< November 16	November 18 >

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 16:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional schoolgirls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Per precedent set by fictional babies, teenagers, etc. Should schoolboys created too? Does every character woman who has ever lived to school age deserve inclusion? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that was a rhetorical question but let me answer 'no' anyway. Delete. (Radiant) 00:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it was rhetorical :) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - jc37 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tlmclain | Talk 06:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It was well intentioned, but the name is ultimately problematic. What happens when the character graduates? George J. Bendo 07:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark 10:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment could be restricted to "Fictional characters notable for being schoolgirls"... (aka... schoolgirls in highschool dramas, or Sailor Moon, or something). 132.205.93.88 03:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or create a catch-all category like category:Fictional students Animedude 08:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok, so apprently that category ALREADY exists. :D So now there REALLY is no need for this one. Animedude 08:38, 21 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 "?!" 18:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Roald Dahl films to Category:Films based on Roald Dahl books Category:Films based on Roald Dahl works

• Rename to conform with other sub-cats. Her Pegship 18:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per consistancy. - jc37 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but note that Category:Films based on books by author is not a great example of consistency. Before renaming the Roald Dahl cat, I think it would be wise to decide whether we prefer "films based on the works of X", "Film based on X's works]", "Films based on X's books", on "X's novels", etc. I would prefer using the term "Works" because it's generic enough to avoid subcats like "based on books", based on short stories", etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascal.Tesson (talk • contribs)

Yep, that was discussed at length among the few, the proud, the members of Films based on books categorization project. I prefer "works" myself, but I can post something to the Films WikiProject or to the aforementioned cat project if you like. Cheers, Her Pegship 07:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I revised the proposal. Her Pegship 02:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Pegship. Cbrown1023 04:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Pegship. Note: IMO Category:Roald Dahl is simply enough. Hoverfish 14:58, 19 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 "?!" 18:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pushkin on film to Category:Films based on Aleksandr Pushkin works

• Rename to conform with other sub-categories. Her Pegship 18:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per consistancy. - jc37 01:12, 18 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. the wub "?!" 18:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this and probably all related categories to this "worst" classification should be deleted. Especially this supporting one as it seems too WP:CRUFT and it's very deragatory and insulting and I don't think very useful and helpful when it's added to so many persons just because they appeared on one film in their life which this competition decided to list. Seems wrong also in the sense of WP:BLP and in contrast to the principles of WP:CATEGORY. Amoruso 15:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my nom. Amoruso 15:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia:Fancruft is an essay, not a policy. Also the Razzies are a recognized "award." We have things like Category:Best Supporting Actress Golden Globe Nominee (film), which isn't even a category Best Supporting Actress nominees but is instead for the films they were in. (There is no category for even the Golden Globe winning actresses as far as I can tell)--T. Anthony 19:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, recognized award. Otto4711 19:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These awards are just a joke/publicity stunt. Seeing one of these categories on the article about a major actor/director actually takes away encyclopedic value and credibility. Choalbaton 22:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd thought of this and on reflection I think there's some validity to it. Although I think the winner categories, like Category:Worst Supporting Actress Razzie, should probably stay even if it seems to diminish articles like Faye Dunaway's. Because it's a notable enough stunt that winning might be notable. I'm just no longer sure being nominated for it is worth categorizing.--T. Anthony 00:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• One last thing shouldn't you nominate Category:Worst Supporting Actor Razzie Nominee as well?--T. Anthony 00:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I think it should be too. - jc37 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, thought of it as a test run. Amoruso 22:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As if the Oscars didn't start as a publicity stunt. As if the Oscars aren't still a publicity stunt. Otto4711 23:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - because it's the nominees, not the awards recipients. - jc37 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does anyone have time to tag the lot? Hawkestone 11:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete'. This had been deleted before [1]. Pavel Vozenilek 06:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Not encyclopedic. Osomec 18:06, 19 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. the wub "?!" 19:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a defining characteristic. Would include just about every character in soap series, for one. (Radiant) 14:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - George J. Bendo 20:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - jc37 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tlmclain | Talk 06:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and protect; likely to be recreated. Postdlf 00:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This category is utterly ridiculous!

