaths.-choster 20:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Jenny Wong 19:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not good. Punkmorten 19:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, footballers aren't immortal. --Angelo 22:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Religious leaders in Michigan edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge per nom; very few articles contained within subcategories. David Kernow (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:American religious leaders, overcategorization, only one daughter category, see also other discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep many more daughter categories will come. Give a guy a chance (if that will make the difference!). Pastorwayne 15:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per related discussions. Need more American religious leaders to warrant subdividing by state. Dugwiki 16:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Vegaswikian 01:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:South American religious leaders edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in favor of country based categories, see also December 5th discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Classification by continent just adds an unnecessary extra layer (it would help if the creator of this category was a little less prolific in creating new categores). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, go by country instead. (Radiant) 12:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:High School Musical songs edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category contains only two songs (previously three), one of which is going through AFD Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)} 22:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

People from Japanese cities edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all. the wub "?!" 12:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Atsugi to Category:People from Atsugi, Kanagawa

Category:People from Beppu to Category:People from Beppu, Ōita

Category:People from Chigasaki to Category:People from Chigasaki, Kanagawa

Category:People from Fukuyama to Category:People from Fukuyama, Hiroshima

Category:People from Hadano to Category:People from Hadano, Kanagawa

Category:People from Hatsukaichi to Category:People from Hatsukaichi, Hiroshima

Category:People from Higashihiroshima to Category:People from Higashihiroshima, Hiroshima

Category:People from Hioki to Category:People from Hioki, Kagoshima

Category:People from Isahaya to Category:People from Isahaya, Nagasaki

Category:People from Isehara to Category:People from Isehara, Kanagawa

Category:People from Izumi to Category:People from Izumi, Kagoshima

Category:People from Kagoshima to Category:People from Kagoshima, Kagoshima

Category:People from Kawasaki to Category:People from Kawasaki, Kanagawa

Category:People from Kure to Category:People from Kure, Hiroshima

Category:People from Kurume to Category:People from Kurume, Fukuoka

Category:People from Minamiashigara to Category:People from Minamiashigara, Kanagawa

Category:People from Okuchi to Category:People from Okuchi, Kagoshima

Category:People from Onomichi to Category:People from Onomichi, Hiroshima

Category:People from Sagamihara to Category:People from Sagamihara, Kanagawa

Category:People from Soo to Category:People from Soo, Kagoshima

Category:People from Takehara to Category:People from Takehara, Hiroshima

Category:People from Usuki to Category:People from Usuki, Ōita

Category:People from Yokosuka to Category:People from Yokosuka, Kanagawa

Category:People from Zama to Category:People from Zama, Kanagawa

Category:People from Zushi to Category:People from Zushi, Kanagawa

In Japan Manual of Style, city names should be "city, prefecture" except in special cases. Most of the 31 subcats in Category:People by city in Japan fail this guideline. They are listed above. Exceptions for existing subcats within that category are for Hiroshima, Kobe, Kyoto, Nagasaki, Tokyo, and Yokohama. For the 25 suggested renamings, there is consensus for the "city, prefecture" usage.

Rename, as nominator, to comply with existing Japan manual of style regarding city names in articles. Neier 22:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per reasons given by nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. ~ BigrTex 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom Jenny Wong 19:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cities, towns and villages in Montenegro edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Serial commas. the wub "?!" 12:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Cities, towns, and villages in Montenegro because proper English grammar says to use a comma after each part of the same parts of speech being used, like I bought a DVD player, game console, and a TV. --Crna Gora 22:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as I believe use of the serial comma is optional (cf WP:MoS). David Kernow (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

