< December 28	December 30 >

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 nomination moved by proposer. Timrollpickering 02:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination moved by proposer to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 30#Colleges and universities as was not completed until that day. Timrollpickering 01:01, 30 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. Timrollpickering 01:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect into Category:University of California, Davis alumni. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --Wizardman 04:21, 1 January 2007 (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/redirect. Timrollpickering 01:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect into Category:Young adult novels. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. - jc37 12:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Young adult is the formal name for teen novels --- Skapur

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 02:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as categorization by non-defining or trivial characteristic. Would make a fine list article though. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - And agreeing that it would make a good list, so listify if wanted. - jc37 12:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but expand thouroughly. There's many, many more than listed presently. Totema1 03:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and do not listify. Lists very similar to this are routinely deleted at AFD. I don't know why you would think non-defining or trivial characteristics are any better for articles than they would be for categories. Recury 15:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 11:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. List article, maybe.... Dugwiki 19:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Greg Grahame 02:00, 3 January 2007 (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. Timrollpickering 02:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment after closing and cleanup of the nominated cat which was not closed correctly. This should have been closed as a cat redirect and not a keep. Vegaswikian 05:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Category:Swiss people. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as redirect Hawkestone 15:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hawkestone. — Instantnood 21:05, 31 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. Note that both are empty so there's nothing to actually merge. Timrollpickering 02:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Michael Jackson Impersonator
• Category:Michael Jackson Impersonators

Delete both, not good profession categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:American impersonators and also merge in Category:American female impersonators. Make this a child of Category:American entertainers. This is a valid occupation and right now is too small to break out. Vegaswikian 22:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for this good idea -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thought, we may want to keep Category:American female impersonators as a child of Category:American impersonators since it is also a valid child of Category:Drag queens. I think the extra cat is better than the other solution of putting the members in two categories. No strong opinions on which way to go. Vegaswikian 02:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overcategorized, wrongly capitalized categories. Shoester 08:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per revised suggestion by User:Vegaswikian. - jc37 12:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Samuel Wantman 05:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, especially since both cats are currently empty --- Skapur 02:32, 4 January 2007 (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. Timrollpickering 01:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Waterfalls of Turkey, convention of Category:Waterfalls by country. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. - jc37 12:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Landforms. Also, see related nomination here. Picaroon 18:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Wizardman 04:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too many cats --- Skapur 02:31, 4 January 2007 (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/redirect. Timrollpickering 01:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This category has no point. There is a identical category that has a dash between the the words "Anti" and "Semitic." This category is uncategorized and has no pages in it. Recommend for delete.  King of Anonmity   
• Keep - I think it is there so editors won't recreate it. Headphonos 23:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Tag with ((category redirect|Anti-Semitic people)) and keep. No harm in helping people find the correct category. Picaroon 00:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. - jc37 12:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. Chesdovi 21:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect is a good idea --- Skapur 02:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge, the related article is at Antisemitism. --tjstrf talk 01:07, 5 January 2007 (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 01:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only current member is already in Category:Private schools in New York. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and populate. I am very surprised that there isn't a category for U.S. schools by state. Sumahoy 22:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I considered that in deciding not to take a position. All of the schools roll up under education. I'm not convinced that is bad. Vegaswikian 06:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Delete and populate!!! --- Skapur 02:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my vote. The category Category:Education in New York already takes care of this.
• Soft redirect and protect from recreation, the same way that Category:Teachers directs you to Category:Educators (see ((categoryredirect)) for details). Silensor 04:45, 4 January 2007 (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 reverse merge. Timrollpickering 01:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect into Category:People from Dallas. Or the reverse. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse Merge, per Dallas, Oregon, et al. - jc37 12:09, 30 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 01:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, somehow I think it is not a good idea to categorize actors by television networks. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I agree. Shows can switch networks in the blink of an eye, and the category is all-of-a-sudden incorrect. Not a defining characteristic, either. Picaroon 01:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, it was meant to be for original nickelodeon alums basically and that can never change (i.e. all that, alex mack, etc.) Plus, how is it different than labelling a show to a network? CSI has jumped networks but is still considered to be a CBS show... So would you consider "Nickelodeon Alums" work better for you?--dputig07 04:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Don't categorize actors for every network their work ever appeared on. Shoester 08:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per similar previous PBS actors discussion. - jc37 12:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Twittenham 01:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I was thinking that Nickelodeon is a big part of everyone's history, more so than CBS or ABC, and I dont know about you, but I do like to know if certain people worked on specific netwroks. Again, how is it different than categorizing shows under networks?
