< August 7	August 9 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 back into Category:Songs by artist AND Category:Pop songs. the wub "?!" 12:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pop songs by artist should be merged back into Category:Songs by artist AND Category:Pop songs.

The whole point of Category:Songs by artist is to have a complete list of ALL song by artist categories. It should not be further subcategorized. The new Category:Pop songs by artist was created today and it is being added to song categories while Category:Songs by artist and Category:Pop songs are being removed. This does not follow the WikiProject Music category guidelines. Also, I don't see how Category:Pop songs by artist is in any way different from Category:Pop songs as Category:Pop songs should only contain songs by artist subcats (and no articles) as well. --musicpvm 23:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Category:Songs by artist shouldn't have subcats. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back (or delete). Certainly not without discussion, anyway.--Mike Selinker 23:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Songs by artist and Category:Pop songs per nom. Any more detail than that is too much. --Cswrye 18:45, 9 August 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 regarding 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 back to Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States and delete. the wub "?!" 12:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Naturalized Jewish citizens of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, This seems like an oddball category. Category:Naturalized Russian citizens of the United States, Category:Naturalized Ukrainian citizens of the United States, etc. I can understand, since the ethnicity given is the place of their original citizenship and why they had to be naturalized to be United States citizens. Jewishness is not such an ethnicity though. Whether or not one is a Jew has nothing to do with where is born, and one need not be naturalized anywhere because of one's Jewishness per se. We might has well have a category for naturalized Muslim citizens. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is supposed to be "Naturalized Israeli citizens of the United States." --ElKevbo 22:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If it can be established that this is supposed to be "Naturalized Israeli citizens of the United States" (as hypothesized above), then rename. Otherwise, delete per Csernica. On second thought, why wouldn't we want a "category for naturalized Muslim citizens?" Keep assuming, of course, the inclusions are supported by verifiable sources. --ElKevbo 22:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am working on naturalization lists and I thought long and hard about this. I agree this needs to be resolved. I just have read "Who is a Jew" and it seems to me many Jewish wikipedians would find this category useful. I agree that it seems a bit of an oddball category and I discussed this with an administrator who directed me to put Jews as a separate category. I normally put two categories for Jews:

The first category is the country of their naturalization (Follows same policy for all other naturalization lists)

and then the second category:

Is for Jews who have been naturalized to the United States because Jews in the past did not traditionally come from one specific country unlike other people. I believe this can be useful for many people and helps categorize the pages. I think it is beneficial to keep but I guess we should just have a vote on it. Let me know how to proceed so I can further organize this group accordingly to wiki guidelines.

PS-

TTC,

Being Jewish is not only a religion but an ethnic backround. One can be born in France, Russia, Germany etc and be Jewish. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew under ethnic divisions.

Here2fixCategorizations 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that. However, when we get to issues of citizenship and naturalization we are talking about nationality, not ethnicity. There are many ethnicities that are not confined to a single nation, or which have never had their own nation.

