< December 4	December 6 >

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 14:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we don't categorize models by the companies they have worked for, neither should we for porn stars. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. (Radiant) 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is one of those times when you just don't want to know. Patstuart^talk|edits 15:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom (same guidelines apply here to adult films as regular films) Dugwiki 16:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Piccadilly 15:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and because the parent article for this topic has been repeatedly deleted. Postdlf 16:43, 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 delete. the wub "?!" 14:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we don't categorize films by what sound effects they use. There is already a list article. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a defining characteristic of those movies. You can barely hear it anyway! Recury 14:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivia. (Radiant) 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Relevant list article is List of media using the Wilhelm scream. -- Satori Son 18:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 23:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep especially because we need a category about a memorable sound effect! --Ryanasaurus0077 01:41, 11 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 the absence of a consensus to delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename to Category:World War III speculative fiction. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename or delete per nom (also added Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb - seemed appropriate) Dugwiki 23:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, is that really a genre? (Radiant) 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an interesting question. Clearly the category is intended to identify fiction that has something fundamental in common - namely that the setting and plot revolve around an ongoing or impending World War III. I think you could reasonably argue that this similarity is a notable defining feature of all such works, and that it is also objectively identifiable (ie you probably don't run into serious POV problems over whether or not World War III is part of the setting or plot). So while I personally don't care too much one way or another about this sort of fiction, I can see how someone could reasonably argue to keep the category as identifying a defining and useful feature of the works. Dugwiki 16:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, and style guidelines - It seems to define a genre, whether it is widely accepted or not. It overlaps with Category:Post-apocalyptic fiction, but isn't necessarily a subcategory. (also added On the Beach, my favorite example) ~ BigrTex 19:50, 6 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) 03:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Visitor attractions in San Diego, convention of Category:Visitor attractions by city. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. ~ BigrTex 19:51, 6 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 deleted by Zsinj. Whispering 19:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sundown towns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Very poorly sourced, hateful categorization (misnamed, too, since the category claims to refer to former and current sundown towns)... extraordinarily POV by its very nature. POV categories = a Bad Thing. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Hateful". But it's true. These were or are sundown towns. But I'll delete it myself. --Woohookitty^(meow) 00:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I put the speedy tag on it. Shouldn't remove it myself. But I think the term "sundown town" needs to stay. --Woohookitty^(meow) 00:40, 6 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 except nonexistent Andromeda templates. David Kernow (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Andromeda actors to Category:Andromeda (TV series) actors
• Category:Andromeda series planets to Category:Andromeda (TV series) planets
• Category:Andromeda characters to Category:Andromeda (TV series) characters
• Category:Andromeda templates to Category:Andromeda (TV series) templates

rename as Andromeda (TV series). Nceif 22:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - It would probably be clearer to rename these categories so that people know that "Andromeda" is referring to the TV series and not something else about the Andromeda Galaxy. Dr. Submillimeter 22:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adjustment of my previous vote: Delete Category:Andromeda actors because organizing actors by TV series is impractical (as even minor actors are listed in such categories); Delete Category:Andromeda series planets because it is too esoteric; Rename Category:Andromeda characters because it is a practical way to navigate articles related to the series; Delete Category:Andromeda templates since it is currently empty and since I cannot imagine that many templates related to this series have been created. Dr. Submillimeter 17:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename Another TV category that seems to be unnecessary and could be deleted/listified. Assuming it's kept, though, agree with the rename. On a side note, Category:Andromeda series planets in particular seems to be a particularly esoteric category, and should probably be considered seperately for deletion/listifying in its own right. Dugwiki 23:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category:Andromeda templates also is currently empty. Mairi 03:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Dr. Submillimeter. I would am tempted to support to its deletion, but since there seems to be a proliferation of TV-series categories, I am reluctant to support deleting this one unless there is a wider cull of these categories or someone demonstrates that Andromeda is significantly less noteworthy than the others. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But delete Category:Andromeda series planets per Dugwiki. Too esoteric, and unlikely ever to be much populated. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to reply a second about the wider culling, I would support such a move. Meanwhile, though, the fact that some categories exist that probably shouldn't doesn't justify keeping all such categories. My advice is if you find a category that you think deserves deletion, nominate it and disregard the presence of similar categories that likewise might deserve nomination. Handling them case by case is probably the best way to go for now. Dugwiki 16:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and most definitely do not delete any of these categories except the empty templates one, it should also be noted that these categories are only tagged to be renamed and not deleted. Tim! 17:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category names should always be as simple as possible; there's no rule necessarily requiring that a category name has to match an article title dab for dab. Since no other possible meaning of Andromeda is in any way correlated with the concepts of actors or characters, there's no actual risk of ambiguity here. Oppose actors and characters as unnecessary; delete planets and templates as being of poor relevance to an encyclopedia. Bearcat 23:53, 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 withdrawn, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 6#American businesspeople by ethnicity. Mairi 03:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:American businesspeople, or Rename to Category:Irish-American businesspeople. Unjustified triple intersection. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this category is to be taken down, then why the hell isn't the list of jewish american businesspeople asked to be taken down? I don't understand. There is no way one can stand while the other is taken down. Either they are both okay, or they both are not okay.

