< April 15	April 17 >

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

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 02:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current category name makes it appear as though those computer and video games (which itself is not explicit) within the category were only released in Korea, which is not the case. Such a category would be called Category:Korean exclusive computer and video games and would fall under Category:Region exclusive computer and video games. Hibana 22:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, especially as the existing category doesn't even specify the type of game (board games, party games..?). -- Mithent 03:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 10:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 17:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete both. Syrthiss 02:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem to controvene the precident set by the "Foreign banks in..." discussions which came up some time ago here. It was decided that the nationality of a firm's owner was not a valid category, same should apply here. Delete Ian3055 21:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Scranchuse 01:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could a link to the discussions mentioned be provided please? Kurieeto 01:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. The original discussion is archived here. siafu 17:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment OK, I see the difficulties this could cause with regard to sub-categories. Just to be clear, there wouldn't be a problem with a list of such companies contained in a list article would there? Provided foreign ownership was clearly defined? Kurieeto 23:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perfectly valid. Ardenn 00:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This has been a major political issue in Canada. Luigizanasi 05:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, arbitrary, potentially POV. WP's own foreign ownership article notes the fundamental ambiguity of "foreign-owned" — individuals who are not citizens of that country, or by companies whose headquarters are not in that country. What if foreigners own 51% of shares, but only 25% of voting shares? What if foreigners own 99% of shares, but the government holds a golden share? What if the owner is incorporated in Delaware USA and listed on the NYSE but headquartered in Winnipeg? Joint ventures? Expatriate shareholders? ... - choster 17:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While there are borderline cases, and one can think up dozens of scenarios, for the most part the distinction will be pretty straightforward. Luigizanasi 16:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per choster Nathcer 13:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepper User:Ardenn Mayumashu 15:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion as articulated well by Choster. Carlossuarez46 18:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and choster. gidonb 16:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very hard for even professionals to determine ownership. What if the brand was registered first in a subsidiary in Ireland? What if the utlimate holding company has 3 employees in Bermuda, but the firm has 60,000 in the UK? What if a company was registered in the U.S. but owned mostly by foreigners? There are cases of Canadian subs owned by a U.S. sub owned ultimately by a Canadian parent. Forgetaboutit, we'd never get it right. Deet 02:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Syrthiss 02:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is redundant with Category:Groups of the United States Army, which is named consistently with other subcategories of Category:United States Army units. There were three articles in each; I went ahead and emptied this one. GTBacchus^(talk) 19:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, as empty. David Kernow 19:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think you made a mistake, if I understand the situation aright. An "army group" is an official designation in many armies, including the American, for two or more armies operating together. The "U.S. 12th Army Group" is one such, while "213th Area Support Group" (whatever that is) is an altogether different animal and is (I guess) just a Group of the United States Army. I think the situation is analogous to "corps". An army corps is a group of divisions. But you wouldn't change "American army corps" to "Groups of divisions", any more than you would change "Regiments" to "Groups of soldiers". Honest mistake, easy to make. Herostratus 05:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I voted to delete primarily because "American army" seems vague (and, secondly, it would be "American Army"). So, if this category is to be kept, I'd vote to merge with Category:Groups of the United States Army (possibly renamed to Category:United States Army Groups), except that (currently) there's nothing to merge. Regards, David Kernow 11:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it would be "United States Army" if we were to use the proper name of the military service in question. However, it appears that the idea is not to use the name of armies in this group, but instead national adjectives, so "German army groups" or "American army groups" is at least in line with that. I would probably support an overall change to 'army groups of foo', but it would have to be systemic and that's a discussion for another day. Josh 02:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed; have removed my vote. Thanks, David Kernow 16:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both and demerge. Septentrionalis 23:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or at least don't delete based on the lack of clarity. The term army group is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized. It does however refer to a specific unit organization, just like 'corps' or 'brigade' refer to specific units but are not in and of themselves proper nouns. Perhaps a brief header could help those who might not be familiar with this however. Josh 02:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. Syrthiss 02:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable foreign people past and present, who have lived in or visited Turkey.