By the way, internal links look like this: [[Jew]]. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Many people indentify themselves as Jewish without meaning to imply a specific religious connotation. Further, this category is very useful, as many famous Jews naturalized in the United States were refugees from other countries. Their motivations behind emigrating and contributing to American society are notable in this context. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I don't think it's a good idea to subcategorize Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States by anything but original nationality. --musicpvm 23:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Come on. Where is Naturalized Christian Citizens of the United States? And Naturalized Hindu Citizens? What about Naturalized Wiccan Citizens? I'm sure there are some Naturalized Zoroastrian Citizens of the United States that would feel left out of this taxonomy too. This is ridiculous. There is no reason to note religion here. Nationality is perhaps useful but religion in this context does not seem useful.--csloat 02:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. `'mikka (t) 03:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/ merge back to generic category. Excessive splitting. These poeple are all identified as Jewish in other categories, so I don't see a point to splitting out naturalized citizens by religion or ethnicity. The same goes for other naturalized citizen categories. -Will Beback 04:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly incongruous.--Mcginnly | Natter 08:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Either Delete or rename to Category:Naturalized Israeli citizens of the United States if appropriate. I kept going back and forth on this, but Will Beback made a good point when he said that anyone in this category will probably be identified as Jewish in other categories. That being the case, I don't think it's necessary to make an exception, so let's keep the naturalization categories based strictly on national origin rather than ethnicity. --Cswrye 18:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I must say though, that thinking the matter over for myself I can see where it might get complicated. Suppose, for example, that we were discussing ethnic Greek immigrants of the mid 19th Century who hailed from, say, Smyrna/İzmir. Do we call them Turkish? I'd love to see someone try. Would a Russian Jew be as offended at being called a Russian as a Greek would be to be called Turkish? If so (and I actually don't know) then we have a problem. Yet I don't disagree with my original reasoning. Perhaps the most sensible solution is to use the generic Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States as far as this issue goes and allow other categories to sort by ethnic group and national origin. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral, but if this is to be deleted, first make sure that all these articles are first placed in the Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States Thanks Hmains 04:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge back Excessive categorisation. Osomec 13:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge back. One cannot be "naturalized" from one's Jewishness. One can only be "naturalized" from one's former citizenship. --M@rēino 15:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge back. Michael 17:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is too much. One Jewish American category on an article is sufficient. Merchbow 16:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The category creator, Here2fixCategorizations, is a sock of banned user:Jerry Jones/user:JJstroker. He was banned, in part, for his POV pushing regarding Jewish subjects. -Will Beback 21:44, 15 August 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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:American silent film actresses to Category:American silent film actors
• Category:English American women to Category:English Americans
• Category:Irish-American actresses to Category:Irish-American actors
• Category:German-American women to Category:German-Americans
• Category:Canadian American women to Category:Canadian Americans
• Category:American actresses to Category:American actors
• Category:American soap opera actresses to Category:American soap opera actors
• Category:American stage actresses to Category:American stage actors
• Category:Jewish American actresses to Category:Jewish American actors
• Category:Canadian actresses to Category:Canadian actors
• Category:Irish-American women to Category:Irish-Americans
• Category:Canadian stage actresses to Category:Canadian stage actors
• Category:French American women to Category:French Americans
• Category:Puerto Rican-American actresses to Category:Puerto Rican-American actors
• Category:Scottish-American women to Category:Scottish-Americans
• Category:Cuban-American actresses to Category:Cuban-Americans
• Category:Armenian-American women to Category:Armenian-Americans
• Category:American voice actresses to Category:American voice actors
• Category:American musical theatre actresses to Category:American musical theatre actors
• Category:Italian American actresses to Category:Italian American actors
• Category:Italian-American women to Category:Italian-Americans
• Category:American television actresses to Category:American television actors
• Category:American film actresses to Category:American film actors
• Category:African-American actresses to Category:African-American actors
• Category:American character actresses to Category:American character actors
• Category:American child actresses to Category:American child actors
• Category:Polish-American women to Category:Polish-Americans
• Category:Film actresses to Category:Film actors
• Category:Russian-American women to Category:Russian-Americans
• Category:French actresses to Category:French actors
• Category:French film actresses to Category:French film actors
• Category:French stage actresses to Category:French stage actors
• Category:English film actresses to Category:English film actors
• Category:English stage actresses to Category:English stage actors
• Merge: The original categories we used were not gender-specific; these are. Under this mindset, we will now have categories which are each solely in pertinence to one genfer. There is no need for such excess clutter, and it only causes disorder. Michael 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. There seems to be debate about the generalized "women" categories, and I'm not in favor of them, but I could see objections. But there's likely no good reason to have actresses categories except in the very rare cases where actresses are treated quite differently than male actors (porn, perhaps, and maybe not even then).--Mike Selinker 23:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I was the one who started these pages. I feel that listing actors and actresses together is simply overwhelming. The current list is simply HUGE. I believe this will lead to better categorization and help people find exactly what they are looking for. I mean if someone for instance wants to look at "Irish American actresses" why should they have to look through a huge page of Irish American actors? This has nothing to do with politics but simply organization and helping people use wikipedia effectively and find what they are looking for. I feel that the current list is just so intimidating due to its size that people just leave and do not enjoy or look at the pages that other editors worked hard on and took the time to put together. I know that this is the case for me personally.

