< November 9	November 11 >

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films with bonus scenes after the credits to Category:Films with post-credits scenes

• Rename to match the article Post-credits scene. Otto4711 22:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. More compact and consistent. --zenohockey 00:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Postdlf 01:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- Supermorff 11:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sets a dangerous precedent. Where next: CD's with bonus tracks, McDonalds meals with bonus toys, buy one get one free offer retail chains, cars with three years free servicing? Depends wholly on which version of the film you buy, where you are in the world and when. Possibly a list, but same issues of where/when/what would still apply. Rgds - Trident13 19:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as Category:Films with post-credits scenes. Hello32020 20:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Trident13. --musicpvm 01:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Trident13 said, such categoriess could set a bad precedent that might lead to the creation of more useless, minor, non-defining characteristic categories. Furthermore, for obscure, older films without much about them on the internet, this would be practically impossible to provide sources for, because just watching post-credits scenes in the movie and then adding this category to the article seems like original research. Picaroon9288 01:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A film is a reliable source for its own content, and making a literal, descriptive observation (i.e., "a scene occurs after the credits") does not involve an "original" analysis or novel interpretation, any more than the observation you make every time you read a book and note that it says something in a particular order. I think there's a reasonable argument that this is trivial, but Trident13 didn't even seem to understand what a post-credits scene was judging from his comments, which seem directed at deleted "bonus" scenes on DVD releases (the only way I can make any sense of what he said). So be careful about basing your vote on his reasoning... Also, it would probably be helpful to state whether or not you support or oppose the rename in the event that there's no consensus to delete, because otherwise we'll be stuck with a poorly named category that makes no one happy. Postdlf 02:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a trivial way of defining films. Twittenham 13:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivia. (Radiant) 13:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Blindingly inconsequential. Recury 02:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify as Films with post-credits scenes. 132.205.44.128 04:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment example: Lethal Weapon 2 132.205.44.128 04:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment might also need a list of Films with in-credits scenes 132.205.44.128 04:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a significant way of linking films. Olborne 21:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Islam and antisemitism --Kbdank71 14:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islam and anti-Semitism to Category:Muslims and anti-Semitism