Only visited? Now we're making categories about countries visited ? We'd have to put John Paul II in more than 100 categories, then and Bush in several dozen. :-) Also, "lived" is still not notable. Lived for how long? A day, a week, a month? IMO, only if a person got a Turkish citizenship, he should be added to Turkish people, otherwise, there's no reason to be categorized. bogdan 16:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : Perhaps the category becomes viable if "or visited" is removed from the preamble, or perhaps replaced with "or are associated with" or the like...?  Regards, David Kernow 20:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This really is excessive. --kingboyk 20:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Scranchuse 01:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comments. 1) the sub-cat pages need to be tagged. 2) i think, adding to User:Kernow's comments that the "or visited" should be removed, that the POV "notable" needs to go as well. the descriptor should read "who have resided". long-term residency should be noted Mayumashu 02:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  "Long time" is something subjective. bogdan 10:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete' per nom. gidonb 16:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment all the subcategories have been nominated for deletion, but none of them have been tagged. That's all I have to say on the matter. Tim! 16:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete however one tightens the category it will either be POV to define the limits too narrowly or nonencyclopedic because the limits are too broad, or left ambiguous as now no objective criteria exists to include or exclude persons from the category: does Paul of Tarsus belong: he's from what is now Turkey, but I think he'd be shocked to be considered a "foreigner" there. Interestingly there is no category for Greeks in Turkey. Just an observation. Carlossuarez46 18:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - <sarcasm>because I am a Türk karşıtı kullanıcı. (anti-Turk user)</sarcasm> —Khoikhoi 05:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 02:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is for users and not for articles, and in line with the principle that categories for users should begin by identifying its contents as Wikipedians, should be renamed. David | Talk 14:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Abstain. Not sure what (encyclopaedic) use this category has. David Kernow 19:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, serves no useful purpose. Otherwise, rename per nom. --kingboyk 20:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete covers most of the UK population. If hobby categories are to exist, they should be for things that require more commitment. Bhoeble 11:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Syrthiss 02:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this from AfD, originally proposed by Chaser. No vote. -- Mithent 12:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page isn't relevant for any of the people listed, except for footballer Donovan McNabb. This irrelevancy is reinforced by the fact that there's no mention of ambidexterity on the articles for John Roberts or Kurt Cobain. Chaser 01:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Object. James Garfield is listed and he was indeed ambidextrous. He could write Greek in one hand and Latin in the other, simultaneously. Эйрон Кинни (t) 03:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Keep - Just because there are wrong things in a box, that does not necessitate getting rid of the box. --Knucmo2 14:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Weak keep, but ideally only to contain people whose notability is in some way dependent on their being ambidextrous, with verification of such as a defining characteristic. Otherwise you'll see this back here with plenty of delete votes. Deizio 16:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep weakly, per Deizio. siafu 17:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a definining characteristic. We should not be trying to put people into as many categories as possible. Bhoeble 11:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Over-categorization. That someone is ambidextrous belongs as a note in an article's Trivia section, if that, but doesn't rate a category. Garfield's ambidextroustrousity is 1) of trivial interest in understanding the man and 2) anyway secondary to his ability to write in a different language with each hand, which talent is more than mere ambidextrousity. Also, verification is difficult. John Roberst is in the category, but his ambidextrousity (if actual) is not even mentioned in the article, so there is no source. In an article a claim can at least be tagged ((fact)) but a category must be either accepted or removed.
• Delete per the anon above; if retained, this should be handled the same way as the Gay and Lesbian categories that require the articles mention the feature with sourcing. Also, anyone in the category must not be in the left-handed category. Carlossuarez46 18:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Deizio. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 07:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 02:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia (I have also afded the articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 16#Frederick A. Kerry). Arniep 11:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom gidonb 15:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete without question. Cat name implies notability is genetic which it is WP:NOT. Deizio 16:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepI've changed my vote to Delete (reasons explained below). From original discussion: User:Michael David and I created this category because there was no other way to categorize these suicides. These are people who are famous for no other reason than (a) they killed themselves, and (b) they are related to someone notable. If this (or some similar) category doesn't exist, these people have no obvious category to go in. (As a side note, I find nominating a category and every single article in the category for deletion at once particularly unlikable. Better to build a consensus in one place, rather than in eight.)--Mike Selinker 17:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not create a list? Not everything should be put in categories. Here you are talking about people who on one hand committed suicide (which is not noteworthy by itself) and on the other hand are relatives of famous people (brothers, cousins etcetera are not noteworthy by themselves). Only for the combination of the two there may be of slight interest, but this is already much too far-fetched for a category. gidonb 18:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the articles exist and deserve categories. How else do you suggest the articles be categorized?--Mike Selinker 19:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would categorize as each individual under American jurists, Canadian singers, French businessmen, German people and include also the category for death by suicide. In the list you can make a nice table linking the person with the celebrity and give a detail or two about the suicide (at least year, perhaps date and even method). These are my suggestions. gidonb 20:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the only notable thing about the people is that they have famous relatives and they committed suicide, they shouldn't even have articles in my opinion. They should be mentioned in the article about the famous relative. --kingboyk 20:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But this is the problem. In general, they can't be categorized by occupation, and they do have articles of their own. So I guess that even though I don't like Arniep's well-intentioned simultaneous nominations, maybe we should see how the AfDs play out, and then revisit the category. If most of the articles are deleted, then the category might make less sense. If most of the articles are retained, then I would suggest keeping the category.--Mike Selinker 22:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't really argue with that. It might be possible to find a better name for it, though, or another category to merge to. Anyway, yes, let's see how the AFDs pan out. I've advocated delete on some and keep or merge or others, and I've no idea if any will be deleted or not... --kingboyk 22:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases these people are not notable even after committing suicide and being relatives of celebrities. But one cannot claim that such a combination will never happen. For the sake of the argument lets consider a hypothetical dad of a president, who is a housekeeper, and commited suicide after his son failed to get re-elected. He may at that instance become notable. The best is to judge the category by its own merit (for me this is delete) and each case likewise. Never say never, never say ever. gidonb 21:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP!

