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 Speedy delete c1, empty for 4 or more days. NawlinWiki 14:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roads in Orillia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An empty category with no need to exist, as Orillia itself barely merits note, let alone an entire list of the roads within it. 74.13.36.27 23:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've tagged it with ((db-catempty)) because the category falls under CSD C1. Thanks for catching it. Picaroon 01:54, 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 delete. Timrollpickering 02:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Top Grossing films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as nom. Users may come and go, but categories should be worth keeping forever. This ain't it. Brought to you by EJBanks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), this category is miscapitalized in title, ambiguous, broad and pointless. I particularly love (sarcasm/irony, folks) the description: "Top Grossing Films of all Time." All time? All time, eh? Inflation tells us today's dollar could be worth less and less. Be whatever. Here's the real issue: success isn't a great thing for a category. I mean, really. If films were successful, the industry wouldn't be what it is today. This category uses a subjective status to link tons of otherwise unrelated films. Still, even though that's point and the reason for deletion...there's something else. This is the third or forth category by EJB submitted in the past two days. One use even called one of this guy's categories "an abomination". What the hell are gonna do about this user? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (for all time) (yes, for all time, adjust for inflation) Articles like List of highest-grossing films and Films considered the greatest ever more than make up for the use of this category, and do it much, much better. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a category just does a poor job here for reasons described above. Plus this category as it is now is very arbitrary. --W.marsh 23:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & EVula. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It would also make sense if there was a succession box so you could trace the history back of which film replaced which film. But that's not an issue with deleting. Vegaswikian 03:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Members would change to much to make this a good category. Eluchil404 15:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this undefined category (what's the cut-off for "top grossing"?) from a user who does nothing but create and populate categories and the occasional article that are redundant, poorly worded, wrongly capitalized, and/or pointless. Doczilla 18:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lists do a much better job of presenting statistics. Chicheley 14:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a list not a category. --- Skapur 02:53, 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 rename. Timrollpickering 02:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Henley Royal Regatta Races to Category:Events at Henley Royal Regatta

• Rename, The category is for the events (i.e. trophies) contested at Henley Royal Regatta e.g. the Grand Challenge Cup for eights. The current name Henley Royal Regatta Races implies that the category is for specific races in the event's history e.g. the 1948 final of the Grand Challenge Cup. The suggested change of name is consistent with Henley Royal Regatta's own use of the term 'Event' and 'Race' James of Putney 22:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename agreeing with James of Putney. --Bduke 03:00, 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 02:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Emigrants into Category:Expatriates

Category:Emigrants by nationality into Category:Expatriates by nationality

Category:Canadian emigrants into Category:Canadian expatriates

Category:English emigrants into Category:Expatriates from the United Kingdom (??not British expatriates)) Mayumashu 05:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:German emigrants into Category:German expatriates

