< December 11	December 13 >

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

The result of the debate was rename —Pilotguy (ptt) 01:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mexico's National Soccer Coaches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:Mexico national football team managers, consistent with other categories such as Category:England national football team managers, Category:France national football team managers, etc. Chanheigeorge 23:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - Darwinek 00:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per nom. Xiner 03:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 19:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete —Pilotguy (ptt) 01:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PC DVD-9-only games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, that the video game is released on a dual layer DVD is not a defining characteristic. Recury 19:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's probably a bad idea to categorize games by possible formats they might appear on. It would be a bit like categorizing films by whether or not they've appear on VHS, Beta, DvD, Blu-Ray, etc. Dugwiki 20:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Could be interpreted as spam. Xiner 03:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I think it probably is spam. — coelacan talk — 20:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Needs more input than this. —Pilotguy (ptt) 01:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Child villains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Non defining subcategorization of villains. Most entries are not true villains (such as Nelson and Cartman) and those which are should be upmerged accordingly. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep within context of Category:Fictional villains The above problems with ambiguity are due to problems in the parent category Category:Fictional villains. That is, whether or not Cartman is a villain has to do with how the parent category defines what the word "villain" means. But using the assumption that we're keeping Fictional Villains as a category, then I think Child Villains is a reasonable subcategory of that. Therefore my vote would be to keep Child Villains as a way to subcategorize members of Fictional Villains who are children. That done, it is probably worth investigating whether to tighten the category definition for Fictional Villains to clarify whether or not unlikable characters like Cartman qualify as being villainous. Dugwiki 20:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Why? All the "categorized by age" categories were deleted for a reason.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also rename to Category:Fictional child villains I'd also suggest renaming the category to Fictional Child Villains to make clear that it doesn't apply to actual children who have committed heinous acts (eg real life child murderers). Dugwiki 20:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, definitely need to add fictional to the name. Xiner 03:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – This CfD discussion from July lead to the deletion of Category:Fictional children. ×Meegs 10:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, "child" is not objectively defined (<12 years? <18 years? immature in general?) (Radiant) 13:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was leave as is a la no consensus. Great idea! —Pilotguy (ptt) 01:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alumni of St Hilda's College, Oxford to Category:to be determined by consensus

• Alumnae of St Hilda's College, Oxford or Graduates of St Hilda's College, Oxford, because all graduates and former students of this college are female and will be for some time to come. Note that the college website has an "Alumnae" page. Deb 18:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some may wish to refer to this page. Xiner 22:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; see similar discussions regarding Category:Smith College alumni (kept) and Category:Wellesley College alumni (no consensus). When used universally, "alumni" is suitably "neutral" vis-à-vis Wikipedia:Categorization of people. We similarly have Category:Actors but no Category:Actresses and Category:Patrons of literature but no Category:Patronesses of literature. -choster 22:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think those are useful categories to compare to - they're using "Actors" and "Patrons" to encompass all genders rather than as specifically gender neutral terms that can be applied to any gender specific group. Timrollpickering 03:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand the distinction you draw. "Alumni" standing alone indicates former students of any gender. The existence of "alumnae," however, would imply all "alumni" categories to be male-only, and I'm not one for encouraging "Alumni and alumnae of" which would almost certainly follow.-choster 01:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Traditionally the same plural form is used for a male only collective and a mixed gender collective - that does not in itself sweep aside all other gender specific plural forms. "Alumni" means both "former students who are all male" and "former students of mixed gender" but not "former students of any one gender". This is explained on the page for alumnus and I don't see that it would encourage "alumni and alumnae" at all. Timrollpickering 01:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose Category:Graduates of St Hilda's College, Oxford. This would be a mess and inconsistent with all the other alumni categories. "Graduates" means "people who have graduated" whilst alumni/ae mean "former students" and include those who didn't actually graduate. All other alumni categories are arranged on this basis. (There's also the problem that the term "Graduate" is often used around Oxford to mean "postgraduate" - indeed the infobox on St Hilda's College, Oxford uses "Graduates" in this context.) I'm undecided on alumni/alumnae - are there any other UK HEIs/colleges that are all female? Timrollpickering 23:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are three University of Cambridge colleges. Lucy Cavendish College, Cambridge doesn't appear to have a relevant category at all. The other two are at Category:Alumni of New Hall, Cambridge and Category:Alumni of Newnham College, Cambridge. Note also that like St Hilda's, "alumnae" is used on the websites of Lucy Cavendish College, New Hall and Newnham College (the term "Roll" used mainly there is broader, also encompassing former fellows but note that they have a specific page for lost alumnae). The Edinburgh School of Medicine for Women was short lived and doesn't currently have a relevant category. According to List of current and historical women's universities and colleges#United Kingdom that's it. Note also the existance of Category:Alumnae of women's colleges. Timrollpickering 03:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking through the categories, the previous discussions and the page on alumnus I feel increasingly that "alumnae" is the term that should be used for this category (and also the three Cambridge female only colleges). Because there are only four UK categories where this is an issue I hadn't spotted this when I originally nominated all the remaining Oxford colleges to be moved to "Aluni of Foo College, Oxford". So I vote to rename to Category:Alumnae of St Hilda's College, Oxford. Timrollpickering 03:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename to Alumnae per Timrollpickering. Xiner 03:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Since Category:Hildabeasts would be unacceptable, rename to Alumnae instead. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 10:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave as is. It is clear enough. Anyway the College has agreed to admit men even though a date has not been fixed. It is unlikely to be long in the future. --Bduke 02:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave as is given Bduke's comment (of which I was not aware, despite being the sprog of an alumnus). James F. (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was leave as is. Looks like a merge can't happen, and no one else seems to agree on anything... —Pilotguy (ptt) 01:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University of Wisconsin alumni into Category:University of Wisconsin-Madison alumni

