< July 16	July 18 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 --Kbdank71 16:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This name is confusing. Games are constantly reemoved fromt he category with notes they aren't sports games. This will never be able to keep articles. Beyond that, I think the concept is misguided as pretty much any game with multiplayer can be played competively. Ace of Sevens 23:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no problem with the category itself, the problem is that someone thinks that any competative game is a "sports" game. Sports game, in common usage, means games like Madden NFL 2000, video games that are adaptations of a real-life professional sport. In short, usage problem, not category problem. Unworthy of deletion. --tjstrf 23:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is already Category:Sports computer games for simulations of traditional sports. Electronic sports has a specific, different meaning. Basically, computer games that are played competitvely. The problem is, this is too broad and non-obvious to work as a cateogry. 05:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case, strong delete as impossibly large, unmaintainable, vague, and useless. --tjstrf 05:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Sports video games. In the current parlance, video games means arcade, home console, and PC games. Sports works as a noun adjunct, making it clear that the subject of the game is "sports", which is pretty much defined as anything that is or could be played in the Olympics. Electronic sports is an annoying neologism that really should be called Competitive electronic gaming. --M@rēino 19:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Keep Look at the parent category. The naming might be confusing, but the category is needed. I updated the category description to make it less confusing. On a separate note, maybe Category:Sports computer games can be renamed to Category:Sports computer and video games. --Usgnus 19:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC) --Usgnus 19:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC) --Usgnus 19:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see arguments for keeping a category for games that are played professionally in competion (as opposed to MMO farming) as that's narrow enough to be meaningful, but a confusing name is a serious problem. If kept as is, we will constantly deal with people deleting articles from the category with comments like "StarCraft isn't Madden". Ace of Sevens 01:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is a big problem with misunderstanig of the category. As explained before this category should list all games that are played professional in competitions like the CPL, WCG, ESWC, WEG and so on, not sports related video games (unless they are played professional). A rename of the category could may solve this problem, but i can't find a name that is that much better. --Wedderkop 00:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As electronic sports notes, the only standard for these games is "can be played competitively", which can apply to anything from Quake to CivNet. -Sean Curtin 15:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is not "can be played" actually it is "are played". --Wedderkop 16:39, 24 July 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 regarding 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 cat redir as it is the same --Kbdank71 16:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This category has been replaced by more precise categories like Category:Opioids. —Centrx→talk • 22:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "what is a narcotic" must be one of the more common research questions that people come to Wikipedia looking to learn about, seeing as it's a shifting definition with enormous legal consequences for those who get involved in them. Could some experts on these articles comment on whether keeping the category would be useful towards answering that question? --M@rēino 19:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Should this category be kept as a parent to those more precise categories? --JeffW 00:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - opioid is a the proper encyclopedic term we are using here, and since all opioids are narcotics, and all (true) narcotics are opioids, there's no reason to have duplicate categories. "Narcotic" as a legal term referring to non-narcotics such as cocaine and cannabis is POV, and has no place in Wikipedia. --Thoric 17:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. -Sean Curtin 15:41, 24 July 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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just created this and I intended to include "and Commonwealth" in the name because many of them are still in use as the residences of governors-general of Commonwealth countries and Australian and Canadian provinces. Olborne 22:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename (immediate request by creator and no objections). Chicheley 11:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment why is "British Empire" included at all?--cj | talk 04:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could conceivably contain articles about Government houses in places which were in the Empire but are not in the Commonwealth, eg Hong Kong and Zimbabwe. They were all built by the British Empire and this category is in Category:British Empire. Interestingly it is not in the Commonwealth category, so I will add it to that. Hawkestone 12:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's necessary to distinguish current (ie, Commonwealth) government houses from those historical (ie, British Empire).--cj | talk 13:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 12:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Landolitan 19:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Capitalisation wrong. A government house is a house owned by the government in which anyone from a civil servant to a politician to any official lives in. A Government House (capitalised) is the formal name of an official residence of a governor, governor-general, etc and as a formal name is a proper noun. The category is about the official residences. Therefore as proper noun it needs capitalisation. Otherwise any government house, e.g., a grace and favour apartment for a royal, or a civil servant's small semi-detached house in the suburbs, would qualify for inclusion. So Oppose until nenaming correct. Else delete altogether.FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 23:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