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 19:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not a defining characteristic. Would include just about half the characters in soap series, for one. (Radiant) 14:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This would not bring together similar articles. (I missed this the first time.) George J. Bendo 21:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - jc37 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - also improperly named (divorcees are female, divorcés are male) --Psiphiorg 04:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tlmclain | Talk 06:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and protect; likely to be recreated. Postdlf 00:08, 19 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. the wub "?!" 20:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contains an arbitrary smattering of fictional characters in some function of authority. Meaningless, use the "by profession" cat group instead. (Radiant) 14:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - What "disciplinarian" means is too subjective. George J. Bendo 20:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per George J. Bendo Choalbaton 22:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - technically wouldn't this include every parent? : ) - jc37 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Jc: Only if they're doing their job properly. --tjstrf talk 05:55, 18 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 and list (only including characters) created here for anyone interested. David Kernow (talk) 06:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This cat is about fiction, so should have "fiction" in the name ("fictional children of the devil"?) Then again, it's not a particularly meaningful categorisation either. (Radiant) 14:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Overcategorization. George J. Bendo 20:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - listify if wanted. - jc37 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. Hawkestone 11:19, 18 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 to Category:Fictional doppelgängers. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be "fictional doppelgangers", or possibly "fictional antagonists that look a lot like the protagonists but happen to be evil" or somesuch. (Radiant) 14:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Doppelganger has a much broader interpretation, which means that this category could easily fill up with unrelated people/characters/things anyway. George J. Bendo 20:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Just because a category "could" have things put in it that don't belong is no reason to delete the cat. Edit the articles to remove the incorrect cats, don't delete the entire cat. Otto4711 05:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category: Fictional doppelgängers but the focus should be narrowed by removing "This can also apply more loosely to characters intended to serve as foils to or antithesises of another more well known character." from the cat description. Otto4711 20:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category: Fictional doppelgängers. However, currently the distinction between literary foil and doppelgänger is not made, so it will need entries removed and a header to express this. For example, it lists Faith Lehane as a doppelgänger of Buffy Summers. Therefore is Spike a doppelgänger if Angel? If consensus is delete, then I would suggest listifification with proper annotations to make everything clearer (ie. Venom serves as a foil to and doppelgänger of Spider-Man, and this should be explained). ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (and listify if wanted), due to the comments above. - jc37 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match convention. Are there actually any non-fictional doppelgangers to populate an overcat though? --tjstrf talk 05:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename jsut to avoid confusion, though I agree there are very few actuall doppelgangers to be confused by. Animedude 08:36, 21 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. the wub "?!" 20:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Way too broad. The whole point of many kinds of fiction is to show "eccentric" people since ordinary normal people are boring. (Radiant) 14:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Too many POV problems. George J. Bendo 20:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Who determines the baseline? : ) - jc37 01:12, 18 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. the wub "?!" 13:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a defining characteristic, not objectively defined. (Radiant) 14:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Too many POV problems. (Must... keep... going...) George J. Bendo 20:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' per both users above. Choalbaton 22:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Way too many problems here. - jc37 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, too subjective, and likely to meaninglessly lump intra-text comparisons with inter-text comparisons. I always thought Mr. Furly came across as far more effeminate than Jack Tripper. It was probably the ascot... And the entire cast of men in Three's Company is effeminate compared to the cast of Dragnet. Postdlf 00:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Should this category be deleted, should not category:Fictional tomboys also be deleted? They cover the same idea, only with genders reveresed. Women who act in a masculine manner as opposed to men who act in an effeminante manner. We should be for gender equaility here. (Animedude 22:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • People are so helpful! Category:Fictional tomboys has been nominated for deletion. George J. Bendo 10:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per the reasons listed by Animedude and for the fact that it's a perfectly acceptable and interesting category. --AWF
• Delete subjective, inadequately defined category. Doczilla 02:10, 25 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 to Category:Fictional femmes fatales. the wub "?!" 13:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should be "fictional femmes fatales". (Radiant) 14:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC) (tyop per Grutness)[reply]