Here2fixCategorizations 23:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many of these categories, under your system, would only have one person. It is not disorganized to have both genders listed together. Those lists are alphabetized. You just need to look for the person's name in the alphabet. All of these links are problematic. "Actor", as I said, is ambiguous. Also, will Category:Italian-Americans only be for men now? That isn't pragmatic. Michael 00:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what you mean that many of these lists would only have one person listed because I just started it and they already have more then one person. I also only applied these changes to categories that are pretty big. I barely hit the tip of the iceberg for many of these categories and I am already well over a few people. I just started American stage actresses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_stage_actresses and already have 182 listings. When you receive the finished product you will have two lists:

American actors and American actresses (Each list will be very big)

Futhermore you will be able to alphabetize each list so nothing will change other then splitting the category which I dont think will hurt anything. It will be more specific and categorize the huge lists. I imagine that many people do not always have a specific person in mind they want to look and just browse which is more easy to do when you have the seperate list to get down to what they are looking for. I would like to apply the same standard to all articles as the Italian American list is pretty big so I believe it will alleviate the huge pages to make a seperate category for Italian American women. I mean if someone wants to look at Italian American women why should they have to search through a huge list of Italian American men?

Here2fixCategorizations 00:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, you said it yourself...You said that people "do not always have a specific person in mind they want to look and just browse". If they choose to browse, they probably don't have one gender in mind. Further, the categories are in excess. Does Category:Italian-Americans now only apply to men? If people choose to browse by ethnicity, then they are not browsing by gender. Michael 02:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all per Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. - EurekaLott 02:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all. Otherwise, we'll have "Category:Poetesses", "Category:Aviatrixes" etc. -Will Beback 03:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all per Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. I see no point in breaking Wiki convention and all of these should be reverted back. ExRat 06:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all per Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. We've been through this before. -- Samuel Wantman 08:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all per above. --Mais oui! 13:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per above. This is a situation where there is no reason to split categories by gender, but I do commend Here2fixCategorizations for making a good faith effort in trying to better organize Wikipedia. --Cswrye 18:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all actress categories per Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, which states, "that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." Gender is vital to casting decisions in all forms of acting. --M@rēino 15:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While you may say such, other factors are, too. We don't have categories for brunette, young, thin Italian American actresses, do we? Those other factors may be just as important. The term "actor" includes both male and female. Do you then define "actor" as only male? That violates WP:NOR. A merge is necessary here. Michael 17:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The creator fot these categories, Here2fixCategorizations, is a sock of banned user:Jerry Jones/user:JJstroker. He was banned, in part, for his POV regarding ethnic categories. -Will Beback 21:48, 15 August 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 regarding 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. the wub "?!" 21:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after dicussion. Vegaswikian 22:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decapping "the" per the article title.--Mike Selinker 14:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't it be Category:The Mamas and the Papas? Aren't ampersands excluded from titles? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing under Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories) that suggests that's a guideline.--Mike Selinker 16:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unless you know otherwise, the word and in band names is always an ampersand (&) is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music guidelines. --Dhartung | Talk 03:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Decap to be consistent with article (although Amazon album covers show "The Papas" when mixed case is used). --Dhartung | Talk 03:51, 10 August 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 regarding 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 Category:Moomin series. the wub "?!" 21:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after dicussion. Vegaswikian 22:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

