< June 26	June 28 >

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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have depopulated this category - placing previous members into category:live-bearing fish and subcategories category:viviparous fish and category:ovoviviparous fish. Also have created category:poeciliidae for those live-bearers that were of that taxonomic grouping and populated it. In effect have replaced 'live-bearers' with 'live-bearing fish' - reason - felt that there was some confusion involved with using the term 'live-bearers' as a category and that it did not cover other live bearing families eg sharks. HappyVR 23:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Well done, sah. Grandmasterka 22:11, 28 June 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 Tim! 18:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to cut off somewhat abruptly. The parent category is category:Recipients of formal honors. Chicheley 22:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as above. Chicheley 22:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Time magazine Persons of the Year per Musicpvm below. David Kernow 01:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC), amended 03:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, but I don't think magazine should be capitalized. I'd prefer Category:Time magazine Persons of the Year (person -> persons) because it's not an actual award that people "receive". --Musicpvm 03:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Musicpvm. This is what I would expect the category to be called. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, i.e. don't rename. The parent category makes it clear that these are "recipients". Adding it a second time is incredibly redundant. Also, as per Musicpvm, recipient is a bad choice that poorly fits the category. --JJay 14:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) states that category names should be able to stand alone without reference to their place in the category hierarchy. --JeffW 17:54, 2 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 both. the wub "?!" 11:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These categories don't fit into the global system, which is based mainly on subdivision by service (army, navy, airforce, marines) and on rank (eg. generals, officers, enlisted men) so I think it would be better to Merge them into Category:Swedish military people and start again on that basis. I have already made a move in the conventional direction by creating Category:Swedish soldiers and Category:Swedish generals. Chicheley 22:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge both per nom. Osomec 17:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Swedish military personnel...?  Regards, David Kernow 11:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both per nom. Deal with the people/personnel issue separately. Calsicol 00:26, 5 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 --William Allen Simpson 04:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first I was going to send this for speedy renaming to remove the capital "S", but on seeing that it is 8 months old but only contains Martin Luther King, I decided to bring it here. King is in such an array of overlapping categories that a reduction seems more useful than an increase. There are thousands of articles about people who were both democrats (in the global sense) and socialists, but apparently no-one has chosen to add any of them to this category since last October, and I can't help thinking that is a good thing, as every prominent politician is in a wide range of more specific categories without it. Chicheley 21:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Chicheley 21:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I believe it is meant as a category of people who adhere to the political movement of Democratic socialism and as such it ought to be possible to populate the category pretty easily. I notice that there are a lot of names linked to the article. --JeffW 05:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article makes it very clear why the category should not be populated, as outside the U.S. it covers a high fraction of all politicians of the last 100 years or so. Senior politicians suffer from severe category clutter and adding them to this would make it worse while adding no useful information. Chicheley 15:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 17:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --TJive 04:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Calsicol 00:24, 5 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 per nom but delete Category:7th Heaven guest stars per Musicpvm and previous deletion of Category:Friends guest stars (Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 4). the wub "?!" 23:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:7th Heaven to Category:7th Heaven actors

Category:7th Heaven guest stars to Category:7th Heaven actors

Category:Actors on Degrassi to Category:Degrassi actors

Category:Actors and actresses appearing on ER to Category:ER actors

Category:Actors and actresses appearing on The West Wing to Category:The West Wing actors