Category:Irish emigrants into Category:Irish expatriates

• Merge Category:Emigrants and its subdirectories into Category:Expatriates - Checking my dictionary, I could not find a meaningful difference between the words "emigrant" and "expatriate". Therefore, I suggest that these two category structures should be merged into Category:Expatriates, which is the older of the two parent categories. Since categories do not exist for the Irish and English expatriates, I suggest renaming the emigrant categories accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter (an American expatriate/emigrant in the United Kingdom) 21:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:Emigrants and its subdirectories (and 1 sub-sub-directory) into Category:Expatriates as proposed except merge Category:English emigrants into the existing Category:British expatriates (it is odd that there is no Category:Irish expatriates). (Category:German immigrants to Canada should be merged into Category:German expatriates in Canada.) roundhouse 23:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• On second thoughts delete both Category:German expatriates in Canada and Category:German immigrants to Canada (unless German expatriates in Canada form a notable community). Category:XX expatriates in YY will lead to approx 40,000 cats as the UN lists 192 member-states. The existing pair Category:German expatriates and Category:Expatriates in Germany make sense, ie 2 per country; but each has been subcategorised already ... roundhouse 03:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No one seriously proposes creating every XX expatriates in YY category. Zimbabwean expatriates in North Korea, Fijian expatriates in Turkmenistan, etc. are not likely to have any notable members (or even any non-notable members) and should only be created where needed. However, in the cases where subcategorisation is needed because the parent category is too large (as will definitely be the case for countries which send many emigrants, like Philippines, or receive many immigrants, like Canada), then making subcategories based on the destination (in the "Foolander expatriates" case) or the nationality (in the "Expatriates in Fooland" case ) makes perfect sense --- there's not really any other sensible way to divide them. cab 23:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, as I understand it, an expatriate is someone who lives in a country where they are not citizens. Often there is a work-related reason for this, such as serviceman stationed abroad, etc. An emigrant, on the other hand, is someone who moves to a foreign land, intending to eventually become naturalized citizens of that land. So emigrants are only expatriates until they become naturalized citizens, but many expatriates eventually return to their homeland. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is also my understanding, and so we don't really know who is an emigrant unless we know their intentions or what passport(s) they hold; or likewise who is an expatriate, so perhaps all such cats should be deleted (or marked Prove It). roundhouse 03:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - ProveIt, could you provide the source for your information? I was unable to find such a difference between "expatriate" and "emigrant". I also generally agree with roundhouse; determining who "plans to be naturalized" and who "lives in a foreign country with no plans to be naturalized" is going to be difficult. Moreover, the difference between the two groups of people includes a significant gray area. For example, I know many people who currently hold permanent positions at organizations outside their home countries. However, these people do not necessarily have plans to become citizens of the countries that they work in. Are such people "emigrants" or "expatriates"? I can also develop other examples. It would be best not to attempt to differentiate between "emigrant" and "expatriate" and to just choose one term. Dr. Submillimeter 10:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Emigrant" implies a greater degree of separation than "expatriate". If one takes a job abroad for a fixed term with an absolute intention of returning to one's home country one is an expatriate, but not an emigrant. Pinoakcourt 11:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Emmigrants are immigrants from the perspective of the Country from which they come (immigrants are from the perspective of the Country to which they go). Expatriates are neither! They are living in another country for a period of time only, never fully "leaving" their nationality. All are appropriate and helpful categories, different from each other. Pastorwayne 14:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per nom. Expatriots are by definition non-citizens. Emigrants eventually become citizens. If one is going to be categorizing people on the basis of nationality, then the question of citizenship is not a trivial distinction. If it's not clear if someone should be called an emigrant or an expatriot, then rather than trying to divine intent, it's best to just say that they are expatriots until the moment they are granted citizenship. Clearly, some sort of expatriots category is needed. On the other hand, the emigrants category is really nothing more than a special case, it is the first generation of People of Fooian descent. The day they get their citizenship, they stop being Fooian expatriots and start being Fooian-Americans, or Fooian-Canadians or wherever they happen to live. Thus I would argue that the emigrants category is not actually needed. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In many cases, "Foovian-Americans" is used expansively for referring to anyone with a greencard, or even anyone with an immigrant visa to the US. Also, "expatriate" not "ex-patriot". cab 06:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per ProveIt. Nationality, ex-nationality, country of residence. This all seems to be getting out of hand. Next thing you know we'll be categorizing people by countries they vacation in. Oh-oh! I've jinxed it. -- Samuel Wantman 05:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Rename: I'd suggest "People living outside their country of citizenship" or a less-unwieldy version of same. As pointed out above in many "Oppose" votes, either name "Emigrants" or "Expatriates" implies generally different things about the person; the former that they are intending to stay in their new country, the latter that they are only transient residents. But if you keep the categories separate, how do you make the judgment call on moving them from one category to the other? How do you verify this at all?cab 06:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the answer is only where the individual's new citizenship is referenced (particularly when disputed) should they be categorized as emigrant - otherwise they would be listed as expat. Mayumashu 13:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion doesn't match real world usage of the words. Try mexican expatriates (~500 ghits) vs. mexican emigrants (~21000 ghits) for an example of what I mean (regardless of the fact that huge numbers of Mexicans outside of Mexico do not have citizenship). On the flip side of the coin, some people like Mike Rowse (a former Brit who took up Chinese citizenship in Hong Kong) continue to be referred to as "expatriates" in the media. There's no sharp line "emigrants have citizenship and expatriates don't." Also, in reply to your comment, a fifth generation Dutch-American is clearly not an emigrant (unless he emigrated from America to the Netherlands or some third country), thus implying that "Dutch American" should not be a subcategory of either "Emigrants" or "Expatriates". cab 21:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so having immigrants/emigrants a sub-category of expatriates addresses that the colliquial use of expat as both citizens and non-citizens is legit as the ghits evidence suggests (perhaps more in the case of American English and involving migration in the Americas) and formal use of emigrant/immigrant by having the two lists connected but separate. i m still convinced this is better than merging to two given the prevalence of using citizenship to categorize people on wikip. and i absolutely agree with you that neither emigrant nor expat cat pages should be linked with "fooian american" pages, as i believe at present they are not Mayumashu 07:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Expats do not become citizens of the country they reside in - this distinction can be clearly made and blurring it unnecessary. one of the main bases for categorising people on wikipedia is by nationality, residency has also become a legitimate basis however ('people from foo' vs 'natives of foo' debate). I think that both are legitimate. of course, emigrants were for some time expats so making the former a sub-cat of the later makes sense. finally, the difference between 'Fooian-Americans' and 'fooian emigrants/immigrants' is that the former is not very stringently defineable (can include non-immigrants, people with partial heritage, and of any number of generation - how Dutch is a fifth generation "Dutch-American" for instance) where the later is clearly defined on nationality and can be linked to both the emigrating and immigrating countries, providing for useful linking Mayumashu 13:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mayumashu etc. "People living outside their country of citizenship" is also unacceptable as it potentially includes vast numbers of people without requiring that residence is significant in time or achievements, and conveys too little information about the nature of that residence. Chicheley 14:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur. >Radiant< 14:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Radiant, who are you concurring with (just for clarity)? Dr. Submillimeter 16:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this muddling of different concepts. Wouldn't object to deleting the lot though. Piccadilly 19:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and offer alternative merge. There is a difference between a business person or athlete who works overseas part of the time (an expat), and a pioneer who left one country to break new ground in another (an emmigrant). What we should actuall do is merge to Category:Immigrants by nationality since every emmigrant is also an immigrant, and we already have much better immigrant cats. So merge take the English emmigrants, find out where they move to and move them into cats like Category:English immigrants to Canada. That's where they belong.Kevlar67 01:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this discussion reaches no consensus (which it probably will), I may suggest this alternative. Dr. Submillimeter 10:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this alternative only brings down the scheme. it s true that emigrants are equally immigrants but having both Cat:Fooian emigrants and Cat:Immigrants to Fooian completes the scheme allowing for lists of both the countries em/immigrants have left and the ones they ve gone to. the only trouble is deciding where a cat should be for instance Cat:Korean immigrants to Spain (ie. "arriving") or Cat:Korean emigrants to Spain ("leaving") - i prefer the former for immigration is typically either self-induced or a move that results in a better life (although not always) Mayumashu 05:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Emigrants and expatriates are not the same thing. Michael G. Davis 17:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Although I do not want to do this now, what if we merged these categories using "emigrant/expatriate" in place of "emigrant" or "expatriate"? This way, we avoid the semantics issues (where some people think emigrants are mislabeled as expatriates or vice-versa) and we do not need to guess the intentions of living people (who may or may not decide to stay in their countries of residence). Dr. Submillimeter 22:52, 6 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 02:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-combatant people of World War I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - The term "non-combatant" is too vague in the given context. This could refer to military personnel who did not actually engage in combat, people who avoided military service, or any civilians who influenced the war (e.g. politicians such as Woodrow Wilson, anti-war protestors, spies, etc.). Given the vague nature of the category's title, it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 21:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the category only has 1 article, Titus Lowe, and it is not clear why he is included (he was lecturing in Paris in 1916-18 - do we conclude that anyone lecturing in Paris during WWI was a person of WWI?). roundhouse 23:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• He was serving with the YMCA, which was a non-combatant participant in WWI. He participated in the war, but was not a combatant. This cat distinguishes between those who faught the war from those who were involved but did not fight. Pastorwayne 14:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as written it could include every single non-soldier alive during WWI. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, only those who actually participated in the war in some way. Pastorwayne 14:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-defining characteristics. Large parts of WW1 armies were non-combatants soldiers in classical meaning of the word combatant (as opposed in the Geneva convention). Pavel Vozenilek 03:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; suggest People of World War I and subcategories suffice. David Kernow (talk) 11:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. That could quite possible mean that every famous individual living during that time could be put here.
• Comment None of you seem to be reading the inclusion criteria in the cat.! Vote on the value of that, not what you think it could be!! Thanks. Pastorwayne 12:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. The problem is, neither do most editors; hence the purpose of a cat should be clear from its title. Delete per above. >Radiant< 14:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. "Participated" is undefined. Doczilla 13:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WWI was an industrial war, in which huge swathes of the population of combatant states were mobilised to run transport systems, build ships, work in munitions factories etc. "Participated" is therefore a term which could be applied to most of the adult citizens of the combatant states, and is not a distinguishing characteristic. The category could of course be more tightly definied, but it would then cause problems for WP:CAT's guidance that "unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category": the self-evident categ title conflicts with the definition.
  I'm afraid that this is yet another example of the fundamental flaw of Pastorwayne's approach to category creation, which appears to involve looking at an individual article and thinking up categories which could be created to accommodate it, rather than looking at the existing category system to see what is the appropriate category and then considering whether any sub-categorisation is needed. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That is YOUR opinion, Ms. BrownHairedGirl. In fact, I discovered Category:Non-combatant military personnel of the American Civil War and thought there should be a similar cat for W.W.I. I DID use the existing cat system to see what is appropriate! Or should THAT cat be deleted, too? You might want to tone down the personal attacks! Assume Good Faith? Thanks. Pastorwayne 12:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case, how about a rename to Category:Non-combatant military personnel of World War I? That would make the inclusion criteria clear from the title. -- Visviva 13:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds good to me. I vote to Rename to Category:Non-combatant military personnel of World War I. Thanks. Pastorwayne 19:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category name is contradictory and confusing --- Skapur 02:52, 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 no consensus to merge; rename to Category:Fictional transgendered people. Timrollpickering 02:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Transgender characters into Category:Fictional LGBT characters