category:Worst Actor Razzie edit

category:Worst Actress Razzie edit

category:Worst Picture Razzie edit

category:Worst Supporting Actor Razzie edit

category:Worst Supporting Actress Razzie edit

category:Worst Director Razzie Nominee edit

category:Worst Picture Razzie Nominee edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep winners, delete nominees. the wub "?!" 12:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all This is a follow up to two recent deletion of similar categories. (here and here). The category for actresses was deleted previously here. I am working on articles about actors, which suffer from category clutter. The argument that these are trivial and not career defining has been stated in several different ways in the previous discussions. The category names are badly formed and lists of award "winners" already exist. Sumahoy 21:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep winners, delete nominees - In reviewing the previous discussions, it looking like there was consensus to delete nominee categories, but there were a number of arguments in favor of keeping the winner categories. Note that the Razzies are, in fact, a notable (or, if you prefer, infamous) mark on a celebrity's career. I'd be in favor of keeping the winner categories, and removing the nominee categories (as that seems consistent with the previous discussions). Dugwiki 22:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep winners. Otto4711 23:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping winners sounds like a good compromise... AnonMoos 23:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These are not credible or important awards. Chicheley 08:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep winners - They are the most famous "awards for being bad" and they are quite widely known so they are notable. --GracieLizzie 12:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Very trivial and when they include the likes of Laurence Olivier downright misleading. Piccadilly 15:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep winners, delete nominees for the same reasons listed by others. ~ BigrTex 16:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep winners There shouldn't be a debate here, Olivier notwithstanding. Danny Lilithborne 02:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nominees, RENAME winners to "raspberry awards", just like we tend to avoid the term "oscar" for the academy awards. (Radiant) 12:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all They are either notable or they are not, so keeping some and deleting the others is just muddled thinking. Olborne 13:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing odd about having winners, but jettisoning losers. We have Category:MTV Movie Award winners, but no nominees cat.--T. Anthony 15:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep winners. Notable, famous "awards". The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Razzie winners are notable... and I'd be in favor of simply having it one category "Raspberry Award Winners." I don't like having numerous categories for the Razzies---they aren't that notable.Balloonman 20:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Issue Summaries edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete per nom (also empty and name insufficiently specific). David Kernow (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Reading the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Collaboration#Category:Issue_Summaries it appears this category is intended as a home to articles which will summarise issues of comic book series. Such articles, are, I would suggest outside of our remit, and I would therefore state this category is too. We don't summarise issues on Wikipeldia, and we certainly shouldn't be a repository for detailing which issues a given issue of a series references within footnotes. I'm not clear that this is anything but overcategorisation and also precluded by the policy on plot summaries at WP:NOT. If we open up Wikipedia to this sort of content I posit it will be unmaintainable. Every fictional work would be subject to the same approach, even every real life person or building could be subject to similar articles, for example a listing of all the houses in a given road. Bad idea. Hiding Talk 20:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Delete - Bad idea for Wikipedia. Good idea elsewhere. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this is kept, the S needs to be changed to lower case. Jenny Wong 20:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Anti-Semitic_canards edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep Tim! 12:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, The definition of canard is a "deliberately false story". None of the things in this category seem to fit that definition, and thus, it seems superflous given the fact that we have an anti-semitic category already. .V. 19:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deleting, might support a good rename proposal. It's nice to have a single place to collect together the specifically anti-Jewish myths or stories that never die, but continue on and on decade after decade, no matter how often they've been debunked. If you can come up with a better name, then suggest it, but the category should not be deleted because its name might be improved... AnonMoos 20:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can think of some names. "Anti-Semitic Beliefs", "Anti-Semetic Allegations"... all of which fall under the spectrum of the currently-existing category of Anti-Semitism. I believe all the articles in it are already tagged with Anti-Semetism. Any substitute for "canard" that would apply in this case would essentially be nearly the same as "anti-semitism" as it stands right now. At the moment, it's basically a POV category, filled with things that have not been adequately proven as hoaxes. So not only is the category POV-filled in itself, it's redundant. .V. 20:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, "anti-Semitic beliefs" would be completely inadequate, while "Anti-Semitic allegations" is also ultimately unsatsifactory (because anybody can come up with a new "allegation" at any time, whereas "Anti-Semitic canards" is reserved for myths or stories that never die, but continue on and on decade after decade, no matter how often they've been debunked).