• Merge, upon examination the categories appear to be duplicate in purpose. The main article is at University of Wisconsin-Madison.choster 17:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment UW has a number of campuses outside of Madison so a separate category for those alumni is appropriate. Any UW-Madison alumni should go to that cat but non-Madisons should not. Otto4711 20:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The text inside the first cat says "Alumni of the University of Wisconsin-Madison." This is overlap. Xiner 22:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full disclosure, I'm the one who added that description in the first place. I found the category, which had six articles; each article was about a UW-Madison alum so I assumed that was the intent and indicated so—to most people, "University of Wisconsin" means UW-Madison, and within Wisconsin I think it is widely understood to be the flagship campus. But then I discovered the larger, better-developed parallel category. -choster 22:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll add that I couldn't locate any precedent for alumni by university system, and I don't think Otto4711's suggestion would make any sense in the U.S. Individuals associate with the institution; there's little shared identity between Category:University of California, Berkeley alumni and Category:University of California, Los Angeles alumni, or Category:University of Maryland, College Park alumni with Category:University of Maryland Eastern Shore alumni, less IMHO than even "Ivy League alumni" or "Jesuit university alumni" would be.-choster 22:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to be arguing my point for me. UW-Madison is indeed the flagship campus but a graduate of, say, University of Wisconsin-Stout should not be categorized as a UW-Madison alum. If the cat is to include all graduates of the University of Wisconsin regardless of campus or location then the cat should be reverse merged to Category:University of Wisconsin alumni and perhaps renamed to Category:University of Wisconsin system alumni. If the cat is going to be Category:University of Wisconsin-Madison alumni then the cat will need to be pruned to remove any non-Madison alumni and new cats for the other alumni may be needed. Otto4711 20:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I already noted, all the alumni in this category are Madison alumni. If someone wants to create a parallel category for UW-Stout alumni, s/he may do so. I am saying that "university system" is nebulous. It's like categorizing by "people from municipalities with the manager-council system"—it's an administrative/political arrangement that imparts no significant information about the individual. -choster 14:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Category:University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee alumni as well. Otto4711 20:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll also throw in Category:University of Wisconsin-Platteville alumni. Circeus 00:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus —Pilotguy (ptt) 01:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as categorization by non-defining or trivial characteristics leading to category clutter. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Non-defining indeed. — coelacan talk — 16:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, after reading the link that Muntuwandi made available. That article could use some work, but the external links demonstrate that this is a real phenomenon that has been observed and noted by reliable sources. I don't know if I'd call it a "genre" exactly, but it's something, and while this characteristic may or may not be defining for each particular movie, together they construct a larger frame that this category does a good job of cataloguing. I would recommend all future voters read those external links in White protagonist in Africa films. — coelacan talk — 05:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Characteristics are not trivial. Where there is a definite trend, the information is useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chifumbe (talk • contribs) 14:28, 12 December 2006
• Delete per nom. Xiner 03:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm changing my vote to "Strong Rename". It is possible the topic justifies a category, but consider "I love New York apples" and "I love New York films". It's simply unclear whether here you're talking about films made in Africa, set in Africa, or made about Africa. As it stands brings up too divisive an image, perhaps unintentionally, but divisive nonetheless. I certainly see your point; you can make the same case for Chinatown films. I strongly urge a rename, including for the article. Xiner 15:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the title is unclear, but "Films featuring a white protagonist in Africa" would also work. How do you feel about that title? — coelacan talk — 16:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that. Xiner 19:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep see White protagonist in Africa films for more information.Muntuwandi 06:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cat name is misleading, and I'd support a merge into Hollywood films set in Africa. Xiner 14:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is misleading about the name. If it is, renaming is an optionMuntuwandi 16:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is worse, as not all Western films are made in Hollywood. Hawkestone 19:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a defining characteristic. Hawkestone 19:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It is a defining characteristic. Isn't it ironic that most of the movies about Africa are actually about Non-Africans. The purpose of the category is to highlight such films or trends in such films. Muntuwandi 23:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. The concept can be extended infinitely to any film where the setting is secondary and people associated with the setting are ignored or dehumanized; q.v. orientalism. I could argue the Bridget Jones sequel fits—big parts of the plot is driven by an English woman (played by an American) and two English men in Austria (where the people in the movie speak the wrong dialect) and Thailand (where the most prominent Thais are prostitutes being held in a jail). -choster 15:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the concept can't be extended infinitely on Wikipedia, because we are limited by WP:NOR. In this case, original research doesn't play into it, the external links document that this is a phenomenon discussed widely enough for notability here. There's no need to worry about this being a run-away train of new categories, because of WP:NOR. — coelacan talk — 16:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes the concept can be extended infinitely. But I Think Africa is in a unique situation because relatively speaking not many films are set in Africa. Therefore the few that are will have a significant effect in influencing the viewers perceptions about Africa. Muntuwandi 16:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is there a way of "" the cat? Like renaming it "White protagonist in Africa" Films? WookMuff 05:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know about the quotes. I haven't yet seen any cat with quotes.