Category:Cast of Yes, Dear to Category:Yes, Dear actors

Most categories in Category:Actors by series are named "Title actors."
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 21:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom except rename Category:Actors and actresses appearing on The West Wing to Category:The West Wing actors. Lbbzman 21:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename with exception per Lbbzman Chicheley 21:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per Lady A Tim! 21:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Changed The West Wing cfr to reflect the exception. Thank you for showing me my error. -LA @ 21:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all and delete Category:7th Heaven guest stars. Actors who have just guest starred in an episode or two and are not part of the primary cast should not be included in any 7th Heaven categories. --Musicpvm 05:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Should those TV series with categories for "cast and crew" be renamed to "actors and crew," or should I leave them alone? -LA @ 07:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't let the above question hold up the completion of this CfR. - LA @ 18:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, please finish this CfR. Thanks! - LA @ 18:04, 12 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 relist Tim! 18:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally going to send this to speedy to lower-case the "S", but it is also necessary to specify which senate, in line with the intention of the category, as there are also senates in individual U.S. states. Chicheley 20:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as above. Chicheley 20:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. There are also senates in other countries. BoojiBoy 01:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relevant country is specified in "African American". Chicheley 15:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "African American" is occasionally (mis)used to describe black people from other countries, and thus is not an adequate DAB. BoojiBoy 21:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But since it is misused, that's not encyclopedic or verifiable. --William Allen Simpson 03:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:African American senators of the United States or, per WAS below, Category:African-Americans in the United States Senate, as otherwise I'd say there are too many adjective/als before category's subject "senators" in the current name. Regards, David Kernow 01:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC), expanded 21:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:African-Americans in the United States Senate -- match existing Category:Presidents pro tempore of the United States Senate and Category:Women in the United States Senate --William Allen Simpson 03:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to match category:Female United States Senators, which is up for renaming to Female United States senators. Osomec 17:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Either Category:African-Americans in the United States Senate (first choice) or Category:African-American United States Senators (second choice--note captial "S" and hyphen). In any case Category:African American United States senators is incorrect. older ≠ wiser 14:02, 3 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 --William Allen Simpson 04:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had removed Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as an incorrect categorization, but then started thinking that the two UN specialized agencies listed weren't really "charitable organizations". That leaves only International Planned Parenthood Federation, and that article is already in Category:Pro-choice organizations, also up for movement and not overcrowded. Given a concern I have over phrasing (I doubt any of these organizations cheerlead for abortion), I would suggest deletion unless a more defined alternative is suggested. BT 18:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Does not seem to serve a purpose at this time, and "charitable" is not clearly defined for this context. Al 19:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chicheley 20:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Category possibly created for POV pushing? KleenupKrew 22:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Category unencylopaedic and potentially POV. -Severa (!!!) 22:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pro-choice (Anti-choice/Pro-compulsion) and Pro-life (Anti-life/Pro-death) are inherently POV bandwagons—Dananimal 23:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ill-defined and redundant at best, a tool for POV-pushing at worst. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per GTBacchus. No organization I know of actually "supports abortion", they would just rather keep it as an option. Grandmasterka 22:16, 28 June 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. the wub "?!" 11:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:CKE Restaurants franchises to CKE Restaurants