I think that the "Anti-Semitic canards" category currently does a rather good job of collecting together, in one particular place, many of the anti-Jewish myths or stories that never die, but continue on and on decade after decade, no matter how often they've been debunked. If you can think of a better name which captures the specific function of this particular category, that would be good — but dispersing its contents into other, less specific, categories (with different purposes) would not be good... AnonMoos 21:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Persistent Anti-Semitic Beliefs"? It doesn't pass a POV judgment (like canard does) and it emphasizes the "decade after decade" aspect. .V. 21:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problems with a rename to "Persistent antisemitic narratives"... AnonMoos 21:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And so it shall be renamed as such .V. 22:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RENAME - I change my vot£ to rename as per above :3
Rename to either Category:Persistent Anti-Semitic claims or Category:Persistent Anti-Semitic beliefs. "Narratives" seems like an odd choice of wording. --Eliyak T·C 23:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's true and reliable and means what it says. Why play word-games that achieve nothing. IZAK 12:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per IZAK. Open the categ: many of them are not beliefs per se, but all of them involve fabrications and frauds. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; "canards" may be a word that's not very well-known, but "Persistent antisemitic narratives" seems overly contrived. David Kernow (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above, especially IZAK. AubreyEllenShomo 01:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Ohio edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge with Category:American Roman Catholic bishops. David Kernow (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; bishops are generally classified by diocese not US state, and there is no Roman Catholic Diocese of Ohio. Mairi 18:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but each diocese is located in a State (in the U.S.A., anyhow). So that would make this appropriate and useful, especially when comparing Roman Catholic leaders to the leaders of other denominations in a particular U.S. State. Thanks! Pastorwayne 18:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but this is most helpful in establishing Roman Catholic bishops also as Religious Leaders in the State of Ohio, etc., with this category as a sub-category! Thanks. Pastorwayne 15:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:American Roman Catholic bishops. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ProveIt. This seems like an ill-considered sub-category, and the parent category in any case not heavily populated. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:American Roman Catholic bishops - Divide bishops by diocese instead. Dr. Submillimeter 13:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see additional comments to this discussion. I see this as a valid topic. You rushed too quickly to make this decision. It is true that there is no Catholic diocese of Ohio, but all of the bishops in Ohio are organized into the same region under one archbishop, so a category does make sense. Craig.borchardt 25 December 2006

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

Category:Austin High Maroons edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Austin High School (Austin, Texas) alumni. David Kernow (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this added to several pages that I watch. Do we *really* want to start categorizing people by the high school they attended? This just really, really does not seem to me to be a defining characteristic. - TexasAndroid 17:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Category:Austin High School alumni per convention. We started classifying people by high school a long time ago and there are at least 100 such categories globally , probably more. Sumahoy 21:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's important biographical fact-it gives users an idea of where the person comes from and who they are. Anytime you find out that someone is from the same town or city as you, don't you always find yourself wondering "I wonder which high school they went to"? MaroonFrog 21:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request to change the name of the category, I should point out that there are numerous Austin High Schools, but only this one has the unique mascot of "Maroons"

If kept, Rename to Category:Austin High School alumni (Austin, Texas) or Category:Austin High School (Austin, Texas) alumni which ever is more correct. Vegaswikian 09:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Buildings and structures by continent, Category:Newspapers by continent, Category:People by continent, Category:Music by continent, Category:Transportation by continent and Category:Literature by continent edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "by country" instead, as we group just about everything else that is man-made by nationality or country border. (Radiant) 15:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For music it might make sense to rename to Category:Music by region, similar to Category:Culture by region and such, as there are meaningful groups of music above countries, but I don't think continents are as meaningful (for example, see Asian music). Delete the rest, as by country or by nationality categories already exist. Mairi 18:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "by country" categories already exist, and merging these into them would just create a mess. Sumahoy 21:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the "by country" categories make more sense for man-made things. Continents are better for geographic features, etc. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll grant that these exist primarily as an artifact of creating appropriate non-stub parent categories for stub categories, where there is decided tendency to group by continent, but their various children such as Category:African literature do exist and throwing them into the by country categories doesn't seem appropriate to me. I could accept the by region rename proposed by Mairi, but not outright deletion. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Caerwine. Whether named by region (which I would slightly prefer, which would allow some flexibility) or by continent, I think these cats serve a useful purpose, if only to group together the subcats and sub-subcats. Even topics for discrete man-made entities can be viewed on a level other than a nationalistic one. I think sometimes we even overdo the cat by country bit, to the point of being, well, a little insular.--cjllw | TALK 07:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep sounds logical to separate categories by continents and categories by country. Especially when there is only a few articles when categorized by country. Monni 13:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:African religious leaders edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete per below plus category still has only one member. David Kernow (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The scheme Category:Religious leaders by nationality goes by country, not continent. Only one member here, which should be moved. (Radiant) 15:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep give a guy a chance to populate a category!! thanks. Pastorwayne 11:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favor of country-based categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does this mean leaders of African Initiated Churches and African Religions? We do need more articles on such people and I could see calling them "African religious leaders."--T. Anthony 00:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Blackpool Tramway stops edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The stops are all minor, undeserving of articles and all have been Proposed for Deletion. Are all bus, streetcar, tram, and lightrail stops in 6 continents to be given Wikipedia articles and categories? I think not. Hu 12:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — although hopefully other more appropriate categories will be available — Superbfc 00:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary, trivial articles which should be combined in a list, so category is superfluous. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very trivial articles, no way of expanding the content. All / most articles have been proded QuiteUnusual 00:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:R class destroyers edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty cat made redundant by Category:R class destroyers (1916). Emoscopes ^Talk 12:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Galaxy formation and evolution edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an open-ended category that could potentially include any article on any process involved in galaxy formation and evolution, including any article related to star formation, interacting galaxies, or supermassive black holes. Its usefulness for organization is questionable. Currently, the category does not contain anything except for protogalaxy and galaxy formation and evolution, both of which appear in other categories as well. Given that the category is not useful for organization and given that the category's contents are already listed in other categories, this category can be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 11:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Very sparse category that can be merged up a level on the tree. — RJH (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WilliamKF 17:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Pre-Hispanic cultures of Mexico edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pre-Hispanic cultures of Mexico to Category:Pre-Columbian cultures of Mexico

