< December 2	December 4 >

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) 04:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the 'List of' Flamesplash 22:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Listify 205.141.247.28 14:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete, not an important grouping for a category. (Radiant) 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is already a list at Formula One Podcasts, which I will be proposing for deletion as there are surely not enough notable F1 podcasts to make anything useful out of it. Recury 20:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Misnamed category for non-notable grouping. Olborne 13:14, 8 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 "?!" 11:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish American actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Given the debate on other religious/ethnic categories, it seems that a review of any religious categorization in Wikipedia is in order to ensure consistency. I personally do not support deletion of this category and vote Neutral Delete pending outcome of the preceding discussions. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_2#Category:Roman_Catholic_entertainers for more information. Endless blue 21:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as part of Category:American actors by ethnicity, since by precedent we treat Jewish as both a religion and an ethnicity. All of these are triple intersections and I'd prefer we didn't subclass actors by ethnicity. However, it is unfair to single out any single ethnicity for special treatment. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as disruptive non-nomination made to make a point. The comparision between the two categories is spurious as this one is both a national category and an ethnic category, while category:Roman Catholic entertainers is neither. Osomec 21:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your statement is not widely accepted. According to Who_is_a_jew, there is considerable debate within the Jewish community as to whether someone who does not practice Judaism is considered a Jew. This would indicate that the definition is primarily religious. Furthermore, this yardstick for being a Jew is confusing and thus not encyclopedic if you are going to invent reasons why this category is different from others. Do you include lapsed Jews (e.g., Jews for Jesus) into this category provided they confrom to Halakha? Do you include converted Jews who do not have Jewish grandparents? I'm asking because your answer will help determine how much of a real difference there is. Finally, please don't call me disruptive -- I am as entitled as you are to question how the category system functions and have done so in a reasonable manner, and furthermore have brought to light the same inconsistency in standards as demonstrated by the existence of categories like Category:Atheist_mathematicians. If you feel this category should exist, consistency would suggest support of Category:Roman Catholic entertainers. Thanks. Endless blue 23:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is little to no debate within the Jewish community that "someone who does not practice Judaism is considered a Jew". The Orthodox would consider a Catholic priest to be a Jew if his maternal grandmother was Jewish, for example, as Orthodox considerations of who is Jewish are not based on practice, but on maternal lineage. The Reform are more based on upbringing and religious practice, but the crux of the debate has almost nothing to do with religious practice, and more to do with birth. There is also no debate whatsoever within mainstream circles that "Jewishness" is an ethnicity, so that argument's out as well (in fact, we even have a Jewish ethnic divisions article) Mad Jack 06:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - We've got every single other ethnicity-American categorized (or sub-categorized whenever the initial category gets too huge). This is on par with Category:Italian-American actors, Category:Irish-American actors, Category:African-American actors. Delete all X-American categories or delete none of 'em. Mad Jack 06:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep yes, delete ALL of them, or KEEP ALL of them!! Thanks. Pastorwayne 12:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A useful category. Let's not overintellectualize this --Mantanmoreland 20:55, 8 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. David Kernow (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up from this CfD from October; per use of "country subdivision" in related categories – cf Category:Country subdivisions etc – request:

Category:First-level national administrative divisions to Category:First-level administrative country subdivisions

Category:Second-level national administrative divisions to Category:Second-level administrative country subdivisions

Category:Third-level national administrative divisions to Category:Third-level administrative country subdivisions

Category:Fourth-level national administrative divisions to Category:Fourth-level administrative country subdivisions

• Rename all as nom. David Kernow (talk) 21:05, 3 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 "?!" 10:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Formula One drivers who entered but not started to Category:Formula One drivers who entered a race but did not start

• Rename, to improve style. Chicheley 19:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment can someone explain why this is a defining charastic that needs to be kept? Vegaswikian 19:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a defining characteristic. Listify instead. (Radiant) 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I don't know if lists are the right way to handle this, but categories are definitely not. Recury 20:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Osomec 21:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for style purposes. Its defining characteristic is mind-bogglingly self-explanatory. Suggest that those voting for deletion are not familiar with F1. Bretonbanquet 00:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not voting, but I think that however much one knows about Formula One, one should accept that this is a marginal category. Hawkestone 23:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's at least as valid as some of the other categories being kept on this page. It is necessary to separate with a category those drivers who failed to start a World Championship race from those that did. Bretonbanquet 12:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per Chicheley. Readro 00:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Chicheley.--Skully Collins ^Edits 07:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Chicheley.--Diniz 10:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Chicheley.--Jsydave 13:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Probably worth keeping. Adrian M. H. 15:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest List of Formula One drivers who entered but did not start a race as more appropriate since (1) I doubt a succinct category name is possible; and (2) the race/s as well as the drivers can be listed. David Kernow (talk) 03:12, 10 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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional magicians to Category:Fictional magic users

