The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply a POV category... bogdan 23:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I don't know if we have a nationalists category, or whether we should if we don't, but one of those three would properly go in it if we did. Additionally, the other two entries, the stubs, appear to be of dubious notability; I've tagged them with Template:Importance. Postdlf 01:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because of the term. It may be used in Bulgaria but allowing it here will result in avalanche of similar categories and never ending disputes. The two people were likely important in their time, it is just lack of Bulgarians here that it didn't get expanded. Pavel Vozenilek 14:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV. Piccadilly 17:55, 26 February 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 15:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match Category:Racecar drivers--Mike Selinker 20:07, 25 February 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete -- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Uhh.. I don't think we need this category. Nonsense basically as it is a parody of Category:Living people. This category is hardly not even used either. Moe ε 19:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Neokid talk 12:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete It's impossible to contribute to Wikipedia from a grave. --Z.Spy 00:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Bad Joke. --Fangz 04:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Is it ok for Category:Dead Wikipedians to exist? Alan Liefting 23:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant. Эйрон Кинни (t) 03:46, 5 March 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. Syrthiss 15:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes more sense to have a general athletics category. Two of the entries, Memorial Field (Dartmouth) and Dartmouth College athletic teams are already general athletics. Also fits better with new subcategorization scheme of Category:Dartmouth College --_└ ^Smith120bh/_TALK ^┐ 21:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose. However it fits with the Dartmouth categories, this recommendation completely circumvents the categorization scheme of Category:College football teams. I have no objection to making the Dartmouth football category a subcategory of a new Dartmouth athletics category (such as Category:Texas Longhorns football feeds into Category:Texas Longhorn Athletics), but I do not want to see this change enacted as proposed.--Mike Selinker 19:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm fine with that - I apologize, I didn't look at the precedent at other schools very closely. Other athletics at Dartmouth are not well-documented on Wikipedia, although some should be - some of the Dartmouth teams have been quite successful in national tournaments (women's hockey, women's basketball, and squash have all stayed fairly high in national rankings the past few years) - but that's a project for another day. I'd support making football a sub-cat of athletics. --_└ ^Smith120bh/_TALK ^┐ 21:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, and the storied Dartmouth crew team could easily merit an article. (Especially if this keeps happening. Them otters are ferocious.)--Mike Selinker 01:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mike's idea -- I think it would do best as a subcategory to Athletics. As a side note, I'd like to see the "Big Green" taken out of the name, as it seems superfluous and is not a particularly common way to refer to Dartmouth football. "Dartmouth College football" should do just fine. Dylan 23:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomenclature of the category is "(college name) (team name) football." So there should be a team name, and the only one I know is Big Green. Is there some other term the Dartmouth students use for their team? If not, it should stay "Dartmouth Big Green football."--Mike Selinker 01:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, Big Green is the official 'name' of the team. The only other option is the administration-despised and unofficial Keggy the Keg... I'm in the marching band at Dartmouth, and when we cheer, we're yelling "Go Dartmouth" or "Go Green". Keep "Big Green". --_└ ^Smith120bh/_TALK ^┐ 02:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, okay -- I didn't realize that there was a precedent for including the team name. You're right, Big Green (although unofficial) is definitely the best choice. Dylan 22:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's in two football categories. Golfcam 03:58, 28 February 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was speedied already. Syrthiss 15:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - Should be changed to Category:Arctic cetaceans. The capitalized "C" in 'Cetaceans' should be changed to a small "c". SirIsaacBrock 15:35, 25 February 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 15:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improper capitalisation. Haakon 14:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Rename. Self-explanatory. Эйрон Кинни (t) 03:42, 5 March 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 15:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any reason these should be different categories. They seem like synonyms.--Mike Selinker 08:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Postdlf 17:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as "lawyers" is more universal. - choster 18:14, 25 February 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 15:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be replaced by [Category:Television stations in Argentina], to be more consistent in wording with most nations listed in Category:Television stations. This should have been a cfm in retrospect. Dl2000 06:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC). Support per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:53, 3 March 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 15:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename would make this more consistent with most nations listed in Category:Television stations. Dl2000 05:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Support move. Guettarda 15:22, 25 February 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 15:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate category; should merge to Television stations in Indonesia category which is more consistent naming compared to most nations in Category:Television stations Dl2000 05:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per nom. Golfcam 02:26, 4 March 