• Withdrawn. I agree, and have created an umbrella nomination above. Sorry, I just didn't notice the others. My view is either we categorize them by ethicity or we don't. My view is that it shouldn't be relevent ... but is it? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge all. — CharlotteWebb 07:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bruce County Roads into Category:Ontario county roads

• Category:Bruce County, Ontario roads
• Category:Dufferin County, Ontario roads
• Category:Dufferin County Roads
• Category:Elgin County, Ontario roads
• Category:Essex County, Ontario roads (three articles)
• Category:Huron County Roads
• Category:Lambton County, Ontario roads (3 articles)
• Category:Middlesex County, Ontario roads
• Category:Simcoe County, Ontario roads (zero articles)
• Category:Halton Regional Roads
• Category:Halton Region, Ontario roads
• Category:Niagara Region, Ontario roads
• Category:Niagara Region, Ontario Roads (zero articles)
• Category:Chatham-Kent, Ontario roads (4 articles)
• Category:Greater Sudbury, Ontario roads
• Category:Norfolk County, Ontario roads
• Category:Roads in Dufferin County
• Merge, Unnecessary sub-categories. All of these subcats contain one article, except for three which have three to four articles. At least three of these subcats are completely empty. Each of these subcats has little or no chance of expansion or containing more than a single handfull of articles. The main category, Category:Ontario county roads, is more than sufficient for all of these county road articles. The Ontario county roads category will gain 20 - 25 articles, which is by no means cumbersome. Agent 86 21:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge all, lots of tiny categories is the end result of overcategorization, it ends up making navigation more difficult. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all, overcategorization. Recury 14:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, overcat. (Radiant) 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge with the caveat that each list should be filed in Category:Ontario county roads and the appropriate census division subcategory (e.g. Category:Dufferin County, Ontario, Category:Chatham-Kent, Ontario, Category:Greater Sudbury, Ontario, etc.) This was definitely unnecessary overcategorization, sometimes even duplicating itself, for a bunch of lists that are fine as lists but will virtually never merit distinct articles for each listed topic. Bearcat 10:00, 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 don't rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Transportation in San Francisco to Category:Transportation in San Francisco, California
• Category:Sports in San Francisco to Category:Sports in San Francisco, California
• Category:People from San Francisco to Category:People from San Francisco, California
• Category:Parks in San Francisco to Category:Parks in San Francisco, California
• Category:Organizations in San Francisco to Category:Organizations in San Francisco, California
• Category:Landmarks in San Francisco to Category:Landmarks in San Francisco, California
• Category:Museums in San Francisco to Category:Museums in San Francisco, California
• Category:Skyscrapers in San Francisco to Category:Skyscrapers in San Francisco, California
• Category:History of San Francisco to Category:History of San Francisco, California
• Category:Mayors of San Francisco to Category:Mayors of San Francisco, California
• Category:Government of San Francisco to Category:Government of San Francisco, California
• Category:Education in San Francisco to Category:Education in San Francisco, California
• Category:High schools in San Francisco to Category:High schools in San Francisco, California
• Category:Universities and colleges in San Francisco to Category:Universities and colleges in San Francisco, California
• Category:Companies based in San Francisco to Category:Companies based in San Francisco, California
• Category:San Francisco culture to Category:San Francisco, California culture
• Category:Television shows set in San Francisco to Category:Television shows set in San Francisco, California
• Category:Buildings and structures in San Francisco to Category:Buildings and structures in San Francisco, California

rename as California state --Fuwiq 21:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas categories[edit]

• Category:Buildings and structures in Las Vegas to Category:Buildings and structures in Las Vegas, Nevada
• Category:Sports venues in Las Vegas to Category:Sports venues in Las Vegas, Nevada
• Category:Shopping malls in Las Vegas to Category:Shopping malls in Las Vegas, Nevada
• Category:Music venues in Las Vegas to Category:Music venues in Las Vegas, Nevada
• Category:Nightclubs in Las Vegas to Category:Nightclubs in Las Vegas, Nevada
• Category:Transportation in Las Vegas to Category:Transportation in Las Vegas, Nevada
• Category:Hotels in Las Vegas to Category:Hotels in Las Vegas, Nevada
• Category:Convention centers in Las Vegas to Category:Convention centers in Las Vegas, Nevada
• Category:Casinos in Las Vegas to Category:Casinos in Las Vegas, Nevada
• Category:Companies based in Las Vegas to Category:Companies based in Las Vegas, Nevada
• Category:Las Vegas culture to Category:Las Vegas, Nevada culture
• Category:Production shows in Las Vegas to Category:Production shows in Las Vegas, Nevada
• Category:Restaurants in Las Vegas to Category:Restaurants in Las Vegas, Nevada
• Category:Visitor attractions in Las Vegas to Category:Visitor attractions in Las Vegas, Nevada
• Category:Sports in Las Vegas to Category:Sports in Las Vegas, Nevada
• Category:People from Las Vegas to Category:People from Las Vegas, Nevada
• Category:Fictional Las Vegans to Category:Fictional People from Las Vegas, Nevada
• Category:Las Vegas media to Category:Las Vegas, Nevada media
• Category:Radio stations in Las Vegas to Category:Radio stations in Las Vegas, Nevada
• Category:Television stations in Las Vegas to Category:Television stations in Las Vegas, Nevada
• Category:Mayors of Las Vegas to Category:Mayors of Las Vegas, Nevada