• Rename per nom. Nathan Mercer 01:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Irish chap is right and I have amended the proposal to show a capital "H". Olborne 00:36, 24 July 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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely POV and unencylopedic. CovenantD 19:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree.--CyberGhostface 19:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kasreyn 20:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nonomy 21:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as utterly worthless and unsalvageably POV. Some of those people are pretty disgusting though. --tjstrf 00:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per tjstrf. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 02:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I populated this category essentially by myself (there were 3 entries when I ran across it) so it is probably mostly POV, i.e., mine (and the people I browbeat to help me brainstorm.) However, I see where it might be more valuable if it were better defined...I listed all the characters from Devil's Rejects because I think being a crazy psycho who sleeps with dead people/rapes women is disgusting...but I think maybe the person who originally created the category, based on its original three entries, intended it to be more of a "gross-out" category (viz. Mr. Creosote). If there isn't any way to limit it in that fashion, it may be entirely too vague. I had fun, anyway.... --Parcequilfaut 05:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't mind a Category:Fictional characters with socially discouraged digestive habits or a Category:Fictional violent psychopaths. This category looks like it's trying to do both, though. --M@rēino 19:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:NPOV. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NPOV. Cat's Tuxedo 21:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV. Cloachland 23:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very POV. Spongesquid 13:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as it's impossible to define disgusting universally. Zythe 12:29, 21 July 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 regarding 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 --Kbdank71 16:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Category:Schools in Ottawa. That is sufficient. Ardenn 18:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. See List of French public schools in Ottawa, List of French catholic schools in Ottawa, and Category:French language schools in Ontario. --Usgnus 18:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is a fundamental difference between an English language school and a French language school, which should be recognised by the category system. Nathcer 21:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Nathcer is correct. I also wonder if this is one of the rare, special instances where it would be appropriate to keep articles in both the subcategory (by language) and the parent, as is done for toll-bridges: the distinction is big enough to make a distinct category worthwhile, but the main category also has a very particular kind of coherence that would otherwise be lost. TheGrappler 20:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the school would generally be in one or more of Category:High schools in Ottawa, Category:Middle schools in Ottawa, Category:Elementary schools in Ottawa, Category:Private schools in Ottawa in addition to Category:French language schools in Ottawa. --Usgnus 23:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Categorizing on two levels (language and type of school) makes perfect sense. Thanks. TheGrappler 18:51, 22 July 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 regarding 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basque history was the existing, largely complete category, the other is a new duplicate. Whilst normally of foo might be a valid name, ambiguous references to the Basque County have proved difficult in both article and category names. 'Basque history' better implies the history of the people and their lands. Either way, they should be merged. See also Category talk:Basque history for earlier discussions. Mtiedemann 18:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Chicheley 11:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Landolitan 19:44, 20 July 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 regarding 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 --Kbdank71 16:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category now empty and duplicate of two other categories with merge requests Mtiedemann 18:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Landolitan 19:45, 20 July 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 regarding 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 both. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 categories itemised below do not match Category:Visitor attractions in Australia or the rest of the Category:Visitor attractions hierarchy.