• Rename. Currently includes all fictional magic users who are not witches or wizards, but not all of the remainder are called magicians either. A more general category, with Fictional wizards and Fictional witches as subcategories, will be more useful. Will also reduce the risk of confusion with Category:Fictional stage magicians, since AFAIK "magician" usually means performer. NeonMerlin 17:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, definitely.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There is a diffrence between a magician, somone who preforms tricks for an audience, and a magic user, someone who uses "magic" within a reality where magic exists. The diffrence being the magic does not have to be real for someone to be called a magician. David Copperfield is called a magician, but Dr. Strange is a magic user. I think there should be two seperate articles. One for magic users and one for illusionists. Animedude 02:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Fictional stage magicians would fit 'illusionists' or people who perform tricks for an audience. Mairi 03:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a category for "illusionists," as in, people with the power to cast illusions. Non-powered stage illusionists should not be included in that category; "stage magicians" is a sufficient descriptor for them.

• Merge into Category:Fictional wizards (or witches) as appropriate; I believe the distinction between 'magician' and 'wizard' to be somewhat arbitrary, and I find the term "magic user" to be haphazard. (Radiant) 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because the terms "witch" and "wizard" and whatever else can mean very different things in different contexts. For example, many Buffy/Angel characters have magic powers but aren't witches/warlocks. Boy witches on Charmed are still called witches. Dr. Strange or John Constantine is not a wizard.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:05, 5 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) 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Swedish expatriates in Japan, convention of Category:Expatriates in Japan. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• merge the new name is more correct Hmains 17:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• merge the new name is more consistent with other nation's expatriates catagories --MChew 03:18, 10 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) 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Expatriates in Indonesia, convention of Category:Expatriates by country of residence. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• merge the new name is more correct Hmains 17:44, 3 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) 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Expatriates in the Philippines, convention of Category:Expatriates by country of residence, as duplicate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• merge the new name is more correct Hmains 17:44, 3 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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Expatriates in China, convention of Category:Expatriates by country of residence. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• rename the new name is more correct Hmains 17:44, 3 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) 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Expatriates in Japan, convention of Category:Expatriates by country of residence, as duplicate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• merge the new name is more correct Hmains 17:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• merge agree that the new name is more correct --MChew 03:20, 10 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) 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Expatriates in India, convention of Category:Expatriates by country of residence, as a duplicate category. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• merge the new name is more correct Hmains 17:44, 3 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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian apologists to Category:Christian apologetics

• Rename, This category includes more than just people, such as books and general topics. The new proposed name seems more inclusive and accurate, and could act as a parent category if there is ever a day where we need to split out the apologists from the general apologetic topics. Andrew c 16:07, 3 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:Mystery!. the wub "?!" 19:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Mystery! or perhaps Category:MYSTERY!, both are used, however the main article is Mystery! -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, preferably to lower case. (Radiant) 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match main article, or possibly delete and listify I should mention that in general most television series shouldn't have their own unique categories. It appears that this category could also simply be handled as a list article, and I'm wondering if being an "episode" of PBS Mystery is notable enough to warrant a unique category for the show. Assuming the category is kept in place, though, it should definitely match the main article's spelling. Dugwiki 17:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete and listify. This is not a TV series, it's just a branding for a slot in the broadcast schedule, and it includes a variety of rather different TV series. I don't see any gain from categorising TV series by their scheduling with one particular broadcaster, and the downside is that if we keep this it may be taken as a precedent for categorisation according to the scheduling slots of hundreds of other broadcasters. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:43, 5 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 with Online music databases. David Kernow (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Online lyrics databases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. This category has been around for about 10 months and has still only 3 articles. A non-notable category. King Bee 15:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Online music databases. NeonMerlin 17:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Merlin. (Radiant) 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, then rename Online music databases to Online music and lyrics databases...?  David Kernow (talk) 03:21, 10 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Schools and Colleges in Indore to Category:Universities and colleges in Indore