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contains no articles, only alumni subcats for some Oxbridge women's and formerly-women's colleges. Since most Oxbridge colleges have been coed for decades, most Oxbridge women will not in fact be included in these subcats (and some men will be). Also, lumping Oxford and Cambridge together screws up category hierarchy and promotes Oxbridge myth. Also sexist. —Blotwell 05:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not sexist, but will get more and more inaccurate. Honbicot 16:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename If Wikipedia is to record historical as well as current information, it would be good to keep this category in some form. Biographical articles could be included directly for more recent entries. Jonathan Bowen 12:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Far too inaccurate. People who want to find out about Oxbridge women can scan the categories - all 60 or so, not just these - for female names. Piccadilly 17:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: no opinion for now on this particular category - but for enquirers who don't know simply by looking at a list of Oxbridge colleges which ones were the historical women's colleges, a quick and easy way to find out would be useful - although this category in its present form may not provide it particularly accurately. Staffelde 00:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Golfcam 03:59, 28 February 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badly capitalised, not pluralised, from text and existing supercategorisation very unclear scope. Sounds like a gender-based split of Category:Filipino actors -- but probably isn't. Alai 04:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The intended definition seems to be Filipino film actresses. Delete – All members are also members of Category:Filipino actors, whose subcategorization can start from scratch sometime in the future if necessary. ×Meegs 09:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Meegs. Pavel Vozenilek 15:25, 25 February 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 14:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the movies spoofed the Bond films doesn't mean the categories have to spoof the Bond categories. The movies were funny and popular, but Austin Powers never spawned anything like Category:Bond girls, a cultural...um...phenomenon...in its own right, spanning decades, and Bond girl is actually a rather substantial article. Austin Powers girl is rather nonexistant. The phrase "Bond girl" gets more than 2.7 million Google hits.[1] "Austin Powers girl" gets 598, of which this category is the first hit.[2] Seeing as the internet's main task is to archive sexy pictures, I think these findings are highly relevant. Delete. Postdlf 03:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Schizombie 04:23, 25 February 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Syrthiss 14:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Redundant category (a copy of Category:New Line Cinema films). (Ibaranoff24 03:52, 25 February 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. Syrthiss 14:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the more widely-used "Manga artists" category. Since Japanese comic-book artists are arguably the same thing as manga artists, I believe that the section is redundant. One might make a special case for Yoshitaka Amano, who has drawn for Neil Gaiman's Sandman series, but the way the category was being used was exactly the same as the category for actual manga artists. Julian Grybowski 03:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Opppose. I disagree that the two are redundant; the former refers to nationality, the latter to the genre or form of art. That they may overlap significantly is not a problem, because it's just a consequential intersection of cultural geography (or some such BS, I don't know quite how to phrase it). If articles are misplaced in either of these, that is an easy problem to fix. Postdlf 03:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose too - Not all Japanese artist write/draw manga. ^KILO-_LIMA 21:47, 26 February 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Deleted by Postdlf -- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not one of the categories I originally put when categorizing colors in Category:Colors. Georgia guy 01:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you accidentally tagged the wrong category title; the only edit in the history of that category is by you creating it with a CFD tag, and there is no deleted history. Postdlf 02:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and speedy deleted this, as it doesn't appear to have existed apart from your creation of it. Postdlf 17:27, 25 February 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Speedily Deleted by Freakofnurture -- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Delete. This should be a Wikipedian category. I already created a replacement at Category:Wikipedians interested in firearms and it is populated with the few items that were in Firearm experts. —Kenyon (t·c) 01:04, 25 February 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Syrthiss 14:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: brand new category that is a dupe of an existing category (Category:Reality television participants) -- MisterHand 00:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's largely true, though I note that included reality television "stars" such as Paula Abdul are not "participants." I think this should probably be renamed to something inclusive of all people appearing as participants, regular judges (no one-shot guest judges, thank you), or hosts of reality television series, the preexisting participants category made a subcategory, and everyone in the participant category or its subcategory delisted from the successor to the "stars" category. Postdlf 00:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a bad idea at all. I'm just trying to avoid a growing problem where we are starting to get these folks listed in two places, which is entirely unnecessary. -- MisterHand 00:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct my comment to read everyone who should be in the participant category, as those redundancies were cured in the wrong direction since my comment. Postdlf 00:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know much about reality TV, but in the sports categories, the term for these people is "officials." I think that would cover Paula Abdul (a judge) and Ryan Seacrest (a host), but I might be wrong. Another possibility is "moderators."--Mike Selinker 19:48, 25 February 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 page.