plural Tim! 11:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Moomin series. Tim! 22:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I object. When I created the category, I intended it to cover everything related to the Moomin series of fantasy books, not just the Moomin family themselves. JIP | Talk 16:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which case it should be renamed to Category:Moomin series. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Moomin series per Pegship. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Moomin series `'mikka (t) 15:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I don't understand the objection at all. --Dhartung | Talk 03:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was originally a speedy rename to Category:Moomins, which was later changed to Category:Moomin series. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:57, 10 August 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 regarding 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 Category:New World Order wrestlers . the wub "?!" 13:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after dicussion. Vegaswikian 22:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

per Speedy criteria 2 and 4. McPhail 18:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. The proposal does not meet the speedy naming critera, and the proposed new name does not make it clear that these are professional wrestlers. - EurekaLott 22:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about Category:New World Order wrestlers? Vegaswikian 00:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That could work. The category's main article is New World Order (professional wrestling). Maybe the category should be renamed to match it. - EurekaLott 12:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Vegaswikian. I'm suspect of numerous similar obscurely-named subcats under Category:Professional wrestling teams and stables. --Dhartung | Talk 03:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nom. Rename Category:New World Order wrestlers per Vegaswikian. --M@rēino 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to New World Order wrestlers, seems like some weird conspiracy theory category otherwise. Recury 19:34, 10 August 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 regarding 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. the wub "?!" 13:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after dicussion. Vegaswikian 22:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is consistent with other subcategories of Category:Orientalists by nationality and the subcategories of Category:Egyptologists. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 12. GregorB 21:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is a controversial matter, and in my opinion they should all use a small "o". Sumahoy 22:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per previous discussion and for consistency. - EurekaLott 02:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I guess "oriental" could be an archaic way to say "to the east" or the like, whereas "Oriental" identifies a particular east – the East(ern world). On the other hand, what else might "Hungarian orientalists" mean; "Hungarian people who prefer travel/ling eastwards"...?(!)  Regards, David Kernow 00:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per EurekaLott. Orientalist is a well-understood academic term whose meaning we are not debating. --Dhartung | Talk 03:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The previous discussion made it clear that the capital "O" is preferred by people with a particular POV. Osomec 13:53, 10 August 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 regarding 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. the wub "?!" 13:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Wikipedian students. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Conditional on the "Wikipedian X" scheme passing from the earlier nomination.--Mike Selinker 00:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Cswrye 18:45, 9 August 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 regarding 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. the wub "?!" 16:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies based in Orange County to Category:Companies based in Orange County, California

• Rename. This category refers to companies in Orange County, California. The term "Orange County" alone is ambiguous because there are many counties with that name in the United States, such as Orange County, Florida and Orange County, New York. szyslak (t, c, e) 21:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. David Kernow 06:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 18:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Also please support my requested move. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:23, 9 August 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 regarding 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. the wub "?!" 10:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created this overly long name in line with the JEL classification codes system. The change would make the system more consistent with general Wikipedia practice. JQ 20:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. A shorter name plus explanation would make sense to someone like me. Some of the other names might benefit from the same approach, like Category:Agricultural and natural resource economics; environmental and ecological economics?? --Mereda 07:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm planning on fixing Category:Agricultural and natural resource economics; environmental and ecological economics next 09:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. The name is just long as it is and is still descriptive enough. --Cswrye 18:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Marketing and Category:Accountancy already exist; create and populate Category:Business administration and Category:Business economics...?  (Similarly with Category:Agricultural economics, Category:Economics of natural resources, Category:Environmental economics and Category:Ecological economics...?)  Overcategoriz/sation...?  Regards, David Kernow 00:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is pretty much what I plan to propose, but it may take a bit of time to populate the categories propely
• Rename per nom. Twittenham 20:45, 11 August 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 regarding 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 Withdrawn --William Allen Simpson 21:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Student Wikipedians. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I just nominated a couple to go the other way, so I'd suggest merging the other direction (into Wikipedian students). Either way, these two nominations should be synced up.--Mike Selinker 20:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree they should be merged and don't particulary care which way. I'll withdraw my cfd and redo it the other way around. -- ProveIt ^(talk)
• Withdrawn, see Category:Student Wikipedians instead. ProveIt ^(talk) 23:45, 8 August 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 regarding 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. the wub "?!" 13:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect into Category:Wikipedians by degree. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Thanks for helping keep the Wikipedian categories more organized. --Cswrye 18:45, 9 August 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 regarding 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 Category:Sci Fi Channel original films. the wub "?!" 14:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SciFi Channel original movies to Category:Sci Fi Channel original movies