• Should be "fictional femmes fatales". Grutness...wha? 22:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename. Femme fatale is a character trope in fiction.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - First, I agree that "fictional" is necessary (else Mata Hari may be added). Second, I "think" the plural is Femmes Fatale. (Similar to Surgeons general.) - jc37 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that since the term is French, the adjective also goes plural. (Radiant) 09:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per User:Grutness — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Grutness. The Velvet Underground would have disagreed that it's only a label for fictional characters, and we don't want real people included. Postdlf 00:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional femme fatales 132.205.93.88 03:04, 21 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. the wub "?!" 14:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a redundancy but it isn't really; should be "metafictional characters". (Radiant) 14:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for consistency, the corresponding article is at Fictional fictional character. --tjstrf talk 05:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it is a subtype of metafictional character. 132.205.93.88 03:05, 21 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 -- Samuel Wantman 10:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be "fictional food-based characters" or somesuch. (Radiant) 14:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Note: would have no objection to deletion per Bendo. (Radiant) 09:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as Category:Fictional food-based characters - Food-based characters are probably worth categorizing (for some reason). George J. Bendo 20:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Delete - Otto4711 is right. George J. Bendo 21:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no more useful than the previously deleted bug-based characters. Otto4711 20:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Listify if wanted. - jc37 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional food anthropomorphizations. The point is not that they be food-based, but that they actually be a living piece of food. --tjstrf talk 05:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd be fine with renaming per tjstrf or deleting. Anthropomorphizations seems a little more precise than saying something is "X-based," which could involve completely superficial relationships. But it might still be trivia. Postdlf 00:07, 19 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. the wub "?!" 14:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contains way too many antagonists or ugly-looking people for whatever reason; not a defining characteristic. (Radiant) 14:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - "Disfigurement" apparently suffers POV problems. (I reached the end of the categories nominated by Radiant! Woo hoo!) George J. Bendo 20:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - jc37 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — J Greb 18:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Disfigurement is often an huge character trait. Would the movie Mask (film) have been the same without it? (Animedude 19:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete inadequately defined and excessively broad category. Doczilla 02:11, 25 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 redirect to Dutch academics. David Kernow (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch professors into Category:Dutch academics

• Merge, in line with more than one previous decision. Professorial rank is used differently around the world and is not a useful or consistent mean of categorisation. Keep as redirect. Piccadilly 14:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Choalbaton 22:36, 17 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. the wub "?!" 21:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional fathers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Primogen tagged the article as follows: "cfd: This category is currently full of fictional characters for home being a father is purely incidental." However, he seems to have forgotten to start a discussion. I am doing so for him and have left a note on his talk page. Falcorian ^(talk) 14:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but depopulate Category is useful if it is only filled with characters who's main roll in narrative is as a father, and not simply characters who are fathers. A note could be added to the page stating this to aid in keeping it from being repopulated with unhelpful entries. --Falcorian ^(talk) 14:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete The sort of maintenance system proposed by Falcorian doesn't work reliably or permanently in a wiki. Piccadilly 14:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Being a father is not always enough of a defining characteristic to warrant using this category. In many situation, the fact that a character is a parent is secondary to the storyline. Moreover, combining characters this way is not useful. George J. Bendo 14:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a meaningful characterisation as the fathers involved have next to nothing in common. (Radiant) 14:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Thanks for correcting my oversight, Falcorian. I came across this category when reading an article about a character in the "Heroes" TV series who happened to be a father but it was completely incidental to his character. As I looked at the other entries in the category, they almost all seemed to be characters for which being a father in no way defined the character, making this category completely useless for people who expect it to list articles about fictional characters who had notable traits, experiences or approaches as a father. I think that simply depoluating it is onlu a momentary fix (although renaming it to something like "Memorable Fictional Fathers" might be worth considering). Primogen 17:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Memorable" is too arbitrary. It would rely too much on POV. George J. Bendo 19:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wouldn't this be sub-category to a category called: Fictional men who have had sex.? If so, then both the parent cat and the sub cat should go : ) - jc37 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the well-reasoned comments above. Postdlf 23:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this cat gets deleted, should not Category:Fictional mothers as well? We should be for gender equiality. (Animedude 22:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • I have nominated Category:Fictional parents and all of its children for deletion. That will cover all the fathers, mothers, stepfathers, stepmothers, grandmothers, grandfathers, single parents, and any other relation that you can think of. George J. Bendo 22:43, 20 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 all. David Kernow (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Eponymous cities to Category:Eponymous places
• Category:Cities named Antigonia to Category:Places named Antigonia
• Category:Cities named Antiochia to Category:Places named Antiochia
• Category:Cities named Arsinoe to Category:Places named Arsinoe
• Category:Cities named Caesarea to Category:Places named Caesarea
• Category:Cities named Laodicea to Category:Places named Laodicea
• Category:Cities named Ptolemais to Category:Places named Ptolemais
• Category:Cities named Seleucia to Category:Places named Seleucia
• Category:Cities named after Alexander the Great to Category:Places named after Alexander the Great
• Category:Cities named for Byzantine Emperors to Category:Places named for Byzantine Emperors
• Category:Cities named for Christian saints to Category:Places named for Christian saints
• Category:Cities named for Christopher Columbus to Category:Places named for Christopher Columbus
• Category:Cities named for Julius Caesar to Category:Places named for Julius Caesar
• Category:Cities named for Popes to Category:Places named for Popes
• Category:Cities named for Presidents of the United States to Category:Places named for Presidents of the United States
• Category:Cities named for Roman Emperors to Category:Places named for Roman Emperors
• Category:Cities named for Russian royals to Category:Places named for Russian royals
• Category:Cities named for Scandinavian Royalty to Category:Places named for Scandinavian Royalty
• Category:Cities named for Soviet leaders to Category:Places named for Soviet leaders
• Category:Cities named for Tito to Category:Places named for Tito