Muntuwandi 02:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • coelacan's suggestion of Films featuring a white protagonist in Africa would solve the problem. Xiner 18:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and choster Greg Grahame 20:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this really does seem to be a new (and increasingly controversial) sub-genre. A recent review of Last King of Scotland, while positive, took time to critique the film for being another in a long line of white protagonist in Africa films. It may be political correctness, or it may be justified, but this is becoming a bona fide issue in cinema, at least for some.Shawn in Montreal 05:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a bad precedent. If there is a legitimate topic here, it will be better covered by an article. Osomec 09:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an article already see White protagonist in Africa films.Muntuwandi 13:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is truly disheartening how someone can come here and vote on this without even reading the several comments already made talking about the article and the topic, including where I bolded: "I would recommend all future voters read those external links in White protagonist in Africa films." This lazy attitude toward deletion drives me crazy. — coelacan talk — 19:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to Films featuring a white protagonist in Africa. roundhouse 22:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was a speedy deletion per Otto4711 below. David Kernow (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT historians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Created in error during discussion of the now-renamed Category:Historians of LGBT topics. Duplicative. Otto4711 16:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Was anyone ever placed in this category andif so have they been properly moved to the other category? — coelacan talk — 16:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the category was never populated. Otto4711 16:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hoylake 19:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 09:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as categorization by non-defining or trivial characteristics leading to category clutter. No objection to creating a list article. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment, okay I have the list article List of women with very long hair. The category can now be deleted. Longhairadmirer 18:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Astounding that this exists. Is this someone's fetish? — coelacan talk — 16:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Dugwiki 16:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ridiculous fetish listcruft. Alphachimp 17:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-defining characteristic. Created by User:Longhairadmirer, possibly that's why. Crystallina 22:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is just silly.--SeizureDog 00:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, yes, it really is a fetish. There are web sites, web forums, and magazines dedicated to this. Dismas|^(talk) 13:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. Valrith 21:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of above stated reasons, plus one more: women's hair lengths can vary. Trying to decide if a woman who was on this list (for instance, Crystal Gayle) who cuts her hair short, if she be removed or left on it due to her earlier prominence where she was characterized by her long hair strikes me as trivial and distracting. Tabercil 00:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete This is taking long enough. Xiner 18:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue to Category:I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue

• Rename, Capitalisation, even though it is often abreviated to ISIHAC. Simply south 13:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Simply south ... note it does qualify for speedy rename. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Rename It doesn't appear this category is even necessary. Generally it's a bad idea to create unique categories for specific shows and films, including radio shows. Cast lists instead simply can appear in the main article with links to the actors/participants, or in a sub-article as a list. Recommend deletion, or if kept then the rename is fine. Dugwiki 16:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This cat is not just the cast, it includes articles on ISIHAC games and characters. (I'm shocked and disapointed that we don't yet have bios of Mrs Trellis or the lovely Samantha ;-) ) -- AJR | Talk 19:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Characters on radio shows are already (or should be) subcategorized under Category:Radio characters. Actors on radio shows are under Category:Radio actors, and other personalities would be under Category:Radio personalities (or one of its subcategories). The only thing that might justify this having its own category (in my opinion) would be the mini-game articles, which don't appear to have an appropriate parent category on their own. (Category:Radio games is more for the actual shows than the mini-games within the shows.). So barring a way to subcategorize the mini-game articles such as One Song to the Tune of Another I don't see a good alternative at the moment to keeping the category. Dugwiki 00:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom...to match the title used by the BBC. The category should be kept, it is useful for linking together the articles on the various aspects of the show - it is more than just a cast list (which already exists in the main article). EdJogg 17:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the main article already serves the purpose of linking articles related to the show. A reader interested in reading about any of the actors or characters or other information can simply visit the main article for the show and click the appropriate link. Thus a category is not actually needed for that purpose. Dugwiki 00:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• rename and definitely do not delete. Tim! 19:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to usual capitalisation. -- AJR | Talk 19:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:I'm Sorry, I Haven't a Clue providine you have straddled the Metropolitan line between Euston Square and Liverpool Street and are not in nip. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 15:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tssk, tsk, that's an invalid vote. I thought it was absolutely clear that CFD uses the Second Throgmorton revisions, and that all Metropolitan line stations are off limits unless wildcarded. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for capitalisation - definitely don't delete. Squeezeweasel 15:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. As the wheelie-bin of despair is emptied into the rubbish truck of destiny, I can only support the renaming. Mrs Tellis has also written to me to me say that she welcomes the clarity of the new category name. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename —Pilotguy (ptt) 01:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pittsburgh Pirates coaches to Category:Pittsburgh Pirates coaches (NHL)