rename as Nevada state --Fuwiq 21:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose for reasons given in similar nominations below, unless it can be shown that there is another Las Vegas that is famous enough to get easily confused with the one in Nevada. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose for now per Grutness. Las Vegas is well-enough known internationally not to need the state appended unless it is needed for disambiguation. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. As has been pointed out in the discussions on US city naming conventions, Las Vegas has many uses, this being one of them, it's use is not limited to the city. So to use the same name as the city article could be a bit misleading. I just hope that those in Las Vegas, New Mexico are not upset that the other Vegas gets most of the attention. Vegaswikian 23:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not unique to Las Vegas — for almost any metropolitan area you care to name, areas that aren't actually part of the anchor city itself will often get referred to as the anchor city nonetheless: would you like to know how often I've had to remove neighbourhoods in Oshawa from the Category:Toronto neighbourhoods category? Long story short, I never did, and still don't, understand why Las Vegas is repeatedly cited as if it posed a unique issue in this regard. Bearcat 00:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Adds nothing but pixels. Piccadilly 15:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both batches as unnecessary overdabbing. There's no other Las Vegas or San Francisco that's large enough or internationally famous enough to bump either of these from "primary topic" status. Bearcat 00:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 14:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs with Stuttering to Category:Songs with stuttering ProveIt ^(talk) 06:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's really stupid. Delete instead. Recury 15:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moved from speedy for discussion ×Meegs 19:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid or not is an arbitrary judgment. The songs in question do in fact have stuttering in them. Why not have a category for it?--MARQUIS111 21:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and listify Stuttering is a pretty odd choice for a way to categorize song articles. Categories normally are supposed to represent notable, defining characteristics within the context of that subject matter. Whether or not a song includes stuttering seems to be more along the lines of song trivia, which is better suited to a list article. Dugwiki 23:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:LC.--Andrew c 01:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivia. (Radiant) 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dugwiki Sumahoy 21:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 13:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, for the same reasons Category:Fictional_heroines was deleted. —scarecroe 18:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; we wouldn't have Category:Heroes either. -choster 19:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Too difficult to quantify "hero", upkeep would be difficult. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 19:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. "Hero" is either a POV label, or it refers to central characters in fiction (including antiheroes) ... in which case it should be called something like "central characters in fiction", although that category would run into other problems. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom — J Greb 18:16, 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 don't rename. — CharlotteWebb 07:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gay porn stars to Category:Stars of gay porn

• Rename. This category is about porn stars who appear in gay porn. Most of the porn stars in this category are probably gay, but as it says, some are gay-for-pay, and others are bisexual. All other subcategories of Category:Porn stars appear to refer to the star (female, asian, transsexual, etc), rather than the type of porn. (Not sure "Stars of gay porn" is the best name for the category but I definitely think it should be renamed. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now: "Stars of gay porn" is awkward at best. Can't think of a better name myself. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 19:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, because "gay porn stars" does not mean "porn stars who are gay". No one's going to misinterpret this.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Zythe. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There are already enough different phrases used to refer to porn performers (there's one): porn performers, porn stars, porn actors, pornographic actors, etc., etc., etc. "Gay" is modifying "porn", not "stars". It is clearly stated on the category page and the List of gay porn stars article that the men on the list or in the category may or may not be gay.—Chidom ^talk  09:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - shouldn't there be a way of distinguishing porn stars who are gay and porn stars who are in gay porn? If "gay porn stars" is going to refer to porn stars who are in gay porn, can we have a "porn stars who are gay"? Something that fits into Category:Gay actors? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's properly annotated in the category header as "may or may not be" it shouldn't need it. If someone really disputes it being a subcategory of Gay actors, than simply link to it from gay actors "For individuals who have acted in gay pornography, who may or may not be gay themselves, see gay porn stars" and then list them as gay by nationality if we know they actually are. :) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• While I understand the concern, it has to be said that there really isn't, for the most part, any easy way to distinguish gay stars of gay porn from bisexual stars of gay porn or gay-for-pay stars of gay porn. While it's true that there are some people who have been associated with both the gay and straight porn scenes, those people would be more appropriately classified in Category:Bisexual porn stars anyway — and "gay-for-pay" is essentially a subjective assessment which has no place in Wikipedia's category schema. (It can be a lot of things — a deliberately misleading marketing strategy, a reflection of homophobia, a POV position of bisexual erasure — but it's not an objective classification.) And I don't see the distinction as being all that encyclopedic anyway — it appeals to people's prurient interests about their favourite fantasy studs more than to anything that's particularly central to what makes them notable. Oppose as (a) unnecessary, and (b) unlikely to be misinterpreted, and (c) not really that encyclopedic. Bearcat 22:43, 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 deleted as already empty. David Kernow (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unbarred dwarf spiral galaxies into Category:Dwarf spiral galaxies

• Merge - A review of the scientific literature shows that dwarf spiral galaxies may be identified as containing bar-like structures (see the references within dwarf spiral galaxy, for example). However, no one has formally classified dwarf spiral galaxies as barred or unbarred. Therefore, placing galaxies into Category:Dwarf barred spiral galaxies and Category:Unbarred dwarf spiral galaxies requires original research. These two subcategories (which are currently empty) should be upmerged into Category:Dwarf spiral galaxies until formal classifications are performed. Dr. Submillimeter 18:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (they're empty) or Upmerge per nom. ~ BigrTex 19:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge agreed. WilliamKF 00:58, 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 category deleted as already empty. David Kernow (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dwarf barred spiral galaxies into Category:Dwarf spiral galaxies

• Merge - A review of the scientific literature shows that dwarf spiral galaxies may be identified as containing bar-like structures (see the references within dwarf spiral galaxy, for example). However, no one has formally classified dwarf spiral galaxies as barred or unbarred. Therefore, placing galaxies into Category:Dwarf barred spiral galaxies and Category:Unbarred dwarf spiral galaxies requires original research. These two subcategories (which are currently empty) should be upmerged into Category:Dwarf spiral galaxies until formal classifications are performed. Dr. Submillimeter 18:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: per nom. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 19:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge agreed. WilliamKF 00:58, 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. I will also create Category:Surenos as a ((category redirect)) per Neutrality, but it seems to me Category:Sureno is singular, and would therefore qualify for deletion under CSD C2. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Sureno to Category:Sureños

rename as main page name Sureños.Nosic 17:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, keep original as soft redirect: Not all users have access to n+~ on their keyboards (ñ), as such adding to this category for those with only an English keyboard would be difficult at best. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 19:27, 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. the wub "?!" 14:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian singers into Category:Christian musicians

• Merge, There may be a theoretical difference between the two, as singers is a subset of musicians, but it's very subtle, and in practice, the two are just the same category, but split into two factions. They ought to be merged. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge not maintainabel as separate categories Arnoutf 15:39, 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 rename. the wub "?!" 14:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Project Runway contestants to Category:Project Runway participants