• Rename, Consistency. I myself prefer SciFi over Sci Fi Channel, but Wikipedia has settled on a standard for naming this channel. Groggy Dice 18:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Sci Fi Channel original films per film naming conventions as well. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Sci Fi Channel original films per Her Pegship. --Cswrye 18:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Sci Fi Channel original films per Her Pegship. - LA @ 05:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Sci Fi Pictures original films per the new article Sci Fi Pictures original films. DrWho42 17:13, 13 August 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 regarding 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. the wub "?!" 15:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wekepedians' notice board (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This empty category was previously used in conjunction with Wikipedia:Wekepedians' notice board and Category:Wekepedians, which have both been deleted. --Cswrye 18:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --musicpvm 20:23, 8 August 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 regarding 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 Category:Golden Globe Award nominees. the wub "?!" 15:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

originally nominated by ProveIt ^(talk) 02:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC); (moved from speedy)-♥ Her Pegship♥[reply]

• Rename to Category:Golden Globe Award nominees per conformity with other award nominee cats. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Golden Globe Award nominees per Her Pegship -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Golden Globe Award nominees per Her Pegship. --Cswrye 18:45, 9 August 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 regarding 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. the wub "?!" 16:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Cybermen better than Daleks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, It is unneeded specialization of Wikipedians. The userbox that was attached to it has been altered. - LA @ 18:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is unnecessary detail for a Wikipedian category. --Cswrye 19:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a social club 132.205.45.148 17:48, 10 August 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 regarding 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. the wub "?!" 21:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South Dakota class battleships to Category:South Dakota class battleships (1939)