• Rename, To be consistent with other entries of Category:National Hockey League coaches by team for teams which have similar names in other leagues.  — MrDolomite | Talk 13:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Pittsburgh Pirates (NHL) coaches, which is how the other categories are named. It does need disambiguation from the baseball team though, for sure. Recury 18:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, you are correct, Recury. I hate when I drop my parenthetical league reference in the wrong spot. Thanks! :) — MrDolomite | Talk 04:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Pittsburgh Pirates (NHL) coaches, per Recury. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was foo' —Pilotguy (ptt) 01:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anthropomorphic martial artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Anthropomorphic samurai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Very few articles, some of which seem only tenuously related to the category. Very little potential for useful expansion. Subcat bundled for this discussion, same justifications. Serpent's Choice 11:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - the categories are a bit silly perhaps but I've seen sillier. The entries seem appropriate to the cats. Otto4711 20:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many are about a topic that includes anthropomorphic martial artists/samurai, but that are not one themselves. I'm uncertain if that's an appropriate use of the cat. Notably, Jadeclaw is a roleplaying game (in-universe characters are anthropomorphic martial artists, but so are some characters in a great many RPGs...). Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (action figures) is about the toy product, not the characters themselves. Kung Fu Panda is a somewhat crystalball-ish 2008 movie entry (although its characters would certainly qualify). Kemono is a category of Japanese art. Also, the Komodo Brothers are Arabian Nights-style characters who wield scimitars (and are certainly not samurai, and arguably not martial artists). Regardless, I wouldn't object to the merge suggestion below, with some cleanup. Serpent's Choice 06:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Silly cat, but there's a place for it. Not enough for two though. Xiner 22:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge —Pilotguy (ptt) 16:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Methodist bishops by U.S. State (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Category:United Methodist bishops of Alabama
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of the Alabama-West Florida Area
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of the Birmingham Area
• Category:United Methodist bishops of the Arkansas Area
• Category:United Methodist bishops of California
  • Category:Methodist bishops of the California Area
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of the Los Angeles Area
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of the San Francisco Area
• Category:United Methodist bishops of Colorado
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of the Denver Area
• Category:United Methodist bishops of Florida
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of the Jacksonville Area
• Category:United Methodist bishops of Georgia
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of the Atlanta Area
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of the South Georgia Area
• Category:United Methodist bishops of Illinois
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of the Chicago Area
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of the Illinois Area
• Category:United Methodist bishops of the Indiana Area
• Category:United Methodist bishops of Iowa
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of the Des Moines Area
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of the Iowa Area
• Category:United Methodist bishops of Kentucky
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of the Louisville Area
• Category:United Methodist bishops of Maryland
  • Category:Methodist bishops of the Baltimore Area
• Category:United Methodist bishops of Michigan
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of the Detroit Area
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of the Michigan Area
• Category:United Methodist bishops of Minnesota
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of the St. Paul Area
• Category:United Methodist bishops of New York
  • Category:Methodist bishops of the Buffalo Area
• Category:United Methodist bishops of North Carolina
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of the Raleigh Area
• Category:United Methodist bishops of Ohio
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of the Cincinnati Area
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of the Ohio East Area
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of the Ohio Area
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of the Ohio West Area
• Category:United Methodist bishops of Pennsylvania
  • Category:Methodist bishops of the Philadelphia Area
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of the Philadelphia Area
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of the Pittsburgh Area
• Category:United Methodist bishops of Tennessee
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of the Nashville Area
• Category:United Methodist bishops of Texas
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of the Dallas Area
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of the Houston Area
• Category:United Methodist bishops of West Virginia