Rename, per Category:Pre-Columbian cultures et. al., "pre-Columbian" is the much more commonly used description for these historical cultures. cjllw | TALK 11:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. A better name. Hmains 02:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:IAU planet debate edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. If anyone wants to know which articles and categories were in this category so they can populate the new categories suggested, let me know. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an open-ended category that contains any articles that may have any relevance to the discussion in the 2006 definition of planet article, including articles on general planet designations, articles on specific objects, lists of solar system objects, and a few general articles such as Solar System. Instead of using this category, the articles should be linked to each other within their texts as is appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 11:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Sub. These disparate subjects are (or can be) adequately joined through links in their articles' text. ×Meegs 12:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category does not lend itself to editorially consistent application. --ScienceApologist 15:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As creator of this category, I'm kinda neutral on the issue. One of the main purposes for creating this aricle was back when the definition was in flux, and several articles were getting changed every few days. I added them to this cat so we could keep track of the changes. Now that everything is static, that need isn't present anymore, but maybe a category that shows the objects that are still potentially in flux might be necessary. Now that they have names, Category:Plutinos, Category:Dwarf planets, etc. could serve this niche well enough probably. McKay 17:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- New categories would be reasonable as long as the names are generally accepted within professional astronomy. ("Dwarf planet" and "plutino" are in use within professional astronomy.) Dr. Submillimeter 21:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no longer useful. It was a current events category for a specific current event. That event is no longer current. 132.205.93.204 04:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above args. — RJH (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Paris Métro edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename and redirect all. the wub "?!" 12:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paris metro to Category:Paris Métro