• Delete per nom. Really no reason for this, as you could probably tell by what shows they did. --Wizardman 04:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - i was orginally going to say that it should be converted to a template, but then thought that there is no reason why Larisa Oleynik couldn't be grouped with Darris Love in a Category:Cast of Alex Mack that would in turn be underneath this Category:Nickelodeon actors, thus allowing me to browse around to Kenan Thompson through the subcat Category:Cast of All That. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Samuel Wantman 05:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chicheley 14:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom (generally don't categorize actors by production company or network) Dugwiki 19:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - could some of you people who are saying "delete per nom" actually give statements? Your personal opinions don't hold any more weight than mine, but at least i'm basing them on some logic. "Because I don't think it's a good idea" has no validity. Could someone please point me to the PBS discussion? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 05:22, 3 January 2007 (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 01:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Houston albums to Category:Houston (singer) albums

• Rename, Main article includes qualifier. (Not worth effort to go to Afd to merge Album article into his brief bio and then do a Cfd since notibility criteria for singers is: welcome to wikipedia!). RCEberwein | Talk 19:44, 29 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. Timrollpickering 01:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Methodist bishops. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge given precedent. Dr. Submillimeter 21:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• merge into Category:Filipino Methodist bishops. Circeus 02:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• merge into relevant Filipino cat.Bakaman 05:52, 31 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 01:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bell Globemedia to Category:CTVglobemedia

• Rename, new corporate name as of Monday. [1] Essentially a procedural move but not covered under speedy criteria. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 18:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support move; would also suggest that maybe a criterion should be added to cfr-speedy to cover straightforward name changes like this. Bearcat 23:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - perhaps keep the old category as a redirect? - jc37 12:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and keep as redirect Hawkestone 15:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and keep as a redirect ~The artist formally known as '''Cdn_boi'''~ 20:13, 2 January 2007 (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 01:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:New Zealand rock music groups, convention of Category:Rock music groups by nationality. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to adjectival form I believe the proper name should be something like Category:New Zealander rock music groups. Much like people from France are called French people, people from New Zealand have some adjective by which they are known. TonyTheTiger 21:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per original nom. Tony, the adjectival form used for New Zealand is "New Zealand". "New Zealander" is a noun, meaning a person from NZ. People from New Zealand are New Zealand people. I should know, I am a New Zealander. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I thought the adjectival form for New Zealand was "Kiwi"! Kidding. Rename per nom. :) Xtifr _tälk 00:13, 2 January 2007 (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. Timrollpickering 00:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Boarding schools in the United States, or Keep. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge unless there is a system of categories by state elsewhere, then follow conventions there. TonyTheTiger 22:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These boarding schools should be divided by state the same way as other types of school are. Sumahoy 22:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• upmerge category does not currently necessitate a division by state that would leave Category:Boarding schools in the United States empty.Circeus 02:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subdivision of the parent is overdue and this is a good start. Pinoakcourt 11:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge for now. --- Skapur 02:23, 4 January 2007 (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 nomination withdrawn by proposer. Timrollpickering 02:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, Category only contains Hypernova, an article about a hypothetical astrophysical object. Unlike supernovae, there are no known hypernovae, hence nothing else for the category to hold. Of course, hypernovae could be discovered in the future, at which point this category would