Overcategorisation: none of the sub-categories which I have examined contains more than six articles, and many are empty. There is also a conflict between the definition of this category and its parent: Category:United Methodist bishops by U.S. State arranges bishops "by the U.S. State(s) to which each is/was assigned"; whereas Category:American United Methodist bishops includes only bishops who are "who are American by nationality". It seems unwise to presume that Bishops serving in the US will always be American by nationality, and while this could perhaps be resolved by assigning to a different parent category rather than deleting, it does suggest some confusion of purpose in this category. BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just done some counting. This category tree contsains 74 entries, amounting to to only 55 unique articles. That's a total of 51 categories for 55 people. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge all to Category:American United Methodist bishops. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP all of these categories will become very helpful as more and more biographies of U.M. Bishops are written. It will help categorize them in ways to make each easily accessible and comparable to each other. Countering BrownHairedGirl, of course Bishops serving in the U.S. ARE American by nationality (though they may be of various ethnicities). No foreign Bishop is allowed to serve in the U.S.A. because foreign U.M. Bishops are elected under different rules, with term-limits and such. Bishops from outside the U.S. are elected for service in their geographical/national areas. This is all according to the Book of Discipline of the U.M. Church!! So Category:American United Methodist bishops is only for the purpose of NATIONALITY, not assignment or areas of service. The Area categories organize Bishops by where they are/were assigned. The State categories do as well, as do many other categories by U.S. States. Another argument BrownHairedGirl makes is that there are few articles in some of these categories. But there are hundreds of such underpopulated categories in Wikipedia! Shall we delete ALL of them?!?! Again, as more of these articles are completed, these categories will become more populated. If I am quick to create categories, some others are way too quick to delete them! Any other questions about any of these categories I will be happy to answer. Thanks! Pastorwayne 12:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If these categories were an appropriate way of subdivinding the bishops, the categorisation could be done when there are enough articles to populate the categories. But 51 categories for 55 articles is just category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge all to Category:American United Methodist bishops and bar Pastorwayne from category creation - Bishops should be sorted according to diocese, not state. Note that most of Pastorwayne's categoreies are simply impractical, as can be seen in most clergy-related category discussions in November and December 2006. Many of the newer categories are only slightly different from previously deleted categories. (I believe categories such as "Bishops of Ohio" and "Bishops of Texas" categories have already been nominated for deletion in WP:CFD, with strong support for deletion.) Pastorwayne's category creation is becoming disruptive; administrative intervention may be warranted. Dr. Submillimeter 13:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To support my point, Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Ohio, which was created by Pastorwayne, is nominated for deletion, with the majority of votes to delete or upmerge. Dr. Submillimeter 13:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But if you upmerge to Category:American United Methodist bishops then that will be incorrect, since Category:American United Methodist bishops is only for Bishops who are American by NATIONALITY, not necessarily by assignment. Moreover, U.M. Bishops are not assigned to Dioceses. The Areas to which they are assigned are of a variety of geographic areas, so the State categories are helpful to know where each also serves. Plus, just as many other categories are organized by U.S. State, the same applies to these categories and subcats. Thanks. Pastorwayne 13:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pastorwayne, if the upmerging would lead to the articles being incorrectly categorised, then the categories have been incorrectly categorised (I noted the problem in the nomination). I have to say that given the number of ill-considered categories which you have created, I have to support Dr. Submillimeter's proposal to bar Pastorwayne from category creation, but that is is a discussion which belongs at WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note that Pastorwayne's contributions here are self-contradictory: at 12:14 he says that "No foreign Bishop is allowed to serve in the U.S.A", but at 13:13 he says that upmeging would lead to incorrect categorisation. This confusion in purpose is becoming disruptive :( --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than attack a user, why not just ask for clarification. What I meant to say (and if I contradicted myself, of course I appologize) is that U.S. UMC Bishops serve in the U.S. Non-U.S. Bishops serve elsewhere in the World (though at one time U.S. Bishops served elsewhere in the World, too). Since Category:American United Methodist bishops is for American (by Nationality) Bishops, to upmerge all Area subcats to this would be incorrect, since some of those Areas are overseas (i.e., served by non-American Bishops). Only American (Nationality) Bishops should be in Category:American United Methodist bishops. CIVILITY, please! Pastorwayne 16:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church - I found the original parent category and changed my vote accordingly. I still advocate barring Pastorwayne from category creation, at least for a probationary period. Dr. Submillimeter 17:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some of these categories (the ones ending in 'Area') are for the equivalent of dioceses (called episcopal areas in the United Methodist Church), and therefore categorize based on the specific office that the person held. Mairi 03:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Categories that end in "Area"; Merge others to Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church - Mairi and Alynna have provided a good justification for keeping categories that end in "Area" (although the categories need explanations to explain what an "Area" is). The state categories should still be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 11:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all into Category:United Methodist bishops. Apparently there's a total of 51 categories for 55 people, and yet somehow the most natural and obvious of them all is strangely missing. The first place anyone would look just isn't there. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might be surprised that I had created a Category:United Methodist Bishops several months ago. But in the anxiousness of some, it got deleted as unneccesary! Pastorwayne 16:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For clarification, Category:United Methodist Bishops was merged into Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church. Dr. Submillimeter 17:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge all (for now) With only 55 or so total articles it's unnecessary to subdivide them by state. If and when there are a couple hundred such articles, I'd support subdivision by either state or diocese (whatever is most appropriate). But for now it appears that dividing by state, while possibly forward thinking, is overkill. Dugwiki 16:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • so let me ask a simple question: the ONLY reason for subcats is when cats become too large? Are not subcats also for helpfully organizing articles for easy discovery and comparison? Thanks. Pastorwayne 16:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The answer is that subdividing by state is mainly helpful for organization when it subdivides a large number of articles. When only a small number are subdivided, though, it just adds an extra layer of division that makes it harder for readers to find the article they're looking for because rather than having one page worth to scan, they instead have numerous subcategories to browse each of which is on its own page. So I think it's best to hold off on this sort of subdivision until it's actually needed. Dugwiki 20:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • thank you for a most helpful answer! I will seek to restrain myself from creating subcats only because I find them helpful, until largeness of cats suggests it. God bless! Pastorwayne 21:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some of you seem to think the only reason to create a subcat is because the parent cat is too full (100's of articles, for example). However, I find NOthing in the guidelines about cats and subcats that says this is the only reason! Indeed, I find nothing there that really says this is the most important reason. Instead, it says to use subcats when that would make it easier for users to find articles: like when you want to know all the U.M. Bishops in a particular U.S. State or Episcopal Area!! Or when you want to compare and contrast various Religious leaders in a U.S. State, etc., etc., etc. Lots and lots and LOTS of cats have very few articles. That does not make them unhelpful or uncyclopeadic. As such, it sure seems you are being way to anxious to delete a number of helpful cats and subcats!! Wouldn't it make more sense to have a discussion on a subcat's talk page as to it's helpfulness? I only create subcats that appear helpful in understanding a topic better, making interesting comparisons between articles, etc. But I am always willing to answer questions from folks who may not see it this way. Pastorwayne 11:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• And don't some of you have much BETTER things to do than to worry about how such a small part of Wikipedia is being categorized? I bet there are much more popular areas that would be better served by all of your boundless energy! Of course, you'd probably say the same thing (and HAVE) about my interest in creating categories. Touche' God bless you! Pastorwayne 16:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This line of reasoning won't hold water whatever you do when we're encouraged to fix even the smallest typo. Xiner 14:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment See also a related discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would it be possible to divide this discussion into the state categories and the Episcopal Area categories? The state categories should definitely be deleted. Not only are they overcategorisation, but they overlap the actual areas bishops are assigned to. The Episcopal Area categories, on the other hand... The only issue with these is their underpopulation. As they are organised according to the actual position held by the bishops, they are potentially useful. --Alynna 06:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify my actual opinion/vote, Keep Categories that end in "Area"; Merge others to Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church per Dr. Submillimeter. --Alynna 21:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete category and first level subcategories not containing "Area" (all of the state categories which contain area subcategories). For now, keep already existing Category:United Methodist bishops by Episcopal Area and its subcategories, subject to later reexamingation. Gene Nygaard 22:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think this is unwise. I can see that the Bishops by area categories are a different case to the state categories, in that they are at least potentially useful. However, although Pastorwayne has been creating articles on these bishops for ten months, the fact is that there are only 55 articles on these bishops. I count 32 area categories, so we are looking at an average of less than two articles per category. These categories are at best premature; categories that small impede navigation rather than heling it. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Keep per Gene Nygaard. Bishops by their Area is a logical way to group these. Vegaswikian 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per ProveIt. (Radiant) 13:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or merge, if there's anything to merge) categories for states, and keep categories for Episcopal Areas (those ending in Area), based on the reasoning in my earlier comment. Mairi 21:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all to Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church and encourage Pastor Wayne to improve List of Bishops of the United Methodist Church by adding some useful info to it such as Areas and perhaps states. roundhouse 20:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that info is not what that list is for. It is a list of the Bishops, only. Each biographical article, then, belongs in various categories. The Area categories are underpopulated only because not all of the occupants have yet been identified or written. But I assure you, such Area categories are an absolutely helpful way to connect all the Bishops. Thanks. Pastorwayne 13:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to keep List of Bishops of the United Methodist Church simply as a chronological list, that's fine. But you could also create a List of Bishops of the United Methodist Church by Episcopal Area, which would include a section for each area, or you could create a separate list for each area; either way, you could rapidly identify which area had enough biographical articles to merit a category. But I'm very disappointed to see that you still think that creating a plethora of categories with one or two article each helps navigation. If and when enough biographical articles are written on a particular area to merit a category, by all means create the category; but not until then.