Category:Paris Metro line 1 to Category:Paris Métro line 1

Category:Paris Metro line 2 to Category:Paris Métro line 2

Category:Paris Metro line 3 to Category:Paris Métro line 13

Category:Paris Metro line 3bis to Category:Paris Métro line 3bis

Category:Paris Metro line 4 to Category:Paris Métro line 4

Category:Paris Metro line 5 to Category:Paris Métro line 5

Category:Paris Metro line 6 to Category:Paris Métro line 6

Category:Paris Metro line 7 to Category:Paris Métro line 7

Category:Paris Metro line 7bis to Category:Paris Métro line 7bis

Category:Paris Metro line 8 to Category:Paris Métro line 8

Category:Paris Metro line 9 to Category:Paris Métro line 9

Category:Paris Metro line 10 to Category:Paris Métro line 10

Category:Paris Metro line 11 to Category:Paris Métro line 11

Category:Paris Metro line 12 to Category:Paris Métro line 12

Category:Paris Metro line 13 to Category:Paris Métro line 13

Category:Paris Metro line 14 to Category:Paris Métro line 14

Category:Paris Metro rolling stock to Category:Paris Métro rolling stock

Category:Paris metro stubs to Category:Paris Métro stubs

Category:Metro stations in Paris 1er to Category:Métro stations in Paris 1er

Category:Metro stations in Paris 2e to Category:Métro stations in Paris 2e

Category:Metro stations in Paris 3e to Category:Métro stations in Paris 3e

Category:Metro stations in Paris 4e to Category:Métro stations in Paris 4e

Category:Metro stations in Paris 5e to Category:Métro stations in Paris 5e

Category:Metro stations in Paris 6e to Category:Métro stations in Paris 6e

Category:Metro stations in Paris 7e to Category:Métro stations in Paris 7e

Category:Metro stations in Paris 8e to Category:Métro stations in Paris 8e

Category:Metro stations in Paris 9e to Category:Métro stations in Paris 9e

Category:Metro stations in Paris 10e to Category:Métro stations in Paris 10e

Category:Metro stations in Paris 11e to Category:Métro stations in Paris 11e

Category:Metro stations in Paris 12e to Category:Métro stations in Paris 12e

Category:Metro stations in Paris 13e to Category:Métro stations in Paris 13e

Category:Metro stations in Paris 14e to Category:Métro stations in Paris 14e

Category:Metro stations in Paris 15e to Category:Métro stations in Paris 15e

Category:Metro stations in Paris 16e to Category:Métro stations in Paris 16e

Category:Metro stations in Paris 17e to Category:Métro stations in Paris 17e

Category:Metro stations in Paris 18e to Category:Métro stations in Paris 18e

Category:Metro stations in Paris 19e to Category:Métro stations in Paris 19e

Category:Metro stations in Paris 20e to Category:Métro stations in Paris 20e

Category:Metro stations in Aubervilliers to Category:Métro stations in Aubervilliers

Category:Metro stations in Bagnolet to Category:Métro stations in Bagnolet

Category:Metro stations in Bobigny to Category:Métro stations in Bobigny

Category:Metro stations in Clichy to Category:Métro stations in Paris Clichy

Category:Metro stations in Levallois-Perret to Category:Métro stations Levallois-Perret

Category:Metro stations in Neuilly-sur-Seine to Category:Métro stations in Neuilly-sur-Seine

Category:Metro stations in Pantin to Category:Métro stations in Pantin

Category:Metro stations in Puteaux to Category:Métro stations in Puteaux

Category:Metro stations in Saint-Mandé to Category:Métro stations in Saint-Mandé

Category:Metro stations in Vincennes to Category:Métro stations in Vincennes

Rename, as per Paris Métro and names of individual Paris Métro stations. Metro Mover 10:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - The accent above the "e" is appropriate. However, redirects are needed from the old names to the new names so that people do not have to struggle to type e's with accents. Dr. Submillimeter 11:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename on the condition that redirects are also created. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:- Can you have category re-directs? Excuse my ignorance — Superbfc 00:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see here and here. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The convention is disputed as mentioned on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) so a move would appear unwise until a consensus is reached. Looking at the current version of the proposed policy: "Diacritics should only be used in an article's title, if it can be shown that the word is routinely used in that way, with diacritics, in common usage. " This is not the case with the word "metro" which is commonly used in english without the accent as in Tyne and Wear Metro for instance. AndrewRT(Talk) 19:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes, the word "metro" is commonly used in English to mean an underground railway or rapid transit system, but all of these cases relate exclusively to the Paris Métro, not to metro systems in general. Metro Mover 21:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for pointing this out but I'm afraid I still stick by my first view. In many cases - e.g. Category:Metro stations in Pantin the word metro is being used as a common noun not a Proper noun and hence my argument stands. 86.128.40.247 22:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - if these "metro stations" were Métro stations and RER stations, then yes, they would be common noun metro stations. But they're not - they're proper noun Métro stations. In fact, the text on the category page clearly states "This is a list of Paris Métro stations in the municipality of Pantin". Metro Mover 22:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Slight~~ Support — Category:Paris metro should definitely have the accent, but the others are perhaps more questionable. However, it should be noted that the categories in question are not about Metro stations in general, but about stations of the Métro and therefore they are Métro stations by definition, not just Metro stations, if you follow — Superbfc 23:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Diacritics in category names are a pain in the neck for editors, and these ones are not needed for disambiguation: a reader seeing Category:Metro stations in Saint-Mandé is not likely to mistake it for a reference to the Metro system in (for example) Newcastle upon Tyne, and the context will remove any doubt. If certainty is needed, prefix them with "Paris", as in Category:Paris Metro stations in Saint-Mandé.
The distinction between Métro and RER will be initially lost to most English-language readers, who will have to read the category to see whether the RER is included. With all due respect to the nominator, this proposal does seem to me to be a case of pursuing technical perfection at the expense of useability. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency with the articles. Neier 01:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all in the interests of consistency, and in the interests of accuracy - as pointed out above, these are all specifically Métro-related categories, not just metro-related categories. Lets not be inconsistent and inaccurate just because "diacritics [...] are a pain in the neck" Mr WR 21:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely - some diacritics can be a pain in the neck, but é is not, as it is simply CTRL+ALT+E, and non-tech users will be able to click anyway — Superbfc 23:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. And it is usually even simpler than that - who is EVER going to type one of these category names manually unless they are adding another article to that cat? And if so, in order to get the correct cat name, they are surely already going to have clicked on another article in that cat or found the cat by clicking down from a higher cat level, in which case they will surely just COPY AND PASTE the cat name! Please let's not de-rail (ha ha!) this utterly sensible suggestion just because of this "pain in the neck" non-issue (unless you can convince me that accented characters are indeed a pain in the neck...) Mr WR 07:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per consistency. Timrollpickering 23:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as per nom. Why the anti accenting campaign? What with redirects, and the "insert character" function from the edit page it's easy enough. The "pain in the neck" argument sounds like plain laziness to me... Let's show some respect for other languages Jenny Wong 20:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Idol series contestants edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all per nom except Phillipine Idol contestants. David Kernow (talk) 03:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Idol series contestants to Category:Idol series participants