• Merge, Covers more or less of the same thing. (trogga) 21:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Sadly, I nominated Category:Fictional bisexuals for the same reason but it received no consensus and set a precedent for all other sexuality subcategories. So rather, rename "Category:Fictional transgendered people". ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename - fictional characters are, well, characters and fictional character categories shouldn't be named "people." Otto4711 05:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Fictional people from London, Category:Fictional people from California... But whatever, the T has to stop being a capital letter.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Some merge or rename is mandatory because "transgender" shouldn't be capitalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]])
• Merge per above. >Radiant< 14:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No reason to merge, but speedy rename to :Category:Fictional transgender characters. Greg Grahame 01:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• People, as is used in "fictional people from such and such a place". May I also note that if this is renamed to people or characters, the similar Category:Fictional bisexuals discussion should reach a similar conclusion for consistency. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or rename Piccadilly 16:19, 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 02:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Metafictionally-aware characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Non-defining or trivial characteristic. (trogga) 20:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is done so often that it is no longer a defining characteristic. Dr. Submillimeter 21:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if it's so common why are there only 28 entries? Otto4711 22:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Because the category is incomplete. Gary Shandling broke the "fourth wall" frequently. So did Monty Python. So did Brewster Rockit just before Christmas. Bill Amend's characters even bragged about it in the last weekly FoxTrot comic strip. It's not even all that interesting anymore. Would you like more examples anyway? Dr. Submillimeter 23:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, I'd love more examples. Better keep the category so there will be a good place to put them. Otto4711 23:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I'm not so sure that this is a trivial characteristic... I dunno. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Keep, interesting and somewhat defining characteristic. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a trivial characteristic for most. Yes, in many cases, it is a defining quality. However, many characters have broken the fourth wall at times as a one-time gag or as promotional material. Think how often a character like Batman used to say, "Hey, kids, drink your milk." It will end up being a source of great argument. Doczilla 18:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like a cite that Batman ever said "hey kids, drink your milk." Otto4711 20:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I seriously doubt anyone would consider an advertisement to be breaking the fourth wall. I know one of the characters in the category, Deadpool, is actively aware that he is a comic book character (example). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Superman would be a better example, thanks. Anyway, perhaps we shouldbetter define "metafictional awareness". Breaking the fourth wall may be common, but if it's a "one-time gag", "advertizement" or such, how can we really say a character is "metafictionally aware"? I think if we get a better lock on awareness versus wall breaking, this category can be kept, though I'm reserving for now. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possibly listify. I think the above is exactly the problem. Even if suitably strict inclusion criteria were found, the inclusion of a character in this category would require a citation or several. However, categorization cannot be directly supported by references. This is a key reason for the restriction of categories to defining characteristics. -- Visviva 08:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, far too common in contemporary fiction, hence not a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 14:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Could you please cite some recent examples? I'm unfamiliar with there being a recent swell in this particular concept. The category itself only has 36 entries (including the sub-cat, minus lists), which doesn't strike me as nearly the common concept that it has been made out to be. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - See my above comment. (I found on Wikipedia that George Burns and Gracie Allen used to break the fourth wall. It's apparently an old trick. Most of the Loony Toons and Tiny Toons characters could also be cited as "metafictionally-aware".) Dr. Submillimeter 19:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, see, I'd consider breaking the fourth wall as different from metafictionally aware, though I'll grant that perhaps my personal definition shouldn't be the standard that Wikipedia holds everything to. ;-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not even worth a list. --- Skapur 02:55, 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 Speedy Rename Pretty clear-cut. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Dad episodes to Category:American Dad! episodes