• Category:Tourist attractions in New South Wales rename to Category:Visitor attractions in New South Wales
• Category:Tourist attractions in Queensland rename to Category:Visitor attractions in Queensland
• Rename both Olborne 16:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both --Mereda 17:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per nom. Nathcer 21:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per nom. Chicheley 11:45, 18 July 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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone did a lot of work on this. However, it's not a category and shouldn't be one. The content is good and should be moved to article space. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – There is a less complete (A-E) list already at List of songs performed on The X Factor(UK TV series). ×Meegs 16:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I've moved the content to article space. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it has been listified. --musicpvm 08:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not category material. Cloachland 23:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very trivial indeed, even as a list. Nathcer 21:49, 23 July 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 regarding 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match the other members of Category:Footballers in Romania by club. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Chicheley 11:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:C.S. Universitatea Cluj-Napoca players. David Kernow 13:54, 18 July 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 regarding 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 --Kbdank71 16:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No parent category, has only one member, no potential for expansion. Kimchi.sg 15:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Chicheley 11:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can think of dozens of American universities that have Campus response teams. The appropriate parent category would be Category:Emergency services. --M@rēino 19:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless it can be shown that this is for something more then college clubs or groups. If that is what they are, then the articles should be merged into the school's article. Vegaswikian 07:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thought would be to create a generic article on Campus Response Team and then link to the article when the club is listed in a school's article. A much cleaner approach. Vegaswikian 19:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Vegaswikian. TheGrappler 18:55, 22 July 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 regarding 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See below nom for Chilean Navy ships as well. Per discussion on WP:SHIPS, "(country's navy) (ship type)" categories should be merged/renamed to "(ship type) of (country" for consistency and ease of finding the proper category. There is no need to distinguish between USN carriers and carriers of the US; they are one and the same. TomTheHand 14:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as discussed on WP:SHIPS. --Victor12 14:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as discussed on WP:SHIPS. --Spot87 15:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 13:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom Josh 20:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nuff saidGraemeLeggett 16:28, 19 July 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 regarding 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are essentially synonymous yet have no overlapping content. Per discussion on WP:SHIPS on cleanup of Category:Ships by country, "(country's navy) ships" should be merged/renamed to "Naval ships of (country)". If you oppose this merge, please come over to WP:SHIPS and give your input on a new categorization scheme. We've discussed the advantages and disadvantages of each name and decided on "Naval ships of (country)" but if you disagree we'd value your input. TomTheHand 14:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as discussed on WP:SHIPS. --Victor12 14:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as discussed on WP:SHIPS. --Spot87 15:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Mereda 17:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Josh 20:30, 18 July 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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a subcat of Category:Indian National Congress leaders. Expand party name to standard style and reword to avoid ambiguity with this party's Presidents of India. --Mereda 13:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Nonomy 21:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 02:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 13:55, 18 July 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 regarding 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 --Kbdank71 16:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial information, and in any case, putting these in a category makes no sense - they ought to really be in a list where they can be given context & structure. Qwghlm 09:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Osomec 11:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 02:45, 18 July 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 regarding 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 --Kbdank71 16:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one Moon, and it orbits our planet. All others are natural satellites with other names. The article Natural satellites is the main article of Category:Moons.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 06:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Moons to Category:Natural satellites