Rename - another bunch of "contestant" to "participant" changes, to allow categorizing non-contestant participants and to standardize cat names. Otto4711 05:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

- As the creator of Category:Philippine Idol contestants, can it be speedily deleted, since it's empty? --Howard the Duck 05:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nomination. But does wikipedia really need to record and categorise the ephemera of low-budget reality TV? :( -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree and wouldn't mind at all if all the Idol stuff got voted for deletion, but then I'm sure there are plenty of things that interest me that Idol worshippers would disdain. But since we're going to have them, might as well have them be consistent. However, after wading through hundreds of models misfiled in Category:Reality television participants I have resolved, should I ever meet Tyra Banks, to punch her right in the kisser. Otto4711 20:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please make sure that that punch is delivered supportively and non-violently, with a liberal dose of wikilove. And make it a good hard one punch too ... ;) --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming/merge; support creation of new category. I feel it is illogical and slightly absurd to lump together contestants with other so-called "participants". I'm not sure that there's a consensus that defines participants as only contestants or as all people who appear in the shows—contestants, hosts, judges, advisors and all. See here (and other noms down the page), here, and here (implication of participants as contestants). People who are non-contestants, such as Tim Gunn in the CfD below, have been categorized with the show they appear in. It is helpful to have a category solely for reality show contestants, as that is a specific defining characteristic. It is also helpful to have a separate category for judges, hosts, and other non-contestant participants. Note that there are categories solely for Category:Game show contestants and Category:Game show hosts. I will support categories dedicated to only contestants and only hosts and judges and other non-contestants (with contestants as a subcat of all participants), but not a renaming or a merge as of the above. Tinlinkin 08:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me as overcategorization to create separate cats for American Idol judges (maximum of three entries, I think, there's a panel of three judges as far as I know) and American Idol hosts (two entries maximum, Seacrest and that other guy from season 1) when they can just as easily be catted as participants. It's doubtful that anyone's going to see the participant category on Simon Cowell's article and think that he sang on the show. It gets even muddier in the Top Model categories, with contestants, judges, consultants or whatever they call those people who teach the models to twirl, photographers, etc. Lump them all under one cat and be done with them. Now if someone wanted to propse deleting all of the participant, contestant, whatever cats and just list everyone who was ever on, for example, The Apprentice under Category:The Apprentice then I'd be fine with that too. But dividing participants down into ever-smaller categories is overkill. 205.141.247.28 17:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Oops, sorry, thought I was logged in. Otto4711 17:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only suggested having a specific cat for contestants, not other people, and I don't feel it's overcategorization. Category names such as Category:American Idol hosts and Category:American Idol judges would be overcategorizing. In the life of a series, contestants are minor compared to judges and hosts, and that's a distinction I think we should keep. I agree with Postdlf's position in the February 25, 2006 category deletion debate, that reality TV "stars" (non-contestants) are not "participants," as "participant" has a connotation of partaking or being part of for a short time. In my opinion, hosts and judges who were categorized that way in Category:Reality television participants were put there for lack of a sufficiently named category, and even I have trouble coming up with a better name. I propose in general (clarifying myself) that we keep the participants category and add a subcat called Category:Reality television contestants to solve the hierarchy problem, and the series-specific categories would follow. Tinlinkin 15:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming, oppose merging of non-contestants into renamed category, and delete Category:Philippine Idol contestants as empty. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Reality contestants, hosts & judges vs. participants. I still feel "participants" and "contestants" are too synonymous to each other. Tinlinkin 07:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, this is a good idea - that way the judges and hosts can be added as well. Pink moon 1287 23:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Towns In Augusta County, Virginia edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename (sentence-case) per choster. David Kernow (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fully redundant with existing category, Category:Augusta County, Virginia. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename to Category:Towns in Augusta County, Virginia. As county categories grow in size it is often useful to move the sub-municipality/community categories into their own subcategory; for instance see Category:Volusia County, Florida or Category:San Bernardino County, California.-choster 15:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per Choster in the interests of correct capitalisation Jenny Wong 20:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Celebrity Fit Club contestants edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Celebrity Fit Club contestants to Category:Celebrity Fit Club participants