Some counting: List of Bishops of the United Methodist Church contains 569 bishops. That consists of bishops from 5 different denominations: UM, TMC, MEC, MEC(S) and EUB (the MPC no bishops). Many of those denominations had different episcopal areas. With 50 states in the USA, assuming only one episcopal area per state, and assume that some denominations had very patchy coverage (as with the 19th-century north/south split), it is reasonable to estimate that there would need to be 100 to 200 categories of the format "Bishops of the xxx church of the zzz area" (plus more for the bishops outside the USA). That's going to be an average of less than 5 articles per category, even if every bishop has a biographical article (which is at best a long way off); some categories may have a dozen or more articles, but others will have only one or two articles. That situation will be a navigation nightmare, and that's if all the bishops have articles :( The only useful way that I can see to categorise these bishops is by denomination (with a possible subcat for missionary bishops), with lists for the episcopal areas. That will divide the 569 articles (if and when they are created) into about 8 categories, which seems much more manageable and useable. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, these bishops don't represent say New York. I don't see why they should be categorized as such. Merge all, like I said. Xiner (talk, email) 14:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, as BrownHairedGirl pointed out, most of the 569 bishops don't have articles so there's no need to subdivide them yet. However, if and when most of them DO have articles, I think we can probably agree that having 569 articles all under the same category of "American Bishops" is a situation that could be improved by subdividing them somehow. Whether you divide them by states or regions or diocese or whatever else is kind of beyond the scope of this particular cfd discussion. My advice would be to take the longer term discussion of exactly what subdivision would work best if and when these 569 bishops have articles to an appropriate Wiki project page. There's not much point trying to hash out those future-looking details here and now. Dugwiki 16:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was 'rename —Pilotguy (ptt) 16:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stampede Wrestling roster to Category:Stampede Wrestling alumni

• Rename, this is a category containing former roster members (alumni), not current roster members, and to bring it in line with other pro wrestling alumni categories. James Duggan 09:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above comments. RobJ1981 09:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above comments. Geoffg 15:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per discussions of September 21st and October 22nd. How many times do we have to go through this? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What has changed is that there is no longer a consistency with related categories. This is a category containing everyone who wrestled for the old ECW, so they are all former members, making them alumni. There are similar categories for alumni of other feds, and they are called alumni, not roster. See Category:World Wrestling Entertainment alumni, Category:World Championship Wrestling alumni, Category:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling alumni, Category:Ring of Honor alumni. James Duggan 19:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per ProveIt and previous discussions. Otto4711 15:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Incorrect as it stands. Xiner 22:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Dub. TJ Spyke 05:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Mr. C.C. 16:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename —Pilotguy (ptt) 16:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Extreme Championship Wrestling roster to Category:Extreme Championship alumni