Category:Fictional moons to Category:Fictional natural satellites

Category:Moons in fiction to Natural satellites in fiction

Category:Jupiter's moons to Category:Natural satellites of Jupiter

Category:Mars' moons to Category:Natural satellites of Mars

Category:Neptune's moons to Category:Natural satellites of Neptune

Category:Pluto's moons to Category:Natural satellites of Pluto

Category:Saturn's moons to Category:Natural satellites of Saturn

Category:Uranus' moons to Category:Natural satellites of Uranus

Category:Icy moons - delete

• Oppose. I can't agree with this. A natural satellite can also be a planet circling a star. And moons (lowercase) is the common term for those things circling Jupiter.--Mike Selinker 07:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There is only one Moon, but natural satellites of other planets are commonly called moons, even among professional astronomers. This is a distinction few would make. The only reason to do it might be confusion, and these are longer and more awkward. They are more usefully consistent. --Dhartung | Talk 07:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I was just reading the latest Scientific American and it has an article on satellites in the Solar System, which it proceeds to call moons throughout the article saying "In strict astronomical parlance, they are "satellites," not "moons." There is only one moon and it is Earth's satellite. But even astronomers generally adopt the common usage." If Scientific American uses the word moon to refer to satellites of other planets, I don't see why Wikipedia shouldn't do likewise. --JeffW 08:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for reasons outlined above. Twittenham 11:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We prefer to use common names. Also, wouldn't asteroids and comets count as natural satellites? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The reasoning behind this is to make these categories companions to any artificial satellites categories that may be created. I don't forsee anyone allowing the Hubble telescope or the International Space Station to be called artifical moons. This move was to differentiate between the natural satellites and the artificial ones. If those two items are allowed to be categorized in an artificial moon category, then these would need to be retitled to natural moons. And do we really need an icy moon category? - LA @ 02:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename "X's moons" to "Moons of X". David Kernow 13:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Dhartung and JeffW. --M@rēino 19:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deleting Category:Icy moons. Abstain in the case of renaming.--JyriL ^talk 17:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Stronge oppose Natural Satelites is too general. Moon is the correct, and scientific, term in this case - Asteroids, planets, and even stars can be considered to be natural satellites. --Tim4christ17 02:45, 25 July 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 regarding 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 --Kbdank71 16:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting from July 8 for more opinions. Conscious 06:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous categorization. If this category is supposed to list "Antifa" movements it should state so. Intangible 14:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So, why should it be deleted? Mário 21:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What means activism in this case? If it just opposition to neo Nazism, this would include pretty much everyone. Intangible 13:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Category:Anti-fascism exists but has only one entry. It seems like it would be a more useful category (I thought it should be a parent of this one, but it wasn't). Aren't groups in this cat like the SPLC activists against a broad range of isms, anyway? --Dhartung | Talk 07:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so, although their court cases seem to be against white supremacists. Category:Antifa would be a good cat for antifa movements. Intangible 10:04, 17 July 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 regarding 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 --Kbdank71 16:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match the other categories in Category:Beer and breweries in the United States.