Duplicative category. --evrik 13:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. David Kernow 01:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom; might be interpreted as individual franchises, not brands or companies as intended. -choster 14:28, 3 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous category, as we already have a whole host of "district" categories; see Category:Districts of the United Kingdom — OwenBlacker 13:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a subcat of Category:British military units - is it meant for military districts of some kind? — sjorford++ 13:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but unless it is populated it should be deleted (and if it is populated it will require a clearer name). Merchbow 17:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The history suggests it is indeed for military districts, but there's not even a high-level article on military districts and I serious doubt if anyone will be in a position to write WP:V articles on each district. Delete as it is never likely to be populated. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not useful at present. Calsicol 00:26, 5 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 Tim! 17:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I already listed this to be merged, but, yeah, this needs to be merged because almost the entirety of the Gym Leaders cat is in this wholly unnecessary subcat. Category:Gym Leaders still doesn't need any subcats, since it won't ever have more than a couple dozen articles (and currently has less than a dozen). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:19, 27 June 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 Tim! 17:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be consistent with Category:Works of art and Category:Stolen works of art. But I'm a little concerned since nominated category is meant to comprise all art forms (has subcategories for unfinished books, unfinished symphonies etc.) whereas it's not clear that these others are. —Blotwell 11:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Re use for all art forms, I agree; is some reorganiz/sation required and/or notes at the top of category pages?  Regards, David Kernow 11:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Merchbow 17:52, 27 June 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 Tim! 17:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to avoid confusion with the parent cat, Category:Pokémon Trading Card Game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:11, 27 June 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 Tim! 17:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-categories of Category:Cities in the United States, such as this category proposed for renaming, are not named "American _". They are named "_ cities in the United States", like Category:Leaders of cities in the United States, or Category:Coastal cities in the United States. This category is proposed for renaming for consistency. Kurieeto 10:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, although I wonder whether "in" should be "of" here...  Regards, David Kernow 11:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename (using in as appears to be the consensus in other "city" categories). --ScottMainwaring 18:02, 4 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 Tim! 17:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be consistent with the naming of the rest of the subcats of Category:Pokémon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:52, 27 June 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 --William Allen Simpson 04:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad capitalization and construction. Rename to some sensible format or Delete. Waiting for proposals. - Darwinek 09:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know if there is any way to improve the construction of that category. We'd be better off deleting it to be honest. Эйрон Кинни (t) 10:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Israeli footballers playing outside Israel...?  David Kernow 11:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should be rather deleted, related article is currently under AFD listing, see here. - Darwinek 12:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, perhaps wait for Follow AfD outcome. Regards, David 01:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC), updated 11:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. Highly useful. --JJay 14:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, at least sort out the faulty capitalization...?  David Kernow 02:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Listify any not in list Israeli footballers playing abroad. The is more appropriate for this content since can only include names of footballers. Also, list title is clearer. I don't think that original research problem applies to list or category and that this would qualify as a 'synthesis' of public information...could use links to team rosters or better yet a link to some legitimate source that tracks footballers playing abroad. Antonrojo 14:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Accompanying list has been deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli footballers playing abroad. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:33, 4 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 --William Allen Simpson 04:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Revenge films" isn't a genre to my knowledge, and none of the articles in this category say anything to explain the use of this category. There's also no article to explain what trend is being illustrated here, and no criteria to explain this category's use. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Lady Aleena @ 21:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not a recognized film genre. While it is true that some film historians have spoken of "revenge westerns" (Winchester '73, for example) there is no such thing as a "revenge film."--Mantanmoreland 00:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep This is a POV issue. Quentin Tarantino or a regular contributor to Ain't It Cool News would say unequivocally that the revenge film (or revenge flick) constitutes a genre. Also, academic papers and books have addressed the theme of "rape-revenge" in movies. While I see vengeance as more of a theme than an element indicating a genre, it is a dominant concern in enough movies (particularly in Italian crime films of the 1970s and works by Park Chan-wook) for it to be a somewhat useful categorizing agent. Form criteria and prune. --Jonathan F 09:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm. In that case, I really think this should be listified, preferably in an article about the genre. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or Weak Listify. The vast majority of action films could be fit into this category--Robocop is only a slightly more extreme example. If the list is narrowed down to focus on women then it would be worth keeping in my opinion. Womens Studies/Feminism has written a lot about how films like Thelma and Louise are an indicator of a changing role for women in society (e.g. revenge via seduction in Fatal Attraction and cliques in Heather to women taking on more active roles traditionally filled by male heros like Linda Hamilton's charater in T2 or Uma Thurman in Kill Bill). These readers would find this type of category or list useful, especially if there were clear criteria for inclusions (e.g. that revenge be a MAJOR theme of the film). I don't know what the best title for this rename would be--'female revenge films' is one option. This has potential as a category if some of the related academic lit and researchers were included although those would better belong in a 'feminist media studies' type of category. Antonrojo 14:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is the revenge film is a type of exploitation film—that's why its exemplars include I Spit on Your Grave and the Death Wish series. I don't know if you'd call Kill Bill or Park Chan-wook's "Vengeance trilogy" exploitation films, but they certainly exploit the viewer's interest in violent retribution. I think the name of the category is correct (or Category:Revenge flicks? :-)), but if kept it should be a subcat of Category:Exploitation films. Jonathan F 06:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this really is a sub-genre of exploitation flick, it needs to be weeded badly, then. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this is a recognized genre it needs to be verified from a reliable source, otherwise it has to be considered original research. --JeffW 17:34, 4 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 --William Allen Simpson 04:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article about Broadway opera. I think the term "Broadway opera" came from Kurt Weil. The members of this category seem to be here for arbitrary subjective reasons. Perhaps the best way to handle these cross-over productions is to categorize them both as musicals and operas when appropriate. --Samuel Wantman 07:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Quick research suggest that the term, while sometimes used, does not have an accepted definition, and the inclusion of shows like Tommy and Les Miz, which are neither operas nor original to Broadway, suggests that the people who populated it don't have a robust definition either. Merchbow 17:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Merchbow Osomec 17:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The term is meaningless in the theatrical world. --Cassmus 22:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree that these works are better categorized elsewhere. Either they are operas, operettas or musicals. The fact that they played on Broadway at one time or another does not seem to be a very significant relationship among them. --Ssilvers 04:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Marc Shepherd 04:29, 3 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 --William Allen Simpson 04:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category lists people from a relatively small town in Massachusetts, contains one article on Rose Kennedy, and has little potential for expansion beyond members of her family which already has a Wikipedia category dedicated to them. --TommyBoy 06:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• ...and now it has 12 articles. KEEP.--M@rēino 13:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Thanks for populating, Mareino. ×Meegs 15:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I haven't actually completely populated any of the new categories of this type that I have created, but will do so as soon as I have gotten them all in. That should be by the end of this week. However, the town has existed for almost 400 years and has a current population of about 50,000 people, so I would think that the number of significant people connected to the town is probably more than enough to warrant its inclusion. The only question will be whether anyone creates those articles, not whether they could ever exist. And my thanks to Mareino for the quick work, too. Badbilltucker 18:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Keep, but also categoize every person by State. Breaking every State into subcategories seems like over-categorization. If this is useful and worth keeping, then the members should also be in Category:People from Massachusetts and the template ((allincluded)) should be used. This sort of duplication would be covered by existing categorization policy. Without the duplication, the value of the State categories gets diluted. The big issue that has to be decided, is if categorizing people by the towns they are from is a useful and encyclopedic use of categorization. I don't think it is. Categories should be for things that are more note worthy. -- Samuel Wantman 07:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Massachusetts is underutilized and yet has almost 1000 members; where is the benefit of such a large category? Subcategorization seems very practical to me, and the only way to make such categories useful for human browsing. ×Meegs 12:10, 3 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 to Category:Fictional warrior races and remove non-fictional entries. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hodge podge mixture of reality and fiction (at least going by the description). Delete or at least rename to Fictional warrior races and remove any non-fictional ones. Tim! 06:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Fictional warrior races and remove non-fictional population per nom. David Kernow 11:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional warrior races, as I believe the basic idea of the category has value.--StAkAr Karnak 12:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional warrior races and remove non-fictional population per nom. Very dangerous to allow non-fictional "races" in.--M@rēino 13:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and prune per everyone else. JIP | Talk 09:45, 28 June 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 to rename --William Allen Simpson 04:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know this just came up a couple of weeks ago, but it seems as though a consensus was emerging for this rename. I'm hoping that people can read the previous discussions and limit any response to whether this rename would be acceptable. This rename would make the category NPOV and it would therefore be possible to verify that people should be included in the category by looking to see if claims of anti-Semitism are cited in an individual's article. --Samuel Wantman 06:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. No, the last vote was closed less than a week ago on 21 June 2006. Also, you have not even bothered to mention your proposed name change on the Talk page. In fact, your only edit there was to delete info. Your proposed name is terrible and extremely POV ... "accused of."--Doright 08:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that someone has been accused of something by another, and citing when and where, and then citing a counter argument is anything but POV. It is a way of presenting a controversial subject in an NPOV way. The only information I removed from the talk page was the reporting of CFD as a vote. CFD is a poll, the idea is to reach Consensus through discussion. -- Samuel Wantman 10:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, after reflection, you’ll understand that to “accuse” someone is POV, whereas to “categorize” or “identify” is NPOV. You introduce a POV term into the category name and appear to want to turn this into a POV category. Why don’t you create categories for people “accused” of being Atheists or “accused” of being Christian or “accused” of being Muslin or of people “accused” of being Jewish or “accused” of being Hindu or “accused” of being Pagan? Get it? “Accused” is POV. Why don’t you remove your nomination for this name change and move the discussion to the category talk page where discussion may ensue and a consensus achieved? Again, there is no justification for removing statistical information from the talk page. Your complaint is a straw man.