• Rename, it's a category containing former roster members (alumni), not current roster members, and to bring it in line with other pro wrestling alumni categories. James Duggan 08:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above comments. RobJ1981 09:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above comments. Geoffg 15:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per discussions of November 12th and November 25th. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A while back, there was a big debate on what the article World Wrestling Entertainment alumni should be called because people kept renaming it. We debated this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling a while back and agreed that the most appropriate term for former roster members is alumni and that roster denotes current roster, and all pages dealing with alumni were changed to that name. Since these categories are basically the category version of these alumni pages, they should also be named alumni for that same reason. James Duggan 19:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep It looks like this discussion already took place on November 12 above. Unless something has significantly changed the category name should remain in place as a procedural matter (to allow for consistency and closure in previously decided cfd's). Dugwiki 16:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What has changed is that there is no longer a consistency with related categories. This is a category containing everyone who wrestled for the old ECW, so they are all former members, making them alumni. There are similar categories for alumni of other feds, and they are called alumni, not roster. See Category:World Wrestling Entertainment alumni, Category:World Championship Wrestling alumni, Category:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling alumni, Category:Ring of Honor alumni. James Duggan 19:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds like the new system actually conflicts with the guidelines of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) - People/Occupation. The guideline specifies that Occupation categories should not be divided into "current" or "former" categories. For example, Category:Former child actors and Category:Current Minnesota Twins players should not exist. Therefore the categories you mentioned that break wrestlers down between current-and-former categories should probably all be merged. Dugwiki 21:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I'm just looking for name consistency, as I pointed out with the other categories above. I would suggest bringing this up to WP:PW on our talk page because we obviously didn't know about that guidline. I still don't like "roster" because it can denote current (just look at the roster articles, they are all current rosters). Maybe using "wrestlers" at the end instead of either "alumni" or "roster", and we can include both past and present roster members. Or we can just scrap these categories. Anyway, this issue has become too complicate now to wrap my head around, so bringing it up to the Pro wrestling WikiProject might help us best decide on the direction these categories go. James Duggan 21:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That sounds like a good idea. I'll post a thread at that project. Meanwhile, I'd suggest holding off on changing this category until you guys have a chance to review the guideline I mentioned and see how it might affect your other related categories. Then perhaps do an umbrella cfd nomination for all the similarly named categories to get them either renamed or deleted as appropriate. Dugwiki 16:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. In the mean time though, I think they should all be the same name, regardless of the rules, just for consistency sakes, while we discuss what name they should actually be at, as I doubt that "roster" will be the name settled on. James Duggan 01:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Roster implies the present. Alumni is more accurate. Xiner 20:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that per the Nov 25 discussion, the phrase "roster" was chosen specifically because it can include both former and present members. Also note that, as I mentioned above, Wiki categorization guidelines for people say that occupation categories should not be divided into current and former subcategories. Dugwiki 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case then WWE, TNA, ROH, ECW, etc. should not have an alumni page.

• Rename per Dubhagan and comments at WP:PW. TJ Spyke 00:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So when is it gonna be renamed? TJ Spyke 04:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:United Nations Secretaries-General. the wub "?!" 09:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:UN Secretaries-General to Category:United Nations Secretary-General

rename as United Nations Secretary-General.--Mukuixi 08:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• rename as Cat:United Nations Secretaries-General - removing the abbreviation but keeping it plural as per similar categories and reflecting its contents. Grutness...wha? 10:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as Category:United Nations Secretaries-General per Grutness. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as Category:United Nations Secretaries-General per convention. Hoylake 19:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as Category:United Nations Secretaries-General per above. Timrollpickering 15:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per Grutness; this is a plural Hmains 03:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Grutness. James F. (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 10:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Euromalays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, A neologism and redundant category since Eurasians and oodles of other ethnic categories, which are getting out of hand, already exist. Chris S. 07:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --- Tito Pao 18:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment --- Eurasians has near 300 entries, some subcategorisation would be useful there; not every creation of an ethnic category means things are "getting out of hand". As for this specific category, I'm inclined towards a delete vote, but I'll reserve comment until further discussion about the afd on the article Euromalays. Maybe the category should be renamed instead of deleted. cab 15:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further discussions on this Category can be found on the article Euromalays. Surely, as you have noticed there are terms such as "European-Filipinos" and "Indo" used to distinguish from other Eurasian groups (if you say Eurasian this refers to those of European and Asian parentage regardless of whatever their backgrounds are) - so why not "Euromalays"? Thank you for your attention. --Fantastic4boy 18:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Maybe the real question is: Who coined the hybrid word? —Lagalag 23:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --- On the AfD, he admits he made up the term himself. However, we should still be actively looking for ways to subdivide descent-based categories which are getting too large. Maybe by country would be a better way. One thing which really gets annoying are all the Western porn stars who claim to be this and that to make themselves sound more exotic; a division by country means almost all of them would end up in "Eurasians in America" =). cab 01:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that this is done to intentionally misinform, they shouldn’t be filed under any ethnic category so easily. —Lagalag 16:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 20:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename —Pilotguy (ptt) 16:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting from December 2 CfD. Previous discussion:

• Keep Sunni Muslim scholars and Shi'a Muslim scholars per previous discussion, but
  Rename:
  Category:Sunni Muslim Islamic scholars to Category:Sunni Muslim scholars of Islam; and
  Category:Shi'a Muslim Islamic scholars to Category:Shi'a Muslim scholars of Islam
  (and make them subcategories of, respectively, Sunni Muslim scholars and Shi'a Muslim scholars).
  David Kernow (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per David Kernow, and also rename Category:Muslim Islamic scholars to Category:Muslim scholars of Islam. — coelacan talk — 15:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 09:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous Beşiktaş J.K. fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Football club fanship is not a defining characteristic. Chicheley 02:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete You may be able to mention them on the club page. Xiner 22:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 09:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Official residences in South Korea

Delete, there is only one entry, and no need for an entire category. JCO312 02:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is no minimum category size. Chicheley 02:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, fits with other members of Category:Official residences by country. -Sean Curtin 03:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sean Curtin. Xiner 14:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep to match all other such categories. No reason to single out this one. Hmains 03:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename (to Category:Canadian broadcasters). — CharlotteWebb 06:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Canada in broadcasting to Category:Canadians in broadcasting