• Category:Breweries in Iowa to Category:Iowa breweries
• Category:Breweries in Kentucky to Category:Kentucky breweries
• Category:Breweries in Nebraska to Category:Nebraska breweries
• Category:Breweries in Ohio to Category:Ohio breweries

Vegaswikian 06:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Reverse the cfr to rename the others to follow the examples above. Look at the category name, and you will see that the current names are consistent with it. - LA @ 06:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This proposed change also matches other similar categories like Category:California wineries. Both should be of the same form. Vegaswikian 07:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per LA. It is the others that need to be changed. Osomec 11:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, reverse, per User:Lady Aleena. Permanently located man-made objects are named "in region". Kurieeto 14:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, alternate rename: In a CfD that took place back in April, it was decided to change all the country-specifice beer catogries to "Beer and breweries in Foo". Shouldn't we be doing the same thing (Category:Beer and breweries in Iowa, etc.) here? – Swid ^{(talk | edits)} 18:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the articles in the U.S. categories they are almost all about the breweries nothing about the beers. When you consider the fact that many of these are microbreweries you can see that we are not likely to see many articles on the beers. So state specific lists of breweries would seem logical with the beers going under the larger Category:Beer and breweries in the United States. Vegaswikian 22:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If renamed, rename to "X breweries". David Kernow 14:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the cut and past typo. Vegaswikian 22:42, 18 July 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 regarding 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 --Kbdank71 16:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to Category:Lists of American bands by state The proposed new name does not contain an abbreviation and is consistent with other categories such as Category:American musicians by state. --musicpvm 05:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternate rename - Category:Lists of bands by state in the United States - LA @ 06:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Another suggestion. Category:Lists of bands in the United States by state. See Category:Categories by state of the United States. --Usgnus 19:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be fine with me too. --musicpvm 07:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think these all got AFD'd! Shouldn't this be deleted as an empty category? TheGrappler 20:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TheGrappler Cloachland 23:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I didn't realize that all the articles were nominated for deletion. Delete as it's empty. --musicpvm 04:47, 20 July 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 regarding 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found one more bandwith oddity, this time without a corresponding AM category. Expand the scope to include all radio stations in Chattanooga and Rename. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. - LA @ 06:48, 17 July 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 regarding 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 --Kbdank71 15:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the vast number of article tha could be using this almost two year only category, to only have 50 articles, including 7 from Category:Atlanta AM stations nominated below. It would appear that splitting radio stations by frequency band doesn't seem to attact the interest of the radiophiles. Given the few articles, and the lack of any other band related categories for longwave, shortwave, or FM stations, a simple delete would seem most appropriate. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - LA @ 06:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nathan Mercer 01:55, 23 July 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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta is an anomaly among the U.S. radio station categories in that it splits the FM and AM stations into separate categories: Category:Atlanta AM stations and Category:Atlanta FM stations. As far as I can tell, this isn't being done with any other subset of the U.S. radio market, and merging together the two would produce a single category of 47 articles, which is not overly large. I'm not opposed to doing an AM/FM split if that's how the radiophiles want it, but that doesn't appear to be the case, so merge to bring in line with similar categories. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per nom. --MCB 06:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. - LA @ 06:49, 17 July 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 regarding 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat should be renamed for consistency with other cats in Category:Films by language and per previous discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 8#Films by language. --musicpvm 03:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. - LA @ 06:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Mereda 17:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:32, 20 July 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 regarding 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 --Kbdank71 14:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NN I fail to understand why this is notable to the careers of, say, Madonna, Frank Zappa, and Brad Pitt. It's trivia. If it's notable in the context of a specific article that the subject was a dropout, then note it within that article. We don't need this category. Kasreyn 03:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Kasreyn 03:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. We don't have categories such as Category:College graduates or Category:People who did not attend college, so there is no reason to have this one. --musicpvm 03:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's misleading. We have Category:Autodidacts for people who attended neither high school nor college, and we have hundreds of categories like Category:Harvard University alumni to recognize attending a particlar college. --M@rēino 19:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Definitely notable. Justforasecond 03:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopedic distinction. --MCB 06:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not encyclopedic. Osomec 11:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trivia cat. --Rob 15:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of them is notable for the activity of dropping out of college.