• Speedy rename, The correct title is American Dad! with an exclamation mark. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:01, 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. Timrollpickering 02:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as categorization by non-defining characteristic. The best thing would be to listify in the A38 road article. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain - this category links towns and settlements on the A38 road. We have categories of settlements on various roads and rivers - so why delete this one? There are too many settlements "to listify in the A38 road article" as ProveIt suggests. I vote retain. Rhyddfrydol 02:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this road notable in some way that listing the towns along it is significant? Vegaswikian 03:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 11:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delte per nom. This sort of information is better suited for road maps. -- Samuel Wantman 05:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This road has no special significance. Chicheley 14:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable --- Skapur 02:56, 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 01:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in favor of Category:Towns in Virginia, Category:Augusta County, Virginia. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:19, 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 01:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Logging railroads in the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:11, 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. Timrollpickering 01:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mansfield class destroyers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete: I created this category in June, but it is now empty and no longer needed. The parent article Mansfield class destroyer was moved to the sharper named Hawthorn M class destroyer to reflect the fact that Hawthorn was the builder of this variant of the M-class. Regardless of the builder, all M-class destroyers are cat'ed under Category:M class destroyers (1913). --Kralizec! (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Delete Empty cats clutter. --- Skapur 02:58, 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 rename. Timrollpickering 01:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Western Michigan University presidents, convention of Category:American university presidents. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:50, 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/merge & redirect. Timrollpickering 01:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favor of Category:Tennis players. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge This would have been a legitimate category up to the start of the Open Era in the 1960s, but it is not now. Pinoakcourt 11:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Pinoakcourt and keep as a redirect. Chicheley 14:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete'. Are there any notable non-professional tennis players? --- Skapur 03:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Until the 1960s nearly all of them. Piccadilly 16:17, 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 rename. Timrollpickering 01:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Nickelodeon Australia shows, or Merge into Category:Nickelodeon shows. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing vote (in the absence of anything else to decide between the two) to rename