Many of the articles in those categories are not about cities, but about towns, villages. bogdan 12:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - These cities (and towns and villages and other municipal units) only share names. Beyond that, they may have little in common with each other (although some, such as the places named Alexander, will share a common history for a few years of their existence). For example, does Lincoln, Nebraska have anything to do with Washington, Pennsylvania? Does Columbus, Georgia have anything to do with Colon, Panama? They should all be deleted.
• Delete all sounds good. For the places, they should already be listed on a dab page. For the others they can be included in the article or listified if there is a need and in that case someone could add more information like why they were named after the person, maybe they were born there. Vegaswikian 00:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Categories should be useful and about subjects that are studied. This fails on both accounts. A dab page or list is more than sufficient. -- Samuel Wantman 07:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per SamuelWantman. Crockspot 19:44, 19 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 no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it and all its sub categories - clearly violating Wikipedia POV policy. Should we put Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki under this category? --82.166.109.131 10:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Circeus 13:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Using the word "speedy" implies that a quick decision can be made based on a technical point (such as the nominator withdrawing his/her nomination to delete or a category creator endorsing the category deletion). A justification for such action is usually provided. Circeus, can you explain why this is a "speedy keep" situation? Did you really mean to vote "strong keep"? George J. Bendo 14:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This category could suffer from severe POV problems unless a clear definition of "war crimes" is strictly enforced. I suspect that such strict enforcement will not be applied (but I am willing to change my vote if someone explains that such strict enforcement is in place). George J. Bendo 14:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Should be limited to war crimes as convicted or trialed. Amoruso 15:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and probably rename to World War II war crimes, and then limit as per Amoruso. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:World War II war crimes. Vegaswikian 00:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  If renamed, what should be done with the subcats Category:Japanese war crimes Category:Nazi war crimes Category:World War II crimes in Poland Category:Soviet World War II crimes? I'm not sure what form should be used to rename these. They probably all should include World War II in the names. Vegaswikian 00:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Listify (with citations/references) if wanted. - jc37 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - inherently POV. Needs some very clear criteria for what is included and strong policing to keep it withing these criteria. Overall useful, but think its difficult to impossible to maintain. Rgds, - Trident13 13:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Should be limited to war crimes as convicted or trialed." - As far as I know only Nazis have been convicted. No American or British acts as trailed or convicted (because they won the war).