• Rename, Significantly more accurate category title. Irishpunktom\^talk 00:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Muslims and antisemitism, per November 2 discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unduly restrictive. Pinoakcourt 03:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also perplexing, as this opens the Cat a lot more. It opens it to being about the religion itselfs relationship with antisemitism (As it is the religion of the Muslim people) as well as to the actions of the Muslim people outside of the religion, thus, it increases its scope, and is the opposite of restrictive.--Irishpunktom\^talk 12:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Islam and antisemitism per above cited November 2 discussion. Oppose nom, "Muslims and antisemitism" implies articles about specific Muslims and antisemitism, as opposed to articles about the religion in general and antisemitism. -Amarkov ^babble 03:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Muslims and antisemitism per above cited November 2 discussion. - Perplexed at Amarkovs opposition, only one article title in the cat relates to the religion in general, and the contents of that article relates, almost entirely, to Muslims as distinct from Islam. --Irishpunktom\^talk 12:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename BhaiSaab ^talk 17:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to 'Islam and antisemitism' to match main article and what the category should be about. If necessary, a subcategory would be 'Muslim antisemites' for people. Hmains 19:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at Category:Islam and anti-Semitism as that is the broader term, very clearer embracing all aspects of the issue, which the alternative does not do. Piccadilly 20:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Islam and antisemitism per November 2 discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, otherwise rename to "Islamic anti-semitism" and urgently reassess usage.
  I started looking at this category wondering which of the titles in the nomnination was more appropriate, but instead of finding an answer I got more alarmed the more I looked. In summary, I conclude that this category does not serve as WP:CAT suggests, "to to browse through similar articles". On the contrary, it seems to be serving as a way of linking disparate articles through a POV lens, and I don't think that it can be rescued by a renaming.
  • Look at Category:Antisemitism: it has no other remotely similar subcategories: no "Christianity and antisemitism", no "German anti-semitism", no "French anti-semitism", "British anti-semitism" or anything resembling those three. Considering the long history of anti-semitism in Europe (and the recent upsurge of it in France), I find those omissions very surprising. Why is there a sub-category only for "Islam and antisemitism"?
  • The category's main article Islam and antisemitism is poorly-written and hotly contested: it i tagged ((TotallyDisputed)). "Totallydisputed" is no basis for a category, and having read Talk:Islam and antisemitism, it looks to me I don't see any chance of that article being straightened out any time soon.
  • The "and" in the category title is dangerous. It creates a loose association between the two concepts ("Islam" and "antisemitism"), and allows a tenuous connection to be sufficient for inclusion in the category, which allows the category to be used in cases where the link is far from clear, e.g.
    • Islamic Human Rights Commission appears (from reading the IHRC article) to have been included because of IHRC's alleged involvenent with "radical islam" (itself a worryingly broad concept, which is not neccesarily the same as Isalmic extremism). To lump IHRC into an antisemitism category is at best tenuous, and at worst highly POV.
    • The only sub-category of Category:Islam and anti-Semitism is Category:Riots in Israel and Palestine. This is outrageous: there may be a good case for pointing to some of those riots as involving anti-semitism, but to categorise all riots in the region under a lbel of anti-semitism is unsustainable. (Some are about land disputes, some are about curfews, etc: whatever anytone thinks of the merits of the rioters' complaints, those are not anti-semitic issues). For example, the article First Intifada is categorised under Category:Riots in Israel and Palestine: to call th Intifada anti-semitic is highly POV.
    • Of the remaining articles in the category, one refers to an antiseitic episoide in the Ottoman Empire; nthree refer to Islamic individuals, all of whom appear to be be incontrovertibly anti-semitic; and three refer to organisations with varying degrees of evidenbce of antisemitism. The three organisations don't seem clearcut to me: Hizb ut-Tahrir probably qualifies most strongly, Hamas rather less so (there is anti-semitism in Hamas, but some partisan observers don't distinguish between anti-semitism and the other aspects of the Plaestinian conflict), and the article on Hezbollah does not even mention the term anti-semitism except in the title of a citation in a footnote.
    • The Hezbollah article is particularly interesting: Hezbollah#Position_on_Jews_and_Judaism records a dispute about the existence of anti-semitism in Hezbollah, but does not seem to offer any clear evidence which would justify its inclusion in a category of "Anti-semitic organisations".
  • So in the end, I find that this category, which has been in use since May 2006, is used for:
    • one sub-ctaegory which shouldn't be there
    • one article which shouldn't be there (IHRC)
    • one article which would not be there if the definitions were tighter Hezbollah
    • and six other articles, plus the category's main ((totallydisputed)) article
  • Do we really need a contentious category for six articles? I think not, hence the recommendation to delete.
  • If anything resembling this category is to stay, then it should be renamed to tighten the definition. But from the history so far, I expect that it will continue to be abused, by being applied where the simple Category:Anti-Semitic people category would not. And it looks didgy to me to have only one such sub-categorization-by-religion of Category:Antisemitism --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename to Category:Islam and antisemitism per November 2 discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename to Category:Islam and antisemitism per November 2 discussion. -- Avi 03:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename to Category:Islam and antisemitism per November 2 discussion. - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename to Category:Islam and antisemitism per above. Amoruso 06:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename to Category:Islam and antisemitism per above. --Leifern 12:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename to Category:Islam and antisemitism per November 2 discussion. I don't know why this issue even needs discussing. Beit Or 16:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think it's useful. --Hossein.ir 19:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 editors with same opinion, each after another, without interruption of other users, and having exact same idea vote the same. Isn't it strange? --Hossein.ir 19:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not when the answer is obvious. Why transclude or retype the entire discussion when it can just be referenced. Maybe the nomination is strange, no? -- Avi 20:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I confirm that I copied and pasted Avi's comment. Why can't I do that? Beit Or 07:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could you elaborate on why it is deserving of deletion? Tewfik^Talk 19:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename to Category:Islam and antisemitism per November 2 discussion. Tewfik^Talk 19:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Jayjg and everyone who agreed with him. That said, although I think BrownHairedGirl comes off as a bit alarmist, I don't think the category is particularly strong, and could probably just as easily be incorporated into the ==See also== section of Islam and antisemitism. Tomer^talk 00:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Jayjg. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 00:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, present name is confusing. (Radiant) 13:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, per (talk). This category serves no purpose other than linking ISLAM with anti Semitism, it suggests that Islam is anti Semitic by nature and it makes dubious accusation to link the Intifada with anti Semitism. Also, I did not see any similar entries to well known anti Semitic policies by Europe, Germany and the Church all whom had contributed to anti Semitism far more than some Muslims ever did. This Category also denies the historical stand that the Muslim Empire took towards the Jews, the Jewish people where given refuge and allowed freedom of worship they can only dream of at the time. I suggest a delete because the current format is beyond repair. Palestine48 13 November 2006, 14:18 UTC
• Keep for sure, rename to the non-hyphenated version if that's consensus. Personally, I have no opinion on the hyphen question. But "Islam" is broader than "Muslim," and can encompass more articles. IronDuke 02:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Ohio State University --Kbdank71 14:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ohio State University Buckeyes academia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, unnecessary subcategory of Category:Ohio State University. Most articles about a university are going to be about its academics, so it's hardly a sensible thing to split out. Any articles not already in the parent should of course be added there as well. Postdlf 21:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that articles about a university should be about its academics.

However, most of the time, I see the academic aspects are overshadowed by the school athletics.

In this case, You contradicted yourself at some point against your previous comments Category:Ohio State University enthusiasm and entertainment ....Based on its contents, it seems to be mostly intended for OSU sports fandom,....--140.254.115.92 22:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who created those categories.

I do not mind if someone has a better idea or way to categorize them.