• Rename- "Participants" is the more widely-used descriptor, and changing this cat allows for the correct inclusion of participants (e.g. Tim Gunn) who are not "contestants." 205.141.247.28 14:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename' per above, more inclusive.--Andrew c 01:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose renaming/merge; support creation of new category Support renaming, oppose merging of non-contestants into renamed category per my reasons in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 6#Category:Idol series contestants. Tinlinkin 08:06, 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 delete. the wub "?!" 11:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unneeded, only member is Category:Indian bishops, already parented by Category:Bishops by nationality. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Category:Bishops by continent. -choster 16:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnecessary for above reasons and categorisation by continent --Alynna 14:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 19:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep give a person time to populate a new category! Don't be so quick to judge!!Thanks! Pastorwayne 12:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we go by country, not by continent. (Radiant) 14:45, 6 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, for time being at least. David Kernow (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Brands of Germany, although Category:Brands by country is inconsistant. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious merge -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now but this entire branch is has many problems. If it's intended to tag every country where a product is found, Coca-Cola is going to grow by a couple hundred. If it's intended to tag the country where the owner of the brand is based, it's misnamed.-choster 21:24, 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. the wub "?!" 14:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University of Birmingham people to Category:People associated with the University of Birmingham

Category:University of Liverpool people to Category:People associated with the University of Liverpool

Category:University College London people to Category:People associated with University College London

• Rename all, in line with every other category in Category:People by university in England (and also, in the case of UCL, Category:People associated with the University of London). Timrollpickering 13:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all - I don't care what tod, but this is clearly not the notation you want. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to place subjects at starts of names (and remove awkward adjectivals). David Kernow (talk) 03:38, 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) 04:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University of Wales, Swansea Alumni to Category:Alumni of Swansea University

• Rename, the main article name and institution branding is now Swansea University, also convention of Category:Alumni by university in the United Kingdom. Timrollpickering 13:11, 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 keep. David Kernow (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Germanic peoples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Violates neutrality and accuracy: category is being used for a political agenda, to promote the idea that modern ethnic groups and nations in north-west Europe are "Germanic", a claim typically associated with neo-nazi groups. The relevant legitimate categories are "Germanic languages' and "Ancient Germanic peoples".Paul111 10:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Some cleanup maybe necessary but (IMHO) for this case the cure of deletion is worse than the ailment of inprecision. Neo-nazi allegations are not supported by any evidence of abuse of this category. Arnoutf 10:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep

One of the definitions of Princeton for Germanic is:

Teutonic: of or pertaining to the ancient Teutons or their languages; "Teutonic peoples such as Germans and Scandinavians and British"; "Germanic mythology"[1]

So I guess either accusing people supporting this category to be Neo-Nazis is exteremely stupid or Princeton is neo-Nazi as well. Too bad we dont have smileys rolling eyes here...Lukas19 13:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. I don't see any evidence of neo-nazi leanings here, but nonetheless ths is a deeply suspect POV category, which currently includes Danish people, Dutch people, Norsemen, Normans. There is an interesting discussion to be had around this, but the concept of "Germanic" is too vague to lend itself to neat categorisation in this way. It is essentially an anchronism, imposing a modern concept of "Germanic" on earlier periods; it might start to be more usable if carefully defined, but then it would fail the obviousness test of WP:CAT. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP. :As explained to you many times before Paul111, "Germanic" is a cultural and linguistic marker. I don't care if NeoNazis use it for some other goal, it is a much used scientific term and this category should not be deleted. Rex 13:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NPOV doesn't justify anti-every word the Nazis used paranoia. This is a valid concept in social sciences. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per -Amarkov Osomec 18:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rex. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 19:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: for the association of the term 'Germanic peoples' with Nazism, see Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Lebensraum, and for instance Hitler salute. The reason for deletion is neutrality and accuracy, since the list is being used to claim that the English, the Swedes, the Danish, the Dutch and the Flemings are Germanic peoples. Germanic is a valid category in linguistics, but that does not make it a valid category for modern ethnic groups or nations.Paul111 20:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep The reasons given for this nomination are utter rubbish. The term "Germanic peoples" are by no means a political fabrication, or related to neo-nazism, as the nominator claims. In my opinion, and according to my personal judgement, this nomination in itself violates WP:NPOV, since it seems to be politically motivated, or at least has been nominated because of the nominators personal opinion. /M.O (u) (t) 21:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Never heard about any nazi-connotations before, but "Germanic" is commonly used to describe people in the part of Europe with Germanic languages. The whole idea of dividing Europeans into different ethnic groups is questionable, but "Germanic" seems at least as valid as e.g. "Danes" as a separate ethnic group (it is very hard to distinguish a typical Dane from a Swede or a German in anything but nationality and language). --Per Abrahamsen 09:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nominator seems to think that Germanic is some sort of Nazi concotion. This is not the case.Inge 14:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The reason given for renaming is spurious. Piccadilly 15:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The category reflects our article on Germanic peoples. "The Germanic peoples are a linguistic and ethnic branch of Indo-European peoples, originating in Northern Europe and identified by their use of the Germanic languages that are descended from Proto-Germanic. Migrant Germanic settlers spread throughout Europe, mixing with existing local populations (such as Celts, but also Slavs/Vends and Romans), forming the future basis of diverse nations, to various extents connected by linguistic affinity, as well as a common identity, history, and culture." By no means a National Socialistic definition. User:Dimadick

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Fictional Simpsons villains to Category:The Simpsons villains. As far as I know, all Simpsons villains are fictional. There's no need for redundancy. After all, the category Category:The Simpsons characters isn't called Category:Fictional human The Simpsons TV characters created by Matt Groening. JIP | Talk 08:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per September 25 discusion. Across all episodes, we can't objectively distinguish the villains from the heroes. ×Meegs 11:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Meegs. Most Simpsons characters are too nuanced to fit neatly into heroes/villiains ctegories. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per Brownhairedgirl. (Radiant) 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both? Luckily there is no heroes cat, if that's what you mean. ×Meegs 15:32, 6 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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sri Lankan business people to Category:Sri Lankan businesspeople