--Mike Selinker 15:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 02:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Eminently verifiable, and often relevant to the subject's personality and public perception -- and therefore relevant to a proper understanding of the subject. Sorry, I don't buy "Not encyclopedic" with no explaination provided. That's meaningless to me. --M@rēino 19:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I don't know what you mean by "with no explanation provided." I provided four sentences of explanation. Which of those do you disagree with? Kasreyn 22:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't referring to you, Kasreyn. "Not encyclopedic with no explaination provided" refers to MCB and Osomec's votes. As you can see from my keep vote, I disagreed with your assessment that a subject's educational background is broadly trivial; I consider it broadly relevant. --M@rēino 22:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopedic distinction. That is enough of a reason. I don't have time to write an essay just because someone has created a silly category. Landolitan 19:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify to List of college dropouts, as was done with Category:High school dropouts -> List of high school dropouts a few months ago. Noteworthy information, but a list can better deal with this sort of topic than a category, since it can provide references, specific information, check for errors and inaccuracies in the listing, etc. It's certainly a noteworthy and interesting topic. -Silence 22:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify per Silence. Another problem with this is that it is U.S.-centric; the term "college dropout" is pretty much meaningless in Commonwealth English (where one may go to "college" at the age of 11 or even before) TheGrappler 18:56, 22 July 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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are governors' mansions in many countries, but this category is specific to the United States. Olborne 02:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. Olborne 02:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 03:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - LA @ 06:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 11:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 02:50, 18 July 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 regarding 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 cat redir to Category:Organizations based in Greece --Kbdank71 14:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category with a duplicate scope of Category:Organizations based in Greece. "Based in" is the appropriate naming convention as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Kurieeto 01:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Category:Organizations based in Greece. David Kernow 03:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. "Greek organizations" is US college jargon for fraternities and sororities considered together (also "letter organizations"). I imagine that's how it got created. --Dhartung | Talk 07:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Now addressed by a ((for)) on category page. Thanks, David Kernow 14:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Category:Organizations based in Greece. Twittenham 11:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Category:United States student societies. Or disambig. --Tim4christ17 02:47, 25 July 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 regarding 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 --Kbdank71 14:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category was created in October of 2005. Currently contains zero articles. Proposed for deletion as it demonstrates unneccessary categorization. Kurieeto 01:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete More specific categories should be used instead. Nathcer 21:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too vague. Every single "organization" in Mexico is either a governmental or non-governmental organization. Might as well make Category:Colours that aren't light green. --tjstrf 00:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete Empty. Cloachland 23:17, 18 July 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 regarding 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The parent category was recently renamed from Category:English Premiership players to category: FA Premier League players so this should be renamed for consistency. ReeseM 01:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. ReeseM 01:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. It's the only inconsistent category of the FA Premier League that has been left out thus far. Mark272 22:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Chicheley 11:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as mon. --Kingjamie 17:04, 21 July 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 regarding 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 --Kbdank71 14:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This hasn't been properly populated and categorising countries by river doesn't seem to be a good idea. It is not an essential characteristic and keeping this would set a precedent for naming by sea, mountain range, lake and who knows what else.Hawkestone 00:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. Hawkestone 00:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --musicpvm 01:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sometimes rivers, seas, etc. are very important to the countries that border them. I believe this is the case here. The Danube is not any river in Europe, it is the second longest in Europe, and the longest river in the European Union. The whole history, culture, traditions, significant geographic areas of certain countries along that river are connected to the Danube. The Danube is a major waterway in Europe. Anybody interested in European geography especially rivers would like to know which countries border that river. Having that template addresses all these issues. There are already templates about countries on certain seas, also the category can be easily populated once the decision is made. --Vanka5 02:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify. David Kernow 03:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listfy as per David Kernow. --MCB 06:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. To the extent this is needed, handle it as a list in the river article. If there's an analogous int'l group, though, like the Great Lakes Cooperation Council, handle it as a formal membership gorup. --Dhartung | Talk 07:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There is no need to listify as it is already covered in the article. To be precise there is a list in the second paragraph of the article. Osomec 11:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete it seems to be a bad precedent; please don't listify as it is covered at Danube River and Danube Commission, etc. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chicheley 11:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and use Category:Danube instead. --Usgnus 23:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and don't use any other category either. This isn't the kind of thing it is sensible to categorize by - the presence of the Danube is hardly a nation-defining feature of Moldova, for instance. TheGrappler 18:57, 22 July 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 regarding 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 as empty, no consensus on others --Kbdank71 14:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has only one (1) remaining subcategory as of this date, replaced by another schema.