--Doright 20:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's just not true at all. It is a question of fact whether any such accusations have been made (and it's a pretty safe to assume that no-one of any note against whom such an accusation could conceivably have been made has been spared, so no-one will be left out). Your analogy is false because they other categories are for proponents of a belief and this one is for opponents of something. Note that the latter is a much rarer type of category. It should also be noted that the previous discussion was about a different proposal. Chicheley 22:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (or keep). The name doesn't have to necessarily imply that they are accused. But also, why list them if they haven't been verified as such? That would almost amount to libel. This category exists for people like Adolf Hitler and David Irving and in my humble opinion it's doing it's job just fine. Эйрон Кинни (t) 10:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I voted to keep last time around, but your point is the entire problem. Hitler is pretty easy to put on the list. So are some other people. But then there are people who are a little grayer and then there are people who don't belong and are just added for some agenda reason. I am trying to edit this category the same way I would edit the list of Polish-Americans. Only people who it can be sourced are labeled by a number of reliable, neutral sources should be included. Martin Luther wrote some nasty hateful stuff towards the end of his life on the Jews. It amounted to 1/100th of his overall writings I have been told, but was used by others after his death to spread hate and racism. Was Luther an Anti-Semite? I sure don't know. If a number of neutral reliable sources say he was, he should be labelled that way, ok. I saw that Richard Nixon was added to this category. Anyways, just some thoughts, good luck..--Tom 13:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libel only applies to living people. Merchbow 17:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to avoid Wikipedia taking a black and white stance on this ultra-controversial matter. Merchbow 17:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is in many cases not controversial at all - some people hate jews and are proud of it. -- Heptor _talk 21:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it is, per above. -- Heptor _talk 21:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This +cat should be locked down to prevent any further votes ! List of marijuana slang terms 21:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't you think that smacks of censorship? Chicheley 22:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. (Potential attack category which should perhaps be deleted.) Chicheley 22:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as it is probably more acurate, Irving would likely deny it and Hitler hated almost everyone. Though 'Semite' can acurately refer to Christian and Islamic Palestinians, Lebanese or ancient Phoenecians as equally as to Jewish people regardless of geography and race. The use of the term in common practice is inacurate, the precise nature of the term is subsumed by coloquial usage and as such is rarely understood to mean what it actually historically does. Xenophobia is far more acurate but less specific or emotive.—Dananimal 23:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose What about people who openly admit to being anti-semitic - the "accused of being" 'tag' just doesn't seem to apply in that case. Suggest thinking about having two categories - though 'people accused of being xxx' seems to be very much on thin ice as it amounts to speculation of opinion.HappyVR 23:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I would have no problem with adding Category:Self-identified anti-Semites and only adding people who have citations for saying "I'm an anti-Semite" or "I hate all Jews". That information can be verified. But in many cases the label "anti-Semite" cannot be verified and is subject to interpretation. -- Samuel Wantman 06:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and agree with List of marijuana slang terms that the category should be locked down. These constant efforts to rename/delete this category are disruptive and divisive. What's next week's renaming effort after this one fails? The week after's? Let us simply come to grips with the fact that there are anti-Semitic people, now and through history, whose identities can be objectively determined through their actions and writings and statements. --Mantanmoreland 23:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the first discussion about this renaming. The first two were about deleting and the third was about renaming to a different name. This rename was suggested during the last rename. The way to reach consensus is to hear the valid concerns that each side makes. Nobody is going to argue that Hitler was not an anti-Semite. But there are many people that are in a grey area where their anti-Semitism is subject to interpretation and there are different conclusions. Some people say that anyone who does not support the State of Israel is an anti-Semite. Others will disagree. An NPOV category has to make distinctions that are clear. It is not up to a Wikipedian editor to weigh the facts and determine if a person was an anti-Semite. That would be original research. As editors, we have to be able to point to a citation to validate putting something in a category. What citation can you point to that proves that someone is an anti-Semite? You can point to a citation in which the person self-identifies as an anti-Semite. People in this case should be categorized as "self-identified anti-Semites". People can be convicted of an anti-Semitic hate crime, and I'd have no problem with adding a category for that. People can be also be accused of being an anti-Semite. What is the NPOV test for putting someone in Category:Anti-Semitic people? Convince me that there is a good NPOV test, add it to the top of the category, and I'll withdraw the nomination. -- Samuel Wantman 07:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is utter nonsense. What is the "POV test" that is used to determine who is an "American fraudster" or "Neonazi" or what is a "Cult" or any number of perjorative categories in Wikipedia. The "test" as you put it is the consensus of the editors of each article in the category. That is true for this and all categories. Yet all kinds of perjorative categories like the ones I mentioned get a free pass while this one is continually hounded. Enough. This category should be protected from further meritless attacks that in my view are contrary to WP:POINT.--Mantanmoreland 20:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. This would support WP:NPOV.--Drboisclair 01:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  How?--Doright 01:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is elementary: that Wikipedia does not make a judgment on whether or not the individual is antisemitic.--Drboisclair 02:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your language is a bit too elementary and your thinking a bit unclear. What does "Wikipedia does not make a judgment" mean? Do you mean that no "categories" should exist in Wikipedia? That seems a bit odd.