Category:English business people to Category:English businesspeople

Category:Welsh business people to Category:Welsh businesspeople

Category:Scottish business people to Category:Scottish businesspeople

Category:British business people to Category:British businesspeople

• Rename by changing "businesspeople" to "businesspeople" (i.e remove space) per other subcategories of Category:Businesspeople by nationality. BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 07:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per discussion of November 9th, see also October 11th. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename (hopefully no sockpuppets this time) Tim! 18:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per above. David Kernow (talk) 03:40, 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 no consensus / keep as not necessarily limited to people alone. Slated for rename to Unexplained disappearances. David Kernow (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unexplained Disappearances (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No apparent distinction versus Category:Disappeared people. By definition a disappearance is unexplained. Dhartung | Talk 07:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think that's necessarily true. The "disappearances" in Argentina during the period of miltary dictatorship were usually readily explained as the work of forces linked to the state, and the abductions were often witnessed. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 07:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better, then, would be a separate category for cases of forced disappearance. The existing category says for people who went missing and whose subsequent fate is a mystery, which is not substantially different from "unexplained". Forced disappearances, however, are markedly different from other types of disappearances. --Dhartung | Talk 08:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Dhartung I think that you have mostly pesuaded me that a separate category for forced disappearance is the way to go, though here may be some definitional problems with such a category (a distinguishing feature of many forced disapperances is that there was no evidence, so the category would probabbly need to define itself as something like "both alleged and proven forced disappearances"). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to category Category:Disappeared people per nominator. Per discussion above, if any separation is needed, it would be best to separate out forced disappearances: most diappearances are unexplained, and the sub-categorisation should be for the exceptions.--BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The discussed list also contains unexplained disappearances of plains and ships, hardly people. Arnoutf 09:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If kept, it should be renamed to Category:Unexplained disappearances. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arnoutf, note that those members of the category e.g. the Mary Celeste already have categories they fit under. Perhaps not the best ones, but this cat adds nothing (and may have an agenda, if the inclusion of paranormal vanishing means anything). --Dhartung | Talk 20:31, 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 merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:South African doctors, or the reverse, one of them should become a redirect. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:South African doctors, which is correct in Commonwealth English. Osomec 18:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:South African doctors and keep as redirect. Piccadilly 15:46, 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 no consensus, tending towards "do not rename". I will gradually try to untag the categories, and ((cfdend)) all the talk pages: might take a while. Help would be appreciated, please. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Archdiocese of Los Angeles to Category:Archdiocese of Los Angeles, California

Category:Buildings and structures in Los Angeles to Category:Buildings and structures in Los Angeles, California

Category:Cemeteries in Los Angeles to Category:Cemeteries in Los Angeles, California

Category:Companies based in Los Angeles to Category:Companies based in Los Angeles, California

Category:Los Angeles culture to Category:Culture of Los Angeles, California

Category:Education in Los Angeles to Category:Education in Los Angeles, California

Category:Government of Los Angeles to Category:Government of Los Angeles, California

Category:History of Los Angeles to Category:History of Los Angeles, California

Category:Landmarks in Los Angeles to Category:Landmarks in Los Angeles, California

Category:Mayors of Los Angeles to Category:Mayors of Los Angeles, California

Category:Los Angeles media to Category:Media of Los Angeles, California

Category:Los Angeles neighborhoods to Category:Neighborhoods of Los Angeles, California

Category:Organizations in Los Angeles to Category:Organizations in Los Angeles, California

Category:People from Los Angeles to Category:People from Los Angeles, California

Category:Sports in Los Angeles to Category:Sports in Los Angeles, California

Category:Transportation in Los Angeles to Category:Transportation in Los Angeles, California

Category:Buildings and structures in Chicago to Category:Buildings and structures in Chicago, Illinois

Category:Cemeteries in Chicago to Category:Cemeteries in Chicago, Illinois

Category:Chicago opera companies to Category:Opera companies in Chicago, Illinois

Category:Chicago culture to Category:Culture of Chicago, Illinois

Category:Education in Chicago to Category:Education in Chicago, Illinois

Category:Government of Chicago to Category:Government of Chicago, Illinois

Category:History of Chicago to Category:History of Chicago, Illinois

Category:Chicago media to Category:Media of Chicago, Illinois

Category:Chicago neighborhoods to Category:Neighborhoods of Chicago, Illinois

Category:Parks in Chicago to Category:Parks in Chicago, Illinois

Category:People from Chicago to Category:People from Chicago, Illinois

Category:Sports in Chicago to Category:Sports in Chicago, Illinois

Category:Transportation in Chicago to Category:Transportation in Chicago, Illinois

Category:Buildings and structures in Houston to Category:Buildings and structures in Houston, Texas

Category:Education in Houston to Category:Education in Houston, Texas

Category:History of Houston to Category:History of Houston, Texas

Category:Mayors of Houston to Category:Mayors of Houston, Texas

Category:Museums in Houston to Category:Museums in Houston, Texas

Category:Houston neighborhoods to Category:Neighborhoods of Houston, Texas

Category:People from Houston to Category:People from Houston, Texas

Category:Radio stations in Houston to Category:Radio stations in Houston, Texas

Category:Sports in Houston to Category:Sports in Houston, Texas

Category:Television stations in Houston to Category:Television stations in Houston, Texas

