< December 13	December 15 >

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 to Category:Xiaolin Showdown characters. Timrollpickering 04:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heylin Side

Category:Xiaolin Side

• Delete: Over-categorization. The categories are small and cannot grow. Category:Xiaolin Showdown characters should be enough. Jay32183 23:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. (Radiant) 13:14, 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 Tim! 09:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of Iron Cross (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to improve the English. . Chicheley 23:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Recipients of the Iron Cross -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Needs a "the" in there. Geeman 18:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to add "the" Hmains 23:17, 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. Timrollpickering 04:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Naval battles of Seven-Year War to Category:Naval battles of the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)

• Rename, Need to disambiguate from other Seven Year Wars, this matches the main article Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598). Tim! 22:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom. It is the only article name out of place in regards to this war (of 7 years) Hmains 03:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wimstead 22:18, 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 to Category:Fictional characters who use wheelchairs. Timrollpickering 04:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional wheelchair-bound people to Category:Fictional wheelchair-bound characters

• Rename - recently nominated for deletion and consensus was keep, but overlooked was that it should be renamed to match the parent cat of Category:Fictional characters with disabilities and the general scheme of denoting fictional character topics with the word "character" instead of "people." Otto4711 17:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nomination.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename to Category:Fictional characters who are wheelchair bound as this better matches the parent category and other related categories. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: none of the above proposed names are acceptable. The names define people by their limitations. Category:Fictional characters who use wheelchairs would be okay. It's more factually accurate as well, because not everyone who uses a wheelchair is completely incapable of getting out of it, so "bound" is just wrong. — coelacan talk — 20:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As long as the word "characters" is in it... Otto4711 20:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, you are allowed to change the nomination by putting the new suggestion, Category:Fictional characters who use wheelchairs, in place of the old one at the top of this section. I'll support it then if you do. — coelacan talk — 22:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nomination TonyTheTiger 21:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional characters who use wheelchairs per Coelacan. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional characters who use wheelchairs per Coelacan. On a personal note I use a wheelchair, but am very much not "wheelchair-bound", (in fact most of my day I'm not in my wheelchair), and I'm slightly touched people would recognize that there are real or imaginary people in such a situation. Sometimes I get lumped in with wheelchair-bound people even though it is actually unhealthy for me to be in my chair too long. Sorry for rambling.--T. Anthony 12:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional characters who use wheelchairs per Coelacan. Olborne 02:05, 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 merge as appropriate. Timrollpickering 06:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:The Cardigans albums or Category:The Cardigans songs, as appropriate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The entire Category:Discographies should be merged likewise. TonyTheTiger 21:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. There's nothing wrong with Category:Discographies as it's populated by articles, not categories. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as Category:The Cardigans singles perhaps, but don't merge into Category:The Cardigans albums as these are not albums, they are singles. CLW 10:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there were albums listed at the time of nomination. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:27, 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 delete Tim! 09:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Games similar to Cricket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

delete pointless category that contains one article about something that is fictional nonsense and has no notability whatsoever. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 16:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Useless and impossible to ascertain. Coemgenus 19:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pointless. TonyTheTiger 21:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Detele per nom. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Isn't this what you use the 'See also' heading in an article for? Vegaswikian 00:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not objectively defined. (Radiant) 13:14, 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 all. Timrollpickering 04:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Organisation
• Category:Positions

Delete, as unnecessary. It looks to me that Category:Organisation was created to parent Category:Positions which was created to parent Category:Sports positions which was created to parent Category:Football positions. I think the second two may eventually become useful, but the first two probably ought to go. Do you agree? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have no clue what would and would not go in thes categories. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Both over- and under-inclusive. Coemgenus 20:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wimstead 22:18, 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 Tim! 09:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as categorization by arbitrary inclusion limit. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomJohnbod 15:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This fits the definition perfectly. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as proposed. Gazpacho 18:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Coemgenus 19:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as remarkably absurd. — coelacan talk — 20:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as I hope the category's creator intended. This is so clearly arbitary that I hpope it was created with tongue firmly in cheek. It appears to have been chosen by the formula "x%, where x is no larger than is needed to include Garnet Valley School District". I am having difficulty in restraining myself from creating Category:School districts at the top 6.9% in Pennsylvania on Pennsylvania standardized tests, but WP:POINT is flashing a big red light at me. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - utterly arbitary. Timrollpickering 04:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as prank. Greg Grahame 19:59, 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 Tim! 09:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as categorization by arbitrary inclusion limit. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomJohnbod 15:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Do we create subcategories 5000, 6000, 10000? Robert A.West (Talk) 15:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as proposed. Gazpacho 18:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Coemgenus 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — coelacan talk — 20:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - utterly arbitary. Timrollpickering 04:04, 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 all. Timrollpickering 04:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People from Konan to Category:People from Konan, Aichi