But please allow me to explain my concept, from what I see there currently are about 81 pages under the Category:Ohio State University. I am sure that the number will be growing. If we put them on in one category (Category

Ohio State University), it is difficult to follow. We may see that there

is a need to categorize them into different groups where they are closely related. I personally understand that our Ohio State pages and categories/sub categories should conform to standards and norms practiced in wikipedia. However, it does not mean that we cannot be creative. To my own view, I see that our existing Ohio State pages and categories/sub categories follow the norms that other universities have. The only thing is that we just created additional categories to group different categories into a smaller number so that they can be easy to view and browse on the main Category:Ohio State University. I do not see the benefits of having many subcategories in the main Category:Ohio State University, and when we click to those subcategories, there is nothing listed beyond that. There is an exception only for the school athletics. You can see that when we click on each school athletics category, there are more subcategories listed under. Moreover, under each school alumni category, when we click on it, we only see the subcategories of the school athletes. I think that American universities are more than just athletics.

As I explained earlier that my concept is that each university is comprised of three main bodies: its people, its spirit/sole, and its tangible things. We may also add its campuses and academics in there. I considered that these are main subcategories for each school under its main category. Then, I tried to group the remaining subcategories into these main subcategories. If you have a better way to group them, that is fine with me. But I do not see the benefits or putting all small subcategories directly under the main category. At least, for example, if you delete the "Category:Ohio State University Buckeyes academia", the current pages under this category will fall only under the main "Category:Ohio State University ". That means you are directly de-emphasizing the academic side of the university and promoting only the school athletics (because there are only subcategories for the school athletics and athletes).

About the redundancy, one subcategory or page may fall into different categories. I do not see any wrong with it. For example, many school athletes are also listed under alumni and school sports players. Or are we saying that school athletics and athletes are exception??--Ohho 00:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent I understand your comments above (please try to be more concise), yes, it is different to subcategorize athletics within a university category than academics, because a university is by definition an academic institution. "X University academics" is therefore redundant, or at least is not a useful designation to add to the subject. Subcategories for academic departments, for example, might be reasonable, and note that I have not yet CFD'd the "schools, departments," etc., category you also created, though I think it needs at least a rename and clearer focus so I am thinking about it. Postdlf 02:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, a university is by definition an academic institution. I agree with that 100%. But it does not mean that we should just put everything under one main category and leave them like that. As you can see the Category:Massachusetts Institute of Technology, there are 160 pages listed under this main category. And I believe that the list is still growing. Do you expect readers to browse through the long list and find things easily? Under the Category:Ohio State University, there are currently 81 pages. We have all subcategories that comply to the standards and norms used under the wiki for American universities. I think that we should find a way to group these pages into different subcategories. Therefore, they are easy to browse through and surf. It won't hurt. If you can find a way to that (group all 81 pages properly and create subcategories for them as much as we can so that it is easy to surf) it is fine with me. We have done that for American school athletics and athletes and I cannot find a reason why we should not do the same to other pages under the main (American school) categories.

Also, Let compare the subcategories under American universities with the subcategories under British academic institutions, you will see big differences. Subcategories under American universities are more about athletics. And we are saying that "a university is by definition an academic institution" When we search Subcategories under an American university, it is more like we are surfing on a sport franchise. Subcategories created under American universities are more about school athletics and athletes. Some American schools (like MIT) may be exceptional because they do not have good athletics and athletes nor do not emphasize on them. As I brought up about the Category:Massachusetts Institute of Technology, we can see that they list Massachusetts Institute of Technology alumni, Massachusetts Institute of Technology faculty, Massachusetts Institute of Technology presidents separately under the main category. In this case, I like what we did better by grouping all these three subcategories into one subcategory and list it once on the main Category. To me, It looks massy if we put all subcategories under the main Category. My intention is to see as less as key subcategories under the main Category and list the detailed subcategories under the key subcategories. --Ohho 08:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge, overcat. (Radiant) 13:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Ohio State University --Kbdank71 14:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Ohio State Buckeyes academic facilities and centers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, unnecessary subcategory. I think all entries are already in Category:Ohio State University. Or, rename to something like Category:Ohio State University facilities, though I don't believe that is paralleled in any other university category structure. Postdlf 21:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Category:Ohio State University as needed. I don't think a separate facilities category is needed, but there should only be one regardless. --Dhartung | Talk 09:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge, overcat. (Radiant) 13:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Ohio State University --Kbdank71 14:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ohio State University enthusiasm and entertainment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, confused category. No other university category has a subcategory anything like this. Based on its contents, it seems to be mostly intended for OSU sports fandom, for which Category:Ohio State Buckeyes athletics can provide a ready home, if not Category:Ohio State University directly. Postdlf 21:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Category:Ohio State University as needed. --Dhartung | Talk 09:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge, overcat. (Radiant) 13:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Ohio State University --Kbdank71 14:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ohio State University landmarks properties and facilities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, some kind of confusingly malformed and unnecessary hybrid. It currently contains everything that OSU could be said to "own" (I think), from buildings to television stations managed by the university, to fight songs, to the sports mascot (?). Merge anything to Category:Ohio State University not already contained there, but I think it's already all contained there. Postdlf 21:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Category:Ohio State University as needed. I don't think a separate facilities cat is needed, but there should only be one regardless. --Dhartung | Talk 09:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge, overcat. (Radiant) 13:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PowerBook into Category:Macintosh laptops