• Rename, As standard for subcategories of Category:Universities and colleges in Madhya Pradesh and other Indian states. I've moved the stray school entries to Category:Schools in Indore. Mereda 13:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Piccadilly 15:49, 7 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 in line with main article. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:CSI episodes to Category:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episodes or Category:CSI: episodes
• Category:CSI characters to Category:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters or Category:CSI: characters
• Category:CSI actors to Category:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation actors or Category:CSI: actors

rename as main page. Dzpqn 12:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, avoid abbrev. (Radiant) 17:09, 4 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. David Kernow (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Innosense albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, The band has only produced one album before disbanding. Since they've remained disbanded for years with no sign of coming back, there's no potential growth for this category. WarthogDemon 09:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep due to special status of Category:Albums by artist, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hmm, seems I didn't realize it's importance. Is it possible to change my vote even though I nominated? oO -WarthogDemon 21:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per ProveIt. ~ BigrTex 17:54, 4 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 / no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Atheist mathematicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, no apparant relationship between being an atheist and being a mathematician. Mairi 09:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe one of them tried a mathematical proof for the non-existence of God. (Slightly joking, but stranger things have happened)--T. Anthony 10:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More seriously I went to the matt for categories in Category:Mathematicians by religion as I think there's relevance in the history of math. Also some mathematicians really did use their position, or math itself, to promote their views on religion. If enough atheists would fit that I'd say keep.--T. Anthony 13:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm aware that there's a general revelance of most religions and math, which is why I didn't nominate the other categories. But I wasn't aware of any relationship to atheism, and none of the 3 articles in the category (one of which makes no mention of atheism in the article even) suggest much promotion of their views. But it's possible the category is just poorly populated... Mairi 19:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is why my keep was conditional. Also atheism is not, per se, a religion so I'd agree it can be discussed a bit different.--T. Anthony 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I changed the category's opening statement to put it in line with Category:Jewish mathematicians. I also added mathematicians whose atheism is more clearly relevant to their story.--T. Anthony 12:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per discussion of September 12th. My view is that either we categorize mathematicians by religion, or we don't. Personally, I don't think we ought to. However, if we do, I think it is innappropriate to single out any religion (or non-religion) for special treatment. Either they should all stay or they should all go. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  
• Keep per Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_2&action=edit&section=25 Endless blue 15:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a meaningful itnersection - does the Nobel Prize distinguish between religions? But ProveIt is correct that they should all have the same treatment.

There is no Nobel Prize for Mathematics. Nonetheless, the intersection (atheist and mathematican) is useful for anyone doing quick research on Wikipedia with the intention of finding atheists who work in a mathematical field. Canadianism 03:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Radiant) 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep This category is actually a reflection of its parent, Category:People by religion and occupation. While I am personally skeptical of the reasoning behind that parent category, and think it is an unnecessary categorization scheme, as long as that scheme remains in place then Category:Atheist mathematicians is a valid subcategory, because technically there are no restrictions in the parent on what occupations may be included. Until and unless the parent category is deleted or somehow restricted in definition, categories like Category:Atheist mathematicians should remain in place. Dugwiki 18:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, the parent category had a cfd nomination that resulted in "No Consensus" on September 21 2006. You can view for reference it at [1]. Dugwiki 18:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ProveIt and Dugwiki. Either delete Category:Mathematicians by religion and all its sub-categories, or keep them all. But I see no case for singling out the atheists for decategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there is many times intersection between religion and mathematics.Bakaman 23:28, 9 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 both per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American game show contestants to Category:Contestants in American game shows

Category:British game show contestants to Category:Contestants in British game shows