Category:Transportation in Houston to Category:Transportation in Houston, Texas

Category:Buildings and structures in Philadelphia to Category:Buildings and structures in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Category:Companies based in Philadelphia to Category:Companies based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Category:Philadelphia culture to Category:Culture of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Category:Economy of Philadelphia to Category:Economy of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Category:Education in Philadelphia to Category:Education in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Category:Geography of Philadelphia to Category:Geography of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Category:Government of Philadelphia to Category:Government of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Category:History of Philadelphia to Category:History of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Category:Landmarks in Philadelphia to Category:Landmarks in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Category:Media in Philadelphia to Category:Media in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Category:Philadelphia neighborhoods to Category:Neighborhoods of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Category:Organizations based in Philadelphia to Category:Organizations based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Category:Parks and squares in Philadelphia to Category:Parks and squares in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Category:People from Philadelphia to Category:People from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Category:Religion in Philadelphia to Category:Religion in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Category:Sports in Philadelphia to Category:Sports in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Category:Streets in Philadelphia to Category:Streets in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Category:Transportation in Philadelphia to Category:Transportation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Philadelphia to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

• All cities other than Category:New York City are of the form City, State, but there is much variation in subcategories. I recommend renaming to XXX in/of City, State, although the other way would be possible. This nomination is massive, so I started with the four largest cities other than New York for now. TimBentley (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, with one exception: the proper name of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles is "Archdiocese of Los Angeles". I think we should keep it at the official name. Otherwise I agree with the rest. -Will Beback · † · 05:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck. TimBentley (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I'm not entirely convinced. Usual practice up until now has only been to disambiguate cities where there is clear cause for confusion. While there is a biblical Philadelphia, and Houston and Los Angeles could viably have other reasonable sized places sharing their name (though I doubt many would be too confused by what los Angeles we were referring to), I doubt that Chicago has. It also looks like the thin edge of an extremely large wedge - are you planning to do this with every city in the world? Grutness...wha? 08:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per Will Beback drumguy8800 C T 09:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support only for consistency relations. Having every USAn city named in the form of "City, State" will help avoid ambiguity when dealing with USAn cities named after European cities (there's quite a lot of them). JIP | Talk 09:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per grutness. The state name may need to be included sometimes for disambiguation, and it might help in other cases where cities are not so well known internationally; but LA is surely one of the world's best-known cities, and Chicago is well-known too. I'm not sure about Philadelphia, and inclined to support the renaming for Houston, but since they have all been lumped together, I have to oppose them all. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per grutness. --evrik ^(talk) 15:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support My stance is that it's better to make the naming scheme consistent at the cost of some abbreviation. That way as editors create new categories, they know the format the name should follow. And readers looking to peruse various categories of the same type will know what format to use when typing in searches. If some categories use state designations, and others don't, then readers will sometimes have to resort to trial and error to guess the correct syntax. But if all the categories use "City, State" format, it's easier to search. Dugwiki 16:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all These are world famous cities so this is unnecessary. Osomec 18:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per Grutness. For world famous cities, or those with unique names, I don't see it as necessary. However, for some of the extremely likely ones, such as People from San Francisco, it may be worthwhile to create a redirect, just as we did for Category:San Franciscans. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Grutness and Osomec Postoak 00:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I just noticed that many city categories were nominated for renaming to City, State at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Cities in the United States, which did not gain consensus, but they were manually moved about a month later. Perhaps some well known cities should be moved back to the City form. TimBentley (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose All Extra words for no gain - category names should be succinct. roundhouse 09:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As with Las Vegas above, until these need to be disambiguated they seem clear and succinct. ~ BigrTex 20:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per roundhouse.Bjones 21:19, 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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:High-importance Uruguayan articles to Category:High-importance Uruguay articles

• Rename, Per other Category i created for the project and i borrow ideas form Turkey's Categories, there is no need to add an . Matthew_hk tc 04:57, 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 delete both. David Kernow (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few more continental categories. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me that Category:Religious leaders by nationality works well enough to cover most anything we are likely to need.

• Category:Religious leaders by continent
• Category:North American religious leaders

Delete in favor of Category:Religious leaders by nationality. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the middleman. --Dhartung | Talk 04:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the middleman per above. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep what is wrong with categories by continent? Other categories are organized by continent! see Category:Categories by continent Must all those be deleted as well to remain consistent?? Pastorwayne 14:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we go by country, not continent. (Radiant) 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for consistency. ~ BigrTex 20:03, 6 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 SPEEDY DELETE, recreation of CFD'd category. —Moondyne 12:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:All-rounders
• Category:Australian all-rounders
• Category:English all-rounders
• Category:Pakistani all-rounders
• Category:Sri Lankan all-rounders
• Category:United Arab Emirates all-rounders
• Category:West Indian all-rounders

Delete, no criteria for inclusion: "All-rounder" is a subjective term. This issue was discussed here in April 2006 and we resolved to not have these particular categories. Categories have ben deleted previuosly and recreated a few weeks ago. Only two have been partly populated (SL & WI), others are empty. —Moondyne 01:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd forgotten that there was a CFD for this at here, so this may be a case for a speedy deletion. —Moondyne 01:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per Moondyne, otherwise delete per nomination as subjective. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 07:59, 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 rename to Fictional prison officers and governors. David Kernow (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Her Majesty's Prison Service employees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Category appears to have been created specifically to house two minor EastEnders characters who appeared one time each. There is no need for a category at this level of specificity; the articles (if they are notable and I have my doubts) can be categorized under other existing categories for prison personnel. Otto4711 01:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteUpmerge as below. Category:Fictional members of the 6th lab in the 2nd building of IBM's headquarters next! -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as over-categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename per Grutness. I assumed that Category:Fictional prison officers already existed (silly me, I should have checked). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename to Category:Fictional prison officers or similar - that might be a much more useful category and would contain quite a large number of articles, I suspect. Grutness...wha? 08:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above and populate. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per Grutness, and add new nomination Category:Fictional wardens to Category:Fictional prison officers too. Mereda 12:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support on upmerging of Category:Fictional wardens. Seems that it might be useful, but the terminology is difficult ("warden" in some jurisdictions, "governor" in the UK), and I doubt that it will grow much. I'd prefer a separate nomination for Category:Fictional wardens (it's currently mis-tagged). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Or maybe we could have Category:Fictional prison officers and governors to match the existing articles Prison officer and Prison Governor?? (A lot of other terms redirect to those two.) Meanwhile, Category:Judicial and penal systems people doesn't seem to have any non-fictional officers, guards, wardens or governors at all. --Mereda 14:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC) (But ... I've just added a few now. Mereda 15:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I like that idea. Category:Fictional prison officers and governors would cover both, and its better than having two categories, boith of which are unlikely to be very heavily populated. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Fictional prison officers as above. Tim! 18:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional prison officers, it was my stupidity to call the category that - I intended to populate it with Bad Girls characters, but none had articles! Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 20:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • prompted by this debate, Jim Fenner now has :) Grutness...wha? 00:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Fictional prison officers and governors per discussion above. David Kernow (talk) 03:43, 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 delete all. David Kernow (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Religion by continent
• Category:Christianity by continent
• Category:Methodism by continent
• Category:Bishops by continent
• Category:United Methodism by continent