• Merge, I'd already organized all (or nearly all) Macs by processor type, form factor (laptop vs desktop), and product lines within those. No reason to come along afterward and pitch everything back into one big pool, especially when it creates a redundant category. I've reverted the other damage, except for this category. Recommend it's deletion, and reversion of the articles in it. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Bad nomination: Get consensus at WikiProject Macintosh before making changes like this. ChristTrekker has never participated in Macintosh article work before, and is trying to create arbitrary categories based on an attribute (the type of CPU used) that is already adequately served by list articles. This editor has a bit of a history of odd category ideas, for example, adding Category:MS Windows-like desktops to all the Microsoft Windows version articles. It makes no sense, and I encourage this editor to discuss their ideas with other editors. -/- Warren 22:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. I've been using Macs since '91, owned a Mac and had a job where I was paid for my Mac knowledge since '93, and maintained a Mac-related FAQ for two years. Don't try to tell me I'm not qualified to edit Mac articles. Your comment, "ChristTrekker is taking it upon himself to recategorize the Macintosh articles" (emphasis added), indicates this as well. Taking it upon myself? Users "taking it upon themselves" is the entire idea wiki is built upon: BE BOLD. Your attitude sounds elitist. I didn't think I needed permission to try to improve things - I trod on an article under the auspices of a WikiProject for the first time, mea culpa. There didn't seem to be much organized structure in place, so I tried to create some, that's all.
    2. Who defines arbitrary? CPU type/speed is one of the defining characteristics of a computer! CPU family is definitely worth categorizing on. There are meaninful distinctions based on this, such as what software can be run, which is important to know when you're dealing with a single make. It's a fundamental, not extraneous.
    3. Who says that categories and lists can't coexist? Maybe you navigate well using list articles. Others, like myself, prefer categories. Where's the problem?
    4. OT, but how exactly is MS Windows-like desktops a bad category? Plenty of Unix window managers follow the basic UI model established by Win95, enough that "Windows-like desktop" is a meaningful identifier/category. I've definitely heard "I'm using Windows-like X, but it doesn't have feature Y that I want, what other Windows-like wms could I use?" come up in discussion. Just because you don't understand something, doesn't make it an odd idea. And even though you reverted those articles, Windows itself certainly could belong in the category - they define the category. The typical Windows user might think it an odd category, but it makes sense to those with a broader perspective.

    Removing nomination for delete/merge. Misunderstood the intent of the category (product line vs form factor). Discussion of systematic categorization is taking place elsewhere. ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Warren, though I'm not entirely sure what the proposal was, it seems to obfuscate some sort of dispute. I'd defer to the project for their joint expertise. --Dhartung | Talk 09:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Warren. ChristTrekker's categorization preferences don't make sense to me either; categorizing PowerBooks within a PowerBook category makes a whole lot more sense than spliting into "PowerBook ([processor])" categories such as Category:PowerBook (PPC) (of which Category:PowerBook would be a logical parent anyway). Postdlf 23:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Cypriot American football players