You don’t seem to mind that Wikipedians cite sources according to WP policies to categorize Martin Luther as an Augustinian, a Christian, a Theologian. You only object when the same WP policies are used to categorize him as an anti-Semite.

This is elementary: It is a double standard similar to those used by anti-Semites. --Doright 03:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose a rename. This appears to me to weaken the category criteria. Many people are "accused" who probably lack the overall support to make it into Category:Anti-Semitic people. (There is a similar proposal to add "alleged" to Category:Cults) Gimmetrow 15:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose weasel word category names; being an "alleged X" isn't worth categorising. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the proposed rename on the grounds that it would lower the bar for inclusion and make it even more subjective and a magnet for POV pushers. (Would, however, support a delete of the category.) KleenupKrew 20:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Rename: Categories of occupations (Category of tailors, let's say) or conditions (cancer survivors...) can easily be built with objectivity, but categories of ideologies, especially controversial ideologies very often denied, are of a different kind. When the individual denies the belief, labeling them as holder of the same belief will oftentimes need a subjective judgment on the part of the wikipedian, however obvious it often may seem (that which I am not disputing). Furthermore, some entries have qualifications that are not even agreed upon and are still in debate amongst the intellectual community (an example is the entry of Lionel Groulx). If the name were to be kept, the category would have to be mostly restricted carefully to avowed anti-jews. --Liberlogos 06:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why the double standard? Why is it then that Category:Neo-Nazi Movements and Concepts[1] exists unimpeded since 2004 without objection from anyone, and this rather obvious category is continually hounded and subjected to constant, disruptive efforts to rename/delete it? Why not rename it "Alleged Neo-Nazi Movements..." or "Movements Accused of being Neo-Nazi." The double standard that is implicit in these constant renaming/deletion efforts is troubling.--Mantanmoreland 15:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I thought I had opposed this before. GabrielF 15:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Rename, or better Delete echoing reasons listed by Mantanmoreland. Like the claim of racism, this label is highly subjective and should be replaced by categories that focus on measurable characteristics or actions such as 'Holocaust deniers'. See also a similar proposal for Category:Cults located here [2] Antonrojo 16:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, measurable characteristics such as engaging in Holocaust denial or calling Jews a "dirty religion" or, perhaps, killing Jews. And please don't misrepresent my position. I feel this category should be kept and that the incessant attempts to eliminate it and rename it reflect a double standard. Your effort two days ago to rename cults as "alleged cults" does not undercut my point that Category:anti-Semitic People has been unfairly and repeatedly singled out.--Mantanmoreland 14:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OpposeAnti -Semitic is anti-Semitic is anti-Semitic. Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^edit) 05:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Jewish lobby. Who defines who is anti-semitic. Should we put there every Hamas politician etc. ? Then how about creating "Islamophobic people" category? Islamophobia is like anti-semitism, xenophobic attitude aimed at certain group of people. But Muslims doesn't have here such a strong lobby as the Jews. - Darwinek 09:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the childish conspiracy theories grow up Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^edit) 19:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please 86 the ethnic slurs, which underline my growing concern that some (though certainly not all or most) of these constant renaming/deletion efforts stem from hostility toward Jews and are not in good faith.--Mantanmoreland 20:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, it's a POV magnet and it would continue to be so even after the rename, but it would be less of a black-or-white issue. // Liftarn
• Rename to moderate the POV problem. Calsicol 00:25, 5 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 Tim! 17:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relative lack of notable content and little potential for future growth. Merge to? --Stratadrake 05:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Lack of potential growth isn't a reason to remove a category, and the subcategory allows the dragon characters of Spyro the Dragon to use only one cat instead of two (Category:Spyro the Dragon characters and Category:Fictional dragons). Caerwine Caerwhine 06:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Saves category:Fictional dragons from being filled with dragons from one game.--Mike Selinker 07:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Really repetitive (using dragon two times in the same cat) making the category sound really bad. Эйрон Кинни (t) 10:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be fine with category:Spyro dragons if that helps.--Mike Selinker 18:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Caerwine. - Lady Aleena @ 21:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Part of my thinking on this nomination was because there aren't that many dragons in the Spyro series in general -- many of the articles don't (as yet) say much more than identifying who the character is/was and which Spyro game they appeared in -- also, considering that many Spyro characters are specific to individual Spyro games rather than the overall series, they could be potential merge-to material themselves. --Stratadrake 04:44, 1 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 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Hong Kong below, to bring in line with similar categories. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Support Per nom. Kurieeto 10:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Merchbow 17:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -Lady Aleena @ 21:54, 27 June 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 Tim! 17:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV. /Slarre 05:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (i.e., keep) -- Six major players have already been convicted (or pled guilty), and more to come, this is not a mere "controversy", this is a scandal. -- Sholom 12:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. "Scandal" is a sensationalist tabloid word and there is no need to use it in an encyclopedia as there is a good alternative. Merchbow 17:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- the others have been recently renamed controversies, too. I moved the text into an article, Jack Abramoff controversies, as we usually don't see annotated category pages. --William Allen Simpson 03:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The others were named without consultation or discussion, and I put them back to "scandals". BTW, I note that Watergate redirects to Watergate scandal. I would apply the same reasoning here. -- Sholom 12:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - keep as scandal. It's a controversy until a bunch of people a convicted within the legal system (or, at minimum, a bunch of folks resign); once that happens, it's clearly a scandal. Would we call the House banking scandal a "controversy", for example (four people were convicted). The Watergate "Controversy" (multiple convictions, one Presidential resignation)? Abramoff was convicted; a bunch of others were convicted; more are possible. The criteria is really clear and clean here, I think. John Broughton 13:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - keep as named. Controversy seems to me to be needlessly unfamiliar and unusual (scandal returns more than 4x the hits of controversy), inaccurate as it is not a reference to a discussion but rather a disgraceful incident (see wiktionary scandal and controversy), and to this native en speaker, awkward. --Flawiki 13:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of those hits are from the media, but this is an encyclopedia and should have less sensationalist standards. Osomec 17:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The google hit reference is supplied to highlight the atypicality of calling this a controversy. Even if one discounts the novelty of that label, the suggestion's worthiness fails to resurrect for other reasons: The matter is decidedly not a controversy and it'd be inaccurate to label it a controversy in an encycopledia, and, it's an awkward moniker. --Flawiki 19:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I woud add the question: why is the word "scandal" not "enclyclopediac"? Does anyone talk of the "Teapot Dome Controvery"? (WP has it as Teapot Dome scandal. Same for Watergate scandal. Same for Black Sox scandal, Abu Ghraib scandal, House banking scandal, etc etc. Why is it appropriate for those, but not here?
• Oppose - keep as scandal. This isn't a political dispute; this is a textbook political scandal -- i.e. criminal behavior related to politics involving politicians and others. --User At Work 17:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to less emotive term. Osomec 17:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Wikipedia (and most other reference sources), a controversy is a difference of opinion, a scandal involves allegations of wrongdoing and moral offense. KWH 18:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Scandal is appropriate here --mboverload@ 06:29, 6 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 16:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fix acronym and capitalization; bring into line with Category:United States Department of Defense agencies Paul 05:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine by me. -evrik 13:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Merchbow 17:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Rename per nom.--Bkwillwm 02:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 17:45, 29 June 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 16:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To bring in line with similar categories. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per nom. Kurieeto 10:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Merchbow 17:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -Lady Aleena @ 21:54, 27 June 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 all Tim! 17:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propose mass renaming of the following categories:

• Category:Middle Tennessee State Blue Raiders football --> Category:Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders football
• Category:Middle Tennessee State Blue Raiders football players --> Category:Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders football players
• Category:Middle Tennessee State Blue Raiders women's basketball coaches --> Category:Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders women's basketball coaches

Rationale: The school's official athletics site, goblueraiders.com, consistently uses "Middle Tennessee" instead of "Middle Tennessee State". — Dale Arnett 03:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Either is fine with me, but "Middle Tennessee State Blue Raiders" outgoogles "Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders" by a factor of five, and seems to be what's most frequently used by the press. Maybe this is a recent change on the university's part. ×Meegs 05:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to comment: This is indeed a fairly recent change on the university's part, mainly for athletics purposes, but also for general usage. The main article notes that the school now uses either "Middle Tennessee" or "MT". They've dropped the "State" to accommodate a long-rumored change of the school's name to the University of Middle Tennessee. Note also that the school's main logo heavily emphasizes the "Middle Tennessee". — Dale Arnett 13:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Media and public awareness of the shortened name should come quickly. At least they're not becoming the Troy Trojans ;) Rename per Dale. ×Meegs 16:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as above.--Mike Selinker 18:33, 27 June 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 Re-list to include all 9 categories below instead of just three – Gurch 18:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that the nominator and the other contributors don't mind me lumping these three together. Since they are so closely related they should be. They are also being lumped to get a reveiw.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 09:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disney television series - Rename to Category:Television series by Disney

Category:Procter & Gamble Productions - Rename to Category:Television series by Procter & Gamble Productions

Category:TV shows produced/distributed by Warner Brothers - Rename to Category:Television series by Warner Bros. Television

Correct so far? If so that would lead to these categories to be renamed also to be consistant.

Category:Buena Vista Television shows to Category:Television series by Buena Vista Television

Category:CBS Paramount Television shows to Category:Television series by CBS Paramount Television

Category:Fox Television Studios shows to Category:Television series by Fox Television Studios

Category:FremantleMedia TV shows to Category:Television series by FremantleMedia

Category:NBC Universal Television shows to Category:Television series by NBC Universal Television

Category:Sony Pictures Television shows to Category:Television series by Sony Pictures Television

• Rename all and thanks for your work, Lady Aleena!  David Kernow 15:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS Please tag the Buena Vista to Sony Pictures categories – thanks. David 15:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I entered this comment this morning but its not here now, so here it is again. If CBS Paramount Television is the only division of CBS Paramount that produces TV shows then wouldn't it be adequate to say Category:Television series by CBS Paramount? And the same for Buena Vista, Fox, NBC Universal, and Sony Pictures. --JeffW 21:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Would it be all right if I moved this back to the top since the other categories are newly tagged to give the other categories' contributors a better chance of seeing this topic? - LA @ 07:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it'd be better to cancel the current nominations above/below and relist the above as a fresh proposal...?  Regards, David Kernow 10:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any objections? - LA @ 18:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disney television series to Category:Disney shows[edit]

For consistency with the rest of Category:Television series by studio. Perhaps this should stay where it is, but the suggested rename would bring it into line with the others. Neutral. SeventyThree^(Talk) 03:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per naming convention. Rename to Category:Disney TV series to be inline with the naming convention and rename all other categories to follow it. -Lady Aleena @ 21:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC) See above. - LA @ 07:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I think the others in the category should be renamed to "television series". It sounds better than "shows" and the parent cat is Category:Television series by studio. Also, "television" should not be abbreviated to "TV". --Musicpvm 07:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • TV series is the accepted naming convention on Wikipedia. (This comment applies to this and the next two CfRs.) -LA @ 15:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Accepted naming convention for what? It can't be for categories as cats should generally not include abbreviations. Also, the parent cat has the word "television". It should not be changed in the subcategories. --Musicpvm 21:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Follow the link in my first entry into this heading. It will take you to the Television Project's naming convention and directly to the section of the convention which I had based my suggested naming. -LA @ 22:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I followed that link to the Additional disambiguation section of that page and I didn't see anything to support your claim of a convention that has anything to do with this nomination. That section discusses how to deal with naming articles when there are "two or more television productions of the same name", it has nothing to do with category names. --JeffW 00:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I concede the point. It should not be renamed however, and the others should be renamed (company name) television series. Do you agree? -LA @ 21:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • That would be fine. Actually I'm of the opinion that television should be changed to TV in all category names, as it is a universally understood abbreviation and it is much shorter. --JeffW 23:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:TV series made by Disney (or "Category:Television series made by Disney") or Category:TV series made or distributed by Disney (or "Category:Television series made or distributed by Disney") per votes for noms below. Regards, See overall vote above. David Kernow 01:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC), updated 15:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Procter & Gamble Productions to Category:Procter & Gamble Productions shows[edit]