• Category:Hong Kong emigrants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- none of its subcategories fit naming conventions, as Hong Kong is not a nationality.
  • Category:Hong Kong Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- recently created, just emptied (by me)
  • Category:Hong Kong-Australians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- recently created, just emptied (by me)
  • Category:Hong Kong Canadians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- contains only one (1) subcategory, no articles:
    • Category:Chinese Canadians from Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- articles should be split to category:Chinese Canadians and category:People from Hong Kong.

• Delete all --William Allen Simpson 00:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. No category should be depopulated before CfD. Not all Hong Kong Fooians are Chinese. — Instantnood 05:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brought here for deletion because they were already empty, not emptied after they were brought here. None of those three (3) entries were "from" Hong Kong, other than the non-notable fact they lived in Hong Kong for a few years as children. Those were notable only as Australians, who self-identify in interviews as Australians, who were themselves never citizens of Hong Kong, with parents that were not citizens of Hong Kong. There is no "Hong Kong" nationality. --William Allen Simpson 14:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I said no category should be depopulated for the sake of CfD. If it's non-notable such people did not have to mention it in an interview. — Instantnood 19:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all This is a conflation of terms. Only first generation Fooian-Fooians are emigrants. Osomec 11:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are plenty of first generation Hong Kong emigrants in other countries, comparing with the population of Hong Kong. — Instantnood 19:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Many other similar categories exist. Passer-by 14:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nathan Mercer 01:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why delete only these categories but not other Fooian Canadian, Fooian American and Fooian Australian categories? Or would the decision made here be a precedance to those categories? — Instantnood 20:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the sub-categories and delete just Category:Emigrants by nationality Mayumashu 14:35, 26 July 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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is inherentaly non-neutral POV designation. All children have some "trouble". Rob 00:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Extremely POV. --musicpvm 01:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is nothing POV about it. This is about child actors that have had drug and alcohol problems or engaged in crime, which are documented in their articles. Justforasecond 01:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Take Alyssa Milano as an example. What in that article is "documented" evidence of her being "troubled" as a child star. There's almost no citations in that article. The only "troubles" mentioned, all start when she's 18+, are not related to being a child star. So, essentially we have a negative unsourced claim, which violates WP:LIVING. This is how I see this category being misused, as nobody can draw the line on where to use it. Please realize a *huge* percentage of people have at least once consumed alcohol underage, tried marijuana, or had some other minor legal problems. --Rob 02:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Alyssa has been in porn, which fits the cat. If you don't agree, that's a problem with assigning a user to the category, not the category itself. Justforasecond 03:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  So, do you plan on adding this category to the bio of every actor/actress who's had nude and/or sex scenes as an adult, as Milano was an adult when she did what you call "porn"? Also, please be advised, asserting negative claims without a reliable source, about a living person, is a blockable offense. --Rob 04:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Please remember to remain civil, Rob, threats are not appropriate on wiki. Alyssa has been in pornographic videos. Google her and go to images, make sure your results aren't filtered. Justforasecond 04:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Citing the fact that she has been in pronographic videos as evidence that she is 'troubled' is POV! Robin Johnson 12:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The category not only contains one but two POV words, "troubled" and "stars". --musicpvm 02:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The word troubled is subjective. -- Dcflyer 03:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category is described on the page, but it would be possible to rename this if necessary. Hard to imagine drug addiction, alcholism, and crime not being trouble, though. We can remove "stars", it was formerly "actors" but now includes singers as well. Justforasecond 03:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete as inherently POV and vague. (And since when does "porn" = "troubled"? How is that not judgmentally POV?) --MCB 06:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Let's look at the latest description of the category "Child stars that have been involved in notable controversies such as involvement or alleged involvement in crime and/or drugs and alcohol later in life, or taking part in pornographic films.":
  • "alleged" => That's code for "We don't care if it's true. We'll happily spread rumors, gossip, and lies"
  • "later in life"=> Every actress who turns 18, and does an R-Rated movie with a typical sex scene can be added, under personal opinion of what's "porn". The fact they had no "trouble" as a child doesn't matter, they're still smeared by the category. This category is actually unrelated to people being a "child star" as the inclusion criteria isn't related to their time as a child.
  • "controversies"=> In other words, anything, and everything some tabloid mentions will count.
  • "alcohol"=> We're counting people who have alcohol problems as an *adult*. A celeb gets scene drunk once at a party, and they're included. --Rob 07:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rob, stop spreading disinformation -- "alleged" is because this is wikipedia, we don't have absolute truth. It's just like in the newspapers. The category is about alcohol abuse, drug abuse, criminal behavior, and pornography. If yall don't like the pornography clause address that on the talk page Justforasecond 15:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Far more trouble than it is worth. There should be an article mentioning some prominent examples, and indeed there already is one. Nothing else is needed. Osomec 11:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV category. Robin Johnson 12:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- make sure you've visited the category page to read the description before voting. Anyone who has taken a look please sign below Justforasecond 18:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nathcer 21:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no objective criteria for inclusion. I agree with Rob about "controversies" and with Justforasecond about "alleged", but that does not clarify who belongs and who doesn't. Carlossuarez46 22:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  the people that belong are those that have abused drugs and/or alcohol, been involved in crimes, or pornography. Justforasecond 00:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Usgnus 23:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys I went through all the trouble to dig up child actors that have abused drugs or alcohol (typically a DUI), or been involved in some other crime, or pornography. These are the typical troubles that we hear about all the time (Corey Haim, Corey Feldman, Dana Plato, Gary Coleman, MacCauly Culkin) but well organized and defined. Most people here don't seem to have even read the description of the category. "troubled" is a good summary for being addicted to cocaine or robbing convenience stores. This category was noticed by others immediately and has already grown to have a nicely-sized list of articles, unlike the other articles on this cfd page. Justforasecond 00:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Actually, I think people are "voting" delete because they read the description, not in spite of it. --Usgnus 23:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia's category system should not cover every angle that is of public interest. Some things can be left to the relevant article (child star and its links) and the tabloids. Chicheley 11:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Subjective and POV category -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  17:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hopelessly POV. Even underage drinking is hardly an indicator of "troubles" -- in some parts of Europe, it's an indicator of a well-adjusted teen. And what about some kid who spends years in psychotherapy but never commits a crime or resorts to self-medication? Isn't that child very troubled? --M@rēino 20:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As no one signed the section above I have to assume that no one read the category page and these "delete" comments are uniformed. Justforasecond 16:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The attempt at a clarifying definition on the category page and vehemenent defense of it here just makes it even more obviously POV. CovenantD 16:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Exploitative. Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer of the Sun. Landolitan 19:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Troubled category. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 23:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
• Delete as per pretty much everybody else, though Jtdirl especially! TheGrappler 18:57, 22 July 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 regarding 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 --Kbdank71 14:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect to Category:Anthracothorax, a type of hummingbird. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If somebody actually typed Category:Mangoes in the search box, I would think they would be searching for the fruit. I don't think a category redirect is necessary. --musicpvm 01:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per musicpvm. - LA @ 06:56, 17 July 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.