be of use, but there's no point in keeping the category around "just in case". Mike Peel 17:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Hypernovae are not hypothetical objects; the term is another name for Type Ic supernovae. A search of professional astronomy journals using the ADS Abstract Service shows that the term is used in the title of over 100 journal papers. Moreover, several objects have been identified as hypernovae, including SN 1998bw, SN 1997ef, SN 1997 dq, SN 2002ap, SN 2003lw, SN 2003jd, and SN 2003dh. (See the abbreviated discussion in Messier 74 on SN 2002ap; enough material is available to create an article on the object.) Since the category describes a real class of objects and also has potential for growth, it should be kept. Dr. Submillimeter 20:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retract nomination - this is a prime example of why the information in Wikipedia articles should be checked before it is believed. Mike Peel 21:19, 29 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. Timrollpickering 00:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional narcissists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. It is impossible to accurately apply narcissism to a fictional character. This seems to rather be Category:Fictional characters who appear to be somewhat vain and/or arrogant. Like the similar Category:Fictional psychopaths and Category:Fictional sociopaths, it includes many characters who are only present in the category due to a misunderstanding of the term - I also believe these terms can only be applied to something fictional if the medium or creator identifies them as such (e.g. Marc Cherry clearly calls Andrew Van De Kamp a sociopath, and even that requires citation a category cannot provide). And finally, to list some entries to show why this category is useless: E-123 Omega, Rachel Green, Hyacinth Bucket, Butt-head, Daffy Duck. Awful category. The last CfD was no consensus but, the votes to keep shouldn't have counted because they failed to make valid points, and were themselves very POV. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: well said. To hell with unverifiable categories. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger 21:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I say the category has merit. —The Real One Returns 02:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Only it fails to actually work as a category.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hasn't this one been deleted before? Shoester 08:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Too subjective: Narcissistic compared to whom? Is Narcissus the benchmark? Listify if wanted. - jc37 12:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I say the category has no merit. Recury 15:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --(trogga) 20:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I like the category. These characters are often specifically written to be narcissistic, it's part of the writers breakdown for them...so what's the problem. Again, I say keep. DtownG 02:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I get tired of category cynics. -- ClockStrikes9 02:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And we get tired of people saying "Man, I was watching this cartoon the other day and that one character is such a narcissist/miser/philanderer! I'm going to make a category about this so everyone knows exactly what I think!" The closing admin should also note that most of the keep votes are variations on WP:ILIKEIT and should be discounted. You can consider my delete vote as "per nom" as Zythe sums it up rather well. Recury 15:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Many categoric descriptions would seem "subjective," if you're hellbent on being skeptical and contradictory. This is harmless. Let it stay. Incognito9810 05:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Subjective categories on fictional characters are generally dysfunctional. Moreover, categories based on subjective traits have been deleted in the past (such as "Fictional characters who love to shop"). Dr. Submillimeter 10:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subjective and crude. Pinoakcourt 11:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why don't you just delete every fictional character category? Ndrly 02:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. We should delete every fictional character category by personal trait and replace them with lists or articles. -- Samuel Wantman 05:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Like someone said, some character ARE written TO BE narcissistic. - Stavdash 20:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I was being sarcastic about deleting every fictional character category. - Ndrly 02:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to administrator - This is a (presumably accidential) double vote by Ndrly. Dr. Submillimeter 08:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category actually makes some sense. --- Skapur 02:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • - That's right. And some characters are written to be racist or sadistic.