• Maybe this point needs to be in a discussion of Category:War crimes which may have bigger problems. War crime does not say it has to be 'convicted or trialed'. Vegaswikian 05:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Not a clear, widely accepted classification. Limiting it to those "convicted or trialed" would be even worse than keep it as it is. Pavel Vozenilek 16:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. POV problems big time. Crockspot 19:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. per above. --Haham hanuka 20:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all should be renamed as Amoruso suggests but not limited to the same extent. gidonb 22:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to include WWII, do not delete, and limit to convicted acts --tjstrf talk 03:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per Vegaswikian inclusive of all Hmains 03:30, 22 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/merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ursa Major South group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - Most references indicate that the Ursa Major South Group is actually part of the M109 Group, as is discussed on the M109 Group page. Since Category:M109 Group already exists, Category:Ursa Major South group is not needed. Since Category:Ursa Major South group is also empty, it can be deleted. GeorgeJBendo 10:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment isn't this a merge? 132.205.93.88 03:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's a merge, but I accidentially used the CfD template. This category does not contain anything anyway, so deletion has the same effect. GeorgeJBendo 10:11, 21 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. David Kernow (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Material related to anti-Mormonism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I'm not terribly well up on the category satndards, but this smacks of subjectivity and POV pushing to me. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 08:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, POV and overly wide. (Radiant) 09:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't think that the category itself is POV, but it is possible that including individual entries to it could be viewed as POV pushing; point in case I mistakenly added Latter Days to the category (which I have since removed), which I think may be one of the reasons that Dev920 may have nominated this category for deletion, as this is an article that user edits frequently. Please also see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#Category:Anti-Mormonism & subcategories, as I have sought input from that WikiProject about this category and other related categories. I would ask that the category be kept at least until there is an opportunity to have a fuller discussion there and build a consensus. Also by way of full disclosure, I am the creator of the category, and the category is less than 24 hrs old. -- FishUtah 19:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I guess with this whole situation I made it fairly obvious that I guess I didn't know what I was doing when I created that category in the first place. Better to just delete the category at this point. If someone can figure out a better way at some future point, maybe by starting with the suggestions from here, then that can be done later by people who actually know better than I do. -- FishUtah 20:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely unimpressed by FishUtah's bad faith attempts to save his pet categories by alleging I nominated this category because he slapped it on an article I happen to be a major contributor to. Yes, that was how I discovered the category's existence - however, Mr Utah seems to have forgotten that reverting is considerably easier than CfDing. Mr Utah now appears to be trying to cover his back by removing Latter Days in the hope I will drop this CfD. However, I would also like to point out that the desires of a WikiProject full of biased editors should not overide due process here. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 22:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong feelings either way in this matter, but I need to say the following: first: yes, FishUtah made a bad faith assumption. Second: considering that only one member of said WikiProject other than FishUtah has commented, it is premature (and bad faith) to assume that the project's desires are known. If we go by the one editor who has commented (Storm Rider), the "desire" would seem to be delete.[2] Third: FishUtah is a very recent member of this project. Fourth, and most importantly: do not use someone's affiliations (in this case "a WikiProject full of biased editors") as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views, this is a personal attack and is not allowed on Wikipedia. --Lethargy 22:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, as you seem to have taken my words completely against as I had intended them. Certainly I never meant to dismiss FishUtah's opinion because of his WikiProject, or indeed dismiss it at all (I was simply annoyed at his attempts to smear me, be they mistaken or no) - however, I objected to the fact that he assumed that a WikiProject could override any decision made here. Second, as I have discovered through much experience, virtually every editor of a religious Wikiproject is biased towards that religion. It's simple fact, and though I have no opinions on that either way, I was concerned that this CfD might become a votestacking competition. Finally, while I suspected Fish was a recent editor, I didn't want to hold that against him, so I purposefully didn't check. I will in future. Dev920 23:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to come across as biting off your head, I've just seen a lot of hostility on the net and I wanted to prevent it getting out of hand. Thanks for not calling me a Nazi. :) --Lethargy 02:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Since the category isn't defined, it would be impossible to verify whether an article belongs or doesn't belong in the category. Classification of an article in this category would be inherently subjective and therefore, probably POV. BRMo 23:44, 17 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 No Consensus (no rename). None of these singular/plural debates reached a consensus, and I suspect this might be a case of regional differences, in which case custom is to leave it the way it was first created. I'm surprised that nobody suggested renaming to "Bus types" as a compromise. -- Samuel Wantman 10:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This came up for speedying a week or so back, witha renaming from "Types of Buses" to "Types of buses". I objected, on the same grounds as the categories immediately below this one, i.e., that "Types" is plural and therefore the correct name would be "...bus" rather than "...buses". It seems that my objection was ignored and the speedy continued. I still feel that it should have been at "Types of bus", so am bringing it back here again. Grutness...wha? 07:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - the plural of "bus" has nothing to do with "types". It can be either. (See also Genitive case.) To give a different example, "Types of men", is just as grammatically correct as "Types of man" (though each phrase connotes a different meaning). So using our current standard of caregorising, We would name a category "Buses", not "Bus". - jc37 07:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, should be singular. (Radiant) 09:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Types of bus. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose. Recury 14:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The name that uses "buses" is still written correctly and matches common usage. John Cleese would not have said, "How to recognize different types of tree from quite a long way away." George J. Bendo 14:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, he said precisely that. (Radiant) 14:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  My copy of The Complete Monty Python's Flying Circus uses the word "tree" in the contents and "trees" in the text itself. (We can guess where your reference copied its list from.) The phrase is actually the title of an episode; Cleese uses a shorter phrase without the words "types of". George J. Bendo 19:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, I would never say Types of bus ... for some reason it just "feels wrong". -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Does it feel as wrong as "types of buses", which grates every time I read it? It's simply grammatically incorrect. You wouldn't say "breeds of dogs" or "types of cheeses" or "species of alligators" - "types of buses" is just as nonsensical and ugly. Grutness...wha? 22:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, I'd say all of those things, they all sound fine to me ... that's the way people talk where I live. Meybe I missed the day where they told us it was wrong, but seriously if it's wrong, it's totally a surprise to me. And I'm a native speaker of English. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Just an aside, but whether it "feels wrong" for any of us is totally beside the point, since that would obviously be WP:OR : ) - In any case, the usage is not being understood because this phrase has been taken out of a "presumed" sentence. There is a difference between:

  "...this type of person..."