To follow all other subcategories of Canadian people by occupation

• Rename as nom. David Kernow (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, to be consistent with similar cats. Dugwiki 16:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Canadian broadcasters per convention for nationality-occupation categories. Hoylake 19:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Canadian broadcasters. Tim! 19:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Canadian broadcasters Probably speediable. Hawkestone 19:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 09:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Waltisim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Nonsense category obviously created as someone's private joke (not even spelled correctly). Russ (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as mis-spelt nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Dugwiki 16:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete POV nonsense--Bilbo B 21:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Cute joke, not an encyclopedia entry and most of all I object to categorising the targets of the humour under it. Salvianus 23:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NEO. Also, please take a look at the other articles created by the same editor Special:Contributions/Jetwave_Dave, they have a history of strange article creation. L0b0t 01:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, lacks NPOV, is insulting to certain people, misspelled, pointless. --Cyningaenglisc 08:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 09:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete the wub "?!" 09:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Website Design Companies to Category:Web design companies

• Rename; correct case and (I think) terminology. Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Category appears to be empty, and in practice, few major companies past or present would use such a limiting term as "web design." Most such firms are either Category:Information technology consulting firms or Category:Information technology management firms. It does looks like a spam magnet though.-choster 14:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 09:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of Korean breakdancing crews to Category:Breakdancing groups

• Rename, The subject is not notable enough to be split by nationality. The category only contains 1 item. Changing it to include all countries will allow it to be populated, rather than hundreds of categories being created for every country and only containing a few items. To note, this is the only breakdancing groups category in existence. - Tutmosis 01:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. If and when the number of such groups becomes significantly larger, I'd support dividing by nationality. But for now it's not necessary. Dugwiki 16:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not encyclopedia material in my opinion. -RiverHockey 22:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion doesn't mean anything unless you can demonstrate a rationale that involves WP:N. — coelacan talk — 22:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not seem notable, unnecessary..... RiverHockey 20:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — CharlotteWebb 05:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Outstanding Canadians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Obvious POV - speedy. –Outriggr § 01:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as category will always be empty. Sorry, I kid, I kid. Delete per nominator, category will always be POV. — coelacan talk — 01:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_12&action=edit&section=25[reply]

Editing Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 12 (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• • Boo! –Outriggr § 02:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a fork (in effect) of Canadian people. David Kernow (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Chicheley 02:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and add Outstanding to the red flag list, along with Famous, Notable and Eminent. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Dugwiki 16:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly POV. Tim! 19:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete bogdan 21:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless consensus can be reached for a complimentary Category:Canadians who are all-in-all pretty average and unremarkable when you think about it. --W.marsh 00:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DO NOT DELETE - FOR MY STUDENTS, THIS CATEGORY IS AN IMPORTANT LEARNING RESOURCE, AND YOU GUYS HAVE NO RIGHT TO BAN SCHOOLCHILDREN FORM LEARNING ABOUT THEIR CULTURE AND HISTORY. WHO GAVE YOU THIS RIGHT??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.67.190.1 (talk • contribs).
  • Then about looking at List of Canadians or The Greatest Canadian instead? Or even better! make a list in your User space. But please do not disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Circeus 00:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• To the anonymous editor above, I'm a Canadian myself. And I agree with the nomination. Delete Tabercil 23:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 20:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 09:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artists remixed by Fluke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As far as I can tell, getting remixed by Fluke is not particularly more significant than getting remixed by anybody else. As such, there's no reason that getting remixed by anybody would be a useful characteristic to categorize by. Unint 00:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as Non-defining or trivial characteristic. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Non-defining or trivial characteristic per ProveIt. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify Unnecessary category. Convert to list and include in either Fluke's article or as a subarticle. Dugwiki 16:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already exists as a list at Fluke discography#Remixes. –Unint 17:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, in that case then just delete-ify. :) Dugwiki 21:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unnecessary category. Definitely not encyclopedia material.... -RiverHockey 22:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 09:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Sportspeople by religion
• Category:Christian sportpeople
• Category:Christian footballers
• Category:Roman Catholic sportspeople

Delete, per discussion of July 25th, Mark Category:Sportspeople by religion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per earlier debate given by nominator, but note: Category:Roman Catholic sportspeople is already salted. Recommend salting of these other categories as well. — coelacan talk — 01:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, one is already blocked, I've removed it from the list. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 04:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chicheley 02:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also discussion of Catholic footballers. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 04:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as irrelevant intersection. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I dont see any reason to delete this category. It’s a fact, For example, The Brazilian footballer Kaká who is regarded by many as the best footballer in the world, Is a strongly religious and he tithed his income from football to his Church † The Guest 16:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)))[reply]
  • Comment: It's also a fact that John Major likes watching cricket, and Margaret Thatcher likes (or used to like) drinking whisky. But that is insufficient reason to create a Category:Prime Ministers who like cricket or a Category:Prime Ministers who drink whisky. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that in England, as in Australia, all prime ministers enjoy cricket for political reasons if not also personally! WookMuff 05:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, things like Kaka tithing his money to his Church would be best mentioned in his article. Recury 18:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hoylake 19:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a matter of time denominational conflicts spring up. Xiner 22:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Categories should only exist where the characteristic is nearly always relevant, and not where it is relevant in just a few cases. Hawkestone 19:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and see indeed Category:Catholic footballers I nominated on its own accidentally. Amoruso 18:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The Hindu cat was deleted a long time ago. Precedent.Bakaman 03:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What this Category: Muslim athletes different than these categories? 89.138.229.54 17:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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