• Rename, Ambiguous: could mean persons are contestants in a game show of the indicated country (intended), or persons are nationals of the indicated country who appear on a game show (of any country) (not intended). Tinlinkin 09:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Sounds reasonable. Dugwiki 18:07, 4 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. David Kernow (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irish-American criminals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, based on Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, and the fact that Irish-American criminals does not seem like a distinct topic that could potentially have an article. Also the only ethnic subcategory of Category:American criminals. Mairi 09:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The category, Category:Irish-American criminals is a parent category used to disambiguate between Category:Irish-American gang members and Category:Irish-American mobsters. In my opinion, like many other criminal related categories, many criminals are often lumped into Category:Irish-American mobsters (ex. "Public Enemy" figures such as George "Machine Gun" Kelly or Francis "Two Gun" Crawley) and I believe it is nessessary to disambiguate between the two. Many members of the Brinks Robbery fit into neither category. MadMax 12:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unlike "Roman Catholic criminals," which has been correctly proposed for deletion, it is common in the media and literature to refer to Irish-American criminals or gang members. As for Mairi's point that it is the only ethnic subcategory of American criminals, that is a good point and should be corrected.--Mantanmoreland 20:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Mantanmoreland. -- Mafia Expert 19:47, 9 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. David Kernow (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irish-American religious figures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, same reasoning as the other American religious leaders by ethnicity categories below (WP:CATGRS, mainly), and no apparently reason why Irish-American religious figures (or leaders) are any different. This category for some reason also uses 'figures' instead of 'leaders'. Mairi 09:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia already has several ethnic and religious categories and lists, including Category:Lists_of_Jewish_Americans and Category:Lists_of_Jewish_Americans as well as List_of_Catholic_American_entertainers. The practice of categorization by religion and ethnicity is well established in Wikipedia, so deleting these categories would be inconsistent. Endless blue 15:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't those examples say Listify? Grouping lists within a category to me is different than using the category to maintain the actual information. Vegaswikian 19:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete / Listify per discussion of November 16th, see also November 28th and November 29th. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I created this as a sub-category of "Irish-Americans", which was getting too big. As such, it's needed. After having created it, I noticed that unlike most other "Irish-American" sub-categories, this one did have encyclopedic value as many Irish-Americans are Catholic and there is a whole history of Irish-American religious figures. Mad Jack 06:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mad Jack.--Mantanmoreland 20:53, 8 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, POV. "Dislike " is too vauge a description as to who would fall in this category and is doomed to POV problems.Category:Fictional racists and Category:Fictional sexists were both recently deleted for POV problems and I felt this one should follow suit. if it is decied to keep the category, then a stricter definition on who is included must be placed. Animedude 04:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A category on real homophobes would flunk AFD for being unencyclopedic and/or POV, so this is definitely a delete. Bearcat 06:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 18:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As the others were deleted so it's consistent.--T. Anthony 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not objectively defined. (Radiant) 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Attack-category. Hawkestone 23:16, 9 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 Military of the United Kingdom in Cornwall, at least for the time being. Suggest, however, that Xdamr's proposed creation of British Army bases in X, Royal Air Force stations in X and Royal Navy shore establishments in X (where, in this case, X = Cornwall) may be a preferable solution. David Kernow (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military of Cornwall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Cornwall has never had a distinct military identity, so it is meaningless to label something as being the "Military of Cornwall". More generally, militaries are categorized by states (or non-state actors which have armed forces), not by purely geographic regions within states. The issue has been discussed by the Military history WikiProject. Kirill Lokshin 03:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Carom 05:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, units listed are all broader british units.ALR 16:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cornwall has a distinct identity within the UK, unlike that of other counties, see Constitutional status of Cornwall for fuller discussion.DuncanHill 21:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall may or may not have a distinct identity (the article you linked to describes the debate over its status as "ongoing"), but this is not the same as a distinct military identity - none of the units listed in the article were part of the armed forces of an independent Cornwall, but are rather components of the armed forces of the United Kingdom (or its predecessors). Carom 23:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall does not have a distinct identity recognised in law; (devolution etc) it certainly has agitation and campaigning for one, but its status is presently the same as any other English region.

Xdamr^talk 15:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as someone who is very interested in Cornwall and its coverage on wikipedia, I find the category very useful for navigation and as a way of spotting subjects lacking coverage. A category is just a 'box' for putting things in, not a statement of concrete reality or assetion of sovereignty.DuncanHill 17:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could certainly categorize military bases by their location - there would certainly be a case for a category like Category:Military bases of the United Kindom in Cornwall, and there would be no objection if some of the articles were place in Category:Cornwall, but locating a Cornish military category on this part of the tree is inappropriate, as Cornwall doesn't really qualify as an independent entity. Carom 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Cornwall may have a distinct regional identity, but it lacks a distinct military identity. Emoscopes ^Talk 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination and Emoscopes. Cornwall does not have a distinct military identity, although it does arguably have a distinct cultural identity. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no de facto or de jure Cornish military identity; each of these units are, or have been, under the control of the British armed forces, with absolutely no direct control eminating from Cornwall. Debates over Cornish identity are one thing, but this is silly.