For consistency with the rest of Category:Television series by studio. It looks a bit nasty, but Procter & Gamble Productions is the full name. SeventyThree^(Talk) 03:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Category:TV shows by Procter & Gamble Productions...?  ("Procter and Gamble"...?)  Regards, David Kernow 03:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per naming convention. Rename to Category:Procter & Gamble TV series to be inline with the naming convention and rename all other categories to follow it. -Lady Aleena @ 21:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC) See above. - LA @ 07:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternate proposal. I believe that Lady Aleena is correct in that this category (and the others) should say TV series instead of shows. But I think it should be Category:Procter & Gamble Productions TV series. PGP uses Procter & Gamble Productions as their full name. Lbbzman 23:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, go with the one that is suggested by Lbbzman. -LA @ 15:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Procter & Gamble television series or Category:Procter & Gamble Productions television series per my suggestions in the proposals above and below. --Musicpvm 07:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:TV series by Procter & Gamble Productions (or "Category:Television series by Procter & Gamble Productions") or Category:TV series made or distributed by Procter & Gamble Productions (or "Category:Television series made or distributed by Procter & Gamble Productions") per vote in proposal below. Regards, See overall vote above. David Kernow 01:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC), updated 15:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per David to Category:Television series by Procter & Gamble Productions --Musicpvm 06:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:TV shows produced/distributed by Warner Brothers to Category:Warner Bros. Television shows[edit]

It is how other related cats are named. CoolKatt number 99999 02:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - it's how some of them are named, anyway. Category:Television series by studio looks pretty horribly at first glance, but it's mostly consistant. Disney and P&G need renaming as well, I'll list them now. SeventyThree^(Talk) 03:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Category:TV shows by Warner Bros. Television...?  ("Warner Brothers Television"...?)  Regards, David Kernow 03:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per naming convention. Rename to Category:Warner Brothers TV series to be inline with the naming convention and rename all other categories to follow it. -Lady Aleena @ 21:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC) See above. - LA @ 07:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose but support Lady Aleena's proposal. Lbbzman 23:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I believe Lady Aleena's idea should be used. Robert Moore 02:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename with "series", but "TV" should be expanded to "television". Also, the Warner Bros. article states, "The company prefers that its name be spelled 'Warner Bros.', not 'Warner Brothers'". So, it should be renamed to Category:Warner Bros. television series. All the other subcats of Category:Television series by studio should be renamed as well. --Musicpvm 07:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:TV series by Warner Bros. Television (or "Category:Television series by Warner Bros. Television") partly per Musicpvm and above; or, if any of these series distributed but not made by Warner Bros., to Category:TV series made or distributed by Warner Bros. Television (or "Category:Television series made or distributed by Warner Bros. Television"). Suggest other TV series categories follow same pattern. Regards, See overall vote above. David Kernow 01:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC), amended per CoolKatt below 11:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC), updated 15:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per David to [Category:Television series by Warner Bros. Television]* --Musicpvm 06:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* I've amended the category name per my amendment above. Hope this okay. Regards, David Kernow 11:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The full name for WB's TV division is Warner Bros. Television, hence my choice for renaming. CoolKatt number 99999 23:28, 30 June 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty after 5 months. No related changes listed, though I don't know whether changes in removed articles, if there were any, would show up. Doubtful usefulness Chicheley 02:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Chicheley 02:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They wouldn't be listed. Related Changes shows changes to all pages linked from the current page, or in the case of a category it's current articles. There's no way of telling if articles have been removed from a category (except remembering that there used to be more, or stumbling across an edit which removed the category from the article). Since the category is empty, no related changes are found. SeventyThree^(Talk) 02:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not useful at all, and others apparently agree since it doesn't seem to be getting used. KleenupKrew 20:43, 28 June 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 relisted Tim! 17:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should actually be a speedy merge. Category:Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network Studios series was created in April 2006, for apparently no reason at all, and various series are staggered between both categories. --FuriousFreddy 02:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. David Kernow 03:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Cartoon Network TV series per naming convnetion, dropping the Hanna-Barbera as the Cartoon Network is the current company name (Hanna-Barbera redirects to Cartoon Nework). Then create a new sub-category Category:Cartoon Network characters. -Lady Aleena @ 21:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Lady Aleena's modfication. Some of the series (serieses?) really were Hana–Barbera, and predated Cartoon Network. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Series is both singular and plural. -LA @ 06:39, 28 June 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 to Category:Fictional evil scientists. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the fact that it is a subcategory of "Category:Fictional scientists" makes things fairly clear, the rename nevertheless describes the category more precisely, and may help discourge people from categorizing real-life scientists with it. 131.107.0.81 01:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Fictional evil scientists per below. Эйрон Кинни (t) 10:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional evil scientists for consistency with parent cat and all other fictional character categories (See subcategories of Category:Fictional characters by occupation). --Musicpvm 01:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional evil scientists. Chicheley 02:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional evil scientists per above. David Kernow 03:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional evil scientists per above. -Lady Aleena @ 21:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per everyone else. JIP | Talk 09:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename ditto. Switching Category:Evil Scientists to a redirect there might be a good idea. Antonrojo 16:05, 29 June 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.