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 01:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and Redirect into Category:Films. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and Redirect per nom. -- Samuel Wantman 05:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and Redirect per nom. I've also removed this Category tag from film articles s/he's created and replaced them with the appropriate ones. This editor has made several problematic entries of late and doesn't seem to be replying to messages on talk pages or warning tags. Perhaps s/he's away on holiday. Shawn in Montreal 17:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vandal created cat --- Skapur 03:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Piccadilly 16:18, 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 merge/rename. Timrollpickering 01:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People who play the tuba are tubists. Category:American tuba players should be merged with Category:American tubists. Category:Tuba players should be renamed Category:Tubists. — WiseKwai 16:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Rename per nom (support from a tubist) - NDCompuGeek 19:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & rename per nom.`Bakaman 04:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & rename per nom. Greg Grahame 01:53, 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 delete. Timrollpickering 01:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as categorization by subjective inclusion criterion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete misunderstood by whom? Eluchil404 16:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per subjective inclusion criterion. Doczilla 09:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per logic nom. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This one could be a poster child for a new category: "Categories worthy of deletion" TheMindsEye 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: that, in turn, would be worthy of deletion as subjective, non-neutral POV and redundant with Category:Categories for deletion! Heh. My head hards. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoa You just blew my mind... EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, err, Delete, No one understands what I really mean. I must be fictional --- Skapur 03:03, 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 01:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Trivial characteristic. The fact that something takes its name from being south of something else does not provide an adequate basis for a category. Those who do want this information can use Special:Prefixindex. Ergo, please delete. -- Visviva 15:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - In the West the words East and West have semantics and meanig far above orientation or geographic location. See for example The Orient, Eastern world, Orientalism and Western world & Western culture. North and South have similar political connotations, as evident in North-South divide and Nordic theory.
  We could have categories for the Northern Hemisphere, the Southern Hemisphere, the Western Hemisphere, and the Eastern Hemisphere, but these would miss the cultural and political connotations.
  I see that the deletion proposal has been made by a Wikipedian from Korea. He may not agree with the western interpretations of the cardinal directions, but this is the English language Wikipedia, we cannot omit the western bias of our language. -- Petri Krohn 19:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny, but I'm actually American. I just live in Korea. :-) -- Visviva 05:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beyond that, if there are clear and unambiguous criteria for inclusion, I would not be opposed to Category:The West, Category:The Global South, etc. However, having a single category which includes South Korea, the American South, etc. etc. simply does not make sense. (In fact, it was the inclusion of Category:South Korea in Category:South that brought this structure to my attention). -- Visviva 05:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Categories based on semantics are generally very bad. These categories are ad hoc collections of articles that include the words "North", "South", "East", or "West" (or some variant on those words) in their title. Except for the implied direction, the articles have little to do with each other. For example, Category:South contains North-South divide (a sociology concept), South Pole (a geographical location), and Southbridge (computing) (a computer hardware term). These categories are almost as bad as Category:Panhandles, which was deleted a month ago. Dr. Submillimeter 20:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete random and meaningless. Pinoakcourt 11:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The best intentions can't save a crappy category. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Disorienting. -- Samuel Wantman 05:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chicheley 14:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No offense to the category creator, but a category that might include "Sunrise", "East End", "Good Witch of the East" and "New Hampshire" sounds like a mess. Dugwiki 18:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Visviva and Dr. Submillimeter. Proposals like Category:The West and Category:The Global South sound good though. — coelacan talk — 02:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not useful categorizations. --- Skapur 03:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. Useful for readers to look for information related to each direction. Michael G. Davis 18:22, 6 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 01:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Category left as ((categoryredirect)). David Kernow (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:People from New York City, convention of Category:People by city in the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --musicpvm 06:04, 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 delete. Timrollpickering 01:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominee category. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above Dugwiki 18:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nominations by themselves are not normally notable --- Skapur 03:05, 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 rename. Timrollpickering 01:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect into Category:Fictional musical groups. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom. Doczilla 17:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure I would call some of the modern bands musical unless there is no distinction betweeen noise and music. --- Skapur 03:08, 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 per discussion; recreate if/when needed. David Kernow (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Jehovah's Witnesses articles by importance, spelling counts. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe I'm missing some convention, but why would we want a categroy ranking articles on JWs or anyone else for that matter "by importance"? Importance according to whom? Otto4711 18:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a assesment category, so it's according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses, see Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This is presumably a spelling mistake in the project's assessment template code; if that's fixed, the aticles will be recategorized automatically. Kirill Lokshin 01:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this unpopulated category. It has zero entries. Doczilla 13:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not an encyclopedic category. --- Skapur 03:09, 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 keep. Timrollpickering 01:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hindu martyrs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Inherent POV problematic. What it means 'to defend Hinduism' cannot possibly have an NPOV definition. Also other 'martyr' categories have severe POV problems (like categorizing Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale as a 'Sikh martyr'). Possibly the entire Category:Martyrs should be reviewed. Soman 14:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - bad faith nom. The point of martyrs is to die for something, and this nom smells of anti-Hindu bias. This category was created after I noted that there was Category:Sikh martyrs, and Category:Martyrs. There is ample proof to prove that Sant Bhindranwale was a martyr for Sikhs and Hakikata Rai was a martyr for Hindus, as was AbhimanyuBakaman 17:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--D-Boy 19:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can understand the POV propensity for labeling someone a martyr (i.e. those who die in martyrdom operations), but it would be more sensible to first discuss whether questionable individuals marked in this category belong here rather than earmarking the ENTIRE category for deletion. --_MerkurIX^{(이야기하세요!)}_(투고) 16:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Deleting the martyrs category ? Amazing. _{Freedom skies| talk}  18:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not problematic. Chicheley 14:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep (unless someone is actually proposing also deleting Category:Christian martyrs and its subcategories) --- Skapur 03:14, 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.