Xdamr^talk 15:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Cornwall is often referred to as one of six Celtic nations 81.78.180.165 18:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm not entirely sure how this is relevent. As Xdamr and BrownHairedGirl have pointed out, Cornwall may have a distinct cultural identity - no-one is disputing that here - but it does not mean that these units should be categorized as Cornish. The fact that Cornwall is referred to as one of the six Celtic nations does not seem to affect this discussion. Carom 20:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Cornwall does not have a distinct military cultural identity within the UK. If it has, what is it? Raymond Palmer 19:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete individual counties of England do not have military idenitites. Tim! 09:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and suggestion for compromise There seem to me to be two sides to this - those coming from a Military History viewpoint, for whom a category 'Military of Cornwall' does not make sense for the reasons given by several users above; and those coming from a Cornish Studies background, for whom the Category is useful and makes sense given the disputed Constitutional status, and distinct Cultural identity, of Cornwall. Maybe something like a Category:Military in Cornwall as a sub cat of Category:Military of the United Kingdom and of Category:Cornwall could be a way to accommodate both viewpoints?DuncanHill 11:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a third approach, whether one believes in Cornish identity or not - a simple analysis of control. Who do the 'Cornish' armed forces answer to? Not to the Cornish Chief of the General Staff, but to the UK Chief of the General Staff; not to the First Sea Lord of Cornwall, but to the UK First Sea Lord, etc. Their allegiance is pledged to HM the Queen of GB and NI, not to any Cornish institution. Therefore they are most explicitly not the armed forces of Cornwall - at most they are the armed forces in Cornwall. Any suggestion of the former is therefore factually incorrect and should be changed.

Having said that, your suggestion has appeal. Given that there is no de jure Cornish military identity the best categorisation is one done on a geographical basis. If done on a geographical basis then there is no reason that other English counties, Scotland, Wales, NI, etc shouldn't have their own similar sections. Military in Hamspshire doesn't sound good, so better wording is needed. Given that there are three distinct armed forces, why not have seperate geographical categories for each? We would end up with Category:British Army bases in X, Category:Royal Air Force stations in X, and Category:Royal Navy shore establishments in X. This gives Cornwall it's military categories which can then also be linked to Category:Cornwall etc.

(In fact if you take a look at Category:Royal Air Force stations you'll find an embryonic version of this approach already exists).

How does that sound?

Xdamr^talk 17:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - there may be a case for a military history of the Duchy of Cornwall article, but the UK forces are under one overall command. Regan123 17:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI think Xdamr's suggestion has some merit, but it would still leave eg the DCLI without an appropriate Cornish sub-cat to go in. Categories are, as I have tried to say before, about making it easier for users to find related articles. In terms of Cornish Studies, a Cornish military category is very useful. It also does not in anyway prevent other categories being applied as appropriate to articles. It doesn't really matter whether or not Cornwall is or ever has been a soveriegn entity, what matters is what is useful to users. Putting eg DCLI, Davidstow Moor, etc in a Cornish military cat does not make any kind of claim about Cornwall's status - and I am a little surprized that some users seem to think it does!DuncanHill 17:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response The problem with this is that military units move around all the time. You will end up lots of very low population categories with very little chance of growth. At the most constituent country categorisation may be needed, but below that into county level seems to me to produce fragmentation where none is required. As to your other point, Cornwall seems to produce these responses because of the whole is it/isn't it England debate spilling out all over the place! Cheers, Regan123 23:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Categorizing bases by their location would be meaningful, as Xdamr says; but, for things like military units, the place where they were barracked is a fairly trivial detail that doesn't make sense as a category structure. Kirill Lokshin 18:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is highly POV to contend that Cornwall has a military identity. Hawkestone 23:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is highly POV to contend that Cornwall has a military identity - but as far as I can see, no-one is contending this! What I'm saying is that from a Cornish Studies perspective it is very useful to have a cat to put 'Military in Cornwall' articles into.

As for the point about military units moving around all the time, well, the DCLI (and its predeccessor, the 32nd Foot) is inextricably linked to Cornwall (see eg. 'Queen Victoria's Little Wars' by Byron Farwell for discussion of the contribution made by Cornish miners during the Siege of Lucknow) - hence the controversy which surrounded its merger with the SLI, and then the Light Infantry, just as with all the other now-defunct County regiments. No-one, as far as I can see, is suggesting that anu unit which may sometimes have been based in Cornwall should be in the cat - just those which are strongly linked to the County. RAF Davidstow Moor has hardly moved about at all! Just because a cat has 'military' in its name, doesn't mean that it's only of use or interest to military historians. Please try to consider the effect deletion would have on users with other interests to your own! DuncanHill 12:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem is really that this category should not be grafted onto the Military by country category tree - it doesn't belong in Category:Military of the United Kingdom as it's an unneccessary duplication of categorization. If you are insistant on keeping this particular category, i would suggest renaming it to Category:Military bases, units or formations of the United Kingdom located or barracked in Cornwall. It's hideously long, but it accurately describes both the contents and the intent of the category. This would be a child of Category:Cornwall, but be completely removed from Category:Military of the United Kingdom (where it doesn't belong anyway, primarily due to the way that particular category tree is set up). Carom 15:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of what effect deletion will have on users; categories, like articles themselves, must reflect the truth - if a category name gives a misleading impression then it ought to be corrected.