• Keep I agree that characters are written to have certain personality traits, and narcissism can be one. -- Nwdavis 18:21, 4 January 2007 (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 00:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Good articles needing attention (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Author nom. Ling.Nut 15:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - db-author - jc37 12:09, 30 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, this is going nowhere. Discussion should continue at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals or Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. the wub "?!" 08:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - all that is required is the use of the Wikipedia policies and procedures being applied Wikipedia:Common names and Wikipedia:Naming conventions that being the use of Category:Rat breeds and Category:Mouse breeds. Aggregating mouse and rat together and then dividing them by the Middle Ages terms Old World and New World is confusing and does not allow quick and easy access to an aggregate of each species. Headphonos 15:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote, but it would be best to wait until this is settled before we begin removing categories. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger 21:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This almost seems like a neologistic/Original researched application of "Old World" with "rats and mice". Is this how they are grouped scientifically (in other words, references/citations of such a name would be welcome : ) - jc37 12:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You might want to see the articles Old World rats and mice (aka Murinae) and New World rats and mice. -- Visviva 06:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I read through the associated articles before my comment : ) - When going through the references provided in the articles, I couldn't find one where the experts actually used those terms together as a single term like that ("Old World rats and mice" or "New World rats and mice"). Hence my comments above. If you have references showing otherwise, I welcome them : ) - jc37 10:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are some Google Scholar results for NWRM and OWRM. Of course, as these results show, experts tend to use the technical terms "Murinae" and "Sigmodontinae," and perhaps it would be better if we followed their example, so as to avoid giving the incorrect impression that these are geographic categories, when they are in fact taxonomical. -- Visviva 15:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Then I think the terms "old world" and "new world" should be removed as potential neologisms, per WP:NEO. - jc37 06:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. Species are not breeds, which means that the recent expansion of Category:Rat breeds and Category:Mouse breeds is very problematic. Suggest rename of the OWRM category to Category:Murinae. -- Visviva 06:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we use the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions at Wikipedia. The main articles names reflect the use of Mouse and Rat. Examples of species being called breeds are Category:Cat breeds Category:Dog breeds Category:Horse breeds their are many others Headphonos 12:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those categories are correct, whereas the mouse and rat categories are not. Dogs (like cats and horses) are members of a single species. They are also domesticated, which makes the term breed (as opposed to variety or race) appropriate. In contrast, there are hundreds of distinct species of rats and mice, and with a few exceptions they are not domesticated. Note: there are numerous breeds of domesticated mice and rats, laboratory animals or pets, but these are not what the Old/New World categories contain. -- Visviva 15:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reflection: We could rename the breed categories to "Mouse species" and "Rat species," which would at least be correct, but the problem is that the term "mouse" masks a vast diversity of murids and cricetids; some species of "mouse" are more closely related to hamsters than they are to other "mice." This was the reason, I presume, for the longstanding Old World/New World category structure.-- Visviva 15:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this CFD +tag is not about what you are discussing, please stay on topic or the discussion will become confused. We can fine tune the +cat names after this vote is decided, I will keep an open mind on the subject. thank you Headphonos 15:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I was in the process of manually moving all rat species into a new Category:Rat species when this discussion was brought to my attention. I think the answer is to move all "breeds" into new species categories. The relevant articles Murinae and New World rats and mice - the latter gives refs while the former does not, and none of them are webfriendly, also . It appears you cannot find an aggregate of each species because this in reference to a family so the combination of finding these categories under both Category:Rats and Mice seems appropriate. It would be fine to move Category:Old World rats and mice to Category:Murinae, but the family that NWRAM belong to, Cricetidae also includes true hamsters, voles, and lemmings. three of the five subfamilies of Cricetidae include NWRAM according to their own articles (Neotominae, Sigmodontinae, Tylomyinae). And there appears to be a difference of opinion on whether to include all into Sigmodontinae or keep the subfamilies distinct. I think that the best course of action is to have it as follows:
  • • Category:Rodents
      • Category:Old World rats and mice and a soft redirect -> Category:Murinae -10 June 2024
      • Category:Cricetidae
        • Category:New World rats and mice
          • Category:North American rats and mice soft redirect -> Category:Neotominae
          • Category:Vesper and climbing rats soft redirect -> Category:Tylomyinae
          • Category:Sigmodontinae
            • Category:North American rats and mice soft redirect -> Category:Neotominae
            • Category:Vesper and climbing rats soft redirect -> Category:Tylomyinae

This way Rattus can be appropriately grouped with Mus, but the Pack rat will remain distinct and grouped with the Grasshopper mouse as a New World rat and mouse subfamily as described in Cricetidae. I realize the circular hierarchy is to be typically avoided, but i think this is an exception, because apparently the current taxonomy is in question. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin comment With various counterproposals including a proposed new category structure it's difficult to see a precise consensus on this one so far. I'm reluctant to close the debate at this point and potentially lock out categories within a restructuring (and not know much about rats & mice I don't know how this would affect it). Now that ΖαππερΝαππερ has suggested a restructure, how does everyone feel about it? The current cats can be kept/renamed if needs be but organisation will need human experts not bots. Timrollpickering 02:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • a bot could be used for the clearing out of Category:Old World rats and mice into Category:Murinae couldn't it? I do agree, though, that restructuring Category:New World rats and mice will take human effort. Also, i want to make clear that i am proposing we use biological nomenclature for OWRAM because there were no clear examples of the term in actual use, and common names as outlined in naming conventions because the current state of taxonomy for Sigmodontinae is apparently in question. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 05:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • addition No... wait, after reviewing the links from Visviva more closely, these names are as common as using Black rat for R. rattus. OWRAM should stay, response from Jc37? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 05:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Support the reorg proposed by Zappernapper; given the somewhat confused nature of this discussion, however, perhaps a second CfD on that specific proposal would be best. -- Visviva 04:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Support Relisting on CfD - Though as I said above, as things stand now, I oppose the use of "Old world" and "New world" in the naming of the categories. - jc37 06:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • but y? didn't the links that visvia provide show that these are indeed common names? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 23:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Support per above. - Privacy 04:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but I would not be opposed to changing to subfamily designations for categories instead of using the common names. I have no idea where to even begin with cleaning up the mess that's been made of muroid categories in the past couple of weeks. First of all this or something very like it is the common name for these taxonomic groups used in nearly every technical and respectable popular reference on the subject:
  • Nowak (1999, Walker's Mammals of the World) uses "New World rats and mice" and "Old World rats and mice".
  • McKenna and Bell (1997, Classification of Mammals above the Species level) use the terms "New World rats, New World mice" and "Old World rats, Old World mice".
  • Feldhamer et al. (2004, Mammalogy - a textbook) use "New World rats and mice" and "Old World rats and mice".
  • Vaughan et al. (2000, Mammalogy - a textbook) use "New World rats and mice" and "Old World rats and mice".
  • Macdonald (1984, Encyclopedia of Mammals - a popular text) uses "New World rats and mice" and "Old World rats and mice".
  • Musser and Carleton (1993, 2005, Mammal Species of the World) do not apply a common name.
• Unlike the newly created Category: Species of mice, Category:Genera of mice, and Category: Species of rats, the categories proposed here for deletion: Category: New World rats and mice and Category: Old World rats and mice actually have a definable criterion for inclusion, represent biologically meaningful groupings, and educate instead of misleading our readers.
• The New World rats and mice represent a monophyletic group containing three closely related subfamilies (Sigmodontinae, Neotominae, and Tylomyinae) of rodents in the family Cricetidae. Until a year or so ago, these were considered to members of the same subfamily (Sigmodontinae), but whether two or three, all New World rats and mice are widely recognized as monophyletic. The group is restricted to North and South America and consists of a variety of rather generic muroids that tend to have a vaguely rat-like or mouse-like appearance. Note that they are more closely related to hamsters, voles, and lemmings than they are to the Old World rats and mice.
• The Old World rats and mice represent a monophyletic group in the subfamily Murinae in the family Muridae. The group is naturally restricted to Eurasia, Africa, and Australiasia, but has followed humanity across the globe. They also include a number of generic muroids that have a vaguely rat-like or mouse-like appearance and include the true mice (genus Mus) and true rats (genus Rattus). Note that they are more closely related to gerbils than they are to the New World rats and mice.