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 01:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Right-wing American propaganda films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

delete - Like its counterparts, Category:Left-wing American propaganda films and Category:American Vietnam War propaganda films -- both of which are currently up for discussion/deletion -- this subcat is a poorly-defined, highly-subjective POV magnet. Basically, any film with a right-wing POV is likely to be labelled "propaganda". That term then loses its meaning -- and films that are so-categorized are tarred with a pejorative label. Cgingold 13:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Samuel Wantman 05:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; no good can come of this... EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Dugwiki 18:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The category is not POV, individual articles tagged with it may be and this should be handled at the individual article level. The category is certainly notable --- Skapur 03:16, 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 no consensus to delete; rename to Category:Jehovah's Witnesses articles by quality. Timrollpickering 01:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jehovah's Wintesses articles by quality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete misspelled category. Category is unpopulated anyway, indicating it is either unneeded or redundant to some other category anyway. Doczilla 10:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Jehovah's Witnesses articles by quality, see Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - category is part of Assessment data required for the project, has only recently been created, so not yet populated. Sorry about the typo, the fingers get a bit worse in the cold. Badbilltucker 14:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can be recreated when there are articles to put in the category. Empty categories just clutter wikipedia --- Skapur 03:17, 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 no consensus. Timrollpickering 00:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Miscellaneous Vancouver articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Burnaby, British Columbia articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Delta, British Columbia articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Richmond, British Columbia articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Vancouver articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:West Vancouver, British Columbia articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, none of these categories make much sense. They are all redundant as Category:Vancouver, Category:Greater Vancouver Regional District, and Category:Cities in British Columbia all exist, to name a few. Most of these cities already have their own categories (i.e. Category:Burnaby, British Columbia). All the nominated categories only appear on talk pages. I could find no precedent for anything similar for any other similar topic (i.e. New York City, Toronto, etc.). It appears that these may have something to do with the Wikiproject Vancouver, but no other wikiproject I reviewed seems to duplicate categories in this way. Agent 86 10:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but note that these should be children of Category:WikiProject Vancouver, not of Category:Vancouver. Lots of Wikiprojects sort articles by subtopic using talk-page templates; this doesn't seem any different. -- Visviva 15:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I've boldly gone ahead and fixed that (presumably it was just a mistake). -- Visviva 15:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, lots of wikiprojects use talk page templates, I've got no problem with that. However, I haven't seen this odd talk-page categorization on other wikiprojects. Changing the parent category does not change the fact that all these subcategories are redundant redundant. Why does the wikiproject need Category:Burnaby, British Columbia and Category:Burnaby, British Columbia articles? Agent 86 20:52, 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 rename. Timrollpickering 00:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:America's Cup participants to Category:America's Cup

• Rename, This is the overall category for the America's Cup. Subcategories for the participants might be useful, but for clarity there should probably be two, named Category:America's Cup sailors and Category:America's Cup yachts. However they can be created later. Twittenham 09:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Pinoakcourt 11:26, 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 rename to Category:ÆON Group. Timrollpickering 00:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:ÆON companies to Category:AEON Group

rename. this is company group, and MOS:TM.--Wenis4 09:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Leaning towards keep, but, I'd like to first understand what part of MOS:TM is being applied to this? The article is also spelled using the Æ combination, and the Æ is not an unpronounced symbol, or outside of the mediawiki technical capabilities. Neier 12:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:ÆON Group for accuracy. I'm not sure that the nominator intended to remove the Æ as he didn't mention it. Chicheley 14:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. That makes sense. I'm on board with Category:ÆON Group too. Neier 06:31, 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 00:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic dioceses of Oceania to Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Oceania

• Rename, For consistency with other category names in Category:Roman Catholic dioceses. MH au 06:45, 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 keep. Timrollpickering 00:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gu of Seoul

• Keep, more sensible than Category:Neighbourhoods of Seoul, which also holds divs at the dong level, as well as various districts/areas with no administrative existence at all. -- Visviva 07:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: If this is kept, Category:Wards of Seoul should be brought to CfD, as it is incorrectly named but otherwise entirely redundant with this category. -- Visviva 07:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Visviva --_MerkurIX^{(이야기하세요!)}_(투고) 15:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is the "English" wikipedia and "Gu" is not an English word in common (or uncommon) use. An English language translation of "Gu" should be substituted for this word. --- Skapur 03:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, there is no common accepted translation. Some people are under the mistaken impression that "Wards" is a standard translation, because it is used for the same Chinese character in Japan; however, you would have to search long and hard to find a Korean district that identified itself (or was widely referred to) as a "ward." "District" is frequently used, for example here, but it is ambiguous with almost every other administrative division of South Korea. Hence, gu appears to be the least ambiguous term for this category. -- Visviva 12:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Visviva. WP:UE is not a licence to invent new terms or promote non-standard terminology: If there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language. Gu is a standard transliteration in Revised Romanization of Korean. Category:Wards of Seoul is the one that should be binned. cab 03:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Michael G. Davis 18:24, 6 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 00:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Civil Air Patrol to Category:United States Civil Air Patrol

