< April 5	April 7 >

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 to U.S. Routes by state. Syrthiss 03:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this was improperly speedy renamed two months ago for some reason. The roads are U.S. Highways (or U.S. Routes, though that change could not be speedily done). This is not a case of using U.S. for laziness - the vast majority of times such a highway is referred to, it is U.S. Please undo this improper speedy. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 04:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after discussion. Vegaswikian 23:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• surely if something has been speedied and theres now an objection its very similar to having an objection at the time - so it should be debated below rather than just respeedied. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Improper speedy? Speedy rename R5 is abbreviation expanding for country names. At the least, both Kbdank71 and I looked at it (his and my names appear on the deleted cat) and there were no objections. Since I could have to be the closer for this discussion I will not make a binding recommendation (ie for closing treat this only as a comment), but my feeling is leave it expanded. --Syrthiss 01:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC) (note: this vote was made for Category:U.S. Highways by state --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 04:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Route is fine. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy move and if possible move to Category:U.S. Routes by state. An improper speedy should be undone by default. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 04:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, you say it was improper. You are welcome to provide evidence as to why it was improper. I resent the implication that Kbdank71 or I did this change in an improper way. --Syrthiss 12:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you were in the wrong; as far as you knew it was proper. But now I have brought up that it is clearly not the right name, and so it should be speedily reversed. (Though given that it might be moved to U.S. Routes, we should hold off on that.) --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 12:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Category:U.S. Routes by state per naming convention, see contents of Category:U.S. Highway System. As a whole, they are a "Highway System" but the individual roads are designated "U.S. Routes". — Apr. 7, '06 [04:24] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

• Note - gonna keep this unresolved for a day, I left a message for Rschen7754 on their talk page since their comment was before the Route choice was stated. --Syrthiss 13:39, 14 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 13:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopelessly ambiguous... ProveIt ^(talk) 23:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:19, 7 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 13:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the category system "art" means "visual arts" so Japan should not have both. Merge into Category:Japanese art in line with the sister categories in Category:Art by nationality. Sumahoy 22:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Bhoeble 11:19, 7 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 13:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redundant category as Category:R&B musicians already exists and all the artists in this category are already part of other R&B categories. --Musicpvm 22:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The WP consensus has been to work toward a better subdivision of the musicians categories by the specific type of musician (eg. vocalists, keyboardists, guitarists, etc.); not all R&B musicians are vocalists. The answer here is cleanup, not deletion. Keep and populate. Bearcat 02:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Specifically, Rename to Category:R&B singers as per Category:Vocalists by style and guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization. –Unint 06:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note from closing admin - I think that this last suggestion is the probable best first step, though really in my opinion...since the cat is Vocalists by style then the all the subcats should more likely be Fooish vocalists instead of Fooish singers. Then R&B Vocalists wouldn't need a rename, and it could be fully populated as per Bearcat. However, there wasn't enough consensus to do any one thing so I'm tossing this back for now. --Syrthiss 13:47, 14 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 13:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A user decided arbitarily that although well over a hundred countries have separate politics and government categories, Belarus should be different. I will repair the damage and this will soon be empty. It can then be deleted. CalJW 22:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:20, 7 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 per nom. Syrthiss 13:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Carina22's nomination below for Category:American cable companies, I have found some others for consideration to be changed to X companies of Y:

• Category:Canadian cable and DBS companies → Category:Cable and DBS companies of Canada
• Category:British film production companies → Category:Film production companies of the United Kingdom
• Category:American film production companies → Category:Film production companies of the United States
• Category:American television production companies → Category:Television production companies of the United States
• Category:Australian television production companies → Category:Television production companies of Australia
• Category:British television production companies → Category:Television production companies of the United Kingdom
• Category:Canadian television production companies → Category:Television production companies of Canada
• Category:Dutch television production companies → Category:Television production companies of the Netherlands
• Category:French television production companies → Category:Television production companies of France
• Category:German television production companies → Category:Television production companies of Germany

mattbr³⁰ 21:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. Sumahoy 22:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps this is just evidence of my inconsistency, but the present names seem preferable... is it because countries are involved?  David Kernow 05:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. With regard to the above point, there is a conflict between the convention for cultural categories and that for companies. I think the convention for companies should be given priority as it is more specific to these entities. Bhoeble 11:22, 7 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. Syrthiss 13:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like the name of a supranational economic community, but it isn't one. Rename to more standard form CalJW 19:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 05:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 11:22, 7 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 speedy delete. Syrthiss 13:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to sort a redirect to an existing category without knowing that this doesnt strictly work with categories the same way it does with standard articles. Delete please! An Siarach