I have a general dislike of categorizing by continent, the problem is that I never remember, off the top of my head, whether places like Kyrgyzstan or Uzbekistan are in Asia or Europe. I wonder if Puerto Rico counts as North America or Oceania. Is Iceland part or Europe or not? For some natuaral things, such as plants, animals, and geographical features like volcanos, it makes sense to categorize things this way. However for manmade things, national boundaries seem to make more sense. However as of today we have five new continental categories.

Delete all, as over-enthusiastic categorization. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - categorising by countries is sufficient for these. --Alynna 02:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as over-categorisation. No need to subdivide the categories by continent, beacuse (as above) it doesn't increase clarity, and the list of countries is not too long. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, use countries instead. (Radiant) 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Offtopic Comment we now also have Category:Religion by region and similar categories. Perhaps slightly better than by continent, but I'm not so sure. Mairi 20:49, 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) 04:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Matlock to Category:Matlock (TV series)
• Category:Matlock episodes to Category:Matlock (TV series) episodes

rename as Matlock (TV series).Xiedfo 01:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom; suffix "(TV series)" needed for clarity and to distinguish from the town Matlock. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The town doesn't appear large enough to ever warrant its own dedicated category in the first place, and even if it did it would have to be "Matlock, Derbyshire" rather than just "Matlock" anyway, because it's in no way a dominant meaning of the undisambiguated title. Plus the town will never be in any conceivable way associated with the concept of episodes. Bearcat 00:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Personally, I'm not sure why Matlock needs its own unique category, and I'd support category deletion and listifying of actors/characters. But assuming the category remains in place, the suggested rename makes sense. Dugwiki 16:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and definitely do not delete, the current tagging does not even suggest this is a possible outcome of the discussion. Tim! 17:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category names should always be as simple as possible; there's no rule necessarily requiring that a category name has to match an article title dab for dab. Since no other possible meaning of Matlock is in any way correlated with the concept of episodes, there's no actual risk of ambiguity here. Oppose as unnecessary. Bearcat 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all using "(TV series)" as Category:Firefly and Category:Firefly terminology potentially ambiguous. If/when film/other media involved, renominate with new disambiguation. David Kernow (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Firefly to Category:Firefly (TV series)
• Category:Firefly cast and crew to Category:Firefly (TV series) cast and crew
• Category:Firefly characters to Category:Firefly (TV series) characters
• Category:Firefly episodes to Category:Firefly (TV series) episodes
• Category:Firefly soundtracks to Category:Firefly (TV series) soundtracks
• Category:Firefly spin-offs to Category:Firefly (TV series) spin-offs
• Category:Firefly fan films to Category:Firefly (TV series) fan films
• Category:Firefly terminology to Category:Firefly (TV series) terminology

rename as Firefly (TV series).Xiedfo 01:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom; suffix "(TV series)" needed for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question The category description says it is specifically for the TV series and spinoffs, but I'm wondering if it also includes information regarding the movie? If this covers both the television show and the movie and any other articles, then the articles are not specific to a TV series and I don't think I'd support the suggested rename. I might, though, support something like "Firefly (science fiction)" or the like. Dugwiki 16:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object, no need to disambig here. (Radiant) 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category names should always be as simple as possible; there's no rule necessarily requiring that a category name has to match an article title dab for dab. Since no other possible meaning of Firefly is in any way correlated with the concepts of episodes or characters or soundtracks or fan films or spin-offs, there's no actual risk of ambiguity here. Oppose as unnecessary. Bearcat 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Especially Category:Firefly and Category:Firefly terminology which could be misconstrued. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all. David Kernow (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Crusade to Category:Crusade (TV series)
• Category:Crusade episodes to Category:Crusade (TV series) episodes
• Category:Crusade cast and crew to Category:Crusade (TV series) cast and crew

rename as Crusade (TV series).Xiedfo 00:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom; suffix "(TV series)" needed for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or delete/listify As above with Matlock, I do not think this category is necessary and would recommend deleting and listifying the characters and actors (assuming they're not already listed in the main article). Episodes should already be listed as a subcategory of Category:Episodes by television series and could remain in place without the need for Category:Crusade. However, assuming this category isn't deleted, I do support the rename to remove disambiguity. Dugwiki 16:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename In keeping with article for series that way. User:Tom walker 18:22 GMT 5 December 2006
• Rename and definitely do not delete, the current tagging does not even suggest this is a possible outcome of the discussion. Tim! 17:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category names should always be as simple as possible; there's no rule necessarily requiring that a category name has to match an article title dab for dab. Since no other possible meaning of Crusade is in any way correlated with the concepts of episodes or cast and crew, there's no actual risk of ambiguity here. Oppose as unnecessary. Bearcat 23:53, 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 no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Deadwood episodes to Category:Deadwood (TV series) episodes