  "...those types of people..."

  Feel free to insert man/men; dog/dogs; horse/horses, library/libraries, etc.

  (And now the exception) The only time the singular form "may" be used (such as "...those types of man...") is in reference to scientific categorisation, and even then, the plural is still often used. Compare to "... another fall of man..." (Henry V), where "man" is eqivalent to "mankind". Shakespeare could have as easily written "...another fall of men...", but that obviously doesn't give the sense he wanted (he was using a single word to refer simultaneously to mankind and to Adam). In the same sense, if referring to falling multiple times, one could write: "...multiple falls of man..." Hope this helps clarify : ) - jc37 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I bow to jc's obvious erudition in this area. Rename at will. Her Pegship 07:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• rename to a singular bus. Here "Bus" is used in its capacity as the thing (singular) of which there are many types (plural). Fiddle Faddle 18:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The singular use effectively turns 'bus' into a mass noun. Which is marginally acceptable in this case, but one wanted to subdivide this, one could not say (atleast as far as I'm aware) "Types of British bus" or "Types of Ford bus" or "Types of school bus" (except maybe in the marginal mass-noun cass for the later). Mairi 23:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is precisley correct and the correct usage of the word "bus" in this case. Your opposition is based on wholly incorrect usage of language. "Types of Ford Bus" is exactly and pednatically correct, whereas "Types of Ford buses" is wholly incorrect and is ungrammatical use of English. Fiddle Faddle 23:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • google for "types of school buses" vs "types of school bus". Notice not only the number of results, but that all but a few of the later results are of the form "types of school bus noun" (accidents, stops, collisions, etc.) Mairi 17:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • All that does is to deminstrate the huge number of ungrammatical people that populate various reaches of the web. It does not justify using the incorrect term. You really need to find a book on grammar, not a google search. Google finds what people have written, not what is correct. Google will pick this conversation up as well. Fiddle Faddle 08:10, 24 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 No Consensus (no rename). None of these singular/plural debates reached a consensus, and I suspect this might be a case of regional differences, in which case custom is to leave it the way it was first created. -- Samuel Wantman 10:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ProveIt ^(talk) 19:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose; the grammar is correct. (Moved from speedy.) Her Pegship 06:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Peg. Grutness...wha? 06:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - the plural of "library" has nothing to do with "types". It can be either. (See also Genitive case.) To give a different example, "Types of men", is just as grammatically correct as "Types of man" (though each phrase connotes a different meaning). So using our current standard of caregorising, We would name a category "Libraries", not "Library". - jc37 07:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, should be singular. (Radiant) 09:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, it is currently correct. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Recury 14:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The name that uses "libraries" is still written correctly and matches common usage. John Cleese would not have said, "How to recognize different types of tree from quite a long way away." George J. Bendo 14:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, he said precisely that. (Radiant) 14:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My copy of The Complete Monty Python's Flying Circus uses the word "tree" in the contents and "trees" in the text itself. (We can guess where your reference copied its list from.) The phrase is actually the title of an episode; Cleese uses a shorter phrase without the words "types of". George J. Bendo 19:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose. Library is the singular entity of which there are many types (plural). Fiddle Faddle 18:11, 20 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 question is rename to what? There is no consensus on the singular/plural issue, so the custom is to leave it as is. Thus this is a rename as Category:Types of horses using the speedy criteria for miscapitalization. This should still be considered a no consensus decision on the matter of "horse" versus "horses". -- Samuel Wantman 10:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ProveIt ^(talk) 19:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Types of horse, which is grammatically correct. (Moved from speedy.) Her Pegship 06:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as Category:Types of horse. Grutness...wha? 06:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Types of horses. The plural of "horse" has nothing to do with "types". It can be either. (See also Genitive case.) To give a different example, "Types of men", is just as grammatically correct as "Types of man" (though each phrase connotes a different meaning). So using our current standard of caregorising, We would name a category "Horses", not "Horse". - jc37 07:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, should be singular. (Radiant) 09:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Types of horse. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Types of horse. Osomec 12:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Types of horses. Recury 14:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Types of horses - The name that uses "horses" is still written correctly and matches common usage. John Cleese would not have said, "How to recognize different types of tree from quite a long way away." George J. Bendo 14:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, he said precisely that. (Radiant) 14:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My copy of The Complete Monty Python's Flying Circus uses the word "tree" in the contents and "trees" in the text itself. (We can guess where your reference copied its list from.) The phrase is actually the title of an episode; Cleese uses a shorter phrase without the words "types of". George J. Bendo 19:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• rename to a singular, lower case horse. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of grammar. Fiddle Faddle 18:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Matters of grammar can have opinions too (namely, that of every native speaker). But even if we're going with prescriptive grammar, do you have some source that the singular is in fact the only grammatical choice in this case? Mairi 17:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Any good recognised text on English Grammar. Do you have a reference for the alleged alternative usage? Fiddle Faddle 22:04, 21 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 No consensus (no rename) -- Samuel Wantman 10:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ProveIt ^(talk) 15:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 06:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object: "types" is correctly plural: it would be incorrect to pluralise museums as well. --RobertG ♬ talk 18:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per RobertG. Her Pegship 06:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Grutness...wha? 06:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Types of horses. The plural of "horse" has nothing to do with "types". It can be either. (See also Genitive case.) To give a different example, "Types of men", is just as grammatically correct as "Types of man" (though each phrase connotes a different meaning). So using our current standard of caregorising, We would name a category "Museums", not "Museum". - jc37 07:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--You are joking right? So, why didn't any of the regulars laugh? I did ;-) --RCEberwein | Talk 13:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, should be singular. (Radiant) 09:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename per nom. Recury 14:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The name that uses "museums" is still written correctly and matches common usage. John Cleese would not have said, "How to recognize different types of tree from quite a long way away." George J. Bendo 14:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, he said precisely that. (Radiant) 14:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My copy of The Complete Monty Python's Flying Circus uses the word "tree" in the contents and "trees" in the text itself. (We can guess where your reference copied its list from.) The phrase is actually the title of an episode; Cleese uses a shorter phrase without the words "types of". George J. Bendo 19:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, perhaps this is a US/UK thing? For some reason museum just "feels wrong". -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it's just a confusion of usage (of the genetive case). See my comment under bus/buses. - jc37 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose'. The museum (singular) is the entity of which there are many types (plural). Fiddle Faddle 18:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Do any of those opposing have an explaination for the google results: "types of museums" -wikipedia: about 40,800 vs "types of museum" -wikipedia: about 988. Mairi 17:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably "types of ignorances" on behalf of a ludicrous number of people. Fiddle Faddle 22:02, 21 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 no consensus. the wub "?!" 12:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 06:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Air Cadet Organisations to Category:Air cadet organisations ProveIt ^(talk) 14:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Canadian Cadet Organizations to Category:Canadian cadet organizations ProveIt ^(talk) 14:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Naval Cadet Organisations to Category:Naval cadet organisations ProveIt ^(talk) 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should be renamed, but that the proposal is technically incorrect. "Naval Cadet" tends to be capitalised. Thus "Naval Cadet organisations" would be better and correct capitalisation. I woudl support a proposal to make that change, but the current proposal is effectively the same as the original. Fiddle Faddle 23:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Army Cadet Organisations to Category:Army cadet organisations ProveIt ^(talk) 14:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the spelling "Organizations" be used in preference to "Organisations" as the "z" spelling is the formal British English usage and the standard American English usage.Greenshed 19:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Changing to "z". The use of "s" is standard in the UK and the OED's eccentric attempt to change that general preference has not been successful. Hawkestone 23:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See "Category:Canadian Cadet Organizations" directly below. If this is to be standardized I would argue for changing them all to use "z". If the OED now lists it as "organizations", apparently there is a move toward spelling it with a "z". Since that is the common usage in the U.S. and given the OED preferred spelling (successful or not), change them to "z" if consistency is important. I'm unconvinced that it is; for all I care, they can remain in their individual spellings as they are now. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English; the desire is that the same dialect be used throughout an article. Category names aren't mentioned. With regard to the different spellings among dialects, the MOS goes on to say, "...the differences are actually relatively minor...."—Chidom ^talk  17:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Foo/Fooian Cadet organizations. Vegaswikian 06:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Do not breach policy by switching to "organizations". The OED has not recently adopted "z", it has been using it since the 19th century, it is the OED's most famous eccentricity. But as its failure to change to convention demonstrates, the general public owns British English, not the editors of the OED. Osomec 12:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• to clarify my opinion: Rename to Fooian Cadet organisations because the name of the service they are in is Fooian Cadets and so capitalised, and strongly oppose a "z". Fiddle Faddle 23:27, 19 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 to Category:WikiProject Ice Hockey articles. the wub "?!" 12:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ice hockey to do (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, maintainance category in the main namespace (and it's been here for over 2 years!). Recury 02:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename to Category:Wikiproject icehockey. 132.205.93.31 03:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most articles have elements to them that remain "to do". Piccadilly 05:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:WikiProject Ice Hockey to do. (Banner on it's talk page.) - jc37 07:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:WikiProject Ice Hockey articles, member of Category:WikiProject Ice Hockey -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:51, 17 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 "?!" 12:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Deutsche Eishockey League coaches to Category:Deutsche Eishockey-Liga coaches
Category:Deutsche Eishockey League players to Category:Deutsche Eishockey-Liga players
Category:Deutsche Eishockey Liga Teams to Category:Deutsche Eishockey-Liga teams