A major reason for the existence of an encyclopedia is research, not what the editors of it personally feel about its contents.

A person doing research on the subject of suicide wants to look at it from all perspectives. Professionally, I work with persons who happen to be in the unfortunate spotlight of ‘celebrity’, as well as those related to them. In most cultures this carries with it a psychological burden not found in most other life positions. Not only are the celebrities under greater psychological pressure, most times, by default, so are the persons closely connected to their lives.

This list is important in that it gathers together persons who were at risk. A researcher can explore this list, study the lives contained in it, and perhaps detect patterns which can be then be detected in the living; with the goal of greater understanding and prevention.

Michael David 20:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• But, Michael, this discussion is about a category. By all means create a list of these people in an article and link it to other related articles. Regards, David Kernow 21:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I know we are talking about a category, otherwise I wouldn’t be taking part in this discussion.

I’m not interested in a list of people all grouped into one article. I want to see individual articles on each of these persons, detailing as much of their lives as possible – then placing this individual article into a category.

Simply a list of persons - each linked to another article - is meaningless. I want to know as much about them individually as possible – that’s the point of individual articles.

Michael David 22:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Having now looked at all the articles currently in the category, I've found only two (Hannelore Kohl and Diane Linkletter) which I believe satisfy general encyclopedic notability. (Information in four of the others seems to be worth simplifying and merging with their related notables' articles.) So, for me, there are currently only two articles in the category that merit remaining as individual articles. I don't think that's enough to merit creating a category or list. I also don't think your interest in the co(-)incidence of people committing suicide being relatives of famous people is necessarily worthless, trivial, etc, but I also don't (yet) see the evidence for it being sufficient to merit attention in a general encyclopedia. Regards, David Kernow 02:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a general purpose encyclopedia, not a phsychology journal, and we have our own standards for inclusion. If the people don't meet WP:BIO they shouldn't even have articles never mind a category! --kingboyk 22:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]

• Perhaps it is time to reconsider these limitations.