Rename - same as other "contestants" to "participants" changes, so that non-contestant participants may be properly isted and because participants is the more common descriptor. Otto4711 04:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming/merge; support creation of new category Support renaming, oppose merging of non-contestants into renamed category per my reasons above. Tinlinkin 08:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

TMNT episodes categories edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus pending use of "TV" or "television" below. David Kernow (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename as subcategory on Category:Episodes by television series. Wqxq 03:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support alternative: Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 television series) episodes and Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 television series) episodes. I am gearing up for a huge move request since the WP:TV-NC guideline was recently changed to use the more formal "television" instead of "TV". I agree with that guideline change and want to see if it would stick. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

American businesspeople by ethnicity edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge all into Category:American businesspeople. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into Category:American businesspeople, either we categorize American businesspeople by ethnicity, or we don't. Do we consider it relevent? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we keep these, we ought to rename Category:Irish-American Businesspeople to Category:Irish-American businesspeople. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination seems useful, so that we can consider all the ethnicities together, but I wonder whether there isn't some way of having a broader disussion on the relevance of ethnicity in categorising people by occupation, rather than restricting it to busnesspeople. Category:American people by occupation and ethnic or national origin is grossly underpopulated at the moment, but exploring Category:American people by ethnic or national origin reveals a lot o categories which ought to be in there, such as Norwegian American football players, Filipino American writers and zillions of others.
Personally, I think that these triple intersections should mostly be deleted, because it's usually not relevant: what particular significance does Norwegian ancestry have to do with the sporting career of the one footballer listed? I would like to see a prsumption against all these categories, with these triple intersections kept only where is demonstrable relevance, i.e. where ethnicity clearly has a major bearing on the career or work of the majority of those who would fit the category. In general, I think that it may have relevance for some artistic careers, but not otherwise. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, there is good reason not to list people in categories of ethnicity. Does it matter what one's heritage is? Well, yes and no. First, Jewish ameicans are disproportionatley represented in the business world. African Americans are disproportionatley represented in basketball. Irish Americans are disproportionately represented in the literary/writing world and so on. There are not significant numbers of norwegian or filipino peoples in America, so those are somewhat false choices. There are 30 million African Americans, 40 million Irish Americans, and 7 miilion Jewish Americans in the country. People of those heritages are particularly interested in their backgrounds and peoples.

Merge. I think the standard in WP:CATGRS is generally a good standard; that is, could there be a substantial encyclopedic head article on the specific intersection. And since none of these appear to have any head articles, unless someone finds or writes such articles, I think they should be merged. Mairi 00:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Irrelevant intersection. If there has been sufficient academic study of a particular intersection (i.e., books focusing on ethnic heritage on the effect on a career), then make an article about it, and list the people there for whom it has been documented to have been important. Categories just equivocate without regard to whether it's trivia for a particular subject. Postdlf 16:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:WPSUFC edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:WikiProject Sheffield United articles. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom as obvious duplicate, and unhelpful abbreviation. If this can be speedied, I'd support that (and if there isn't a way of speedying it, there should be!). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Religious leaders by state edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge with American religious leaders (at least until this category much larger). David Kernow (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

relevent discussions

Merge into Category:American religious leaders. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overcategorization per previous discussions. Most clergy and religious leaders do not not neatly fit those geographical boundaries-by-state: many move in the course of their careers and would end up in lots of these categories, while others have posts which cross state boundaries and would land in multiple categories simply as a result of one holding position. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP in fact, most religious leaders DO fit rather neatly into such categories. Moreover, when broaded (as these categories are) to include a wide range of religious leaders (rather than just Bishops, as the previous discussions mostly did), this is certainly as helpful as other categories by U.S. State. Thanks! Pastorwayne 12:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provided you specify in the categories that the article must specifically mention that the person was born or notably lived in that state, there is little danger of overpopulation. As an example, I considered a similar question when looking at dividing american lawyers by state. The question at hand was that many lawyers are licensed to practice in multiple states, leading to a potential of having multiple state categories per lawyer article. But what I found was that in practice very few (possibly 10%) lawyer articles actually mentioned multiple states, and of those the vast majority only mentioned two states. I would be therefore be incredibly surprised if more than a handful of articles on religious leaders actually notably mention more than one or possibly two states. Moreover, dividing by state is a good way to subdivide the otherwise possibly unwieldy national category, and also gives readers a way to identify notable religious leaders in a specific state or region if desired. Thus, provided the category definitions are properly specified to restrict inclusion based on notable appearance of the state in the article, I recommend keeping these categories. Dugwiki 16:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