Category created for one individual (Garo Yepremian); categories, as far as I understand, should not be created for singular individuals, please correct me if I am wrong; category empty now, anyway.HOT L Baltimore 17:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not empty anything before the discussion is over. Punkmorten 15:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, overcategorization, random and insignificant intersection of unrelated traits (being Cypriot American and being a football player) that no one has ever bothered to study. Postdlf 17:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, three way cross of ethnicity / nationality / profession. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, you are all wrong. Yes, we do create categories for one individual! The rest of you are misunderstanding - this has nothing to do with him being Cypriot American by ethnicity, it categorizes him as being a Cypriot player of American football. Nothing wrong with having such a category (if he really was Cypriot by nationality, the article is a bit unclear on that point), like all the other articles in Category:American football players by nationality. Punkmorten 15:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if one article were enough for a category, you'll at least have to establish that he actually belonged in that category. According to the article, any connection he had to Cyprus (his parents were Armenian, so it's unclear if he was ever a Cypriot by nationality, unless birth alone there would be enough) ended when he moved to London at 16; he didn't start playing football until he moved to the U.S. So it doesn't make sense to call him a Cypriot football player if he never played football as a Cypriot. Postdlf 17:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No, we don't create categories for one individual, any more than we create lists for one item. Categories are for grouping pages, which you can not do with only one page. -Amarkov ^babble 15:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The category wasn't created for one individual. It was created as part of scheme--"(nationality) American football players"--that will occasionally produce single-occupant subcategories. The fact that the nationality and the "American" are next to each other is a complication, but what else are we going to call that sport? Now, if Garo isn't a Cypriot, then the category should go away. What nationality do you think he should go in? Perhaps, category:English American football players?--Mike Selinker 18:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They should probably be renamed to something like, e.g., "English players of American football", to make it clear it's not talking about "English-American" ethnicity, which is what confused us above with this category. Garo's article has the "nationalized U.S. citizen" category applied, but I didn't see it state when he became a citizen. If he only played football as an American citizen, then he's just an American in relation to his football career (American American football player??). Postdlf 18:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd have no objection to that kind of mass renaming. I don't know whether Yepremian's a Cypriot, but I think that if he was in England at 16, he needs some nationality category other than US.--Mike Selinker 18:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This category is ridiculous, but this sort of thing is an inevitable outcome of the ethnic classification system. I would vote to delete all such categories if they were nominated as a group, but I will not vote to delete this one on its own. Piccadilly 20:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old Tratonians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete There is no such association, according to Google - which provides only self-references by 2 x non-notable individuals Ian Cairns 16:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, vanity self-reference by author of non-notable, vanity press book by that title (see related AFD). Postdlf 02:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted as empty. If recreated it should be as Category:Companies based in Rochester, New York. the wub "?!" 16:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Companies in Rochester, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, overcategorization. Companies by state is sufficient; below that just document them in lists to keep the categories from being too chopped up by overlocalization (companies based in Dublin, Ohio, anyone?). Also unnecessary and empty; the one entry I found was a company not actually based in Rochester. Alternative, rename to Category:Companies based in Rochester, New York to match parent Category:Companies based in New York and make organizing criteria clear. Postdlf 16:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I just created the category; that's why it's underpopulated. Second of all, all of the other subcategories of Category:Rochester, New York include articles on topics from the surrounding area (city and suburbs); I saw no reason this category couldn't do the same (Category:Companies in Fairport, New York -- now that would be overcategorization!). Third, the existence of the other subcats (Category:Buildings and structures in Rochester, New York, Category:Radio stations in Rochester, New York, Category:Sports in Rochester, New York, et al.) indicated to me that a category on companies would be equally useful. I was going to just add PAETEC Communications to Category:Rochester, New York but felt subcategorization was more useful. Powers ^T 17:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I also point out Category:Companies based in New York City?

So even if companies by city is not per se overcategorization (the NYC category has 123 entries, which seems to justify that city at least), it needs to fit into the existing company category scheme, not just Rochester. A previous CFD discussion determined that there was a consensus for limiting the categorization of companies to where they are based. PAETEC is not based in Rochester, it's based near it within the same county. This may seem like splitting hairs to you, but categories need to be precise and obvious in order to work properly because they lack annotations when they appear in articles. Let's start with a List of companies based in Rochester, New York, and then see if there's really a need for that separation to be reflected in the category structure as well. Postdlf 17:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One possible problem with Rochester, New York is that it frequently includes companies and activities based in the surounding communities. This is common around larger cities. So city based categories are not always restricted to the city. If you look at Category:Rochester, New York you will find Greece (town), New York and Six Flags Darien Lake. This tells me that the category is aceptable to cover the area. So I would also expect that companies associated with Rochester would be included in a category like Category:Companies based in Rochester, New York. I'm leaning Keep and see how it fills up. But this raises a question. Do we need a guideline on questions like this or do we let them be resolved on a one on one basis? If that discusion starts it probably needs to be on the talk page. Vegaswikian 20:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with allowing a city category to include subjects not actually within the city is that it's not objectively clear how such places should be associated. It's POV which communities are merely "surrounding" communities and which are "stand-alone" "important" ones that shouldn't be subsumed by another's identity. And it's not even always clear which community would be the relevant one for deciding what community another one "surrounds." This is why we got rid of "Suburbs of X" categories, if I recall correctly.