• Rename, to match the article at Deutsche Eishockey-Liga and for capitalization. Recury 02:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Recury. -- JamesTeterenko 20:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sniglet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Only contains two articles, both of which have been transwikied. Supposedly for "a word that should exist but didn't." Recury 02:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge to Category:Neologisms. BTW, sniglet. Otto4711 03:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge to Category:Neologisms. - jc37 07:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Most of these words were humorous but not actually used in real life (although spork is an exception), so most do not even need their own articles. They should be listed on the sniglets page. George J. Bendo 11:17, 17 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 "?!" 12:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Best Director Ariel to Category:Best Director Ariel winners

• Rename, This should be renamed to match Category:Best Director Academy Award winners. Samuel Wantman 02:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Best Director Ariel Award recipients. Other than "laureate" or "medalist", "recipient" is the preferred word. - jc37 07:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. People "win" prizes, they don't passively receive them. Osomec 12:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I agree with Osomec. Prizes are, by definition, won. --Falcorian ^(talk) 14:17, 17 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 11:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Middle Ages rabbis to Category:Medieval rabbis

• Rename. Correct grammatical form. Her Pegship 00:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, currently bad English title. 132.205.93.31 03:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - jc37 07:27, 17 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 -- Samuel Wantman 10:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a category for musical groups, of ineffable membership criteria. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Piccadilly 05:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - jc37 07:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, meaningless. (Radiant) 09:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is silly. George J. Bendo 14:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tlmclain | Talk 06:29, 18 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. — CharlotteWebb 00:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eponymous templates to Category:People navigational boxes

• Rename, clearer, and can than be more properly recategorized under Category:Navigational templates. ((GWB)) is not even eponymous. Circeus 00:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People navigational boxes. I prefer "templates", but that doesn't seem to be the naming standard. - jc37 07:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that bit of category naming is *very* inconsistent... But usually, it's "navigational boxes" indeed. Circeus 13:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per proper naming. Siba 06:25, 27 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. — CharlotteWebb 01:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dist templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Empty cat. Only content was ((dist m ft)), and was moved into larger Category:Mathematical templates. Circeus 00:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please keep. And read the full story at Template:Length conversion, which the cat replaces. Thank you. --Ligulem 00:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template is not for deletion, and a category for a single template that fits just as well within another, larger one, is silly. Circeus 01:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please what harm is this cat doing? We managed to convince the original creator and fans of Template:Length conversion to use the "set of templates approach". I've now put Category:Dist templates under Category:Mathematical templates. I think it makes sense to have all the dist xx yy templates in their own category so that we have a place to describe and collect all them. I'm rather astonished to have to defend this little cat here. As you know, this cat is not used for articles, but for templates. So again, what harm does it? Do we really have to nitpick about this category here? I don't understand your eagerness for deletion. Really. BTW I made now a second template in Dist templates. This nom here is silly. I suggest a resonable admin closes this here so that we can move on doing something useful on the 'pedia. Thanks. --Ligulem 10:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There seems to be a purpose to this. Keep for now, and see what develops in a month or so. - jc37 07:27, 17 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.