• Rename, there were two SoDak classes, one of which was cancelled in the 1920s. That one is already at Category:South Dakota class battleships (1920), but this one should be renamed to make the distinction clear. This is pretty non-controversial but does not strictly fit the speedy renaming criteria. TomTheHand 17:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per TomTheHand. Mike Christie 02:16, 9 August 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 regarding 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. the wub "?!" 15:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is really a shame, someone went to a lot of work. But we really don't want to classify animals based on Zoo Tycoon 2. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BoojiBoy 18:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. But, A for effort to the user who created it. Resolute 18:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, already listed at Zoo_Tycoon_2#Animals_2. --M@rēino 20:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I hate to undo that much work, but this really isn't a useful category. --Cswrye 19:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - gamecruft does not need to sneak into the category system (any further?). Outriggr 03:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. --Haham hanuka 14:47, 11 August 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 regarding 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. the wub "?!" 16:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Contemporary Theocracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete Category:Contemporary Theocracy because (1) It is poorly named. Contemporary is a poor word choice in an encyclopedia category. (2) It is redundant, as its parent category Category:Theocracies will take care of the few actual theocracies, and Category:Religion and politics and its subcategories are adequate take care of the rest. In fact, all of the articles listed under Category:Contemporary Theocracy are already listed there. Bejnar 16:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Category:Fundamentalism. Tazmaniacs 16:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentCategory:Fundamentalism is one of several categories that already include the articles listed under Category:Contemporary Theocracy. There is no need to merge. Bejnar 16:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom(2). Further, one need not be fundamentalist in order to operate a theocracy, viz. Tibet under the Dalai Lamas (often referred to as "God-Kings," and if that doesn't constitute a theocracy...). Also, I took the liberty of adjusting the reply formatting. --Geoff Capp 17:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Cswrye 19:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --William Allen Simpson 21:18, 12 August 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 regarding 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. the wub "?!" 15:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Goaltenders in the Stanley Cup Finals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Overcategorization. It's not necessary to list all the players who played in a specific series of games, let alone players at one position. BoojiBoy 14:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with Booji.--NMajdan•talk 15:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - complete listcruft. RGTraynor 16:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Masterhatch 17:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fun trivia, but...yeah. Either they won the Cup, in which case, they go under Category:Stanley Cup champions or they didn't, in which case, who cares? Doogie2K (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Trivial information. --Cswrye 19:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Excessive categorisation. Osomec 13:53, 10 August 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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• category:Actor Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian actors
• category:Actuary Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian actuaries
• category:Architect Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian architects
• category:Biologist Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian biologists
• category:Caregiver Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian caregivers
• category:Chef Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian chefs
• category:Chemical Engineer Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian chemical engineers
• category:Chemist Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian chemists
• category:Clergy Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian clergy
• category:Computer scientist Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian computer scientists
• category:Cryptozoologist Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian cryptozoologists
• category:Dentist Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian dentists
• category:Emergency Physician Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian emergency physicians
• category:Emergency Responder to category:Wikipedian emergency responders
• category:Emergency Responder Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian emergency responders
• category:Engineer Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian engineers
• category:Entrepreneur Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian entrepreneurs
• category:Firefighter Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian firefighters
• category:Geoscientist Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian geoscientists
• category:Homemaker Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian homemakers
• category:Law enforcement Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian law enforcement workers
• category:Lawyer Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian lawyers
• category:Law student Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian law students
• category:Librarian Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian librarians
• category:Medical Students Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian medical students
• category:Nurse Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian nurses
• category:Pastry Chef Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian pastry chefs
• category:Pharmacist Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian pharmacists
• category:Philosopher Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian philosophers
• category:Physical Therapist Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian physical therapists
• category:Physician Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian physicians
• category:Physicist Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian physicists
• category:Pirate Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian pirates
• category:Prehospital Care Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian prehospital care workers
• category:Professional First Aider Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian emergency responders
• category:Professional First aider Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian emergency responders
• category:Psychologist Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian psychologists
• category:Record Producer Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian record producers
• category:Software engineer Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian software engineers
• category:Teacher Wikipedians to category:Wikipedian teachers
• category:Theatre technician to category:Wikipedian theatre technicians
• category:User degree/MBBS to category:Wikipedian bachelors of medicine
• category:User Inventors to category:Wikipedian inventors
• category:Wikipedian Broadcasters to category:Wikipedian broadcasters
• category:Wikipedian Cooks to category:Wikipedian cooks--removing after closing because it's not a profession category (Mike S.)
• category:Wikipedian military to category:Wikipedian military people
• category:Wikipedians Financial Planners to category:Wikipedian financial planners
• category:Wikipedians in retail to category:Wikipedian retail workers
• category:Wikipedians who are pilots to category:Wikipedian pilots
• category:Pilot users to category:Wikipedian pilots
• category:Those who hope to be pilots to category:Wikipedians hoping to be pilots

I’m actually endorsing the less common construction in category:Wikipedians by profession, as I can more easily see “Wikipedian” as an adjective than “cryptozoologist” or “bachelor of medicine”. (I may switch "military personnel" to "military people" depending on how the previous nomination goes.)--Mike Selinker 12:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all except this one: Category:User degree/MBBS. I would recommend Category:Wikipedians with a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery degree. I know that's a long name, but it's more correct than just Bachelor of Medicine according to the article for it. Also, I think that degrees are normally capitalized. Note that there are a number of other categories for degrees that probably should be renamed, like Category:User degree/BA, Category:User degree/MA, etc. --Cswrye 13:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't see the degree category. That's a hornet's nest. I think I'll just remove it from the contenders for now, and we can decide later if any of the degree ones change.--Mike Selinker 18:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all -- Fyslee 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all, except for Category:User degree/MBBS per Cswrye -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No problem with the rename (though it will probably be a bit of an effort to complete). Also while you're doing it can you get rid of "Wikipedian chemical engineers" and move the four such engineers to "Wikipedian engineers". Cedars 09:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: you could move the "Wikipedian chemical engineers" to a subcatigory within the "Wikipedian engineers" because sooner or later, each engineer would like to differenciate (pun not indended) their title from all other engineers :) Project2501a 09:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Project2501a 09:21, 12 August 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 regarding 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. the wub "?!" 10:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Academy Awards winners to Category:Academy Award winners