However, if there is a census-defined metropolitan statistical area for Rochester, then that would be an appropriate for a category (as long as the category is expressly defined as "Companies based in the Rochester MSA"). Otherwise, because categories need to be taken literally, municipal boundaries should be respected. It should be left to article text to explain what is "near" or "surrounding" the article's subject rather than actually within it. Postdlf 20:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rochester is a metropolitan statistical area. Vegaswikian 06:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough, but that seems like it might be a big change. As I noted, most of the other subcats of the Rochester category include items from surrounding areas as well. As for the MSA, I think it might be too large for these purposes. Monroe County would be a good limit, but then the category might be harder to find for people interested in the Rochester area. Powers ^T 15:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Companies based in Rochester, New York (see Category:Companies by city). Pinoakcourt
• Rename per Pinaokcourt. Companies by city already exist in many categories. It's also possible to not be completely pedantic about city boundaries on something like this. --Dhartung | Talk 09:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Companies based in Rochester, New York. Vegaswikian 08:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Companies based in Rochester, New York.
• Rename to Category:Companies based in Greater Rochester, New York or Category:Companies based in the Rochester, New York metropolitan area. For consumers, it may be pedantry where a company is based, but taxation and regulation it is very important, and the cause of intense competition among jurisdictions and numerous articles on the impact of subsidies and other enticements. For WP to state that a city is equivalent to its metropolitan area is misinformative; otherwise, why would so much ink have been spilled over Sears Roebuck's move to Hoffman Estates or United Airlines' from Elk Grove if they're the "same" as Chicago? Incidentally, there is no equivalent category for Chicago, and California companies are divided by county. -choster 15:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Chicagoland doesn't have a company category, Rochester shouldn't yet, as it's a much smaller metro area. From your comments, it accordingly sounds like the best solution (if a Rochester category is to be kept) is to rename to "Companies based in Rochester, New York" and limit it accordingly to only companies based within the city limits. Postdlf 15:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Companies based in Rochester, New York. We aren't doing zoning work here people, it's an encyclopedia. The point about possible disputes arising from this like in Chicago is well taken, but as far as I know no such disputes exist about Rochester. Recury 03:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional cat-based characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete per precedent on similar "bug-based character" category, and soon-to-be precedent on similar "insect-based character" category. The relationship is minimal and superficial, equivocating cat themes or cat similarities in costume, name, superpowers, etc. X-based is too vague to be meaningful. Postdlf 16:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom — J Greb 01:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per now. Rgds, - Trident13 19:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivia. (Radiant) 13:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (see also Nonagenarian bishops and Octogenarian Bishops below). --RobertG ♬ talk 10:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or create Category:Bishops by how old they happened to be at some random time in the past. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although I know it's likely going to lose out I think this is a rare enough intersection to be of interest.--T. Anthony 04:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Trivia with no stable point of reference. Postdlf 20:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The current age of a bishop is not a strongly defining characteristic and becomes irrelevant if the bishop ages or dies. George J. Bendo 21:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bishops are more likely to make their mark before reaching 100 than afterwards. Pinoakcourt 03:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The others are arbitrary, but reaching 100 years old is fairly interesting. -Amarkov ^babble 03:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/listify. David Kernow (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reaching a 100 is interesting, but not encyclopedically relevant. We might as well hav e a category for "Bishops with an x in their name" as their notable accomplishments would be just as strongly related as those of the men in this category. Piccadilly 20:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial; non-encyclopedic. Hello32020 20:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete like similar categories, not a useful classification. Pavel Vozenilek 21:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a defining characteristic (and self-invalidating). (Radiant) 13:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keepBalloonman 17:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bishops should be sorted by things that are relevant to their work, eg church, grade (archbishop, cardinal, metropolitan etc). This category is only relevant to their retirement. Olborne 21:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (see also Centenarian bishops above and Octogenarian Bishops below). --RobertG ♬ talk 10:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, irrelevent intersection ... although not quite as bad as red-haired kings. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, see the 80s below... --Stephan Schulz 16:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Trivia with no stable point of reference. Unless it's meant to be contextless, "bishops who achieved the age of 90 at any time" rather than "bishops who are currently in their 90s," in which case they'd also have the "Octagenarian bishops" category applied, having obviously achieved that as well. Whee. Postdlf 20:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The current age of a bishop is not a strongly defining characteristic and becomes irrelevant if the bishop ages or dies. George J. Bendo 21:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bishops are more likely to mark their mark before turning 90 than afterwards. Pinoakcourt 03:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/listify with nom above. David Kernow (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a defining characteristic (and self-invalidating). (Radiant) 13:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while I say keep the 100 year olds, this one isn't as notable.Balloonman 17:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bishops should be sorted by things that are relevant to their work, eg church, grade (archbishop, cardinal, metropolitan etc). This category is only relevant to their retirement. Olborne 21:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or create Category:Guest stars by radio show. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, trivia. Being a guest star on any show, radio or television, is not grounds for being categorized by it; it's usually not enough to even mention in the article. Category:Tonight Show guests would be pretty damn useless. Postdlf 15:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As the article Piano Jazz covers it better anyway.--T. Anthony 16:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as trivia. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETEBalloonman 17:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete; listified at List of Batman pastiches and List of Wonder Woman pastiches accordingly. David Kernow (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Batman pastiches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wonder Woman pastiches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Listify and delete, per prior precedent on similar category for Superman pastiches. Too subject to subjectivity and OR when not explained and sourced in article text. Postdlf 15:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify & Delete as per nom — J Greb 15:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify & Delete as per nom Palendrom 03:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 16:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Christian television networks, to match Trinity Broadcasting Network. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Many entries in Category:Religious television stations in the United States would fit but are not listed; Category:Television networks by genre does not provide a definition of network. -choster 15:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree ... stations, networks, and channels seem to be somewhat muddled. However, this seemed to fit best as a network, so that's what I suggested. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with networks being more appropriate. Ansell 22:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Barred disc galaxies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This category only contains barred spiral galaxies and barred lenticular galaxies, each of which already has its own category (Category:Barred spiral galaxies and Category:Barred lenticular galaxies). This category is simply redundant. George J. Bendo 12:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree that this category is not necessary. --Fournax 17:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — RJH (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 11:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Alpine plants into Category:Alpine flora

• Merge, per the convention used in Category:Flora. Hawkestone 11:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the article on her was apparently deleted and the category is empty.--T. Anthony 08:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Empty cat, subject has no article. CSD C1 doesn't quite apply, but it would be helpful if it did. Picaroon9288 22:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, artist was deleted. Punkmorten 15:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ODF into Category:OpenDocument