Michael David 23:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being a relative of some notable and committing suicide doesn't strike me as sufficient reason to appear in (or be categorized in) an encyclopedia, perhaps not even if there is a demonstrable link between the two. (If the latter were the case, the fact that a notable's relative committed suicide might sit better somewhere in the notable's own article.) As the category's preamble itself states (emphasis added): "This category is for people who committed suicide who were most famous for being the relatives of famous people, rather than notable in their own right." David Kernow 20:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --kingboyk 20:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If they aren't notable in any other way they shouldn't have articles. Scranchuse 01:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Scranchise. Herostratus 05:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is absurd. siafu 17:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Several of the people in this cat are notable in their own right (IMO). They should be categorised by their respective occupations and in Category:Suicides as per gideonb. The cat, however, goes wrong from the first word "famous". Valiantis 01:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait for the result of the AfD's. If most of the articles survive, then this whould be a sensible way to categorise/group the articles. If there are very few articles remaining, then delete the Cat. SeventyThree^(Talk) 02:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG Delete. What's next? Photographers who have famous relatives?? Two un-notables do not make a notable. Madman 16:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: I'm attempting to read the tea leaves on the AfDs, and so take this only for what it's worth, which might be very little. It looks like Frederick A. Kerry and Daisy Keith may be deleted, and the rest look like they may stay. Hypothetically, let's say this category is deleted. Can the other articles go in "occupation" categories? Let's see: Assia Wevill could be an author. Hannelore Kohl could be a politician. Cheyenne Brando is a model. Diane Linkletter's an entertainer. And Zinaida Volkova is... well, I don't know. But four out of five could be recategorized, so if this category is deleted, it's possible these articles could find categories that Daisy Keith and Frederick A. Kerry could not. Just some info.--Mike Selinker 23:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Assia Wevill: Already in Category:Berliners; is she a "notable" author? Category:Mistresses...?
• Hannelore Kohl: No evidence of political activity in current (short, malformatted) article; is she a sufficiently "notable" author?  Perhaps her unusual medication condition may be categorized..?
• Zinaida Volkova: Category:Trotskyists per siafu below.