rename as Deadwood (TV series).Xiedfo 00:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom; suffix "(TV series)" needed for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Dugwiki 16:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object, no need to disambig here. (Radiant) 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a guess, but I believe nominator wants the disam to distinguish it between other Deadwood articles, and also to match the category name to the name of its main article Deadwood (TV series). Dugwiki 16:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What other possible meaning of Deadwood could be at all correlated with episodes? Bearcat 23:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category names should always be as simple as possible; there's no rule necessarily requiring that a category name has to match an article title dab for dab. Since no other possible meaning of Deadwood is in any way correlated with the concept of episodes, there's no actual risk of ambiguity here. Oppose as unnecessary. Bearcat 23:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all. David Kernow (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Entourage to Category:Entourage (TV series)
• Category:Entourage Image to Category:Entourage (TV series) images
• Category:Entourage actors to Category:Entourage (TV series) actors
• Category:Entourage characters to Category:Entourage (TV series) characters
• Category:Entourage episodes to Category:Entourage (TV series) episodes
• Category:Entourage templates to Category:Entourage (TV series) templates

rename as Entourage (TV series).Xiedfo 00:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom; suffix "(TV series)" needed for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or delete/listify As above with Matlock and Crusade, I'm not convinced this category is necessary. Assuming it is kept, though, I support the rename. Dugwiki 16:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and definitely do not delete, the current tagging does not even suggest this is a possible outcome of the discussion. Tim! 17:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category names should always be as simple as possible; there's no rule necessarily requiring that a category name has to match an article title dab for dab. Since no other possible meaning of Entourage is in any way correlated with the concepts of episodes or characters or actors, there's no actual risk of ambiguity here. Mostly oppose as unnecessary; Category:Entourage Image definitely has to be changed to lowercase-and-plural "images", but I'm still not sure the dab needs to be there. Bearcat 23:55, 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 no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Dexter episodes to Category:Dexter (TV series) episodes

rename as Dexter (TV series).Xiedfo 00:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom; suffix "(TV series)" needed for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Dugwiki 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object, no need to disambig here. (Radiant) 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, I think the reason is that Dexter refers to multiple articles, so the category name should match the main article Dexter (TV series). Dugwiki 16:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What other possible meaning of Dexter would be associated with episodes? Bearcat 23:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category names should always be as simple as possible; there's no rule necessarily requiring that a category name has to match an article title dab for dab. Since no other possible meaning of Dexter is in any way correlated with the concept of episodes, there's no actual risk of ambiguity here. Oppose as unnecessary. Bearcat 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename both. David Kernow (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Dark Angel albums to Category:Dark Angel (band) albums
• Category:Dark Angel episodes to Category:Dark Angel (TV series) episodes

rename as Dark Angel (band), Dark Angel (TV series).Xiedfo 00:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom; suffix "(TV series)" needed for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Dugwiki 16:54, 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 rename all. David Kernow (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Air to Category:Air (series)
• Category:Air characters to Category:Air (series) characters
• Category:Air episodes to Category:Air (TV series) episodes

rename as Air (series).Xiedfo 00:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom; suffix "(TV series)" needed for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - I thought this was going to be about either the atmosphere or the French band. Grutness...wha? 08:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or delete/listify As above with Matlock and Crusade, this category does not appear to be necessary and I'd support deletion/listifying. Assuming it is kept, though, I support the rename. Dugwiki 16:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for clarity. Osomec 18:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and definitely do not delete, the current tagging does not even suggest this is a possible outcome of the discussion. Tim! 17:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Parent category Category:Air is definitely too ambiguous to stand as is, but I don't know if the characters and episodes subcats need to be disambiguated. Is there any other potential meaning of Air that might be correlated with the concepts of episodes or characters? Definitely rename the parent category; rename the subcategories only if there's an actual risk of ambiguity rather than a purely theoretical one. Bearcat 00:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all. David Kernow (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:House actors to Category:House (TV series) actors
• Category:House characters to Category:House (TV series) characters
• Category:House episodes to Category:House (TV series) episodes

rename as House (TV series).Xiedfo 00:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom; suffix "(TV series)" needed for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or delete/listify Another TV category that appears to be unnecessary and could be deleted/listified. Assuming it's kept, though, I support the rename. Dugwiki 16:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and definitely do not delete, the current tagging does not even suggest this is a possible outcome of the discussion. Tim! 17:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category names should always be as simple as possible; there's no rule necessarily requiring that a category name has to match an article title dab for dab. Since no other possible meaning of House is in any way correlated with the concepts of episodes or characters or actors, there's no actual risk of ambiguity here. Oppose as unnecessary. Bearcat 23:53, 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 merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Middlesex University alumni into Category:Alumni of Middlesex University

• Speedy merge, the two have identical scope but the latter is the standard convention in Category:Alumni by university in the United Kingdom (where the other was not listed). Timrollpickering 00:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:06, 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 keep, per arguments and existing convention. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Moved to Category:OK Go discography, as contained 2 albums and 2 singles. - Jack (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose part of Category:Albums by artist. Songs/singles go in Category:Songs by artist. Mairi 02:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mairi. OK Go is active and will probably have a third album next year. There are also other potential song articles. --Dhartung | Talk 05:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as over-categorisation, we don't need categories containing two or three articles. -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)}
• Keep per WP:ALBUM#Categories. ~ BigrTex 20:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and I put the contents back. Should it be kept per WP:ALBUM#Categories and dozens of precedents, and please don't move contents before starting a debate like this.--Mike Selinker 08:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mairi and WP:ALBUM, and delete Category:OK Go discography, which goes against convention. Mike Selinker has just created Category:OK Go songs to store the articles about the group's songs (and single releases). ×Meegs 15:40, 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.