• Rename, for grammar and parallelism to Category:Academy Award nominees. Geoff Capp 12:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is potentially a speedy candidate under criterion 3, but given the scope of the change (24 articles, 22 subcats, and perhaps all the articles in those) and the following oddity, I thought it might be better to discuss at more length. It appears to me that "Awards" should be applying to the event (Category:Academy Awards ceremonies, Category:Academy Awards hosts) while "Award" applies to the Oscar itself (Category:Academy Honorary Award recipients, Category:Academy Award nominees). This also would appear to align better with the subcategories (Category:Best Actor Academy Award winners, etc.) --Geoff Capp 12:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom & agree with Geoff Capp on other sub-cats. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Depluraliz/se all per nom. David Kernow 06:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 19:16, 9 August 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 regarding 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. the wub "?!" 14:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, The name of the category should match the name of the article itself. GCarty 09:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, Sharia is sufficiently popular, and more accurate descriptor as well as the reason mentioned above.--Tigeroo 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, Sharia is a common term. BoojiBoy 14:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. It certainly wasn't the case when Wikipedia started, but by now I'd say that the majority of literate English-speakers understand the term Sharia and will know that they should click on that category to seek more information. --M@rēino 14:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. However, keep Category:Islamic law as redirect to Category:Sharia. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I do not know much about Islamic law, but is it safe to assume that Sharia law is the only form of Islamic law? If it is, I would support renaming. Also, shouldnt it be Category:Sharia law? Resolute 18:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far as I'm aware, "Sharia" means something like "path", so a rename to Category:Sharia law and keep Category:Islamic law as redirect might be preferable... Regards, David Kernow 00:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided as I feel this violates WP:UE. Sharia is The code of law based on the Koran per the AH dict., and as such it is endlessly variable although theoretically immutable. I simply object based on the vast numbers of users, who I feel are a majority, who will be helped more by the English term. --Dhartung | Talk 04:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Sharia law - many people know what Sharia law is. Keep Category:Islamic law as a redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpatel (talk • contribs)

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 regarding 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. the wub "?!" 16:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have Category:Portuguese-Americans. With only one inclusion, this is in excess, esp. when considering other x-American categories. This fails WP:NN in the sense that there is no tremendous amount of famous female Portuguese-Americans that necessitates having its own category. Michael 05:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --M@rēino 14:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --musicpvm 20:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --William Allen Simpson 21:20, 12 August 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 regarding 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. the wub "?!" 10:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is ambiguous. "Being called a hacker" is very unclear criterium: it could be Richard Stallman or Mafiaboy. This category should be deleted: suggestions of splitting are welcome.

See also:

• hacker definition controversy
• hacker

A.J. 05:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - but I'll support any proposal that handles controversial meaning of "hacker". A.J. 05:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If there were more hackers listed, I'd suggest including better subcategories (possibly overlapping) to clarify the intended types. EG: Security Hackers (black/white/grey hat sub-sub-categories), Hacker Groups, Code Hackers, Hardware Hackers, Hacker Media Personalities, and Fictional Hackers. It might allow for yanking the "Recognized Hackers" section from the Hacker piece that silly wannabes keep adding themselves into. However, there are so few listed in Category:Hackers at the moment, I'm inclined to say just Delete and be done with it. Abb3w 20:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you propose for categories like Category:American hackers? A.J. 08:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would remain as a subcategory of Category:Hackers by nationality, which seems better able to stand on its own, if Category:Hackers is deleted (or which should remain a subcategory of Category:Hackers if that isn't deleted). Abb3w 04:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that since they sare the same controversy, the should also share the same fate... A.J. 10:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd disagree. Category:Hackers by nationality at least has a sensible structure to its membership.
• Delete per Abb3w. Inherently subjective category. --ElKevbo 22:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. KleenupKrew 02:22, 11 August 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 regarding 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 --Kbdank71 15:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cats definitely don't follow naming conventions. The second is a duplicate of Category:Bangladeshi people. --musicpvm 03:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per nom. --Mereda 06:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom, and b/c I'm pretty sure that "Who's who" is trademarked. --M@rēino 14:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 13:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. but keep Category:Bangladeshi people as our pattern to have such a people category for each country of the world. Thanks Hmains 18:03, 11 August 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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat is duplicate of Category:Christian Wikipedians (which is properly named) and only contains one user. --musicpvm 03:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --Cswrye 05:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Uncontroversial. --M@rēino 14:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete both. The religion and other attributes of Wikipedians should be unimportant for WP. Thanks Hmains 03:59, 14 August 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 regarding 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 --Kbdank71 15:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse than the platinum and multi-platinum cats. Can't imagine it being useful. --musicpvm 03:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not useful information. --Cswrye 05:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Ow, my eyes! A list of all the albums that DIDN'T sell well? That's like a cat for "Losing election candidates", or for "4th place finalists." --M@rēino 14:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We already decided against this. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:31, 8 August 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 regarding 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/merge to Category:House of Aviz --Kbdank71 15:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:House of Avis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename this to Category:House of Aviz, since either the category or the main article needs changing for coherence. In addition, this category needs checking - half the articles use English names; half use Portuguese. Ian Cairns 02:58, 8 August 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 regarding 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 --Kbdank71 15:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Delphine Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - I know that dolphins are supposed to be smart, but I don't think that they would be able to type with their flippers. --Cswrye 02:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Useless. Delete per nom. - EurekaLott 05:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I admit that it's not the most useful category, but it's meant as a joke rather than a serious suggestion that we have dolphins editing Wikipedia. CameoAppearance 15:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CameoAppearance. We probably don't have escaped genetic experiments or native speakers of rot13 either. --Gray Porpoise 14:36, 11 August 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 regarding 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 --Kbdank71 15:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Indian Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - My apologies if this looks controversial, but note that this category is empty, and I think that it is redundant with Category:Native American Wikipedians. It's also worth noting that the article for American Indians is up for merging with Native Americans. --Cswrye 02:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. "Native American" is the unambiguous term. --musicpvm 03:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. As the resident guy-who's-easily-offended-by-perceived-racism, I can give this my seal of approval. --M@rēino 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, this is excess... Michael 17:02, 10 August 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 regarding 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 --Kbdank71 15:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Penguin users (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. Somebody's had one too many herring wallbangers, I fear. - EurekaLott 01:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nonsense category. --Cswrye 02:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Is there a rule that Wikipedian categories have to be plausibly true -- for example, no claiming that you're a non-human? I actually would support the creation of such a rule. But until that rule is employed, I have to vote keep in order to keep the peace imposed by WP:GUS. We need to have a citable rule, instead of case-by-case policing, whenever we touch userboxes. --M@rēino 20:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:GUB only addresses userboxes, not categories. The categorization guidelines state that categories must be useful, and I don't see how that could be the case with user categories that are obviously false. --Cswrye 14:28, 9 August 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 regarding 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 --Kbdank71 15:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saturday Night Live Cast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. Duplicates Category:Saturday Night Live cast members. No need to merge, since all of the articles are already in the properly-named category. - EurekaLott 01:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --musicpvm 03:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Cswrye 05:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; category's creator is unclear on the concept & keeps creating vanity cats & lists. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:07, 8 August 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.