Category:People from Kōriyama to Category:People from Kōriyama, Fukushima

Category:People from Kurashiki to Category:People from Kurashiki, Okayama

Category:People from Nishinomiya to Category:People from Nishinomiya, Hyōgo

Category:People from Obu to Category:People from Obu, Aichi

Category:People from Takatsuki to Category:People from Takatsuki, Osaka

• Rename, A similar CFR was just closed, with no dissent. The "City, Prefecture" standard is dictated by the Japan manual of style. The previous discussion is Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 6#People from Japanese cities for reference. Maybe this can be speedied, but I'm not sure. I've also left a note on the creator's talk page, so hopefully this will be the last time we go through this here. Neier 12:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nomJohnbod 15:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Rename per nom, this is not controversial. Nominator, you may want to leave a request at WP:AN to have this considered for speedy. — coelacan talk — 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger 21:43, 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. Timrollpickering 04:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hollywood Squares panelists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, it's category cruft much like the "Guest stars on The Simpsons" categories of the past which have been deleted. A panelist may have been in the studio for all of an hour or two. Their connection to the show is just above being tenuous. Dismas|^(talk) 09:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomJohnbod 15:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note parent cat Category:Game show panelists along with the half-dozen other child cats in the same vein as the Hollywood Squares cat. If this cat goes those should all also be put up for deletion. I have no particular opinion one way or the other on the nom. Otto4711 17:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, Can I add the other cats now or do I have to start a different CFD process for the rest now that this one is underway? Dismas|^(talk) 12:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Entertainment appearance categories should be restricted to roles people filled on a regular basis over a period of time. Chicheley 20:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Potential to be extremely over-inclusive with no benefit as such. — coelacan talk — 20:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We shouldn't categorise people by guest appearance. Osomec 08:53, 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 The result of the debate was speedy keep (withdrawn by nominator). szyslak (t, c, e) 09:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Possibly living people into Category:Living people

• Merge. The purpose of the living people cat is not to make an encyclopedic claim that the person is in fact alive, but to prevent WP:LIVING problems, through the shared watchlist at Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living people. What if an article subject in this category is living, and suffers harm because of a libelous biography that's not detected through our normal processes? We can't risk that, even if we have to have one or two dead people in Category:Living people. We can use Category:Year of death missing when someone would be so old the chance they're alive is practically nil; I'd say 115 or 120 is a good age for that. In all other cases, we should assume they belong in the living people cat, even if they're so old they're probably dead. For more discussion, see the section "When 'living' is disputed" on WT:LIVING. szyslak (t, c, e) 08:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, see below. szyslak (t, c, e) 09:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, watchlist Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Possibly living people as well. No big deal. — coelacan talk — 03:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Couldn't this category be monitored in the same way Category:Living people is? I think it would be strange to list someone on their page as being amongst "Living people" when there's nothing about them in recent decades. (e.g. someone last heard of when they were in their 30s c1930.) Whilst the living people category serves a technical purpose it does also serve an encyclopedic one. Timrollpickering 12:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. This change would also mean stating that Lord Lucan is alive - that's very POV. Timrollpickering 14:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. As pointed out above, the tag is encyclopedic. It also serves an important cleanup function that would be lost by merging -- it identifies biographies that need a specific piece of important information or where status is in reasonable dispute. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to People who may still be alive. Yes, it's a longer name, but at least it's like the English wot I have read and heard!  Anyone else...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The purpose of the category is to categorize people who are possibly alive, and it's doing a good job at that. Everyone can monitor the articles for potential WP:BLP problems, if they want to. --Conti|✉ 16:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As far as I am concerned the main purpose of this category is nothing to do with the legal reasons given for having category:Living people, which should be deleted in my opinion. Its true value is that it identifies articles that are missing one of the most basic pieces of encyclopedic information, ie whether the subject has died and if so when. It is found not only on articles about disappeared people, but on many articles about low profile people that focus only on the peak of their careers. Sumahoy 17:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I agree with Szyslak that the point of the living persons category encompasses this category, as well.
• Keep Unlike Category:Living people, this category can actually be used to improve Wikipedia. Chicheley 20:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey! The Living people category is a great place to bone up before playing "Dead or Alive?" ;-) Seriously, while it may have been motivated by legal reasons, it can serve an encyclopedic purpose. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as is, per Timrollpickering. — coelacan talk — 20:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Timrollpickering. —Chowbok ☠ 02:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn by nominator. I now see the important maintenance function inherent in this category, per Timrollpickering and many others. Besides, the consensus to keep is clear, so there's no point in continuing. szyslak (t, c, e) 09:43, 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 merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Musicals stars into Category:Musical theatre actors

• Merge, as POV. A category for "Stars" is comparable to categories for celebrities, famous people etc. Sumahoy 07:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nomJohnbod 15:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Wimstead 22:20, 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 merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 06:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Acorn Archimedes software into Category:RISC OS software

• Merge: RISC OS is the native OS of the Acorn Archimedes. Newer RISC OS machines are no longer branded Archimedes so the proposed title is more general. (I'm not so sure what's best for the subcat Category:Acorn Archimedes games, because pretty much all the games are from the Archimedes period.) —Blotwell 04:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nomJohnbod 15:12, 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. David Kernow (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Nonsense, and the only pages in it were goatse.cx and Westnet (which I've removed). --AAA! ^{(AAAA • AAAAAAAA)} 03:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The category is probably redundant, but it's not very civil to revert new user's edit with a summary "rv idiocy". Prolog 06:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is what I'm like when I've been up all night without a glass of milk. I might go pass out on the couch. --AAA! ^{(AAAA • AAAAAAAA)} 06:26, 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 delete. David Kernow (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete. Unqualified, the term "aborigines" is quite ambiguous, and can refer to either aboriginal/indigenous peoples in general, or alternatively is specifically associated with these peoples in certain regions (Cf. Australia, Taiwan, Canada). This recently-created category is also redundant, since other categories already exist which cover the different senses in which this term is used, such as Category:Indigenous peoples (general/overall), Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia, Category:Aboriginal peoples in Canada, etc. cjllw | TALK 03:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --bainer (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomJohnbod 15:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Coemgenus 20:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, redundant. Perhaps inform creator of category that there are other categories which should be used instead. — coelacan talk — 20:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom & term is 'deprecated' in aust. in favour of 'indigenous'  ⇒ bsnowball  09:18, 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.