• Move to speedy. David Kernow 04:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Empty an requested by creator. Bhoeble 11:23, 7 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 13:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More unworkable crap, see also Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 2#Template:Rootpage and Wikipedia:Templates_for deletion/Log/2006 April 6#Template:Branchlist. Delete. — Apr. 6, '06 [17:53] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

• Delete the category and everything in it. This is just an attempt to bring back hierarchical navigation like Wikipedia:Subpages. — Omegatron 18:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. CalJW 19:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons already discussed elsewhere.--Srleffler 22:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - mako 03:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Omegatron. Tijuana Brass 05:17, 10 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. Syrthiss 13:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it is actually an Order, the official designation for recipients of the DSO is "Companion", so it seems sensible for us to use it. Necrothesp 09:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 11:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - I guess I didn't think this through before creating it. :-S Craigy (talk) 00:21, 8 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 13:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already a category for Shania Twain singles, and this category is empty.

• Delete per nom. Feezo (Talk) 07:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no point, if it's not being used. The JPS 22:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per The JPS. Ardenn 03:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per jps pm_shef 06:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:24, 7 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 13:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Completely useless category, small and very little (if any) potential for growth, really unnecessary. pm_shef 05:56, 6 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 bleh! delete, since its an article pretending its a cat anyhow (no articles in the cat). Syrthiss 14:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article, not a category ... ProveIt ^(talk) 04:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is definitely list material.--Esprit15d 15:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This category is in the process of being listified and then deleted. So it's already underway. (Update: I see I was in error. So delete.)--Mike Selinker 19:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The category being listified is Category:HFStival acts, so we can simply delete this one. - EurekaLott 01:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete; having played any rock festival that isn't named Woodstock is not a significant enough part of an artist's history to be considered a primary point of categorization. Bearcat 19:52, 13 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. Syrthiss 14:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Council on Foreign Relations member to Category:Members of the Council on Foreign Relations
Category:Trilateral Commission member to Category:Members of the Trilateral Commission
[These n]eed to be pluralised and the proposed word order reads better in my opinion. Hawkestone 04:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename. Hawkestone 04:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Rename both per nom. David Kernow 10:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -choster 13:35, 6 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 already deleted. - TexasAndroid 15:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete. I created by mistake. the correct one: category:Women of the Ottoman Empire. Mukadderat 04:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. David Kernow 10:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, per request.--Esprit15d 15:37, 6 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. Syrthiss 14:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Institutions" is really vague and no other city has such a category that I know of. I've taken out the media category, which really doesn't need to be here, and replaced the education category with a couple of its own subcategories which are more appropriate. Those two both belong in the main city category, so they don't need to be in a vague and somewhat opinionated intermediate category as well. Can we make this match the others in Category:Organisations by city? I've also added made it a subcategory of Category:Australian organisations. Merchbow 02:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Athenaeum 13:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 11:26, 7 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. Syrthiss 14:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic United States political movements → Category:Historical political movements of the United States
Category:Historic United States political parties → Category:Historical political parties of the United States

To (a) remove overtones of "particularly notable", "classic" and the like associated with the description "historic"; and (b) to follow X of Y naming prevalent in Category:Political history of the United States.

• Rename as nom. David Kernow 02:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. mattbr³⁰ 21:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 15:36, 9 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 upmerge if needed and delete. Syrthiss 14:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unnecessary subcategory of Category:Schools in New Zealand. Upmerge and delete. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/delete per nom; looks like a confusion between lists and categories. David Kernow 02:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant category. --Terence Ong 09:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Stong delete.--Esprit15d 15:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and upmerge or move contents into other subs if not already there. mattbr³⁰ 21:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete FWIW I'd delete all bar about five of the individual schools, but this cat is pointless. Neil Leslie 05:33, 8 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 14:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has 14 entries and is marked "underpopulated". 14 too many I would say. This is an unencyclopedic category. Carina22 01:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom pm_shef 15:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Maybe is a better list, if anything.--Esprit15d 15:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Crumbsucker 21:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete if kept will need better capitalising. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A list would be better, if this is necessary at all, but Wikipedia really shouldn't be in the business of categorizing people by hair colour. Delete. Bearcat 19:54, 13 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. Syrthiss 14:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Vanderbilts to Category:Vanderbilt family
Category:The Whitneys to Category:Whitney family
Category:The Kochs to Category:Koch family