Regards, David Kernow 01:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a problem whether or not these articles could find other categories? They are all people, and can be categorized already by birth, death, nationality, and occupation, if not religion or political affiliation (e.g., Category:Trotskyists) also. Additionally, they are all also suicides, which has plenty of subcats to accept them. siafu 02:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! gidonb 02:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had the impression Mike was searching for more specific categories, but yes, the articles in question could use those above. Regards, David Kernow 03:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't find homes in the subcategories of category:Suicides, then users will put them in the main category. That will lead other users to put other articles in the main category, and so on. So I find it reasonably important to find subcategories of category:Suicides for them to go in. That is my big objection to deleting the relatives category. So if not the places I mentioned, where in the subcategories would you like them to go?--Mike Selinker 14:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the slippery slope fallacy here, there's nothing wrong with having articles lacking a more specific subcategory in the main category. siafu 16:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the subcategories to use or create would be "X who committed suicide", where X is each person's occupation/role. Presumably those people already within the various "X who committed suicide" subcategories are notable on other grounds than suicide alone. Regards, David Kernow 18:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I expect some more of those will be created if this nomination passes.--Mike Selinker 00:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete what's next? Category:Famous people's friends who committed suicide; Category:Famous people's pets run over by cars? Carlossuarez46 18:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Update. With Kerry and Keith gone, most of the rest of the articles are categorizable. So I (the category's creator) am changing my vote to delete.--Mike Selinker 17:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delyikes!. Syrthiss 02:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous category --ElectricEye 07:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (also, preamble on category's page is POV). David Kernow 09:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom gidonb 15:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, useless. No connection between the name and the subject, let alone any need for the cat. Deizio 16:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kelvinc 20:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 17:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated. Syrthiss 02:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, a much simpler and nicer name. See also Talk:1632_series#Category_names_discussions_3.2F25-3.2F26.2F06.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 07:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• RENAME TO Category:Ring of Fire alternate history series. Ring of Fire seems a better name. 70.51.11.101
  • NOTE: Baen Books, the publisher, calls this the Ring of Fire series.
• RENAME TO Category:Ring of Fire alternate history series. Much better. These is a debate also on the April 14 page over merging all the subcats of this category. - TexasAndroid 18:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we need 'alternate history' in the new cat name? We have Category:Star Trek, not Category:Star Trek space opera series...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ring of Fire also refers to the Pacific Rim, and could be any series about the Pacific Rim. Additionally, there's a TV series called Ring of Fire about the volcanoes on the Pacific Rim. 70.51.9.199 03:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So go with 1632 series, there is no confusion there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 02:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page already existed in plural. May also become a redirect, whatever is preferred. Thanks for deleting/redirecting it. gidonb 05:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as empty. David Kernow 09:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Arniep 11:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete would be best. gidonb 15:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy. siafu 17:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 02:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jurist in Canada is for practical purposes synonomous with judge although the definition of jurist does include persons who are learned in the law that are not judges. Having been 29 years as a Canadian lawyer, this broader definition of Jurist is unknown to me. I do note the comments at the head of the Jurists by nationality category. But for those comments (which I am sceptical about as far as they refer to common law jurisdictions) I would also propose that Jurists by Nationality be merged into Judges by nationality, but I will leave that for now. In Canada at least, there is no practical difference between a jurist and a judge so the jurist category ought to be merged into the judge category. If we were to be perfect, by the definition, we would do it the other way around and make judges a sub category in jurist but since jurist is a largely unfamiliar word and I doubt there is anyone in Canada who would be called a jurist who is not a judge, the best single category is Canadian_judges. Comments please. kgw 04:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• support. i created the page without checking carefully enough what a jurist is. i think the writer of the one article listed on the cat page used American English, in which the word seems to mean any legal professional. Mayumashu 01:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Scranchuse 01:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, agreed with above. Bless sins 18:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Bhoeble 11:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 02:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nearly-empty cat was depopulated by a list merge. Even if some of the characters are split out into their own articles, there's no reason the parent cat needs such a narrow subcat. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 17:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 07:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 02:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small category, with little chance of legitimate articles. (Only the main article, so far is legitimate. It's talk page is there, and there's an historic district schedule. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The one article in this category is being proposed for deletion, and it certainly should be as it's way unecyclopedia. So other considerations aside the category'll be empty. Herostratus 05:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unnecessary for only one article. Opinions on the notability of the subject can go to AfD. siafu 17:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 02:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are Richard & Judy? No main article is included within the category to explain this. Seems like a vanity category to me Daniel Case 00:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• UPDATE: OK, a little research located Richard & Judy. I withdraw this nomination. Still, I would ask the category creator to please include some explanatory text to future categories. Daniel Case 01:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Apologies for not adding more details, it was late, there was wine... I'll add some more details shortly Jenny 12:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm reinstating this nomination and will act as nominator myself. Richard & Judy is a daytime TV show. Although their books appear to be selected by a leading expert in the field, it is nonetheless not a recognised award nor worthy of categorisation. Delete. --kingboyk 20:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to agree with you, kingboyk, but what about Oprah's Book Club? I don't think you're going to get many votes for its deletion. That leaves you a debate over degree of notability. -Freekee 02:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, that's got to be the most specious argument I've ever heard. Tony Blair has an article, so retired letter carrier Pinckney J. Pruddle should get an article too? After all, we're just debating over a degree of notability, there. Debating over degrees of notability is what we do here, and in my best considered judgement these two's list doesn't make it.

• Delete. No sources are given in the article to indicate that the books are more than the personal favorites of a couple of vapid D-list infotainers. Booker Prize? Yes. Richard & Judy Prize? No. Also, editing of Wikipedia while intoxicated not encouraged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 06:16, 17 April 2006
• Delete, per nom and Herostratus. And man, I felt my IQ dropping just reading the Richard & Judy article. --Calton | Talk 06:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are far too many insignificant "x clubs" (books, movies, etc.) to have them all be categories. Also, there is already a list in the article, so no need to create one. siafu 17:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is a category that should be a list. Also, I just tagged Category:Oprah's Book Club for deletion as well. MakeRocketGoNow 20:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The book club is now part of the British Book Awards and, as stated on the category page, is chosen by a producer of the show who was recently rated (by the Guardian newspaper as the most influencial person in British publishing. As for its notability, at least 4 (Borders/Books Etc, Ottakers, Tescos, amazon) of the main book sellers in the UK (having not visited other chains at the right time I can't say for those) use it as a basis for which books they will promote during the time it is on television (something that doesn't happen with the Oprah book club here). As for the comparison with the Booker/other literary prizes, several of the books chosen for the R&J list have been included on other award shortlists and it's certainly seen as an influential award by the publishing houses (Prospect magazine article), with the marketing director at Bloomsbury believing that "Many people are put off by the Booker connection, whereas Richard and Judy, with their interesting, not at all downmarket choice of books, give hope that the market can still grow. I would stop at nothing to gain their favour…" Jenny 23:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Probably less central to any given book's notability than Oprah's Book Club (which I voted to keep), not least because getting into Oprah's Book Club means American sales which means sales elsewhere in the world which has on more than one occasion meant movie deals - all of which strongly re-inforce the notability of the book and the book club. R&J are certainly of importance in UK book sales, but that doesn't have the same kick on worldwide notability. Also there is not as yet an article Richard & Judy's book club and if it's not worth an article it's seldom worth a cat. Valiantis 01:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as with Oprah's book club above. Bhoeble 11:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category but listify items Lists are so much more appropriate for fame indications of already well categorized media items such as books, albums, songs and the like in hit charts, book clubs etc. Always check however if the list is not the property of the autor(s)/ a company. In this case perhaps not. gidonb 00:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There already is a list, included in the article Richard & Judy. siafu 00:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, siafu. That solves the problem! gidonb 01:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rexpandname. Syrthiss 02:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to the spelled-out / English form of their name. the list is:

• Category:IPN faculty to Category:National Polytechnic Institute faculty
• Category:ITESM faculty to Category:Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education faculty
• Category:ITESM alumni to Category:Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education alumni
• category:ITESM to category:Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education
• Category:UIA faculty to Category:Ibero-American University faculty
• Category:UIA alumni to Category:Ibero-American University faculty
• Category:UNAM faculty to Category:National Autonomous University of Mexico faculty
• Category:UNAM alumni to Category:National Autonomous University of Mexico alumni
• Category:UNAM rectors to Category:National Autonomous University of Mexico rectors
• Category:UANL alumni to Category:Autonomous University of Nuevo León alumni
• Category:MIT merge to Category:Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Category:MIT alumni to Category:Massachusetts Institute of Technology alumni
• Category:Brown alumni to Category:Brown University alumni
• Category:Brown faculty to Category:Brown University faculty
• Category:Harvard alumni to Category:Harvard University alumni
• Category:Bates Alumni to Category:Bates College alumni
• Category:Caltech Alumni to Category:California Institute of Technology alumni
• Category:Columbia alumni to Category:Columbia University alumni
• Category:Cornell alumni to Category:Cornell University alumni
• Category:Alumni of Reed College and Category:Reed College Alumni to Reed College alumni
• Category:Princeton alumni to Category:Princeton University alumni
• Category:Stanford alumni to Category:Stanford University alumni
• Category:Yale alumni to Category:Yale University alumni
• Category:Universite de Montreal faculty to Category:University of Montreal faculty(supra cat is Category:University of Montreal}
• Category:Aligarh to Category:Aligarh Muslim University
• Category:Aligarh alumni to Category:Aligarh Muslim University alumni

Mayumashu 02:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. David Kernow 09:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. ×Meegs 12:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Scranchuse 01:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. NBS525 14:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Whatever --evrik 15:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/Merge all. No argument. siafu 17:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/Merge all Ruiz 21:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. mattbr³⁰ 09:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. --Dp462090|Talk |Contrib| 20:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all. Syrthiss 02:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all as per User:Tupsharru pointing out that "faculties" is problematic in the plural as it refers to sections, not people and that it is limited to North American use. the following renaming is proposed:

• Category:Faculties by university to Category:Academics by university ("academics" is perfectly intelligible to North Americans whereas "faculty" is not necessarily so to non-North Americans)
• Category:Faculties by university in the United States to Category:Faculty by university in the United States (reflecting local preference and naming of sub-categories using "fooian faculty")
• Category:Faculties by university in Canada to Category:Faculty by university in Canada (reflecting local preference and naming in sub-category pages which use "fooian faculty")
• Category:Faculties by university in Mexico to Category:Faculty by university in Mexico (North American English and sub-categories use "fooian faculty")

Mayumashu 00:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. David Kernow 09:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Scranchuse 01:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. choster 13:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. ×Meegs 15:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. Being a native speaker of Americanese, however, I have to report that "faculties" in the plural most commonly refers to mental faculties (e.g. judgement, reason, &c.) and not academics or departments. siafu 17:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 11:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Ruiz 21:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. mattbr³⁰ 09:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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