excellent thoughts/suggestions. Thanks! Pastorwayne 17:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, Category:American religious leaders contains a grand total of 61 members. If there were thousands of members then building subcats would make sense ... but a 50 way split of 61 people yeilds dozens of tiny categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, I was thinking (incorrectly) that there were significantly more articles involved. If there are only 60 or so articles, then subcategorizing by state probably isn't necessary yet and these could be safely deleted. However, if and when the number of articles grows significantly into the hundreds or more, then subdividing by state would be a good approach. Dugwiki 22:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete - Use the religious denominations' official boundaries for categorization. Dr. Submillimeter 18:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete per nom, and per Dr. Submillimeter. Postdlf 19:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorization per previous discussions and Dr. Submillimeter. Vegaswikian 01:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete per nom and per Dugwiki's change of mind, I am of the same thinking, if we were really faced with an overpopulated category, this might make sense and yet considering the common geographic migration of religious leaders I still think it would be the wrong approach. — coelacan talk — 12:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Inactive musical groups edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mairi 02:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete; recreated since previous deletion. Unint 01:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreated content. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Can't it just be speedy tagged? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Religious leaders in the United States by state edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:American religious leaders, see also related discussions of clergy and bishops. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See above reply regarding state divisions in the related discussions for my reasoning. Dugwiki 16:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because, as Dugwiki polinted out above, "Category:American religious leaders contains a grand total of 61 members]]". There's no need to divide that into 50 smaller categories. ---BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)}

Keep for all the same reasons. These are all helpful categories! Thanks. Pastorwayne 11:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it helpful to split a category containing only 61 members into 50 subcats? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm with ProveIt on this. I'd vote keep if there were more American religious leader articles. But right now subdividing by state is excessive when there's only one or two per subcategory. Recreate this by-state scheme once there are more total articles. Dugwiki 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, there are more articles on American religious leaders, it's just that most of them have been put in subcategories because they're clergy, priests, bishops, etc. Mairi 00:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep can't we all just be a bit more patient! I would go ahead and do the work of subcategorizing, etc., if others of you were not so darn anxious to delete all of these categories and subcategories. You use the reason they are underpopulated as an excuse. Just slooooooooow down. Let a category get populated before you judge it so harshly!! Thanks! Pastorwayne 15:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to administrator - This is a second vote by Pastorwayne. Dr. Submillimeter 13:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. We split cats when they are too large since splitting creates some issues with not being able to see the entire list. So while small, keep the articles in a single place. Vegaswikian 20:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - "Religious leader" is a vague term, and the division is awkward. Dr. Submillimeter 13:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rugby League State of Origin edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was listify/delete; see Rugby League State Of Origin by year. David Kernow (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listify / Delete all of these are actually articles, not categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listify / Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:North American bishops edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yet another in the ocupations by continent series. The only current member is already parented by Category:Bishops by nationality. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Redundent parent cat, only a single daughter cat, and no entries.--Andrew c 01:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Halloween (film series) edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all per nom. David Kernow (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename as Halloween (film series).Riwna 00:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match disambig.--Andrew c 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. disambig needed. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Dugwiki 16:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Halloween films could be any film about Halloween etc. Tim! 17:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Tim - more accurate Jenny Wong 20:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

MLB categories edit

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all (including the last two). — CharlotteWebb 03:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename as Major League Baseball. Riwna 00:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all but last two. To match the parent cat, Category:Major league pitchers, I propose renaming those two to Category:Major League pitchers who have pitched a no-hitter and Category:Major League pitchers who have pitched a perfect game (all of the MLB player by position categories drop the word "baseball").--Andrew c 01:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, including the last two. The other MLB player by position categories shoud also include the word baseball (outside the US, the term "Major League" alone carries no meaning). -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all including the last two. Piccadilly 15:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all including the last two Jenny Wong 20:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all including the last two. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all including the last two. Hawkestone 23:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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