• Rename, Disambig: the United States isn't the only nation with a civilian air auxilliary.... NDCompuGeek 04:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom (also see WP:CSB) Orderinchaos78 04:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question is there another nation that has or had an organization named "Civil Air Patrol"? As we don't have a dab page for that, and I'm not having any luck finding anything with google. Mairi 09:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: maybe not exactly as named ("Italian Civil Air Patrol" for instance I don't think there actually is such a thing though), but it will further define the category as belonging to the United States exclusively.... - NDCompuGeek 15:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since main article is Civil Air Patrol. ~ BigrTex 21:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bigr. If there is nothing with the same name and the main article matches the cat we should not be considering a rename. Vegaswikian 00:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to make it more unambigous in a worldwide encyclopedia. --- Skapur 03:22, 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 00:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Euromalay celebrities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete Empty category, redundant against Category:European-Malays. Orderinchaos78 04:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for using the word "celebrities". Twittenham 09:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - celebrity is POV. Everyone notable for wiki is a celeb.Bakaman 04:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what is the need for this category? --- Skapur 03:24, 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 rename. Timrollpickering 00:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Air National Guard to Category:United States Air National Guard

• Rename, follow naming convention (X of Y). NDCompuGeek 04:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carom 04:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom (also WP:CSB) Orderinchaos78 04:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since main article is Air National Guard. ~ BigrTex 21:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BigrTex. If the main article is renamed, then the cat should be as well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: Renaming (or moving) the article can be done easily enough. Working first on the cats, then going to work on the articles (there are others articles in other categories that are in work also....) - NDCompuGeek 05:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query But does the article deserve to be renamed? I'm unfamiliar with any other Air National Guards. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Please see my response above (Civil Air Patrol). Thanks! NDCompuGeek 00:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, systemic bias. >Radiant< 14:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency in a worldwide encyclopedia --- Skapur 03:25, 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 00:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military operations in Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, military operations are not actually categorized by location, for the various reasons summarized here. Category:Battles involving Saudi Arabia and Category:Wars involving Saudi Arabia already exist. Kirill Lokshin 04:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carom 18:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant --- Skapur 03:26, 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 00:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actor's who portray Comic Book characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Overly broad category that leads to creation of tenuous, at best, and trivial linkages of actors. J Greb 03:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept, at least rename to "Actors who portray comic book characters". David Kernow (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It won't be, Dave. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - tenuously links otherwise unrelated entries. Orderinchaos78 04:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this misspelled, wrongly capitalized category that was created by a user who just keeps creating redundant, pointless, and/or inappropriate categories for other people to delete them. Doczilla 10:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per discussion of October 5th. May qualify as recreated content. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent, and suspicion, like Doczilla, that this is from a sock puppet or reincarnation of User:Batman fan (ask admin to look into that, please). SkierRMH 19:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as trivial. Should be deleted or moved quickly because of the misspelling/miscapitalization. Muffuletta 23:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Doczilla, et al, and tell the user to go play somewhere else. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Dugwiki 18:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Weak category that is rife with errors in its name. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete misnamed non-useful category --- Skapur 03:27, 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 00:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medical colleges in Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant category, with existence of Category:Schools of Medicine in Bangladesh. Aditya Kabir 03:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; other countries follow the "Schools of Medicine" convention, see Category:Schools of Medicine by country. (But shouldn't it be "Schools of medicine"?) -- Visviva 15:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Per wikipedia convention it probably should be "Schools of medicine" but "School of Medicine" is common in titles of such schools so I not entirely sure. In any event, that's a seperate CfD. Eluchil404 19:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, redundant category. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant --- Skapur 03:28, 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 00:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Universities in Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant category, with the existence of Category:Universities and colleges in Bangladesh, Category:Colleges in Bangladesh, Category:Private universities in Bangladesh and Category:Public universities of Bangladesh.. Aditya Kabir 03:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomBakaman 05:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to be consistent with other countries --- Skapur 03:28, 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 rename. Timrollpickering 00:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer and video games featuring cooperative gameplay to Category:Cooperative computer and video games

• Rename, The current name is long and unwieldy. I would also be open to Category:Co-op computer and video games or something just as simple and terse. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Cooperative computer and video games per DL CyberSkull. David Kernow (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not at all convinced this is a defining characteristic, since any multiplayer game can be played with teams. >Radiant< 14:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of multiplayer games (not so much these days, but definitely a lot in the past) featured players pitted against each other without teams (e.g. Deathmatch). Co-op is typically referred to in regards to the single-player campaign mode, however. For instance, in Serious Sam you can play through the single-player campaign with multiple players through the co-op multiplayer mode. See Cooperative gameplay. --Rodzilla (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - Current name is too long. This has a side-effect of making the viewer read all the way to the very end of the category to see what the category is for. If it's renamed to Cooperative computer and video games, then you get the idea right off the bat (co-op), whereas now you don't get to co-op until the very end. --Rodzilla (talk) 03:14, 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.