• Merge, the term ODF is synonymous with OpenDocument. John Vandenberg 07:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, do not use abbrev. >Radiant< 09:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per nom. Perhaps keep ODF as redirect? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Re redirect, I guess it depends if the topics at ODF have or may someday have categories... Regards, David Kernow (talk) 06:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per John Vandenberg. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pkchan (talk • contribs) 01:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete and salt. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional people who wear glasses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete recreation of multiply deleted category. Overcategorization. Do we add a category for fictional people who wear bandanas? Fictional people who take allergy shots? Fictional people with blue eyes? Doczilla 07:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and I hear talk of "salting" so, I suppose, salt. Otto4711
  • See WP:SALT for details. Speedy & salt. >Radiant< 09:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as recreation. Merchbow 09:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete George J. Bendo 12:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although I seem to recall it was fictional eyepatch wearers last time. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I could have sworn there was a deleted fictional eyeglass wearers category too, but I can't seem to figure out what its name was. Postdlf 15:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pure cruft, irrelevant and impossible to maintain. --Stephan Schulz 16:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete where next - actors who wear belts? I'd love to know where Superman/Clark Kent fit into this one! Rgds, - Trident13 19:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Fictional left-handed red-haired Italian-american Jewish eyepatch wearers? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only if they're famous. Postdlf 15:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETEL Glasses do not define characteristic/personality.Balloonman 17:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but it's not clear this is a recreation, so not a speedy, and don't salt if at all possible to refrain from doing so. Alai 11:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 12:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cantors to Category:Hazzans

• Rename, the main article is at hazzan, and cantor can refer to things other than hazzans (which may or may not merit own their separate category). Hazzans seems to be more frequent than hazzanim, based on google. Mairi 05:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• ...although given the Hebrew/Jewish context, perhaps Hazzanim to be preferred...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps, but that's why I compared the frequency of google results to try to get a feeling for what the commonly used term is, since using the most common term is generally the preference for naming things. If there's some reason to think that hazzanim is in fact more common, that'd be good to know. Mairi 20:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 12:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Living Bishops of the United Methodist Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, another subcategorization by aliveness, with no good reason to deviate from our standard of not having such. Mairi 05:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom, and unique provisions of Category:Living people. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church unless all are already a member of both cats. Vegaswikian 06:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia policy is clear that we do not categorize people as alive/dead. Doczilla 07:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete and block. Merchbow 09:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• UpMerge/delete per Vegaswikian and block. We don't classify by living/dead. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clergy abuse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
per same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clergy abuse. In addition, many of the articles currently within the category only have very incidental or tenuous links to the clergy which I would consider violates WP:NPOV Ohconfucius 03:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the category makes sense only in relation to an article which describes the alleged phenomenon: now that the article is gone, the category is meaningless. Maybe there could be an NPOV use of a category such as this, but it would have to be handle with very great care (e.g. by usong it for people only in cases where a criminal conviction resulted), and not used (as this one is neing used) as a container for general sexual abuse concepts such as rape and incest. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 04:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it was a POV fork anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 06:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above plus inherent ambiguity in name. David Kernow (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, the deacons can be taskmasters. --Dhartung | Talk 10:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 21:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteBalloonman 17:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 16:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Music managers to Category:Talent managers

• Merge. Music manager redirects to talent manager. Or would Category:Talent managers be a better choice? Vegaswikian 03:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename as Talent manager. Managers and agents are fundamentally different even if sometimes they are in the same building or person. For starters, agents are licensed, managers are not.[1] --Dhartung | Talk 03:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per the above. >Radiant< 09:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed nom to managers rather then agents. It better matches the articles and the redirects to talent manager which include Personal manager, Music manager, Band manager, and Artist manager. Vegaswikian 20:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, as amended. Alai 00:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Brahmos; who decides which ones are Eminent? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 11:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per norm. -- P.K.Niyogi 01:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 12:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Canadian Investing into Category:Financial services companies of Canada