Insofar as the DCLI goes, is there any reason that that can't be categorised directly within Category:Cornwall? If Category:Shore establishments of the Royal Navy in Cornwall etc are created, they too would be categorised within their parent region Cat. (ie, in this case, Category:Cornwall). This make Category:Cornwall the main repository for Cornish articles, the place to which those interested in Cornish Studies could go.

Xdamr^talk 17:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although, having said that, I do see that an attempt has been made to keep Category:Cornwall tidy and clear of articles. Perhaps, given the strong 'county' ties of British regiments, thought ought to be given to categorising Category:British Army regiments on a county/regional basis? It's a tricky issue that you've uncovered here!

Xdamr^talk 17:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The position seems to me to be:

• From a Military Studies viewpoint, the current category is unhelpful and has no place in the current category tree for the Military, which is based on sovereign entities.
• From a Cornish Studies viewpoint, the category is helpful, and has a place in the Cornwall cats - the main Cornwall cat is kept as clear as possible from entries, instead articles being assigned to an appropriate sub-cat.

Suggestion rename Category:Military of Cornwall to Category:Military in Cornwall, remove it from the tree of military cats and place it as a sub-cat of Category:Cornwall, and also ensure that any members of it are appropriately additionally catted in the Military cat tree. I would suggest including a note on the Category:Military in Cornwall page to the effect that members must be also appropriately catted in the Military tree. This would ensure:

• That articles appear in the appropriate place in the Military category tree, which is helpful for users whose interest is Military Studies and is consistent with other articles about military units, bases etc.
• That articles appear in the Cornwall cat tree in a way which is useful for users whose interest is Cornish Studies. DuncanHill 15:23, 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 category already deleted at closure. However, will create redirect per JROBBO. David Kernow (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coles Myer to Category:Coles Group

• Rename, Company changed it's name to Coles Group, changing name retrospectivlyy. Nathannoblet 02:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, Most Australians will know the company more by its previous name, than this. At least a redirect should happen from Coles Myer to Coles Group if it is to pass. I do not advocate deletion of the former name. JROBBO 01:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Myers is no longer part of the group. A redirect to the new category would however be helpfull. --Bduke 02:09, 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Silent protagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as per the other protagonist categories. Almost all of these are video game characters, and many of them actually aren't actually silent; ffor example, the player inputs what the protagonist is saying in the Quest for Glory series, but the series' protagonist is categorized as "silent" here.

• Delete, not a defining characteristic. Ecco can't talk but isn't silent either with his ultrasonics; the AFGNCAAP has access to a variety of "order X to do Y" commands. (Radiant) 17:09, 4 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.

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

Delete, This category has been created to group together areas and sub areas that happen to have Norwood in the name. Whilst they are adjacent they are distinct areas that have little in common. Also, London is categorised by borough, and this only adds confusion. Regan123 01:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IIRC categories can have contents that overlap? However the contents of the Norwood categories do seem incomplete, at first glance, & I suspect it would be tricky to keep them 100% complete. But judging from where everyone came from at the Crissie P. firework show last Wednesday I suggest the areas do have a lot in common; its only the unusual circumstances of being at the crossroads of 5 local political boundaries that have 'riven them asunder', and societies like, say, the Norwood Society have long been fighting that problem.

Seeing your comment elsewhere re C.P. & Upper N., might you get the clarity you seek with better disambiguation, links & statements in the first paras. of the affected articles? Ephebi 03:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unhelpful and confusing, with no real common thread except the name. Sydenham, Gypsy Hill and Anerley are non-Norwood areas that seem to spread into the area up the hill in the old Great North Wood area - I don't think a category could really reflect that. Martín (saying/doing) 10:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Much better to sub-cat London borough categories by feature e.g. Category:Transport in Lambeth or Category:Parks and open spaces in Croydon than smaller "districts". MRSC • Talk 16:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Categorisation by borough is narrow enough. Greg Grahame 18:37, 3 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:German-American academics
• Category:German-American Christians
• Category:German-American Methodists

Delete, I don't understand what ethnicity has to do with any of these things. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. Greg Grahame 18:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom as irrelevant intersections. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:15, 5 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.