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 00:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Left-wing American propaganda films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Blatantly biased title. Does not fit WP:NPOV. LGagnon 03:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV. Take for example Bowling for Columbine, is it a true American documentary that correctly depicts America, or is it quazi-communist America-bashing propaganda? One's opinion on the issue, like one's opinion on the other films in this category, depends not on objective criteria, but on one's preconceived political opinion. --Ezeu 03:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: If "propaganda" must automatically imply "lies", does that mean that only Nazi apologists can claim that Why We Fight was propaganda? GCarty 14:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. - Aditya Kabir 03:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - left-wing is in the eye of the beholder, and means different things to different people. Orderinchaos78 04:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am so happy to see this nomination! Not only do I agree entirely with the comments that have already been made -- I also feel they apply to two other subcats of Category:American propaganda films, namely Category:Right-wing American propaganda films, which I have just added to this list, and Category:American Vietnam War propaganda films, which I proposed for deletion several days ago. (please share your comments there as well)

My further comments are as follows: this subcat is a poorly-defined, highly-subjective POV magnet. Basically, any film with a left-of-center POV is likely to be labelled "propaganda". That term then loses its meaning -- and films that are so-categorized are tarred with a pejorative label.

Cgingold 14:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV. Doczilla 17:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Samuel Wantman 05:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Dugwiki 18:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No good can come of this... EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - POV. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 21:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, will always be subjective. Budgiekiller 16:12, 6 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 to Category: Wars involving the states and peoples of Africa. Timrollpickering 00:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wars involving Africa to Category:Wars in Africa

Category: Wars involving the states and peoples of Africa

• Rename. Recently an array of categories were renamed after this Cfr. The category that specifically refers to Africa is now inappropriately named. "Wars involving Africa" has little meaning, whereas "Wars in Africa" is spot on. For example "wars involving Africa" could include eg. the Burma Campaign or the Battle of Monte Cassino where many Africans were involved, whereas that is not the intention of this category. In some cases "Wars involving ..." is better than "wars in ...", eg. "wars involving the indigenous peoples of North America". But in this case "wars in ..." is better. Ezeu 02:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this particular renaming; the actual intent of this category is to collect wars in which African countries/groups were participants, not any wars that happened to occur in Africa (see also the FAQ of why military conflicts aren't categorized by location). If you want to rename it, we'd want something like Category:Wars involving the states and peoples of Africa. (It's not, admittedly, too clean a name, although we do have the comparable Category:Wars involving the indigenous peoples of North America; I'm open to better ways of phrasing it.) Kirill Lokshin 03:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better phrasing is fine, current phrasing is far from good. There should be no ambiguity in the category title. As it is now the title is ambiguous. "Wars involving Africa" could mean just about any war that affects Africa, which arguably, is just about every war. --Ezeu 03:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If intent of this category is to collect wars in which African countries/groups were participants, suggest rename to Wars involving African countries and similar renaming of other "Wars involving [continent]" categories. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there was some discussion the last time something like this came up that a number of the entities participating in these wars couldn't really be termed countries; hence my "countries and peoples" wording.
    • As far as your second comment: this is the only category lumping wars by a continent; it's not a very useful practice, in general. (The only reason this one exists is because we haven't gotten to setting up individual categories for each of the countries/groups in question, due to systemic bias issues with actually getting enough editors & articles to make sense of this area.) Kirill Lokshin 04:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understood. Until the individual categories are established, however, some sort of rename seems in order; Wars involving the states and peoples of Africa looks fine to me. Regards, David (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • May be Wars African countries or groups participated as per the stated intention? - Aditya Kabir 03:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't make any sense as a grammatical construction, though. Kirill Lokshin 04:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the initial proposal, Rename to Category: Wars involving the states and peoples of Africa per Kirill. The name is pretty messy, but it explicitly covers not only modern states, but also indigenous peoples and other groups that may or may not be easily classified as "countries." Carom 04:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand by my proposal, but your suggestion is certainly better than the current title.--Ezeu 04:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Wouldn't going by country make far more sense than going by continent? >Radiant< 14:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed it would, but systemic bias issues mean that Africa doesn't have the needed categories quite yet; see my comments to David Kernow above. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 00:30, 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 delete. Timrollpickering 00:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crime suspects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete If the suspicion dfdn't lead to anything that gives reason to put the person into a more concrete category it probably isn't worth adding a category for. This category could potentially group a huge range of unrelated people, and it casts a black mark while being highly uninformative. It also potentially gives rise to libel issues. Twittenham 01:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP and not an incredibly useful category anyway Orderinchaos78 04:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt excessively broad, potentially libelous category that has, in several forms, been deleted before. Doczilla 17:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Chicheley 14:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Dugwiki 18:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and BLP concerns. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Every one has been suspected by someone of having commited some crime at some time --- Skapur 03:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per all above concerns, and vagueness. Budgiekiller 16:10, 6 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.