• Merge, This is a malformed category name. The existing category is specific enough. Cloachland 02:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Olborne 21:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:To Catch a Predator locations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete because being visited by one particular show is not a major attribute of places like New York City and Washington D.C. Wilchett 01:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is what lists are for, though I would query if this is even notable enough for a list. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 04:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I agree that this is not even notable enough for a list. Doczilla 07:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 09:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Articles on U.S. cities are not defined by whether they have been featured on a TV series that is filmed in multiple cities. George J. Bendo 12:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, incredibly horrible idea for a category. There are TV shows being filmed in my neighborhood in NYC every other week. Postdlf 16:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as category creator. WP:Category says "Categories should be major topics that are likely to be useful to someone reading the article." This is not the case here. I was thinking more of the smaller communities, for which a TCAP sting was Big News, moreso than the larger cities, when I created the category, but I acknowledge that if it was important enough, it'd be mentioned in the articles themselves. Powers ^T 15:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notableBalloonman 17:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 12:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Brothers & Sisters actors, convention of Category:Actors by drama television series. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Wilchett 01:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge both to Category:Traditionalist Catholic bishops. the wub "?!" 11:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Deceased Traditionalist Catholic Bishops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Living Traditionalist Catholic Bishops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, No reason to divide Category:Traditionalist Catholic Bishops by whether they're alive/dead, similar living/dead classifications have been deleted before. Mairi 01:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We do not categorize as living / dead, for many reasons. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back into Category:Traditionalist Catholic Bishops. Wimstead 01:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• UpMerge to Category:Traditionalist Catholic bishops. Vegaswikian 03:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia policy is clear that we do not categorize people as alive/dead. Doczilla 07:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overcat. >Radiant< 09:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Seeing as how neither category intrinsically adopts any context, they also suggest that the category should be applied by virtue of the subject having achieved that state at any time (e.g., Gerald Ford continues to be in Category:Presidents of the United States). In other words, we'd have individuals simultaneously categorized as living and deceased bishops (or not, but it's fun to think so). Postdlf 20:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete The notion of traditionalist/non-traditionist originates with the notion that the Catholic Church strayed from orthodoxy with Vatican II. Some of the more radical traditionalist question the validity of the mainstream Catholic church. Some of these bishops have been excommunicated, but most have remained loyal to Rome. My concern with this list is that it feels like an attempt to associate people with positions that they may or may not actually support. This list is POV.Balloonman 17:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Category:Traditionalist Catholic Bishops has now been renamed to Category:Traditionalist Catholic bishops. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (I will simultaneously close Nonagenarian Bishops and Centenarian bishops above). --RobertG ♬ talk 10:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Octogenarian Bishops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, categorizing bishops by age seems unnecessary and not usefuly, and no other professions seemed to have such categories. Also, Category:Octogenarians was previously deleted, and some of the reasons (maintainability and such) apply here. If kept, the case needs fixing. Mairi 00:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Who has a listing of all bishop's birthdays? it's a transitory label at best. Should we add sepugenarin, sectagenarian, nonagenarian, decagenarian and so on? and what if the subject kicks the proverbial bucket? do we need ' Deceased Priests'? If so, can we get "deceased rabbis", 'deceased Fakirs' 'deceased Imams' etc, etc.? ThuranX 01:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're in luck, there's also Category:Nonagenarian Bishops and Category:Centenarian bishops. Mairi 04:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. Categorizing people by their current age does not seem useful. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Eighty is no great age nowadays. Wimstead 01:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Doczilla 07:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do not cat by age. >Radiant< 09:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, transient category, no encyclopedic interest.--Stephan Schulz 16:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Trivia with no stable point of reference. Postdlf 20:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/listify per noms above. David Kernow (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Balloonman 17:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated. the wub "?!" 18:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:United Methodist Bishops into Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church

• Merge, both have the same scope. Bishops of the United Methodist Church follows the same naming pattern as all it's subcategories, and so seems slightly preferable. A reverse merge would also be possible, along with the case of 'Bishops' being fixed. Mairi 00:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whats the difference between the above two and Category:Methodist bishops? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Methodist bishops is broader, and includes bishops in other church that are considered Methodist, such as African Methodist Episcopal Church. Mairi 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, and thank you for explaining. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• do NOT merge - there is an important, if underappreciated, difference. Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church is for Bishops only of the United Methodist Church (since its establishment in 1968). Conversely, Category:United Methodist Bishops is the official list of ALL Bishops of this denomination, including its predecessor bodies, since its beginning in 1784. All of the former are included in the latter. But all of the latter are not necessarily included in the former. Thanks! Pastorwayne 15:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apart from the fact that two categories are not needed to achieve this, the current arrangement doesn't do what Pastorwayne wants it to do, because the predecessor bodies are sub-categories of both Category:United Methodist Bishops and Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church :( -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Pastorwayne and I had this discussion before, but the solution is to categorise the relevant bishops solely as bishops of the churches the churches in which they served, and then to include those categories as sub-categories of Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church.
  Pastorwayne's point, if I understand it correctly, is that the United Methodist church recognises as UM bishops two groups of people:
  a) bishops appointed by the UM Church, and,
  b) Bishops of is predecessor churches.
  That fact can be acknowledged by the use of sub-categories: there is no need for this dual classification, which has ended up in quite a mess. This CFD is long-overdue. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• it is corrected. Now Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church properly lists only what it says. So Category:United Methodist Bishops is now correct and needed. Thanks! Pastorwayne 12:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if the current categories now make the distinction clear, that doesn't address why they ought to be distinguished that way, instead of the manner proposed by BrownHairedGirl. (You also didn't change the description, which still read "Bishops of the United Methodist Church and its predecessor denominations" for Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church.) BrownHairedGirl's solution also has the advantage of not needing lots of excess categories for other predecessor churches, ie Category:Bishops of the Evangelical Association can simply be a subcategory of Category:Bishops of the Evangelical United Brethren Church, instead of having both be a subcategory of Category:Evangelical United Brethren bishops, or some such unnecessary and ambiguous category. Mairi 20:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, or else rename category(/ies) to make distinguish less mud-like than it is at present. Alai 00:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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