Th[ese] should follow the usual form for family categories. There is a comment on the [Koch] talk page that the existing form is preferable because there are articles in the category which are not about family members, but so what? The standard name does not impose the restriction inferred and plenty of other family categories include a range of articles. Carina22 00:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename to match most of the other items in Category:American families. Carina22 01:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Rename per nom --Nobunaga24 01:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:21, 6 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 14:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is in Category:American families, but it is not about a family as such, but a descendents of a particular person. This seems to be a bad idea - imagine such a policy applied to European royals and aristocrats! Carina22 01:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete as above. Carina22 01:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/listify per nom. David Kernow 02:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Empty but keep as cat for articles about JE and his works, like Category:Arthur Conan Doyle.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmanderson (talk • contribs) 6 April 2006 00:30
• Delete No good reason for a category. Athenaeum 13:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; I had tried to research converting it per Pmanderson but suffered a system crash and then forgot about it. I do not believe there are enough Jonathan Edwards-related articles to merit a category, at least for now. -choster 13:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify. mattbr³⁰ 21:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is of the same nature as any other "xxx family" category, but because Edwards is a fairly common name, the progenitor is identified by first name. For example, The Whitneys (nominated for renaming above) deals with, according to the Whitney family article, "begins with William Collins Whitney (1841-1904)". Same goes for most of the other "family" articles. Either get rid of the whole bunch, or keep this one like the others. Gene Nygaard 02:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such a category could be named something like Category:Edwards family (Connecticut), or Category:Edwards academic family, or Category:Edwards-Dwight family. But a category titled Jonathan Edwards should be primarily about Jonathan Edwards himself, and there are not enough articles to make it so. Besides, these are not a handful of immediate family members but distant descendants. WP isn't Rootsweb; we wouldn't put Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom in Category:Heinrich I von Eilenburg either. -choster 04:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• But then you have a renaming question. This ought to be debated on the basis of what the category is and was apparently intended to be, a family category, not about keeping it for a category for JE and his works, unless the keep is combined with a creation of a new category and moving this one's contents. Gene Nygaard 10:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doesn't appear to be a family in the same sense as the others are. Bhoeble 11:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; overcategorization. Bearcat 19:58, 13 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 14:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - redundant categories; "slang and jargon" bit more inclusive, so merge into that category Nobunaga24 00:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per nom. Carina22 01:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom.--Esprit15d 15:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nom. mattbr³⁰ 21:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Bhoeble 11:29, 7 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 14:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI>Category:CSI actors
Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI: Miami>Category:CSI: Miami actors
Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI: New York>Category:CSI: New York actors
Rename all the above. Arniep 00:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Carina22 01:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh boy, more tv show categories crammed full of guest stars. Delete and start over. - EurekaLott 02:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as suggested by EurekaLott Athenaeum 13:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per EurekaLott.-choster 13:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as we've done with all other shows' guest star cats. ×Meegs 14:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How do we distinguish a guest star from a non guest star, i.e. how many episodes do you have to appear in not to be a guest star? Arniep 15:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have a problem if we defined it as liberally as two discrete appearances (i.e., not one two-part episode). As long as we can avoid the category bloat caused by listing every actor who appeared in the show, I'll be happy. - EurekaLott 01:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You see that that is where there is a problem as I would have a thought someone who appeared in only two episodes was still a guest star, maybe even 3? I am not sure of the point of these categories at all when a cast list for the main characters is usually on the relevant page. Arniep 22:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all i have no problem with adding guest stars. Crumbsucker 21:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per EurekaLott. Bhoeble 11:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm going to support the previous votes since no one has offered a reason to overrule past consensus. I will ask, why not clean all of these up at one time rather then in small groups? Vegaswikian 20:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time (that I can recall) where we've come close to consensus on categories that mixed guest stars with regular and recurring cast members. If we're able reach a decision here, I intend to nominate similar categories for the same treatment. - EurekaLott 16:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to get them deleted in December but met with a vast majority of keeps: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_26#Actors_by_series_and_its_sub-categories. Arniep 21:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not terribly inclined to believe that actors should be categorized on the basis of having made one guest appearance on a particular TV show. That's sitting uncomfortably close to the fancruft line for my taste. Delete all. Bearcat 20:01, 13 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. Syrthiss 14:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any articles about individuals in this at the moment fortunately, but it would be prudent to rename it to reduce the risk of confusion with Category:Money managers, which is for articles about individuals. Carina22 00:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename as above. Carina22 00:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 11:30, 7 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. Syrthiss 14:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amend to comply with the convention for categories of companies. Carina22 00:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename as above. Carina22 00:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.--Esprit15d 15:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nomination (PS I have listed some more above). mattbr³⁰ 21:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 11:30, 7 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.