• Recently all articles which were once included in Category: New World rats and mice and Category: Old World rats and mice were transferred to the newly created Category: Species of mice, Category: Genera of mice, and Category: Species of rats. These three categories as they currently stand are worse than useless, they are actively misleading. There is no biologically meaningful definition of "mouse" or "rat" unless it is restricted to include only certain members of the subfamily Murinae. Right now Category: Species of mice includes representatives of four subfamilies (Murinae, Leimacomyinae, Sigmodontinae, and Neotominae) and two families (Muridae and Cricetidae). A given species included in the category will be more related to members of different categories (Category:Deomyine rodents, Category:Gerbils, Category:Hamsters, or Category:Voles and lemmings) than it will be to other members of the same category. Category: Genera of mice is similar. Category: Species of rats is even worse. Right now Category: Species of rats includes representatives of seven subfamilies (Murinae, Lophiomyinae, Sigmodontinae, Neotominae, Cricetomyinae, Mystromyinae, and Spalacinae) and four families (Muridae, Cricetidae, Nesomyidae, Spalacidae). A given species included in the category will be more related to members of different categories (Category:Deomyine rodents, Category:Fossorial muroids, Category:Mouse-like hamsters, Category:Gerbils, Category:Hamsters, Category:Nesomyid rodents, or Category:Voles and lemmings) than it will be to other members of the same category. It's a complete hodepodge of totally unrelated rodents. If I were to create a new article on a muroid rodent, I wouldn't have the slightest idea which of these random categories to put it in.
• Not only do the New and Old World rats and mice need to be kept, but the mass depopulation of these categories needs to be reverted. --Aranae 04:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's been over three weeks on this one, are y'all reaching any kind of solution?--T. Anthony 14:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • response I think interest has waned. Everything was organized pretty logically before Headphonos got it into their head the OWRAM and NWRAM weren't common names. And then had the idea to move everything into categories called "Breeds" of X. Anywho, Aranae raises some good points, and as noted above i pretty much agree with them. However, i do think that for the common layperson, dividing things beyond OWRAM and NWRAM would likely get confusing, so the answer would appear to do both. While I realize that rat and mouse get applied subjectively it could be more beneficial to navigation and common sense, however biologically inaccurate. The individual species articles would still retain their scientifically correct categories Category:Deomyine rodents but also contain the Category:Species of rats for the scientifically disinclined. I think that writing out the subjectivety in each respective category wold do better to inform people rather than grouping them only one way and having people (whether layreaders or editors) be confused and frustrated. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal is an improvement, but I still don't see the point in intentionally misleading our readers. --Aranae 05:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose that the discussion would be better off moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals or Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. This is where it would gain the notice of resident experts and will allow things to come more in line with how it is done for related taxa. --Aranae 05:57, 22 January 2007 (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 nomination withdrawn Circeus 02:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Invasive species (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This category has extended well beyond the definition in list of invasive species (namely species that are introduced and invasive) to species that are invasive in some countries only. For example, the red fox is invasvive in Australia, but not in the UK. As such the category gives a false impression of whether individual species are invasive. MikeHobday 14:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn as per Coelacan's comment below. MikeHobday 19:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Strong objection to deletion - one of the most useful categories for me - problem mentioned above can be dealt with individually. Pollinator 15:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me how and who by, and I'll withdraw my suggestion if your alternative makes sense. But it seems a massive task to remedy the problem to me. MikeHobday 17:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The nomination makes no sense. "Species that are invasive in some countries only"? What other kinds of invasive species are there? We're not talking about species created in a mad scientist's laboritory, are we? All "invasive species" are non-invasive species in their environments of origin. — coelacan talk — 18:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have persuaded me. I think the category page could benefit by this clarification. MikeHobday 19:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a good point. I see you added it. And I shall mark this as one of the few days I persuaded someone of something! =P — coelacan talk — 00:31, 30 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 00:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Catholic businesspeople. However I don't think religion is relevent here. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Religion is utterly irrelevant here. — coelacan talk — 18:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Relevance not established by existing list or any current discussion. TonyTheTiger 21:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category that is gender-specific, inappropriate, and wrongly capitalized. Shoester 08:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Listify, if wanted. - jc37 12:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bleh. who needs it? — coelacan talk — 16:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no list please. Pavel Vozenilek 03:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Creating a list would be a waste of time. Chicheley 14:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a very useful list or category. --- Skapur 02:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Largely irrelevant. Pinoakcourt 16:11, 4 January 2007 (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 00:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Sacred texts, it seems to me that what is scacred and what is not depends upon your POV. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. "Texts considered authoritative by a religious group" is a useful category and this is a better name. Eluchil404 14:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happens if people disagree over which texts are sacred, and which aren't? Who gets to decide? Do we vote? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consensus as usual, of course. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Include everything that a WP:RS reliable source consideres sacred; what you or I believe is irrelevant. On the other hand it could easily be merged into the duplicate category below. Eluchil404 06:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ain't a problem having such a category, but it's made redundant by Category:Religious texts, the older and more populated category. — coelacan talk — 00:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant and wrongly capped category. Shoester 08:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant and subjective. Prolog 10:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - its only member is already in Category:Taoist texts, which is a subcat of Category:Religious texts. - jc37 12:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant to preferable Category:Religious texts. Hawkestone 15:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Was about to suggest keep but then noticed Category:Religious texts, which will do just fine. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Category:Religious texts --- Skapur 02:18, 4 January 2007 (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 00:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominee category. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Overcategorization. Prolog 10:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nominee category. - jc37 12:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep does not necessarily violate the guideline at WP:OC. It was only semi-recently changed to expressly forbid nominee cats (Nov. 30th, 2006) and there was not much discussion. It is a subcat of an established and accepted system for Category:Golden Globe Awards, and is similar to precedent of Category:Academey Award nominees. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keepThere is a lot of similar categories, why this is not important? Jane 15:42, 2 January 2007.
• Delete Generally don't categorize by nominee status, only for actual award winners. Is there a reason this category is needed for nominees? Dugwiki 19:54, 2 January 2007 (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 00:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we do not categorize as living / deceased. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The intersection of nationality, career, and living status is a triple intersection, a form of overcategorization.Dr. Submillimeter 13:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Overcomplex and marginally relevant. Also misformatted. Osomec 17:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per policy. Shoester 08:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify then Delete - This could be useful information. - jc37 12:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the category below and renamed category:Irish-born Catholic bishops, or perhaps category:Irish Catholic bishops. — Instantnood 21:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Overelaborate. Chicheley 14:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 16:11, 4 January 2007 (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 00:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we do not categorize as living / deceased. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The intersection of nationality, career, and living status is a triple intersection, a form of overcategorization.Dr. Submillimeter 13:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Overcomplex and marginally relevant. Also misformatted. Osomec 17:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per policy. Shoester 08:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify then Delete - This could be useful information. - jc37 12:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the category above and renamed category:Irish-born Catholic bishops, or perhaps category:Irish Catholic bishops. — Instantnood 21:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 16:12, 4 January 2007 (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. Timrollpickering 00:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Bay Area Rapid Transit stations, part of Category:Bay Area Rapid Transit. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sounds good --- Skapur 02:16, 4 January 2007 (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 superseded by UCFD. >Radiant< 09:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians that welcome new users (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

same as Category:Wikipedians in the Welcoming Committee †Bloodpack† 03:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: shouldn't this be at WP:UCFD instead? — coelacan talk — 03:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oops, sorry for that, thanks for the proper link =] †Bloodpack† 04:15, 29 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 listify and delete. Timrollpickering 00:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as overlapping categories, see also discussion of December 8th. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 00:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per 8 December discussion, Tewfik^Talk 06:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overcat. >Radiant< 09:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Overcategorization perhaps OK as a list. -- Samuel Wantman 11:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, it would make a fine list article. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 12:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and Delete. Per above discussions. Vegaswikian 00:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify then Delete - per above. - jc37 12:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify. — Instantnood 21:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify then Delete per nom. --Wizardman 04:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do not listify as it may be POV. Pinoakcourt 11:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be a POV article. A person either served in the US Military, or they did not.Isaac Crumm 03:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete as the 110th is the sitting congress, this category is useful. Isaac Crumm 00:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep till Listify. Keep this category till a list is made. Please avoid premature deletion --- Skapur 02:14, 4 January 2007 (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.