< November 1	November 3 >

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 "?!" 16:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Michael Faraday Prize winners, to match the Michael Faraday Prize. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 06:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: is this prize /really/ notable enough to be plastered into serious articles? The main article contains complete list and that should be enough. Article David Attenborough already has 6 prize categories, Faraday's prize would be the 7th. Are these people mainly medal-hangers? Pavel Vozenilek 16:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly wouldn't be sad to see it go. There's already too many. But if it stays, the category should at least match. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are too many categories related to prizes and this one is no Nobel. Metthurst 06:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not career-defining. Nonomy 20:34, 8 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 all (leave redirects as suggested by nom). --RobertG ♬ talk 10:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Ace Fu albums to Category:Ace Fu Records albums (main article: Ace Fu Records)
• Category:Beggars Banquet albums to Category:Beggars Banquet Records albums (main article: Beggars Banquet Records)
• Category:Elephant 6 albums to Category:Elephant Six Collective albums (main article: The Elephant Six Collective)
• Category:Flying Nun albums to Category:Flying Nun Records albums (main article: Flying Nun Records)
• Category:Independiente albums to Category:Independiente Records albums (main article: Independiente Records)
• Category:Ipecac albums to Category:Ipecac Recordings albums (main article: Ipecac Recordings)
• Category:Liberty albums to Category:Liberty Records albums (main article: Liberty Records)
• Category:Motown albums to Category:Motown Records albums (main article: Motown Records)
• Category:Rotana albums to Category:Rotana Records albums (main article: Rotana Records)
• Category:Southern Lord albums to Category:Southern Lord Records albums (main article: Southern Lord Records)
• Category:SpinART albums to Category:SpinART Records albums (main article: SpinART Records)
• Category:Stones Throw albums to Category:Stones Throw Records albums (main article: Stones Throw Records)

Convention is to use the word "Records" in the category if the name of the label includes it (see Category:Albums by record label). I would suggest that the old categories redirect to the new ones to prevent duplication. —taestell 23:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all.--Mike Selinker 16:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Calsicol 14:30, 9 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 "?!" 16:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Images of the Northern Territory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category is empty apart from three Commons-hosted images. The images are all categorized on Commons, and this en category is redundant. Also nominating the en image description pages.Nilfanion (talk) 23:01, 2 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 and mark all ((deletedpage)). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category:Polymaths was recently emptied and marked ((deletedcategory)) following this discussion, but the subcategories were not dealt with.
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of polymaths for the reasons given for the deletion of the article on the same topic. In essence it is a matter of opinion, and of course these people should have sufficient categories already.

• Category:German polymaths
• Category:American polymaths
• Category:Italian polymaths
• Category:English polymaths
• Category:British polymaths
• Category:Indian polymaths
• Category:Chilean polymaths
• Category:Dutch polymaths
• Category:Russian polymaths
• Category:Belgian polymaths
• Category:Polish polymaths
• Category:Spanish polymaths
• Category:French polymaths
• Category:Chinese polymaths
• Category:Ancient Greek polymaths
• Category:Scottish polymaths

• Delete all and mark all ((deletedcategory)). Hawkestone 22:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all and mark all ((deletedcategory)). per nom and previous discussions.Cloachland 02:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Lou I 18:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all and mark all ((deletedcategory)). Merchbow 08:05, 6 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 "?!" 16:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Due to a lot of recent deletions, this category is practically empty now and probably shouldn't exist. Andre (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete category with one entry, and keeping it around only encourages more articles of this type which would inevitably go through messy deletions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 5 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 "?!" 17:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Due to a lot of recent deletions, this category is practically empty now and probably shouldn't exist. Andre (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete category with one entry, and keeping it around only encourages more articles of this type which would inevitably go through messy deletions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous comments. Calsicol 14:31, 9 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 09:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional babies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Way to similar to a category that I created. I consider babies to be children and there was a reason the age categories were deleted. Hmrox 21:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, useless and violative of WP:WAF. Please, nobody haul out the usual "Keep, useful to someone wanting to research fictional babies" comments without elaborating on just what the hell that means. Postdlf 01:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Cloachland 02:52, 4 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 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 category speedily deleted per privacy. David Kernow (talk) 04:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, see Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - you might like to consider the same for some of the other subcats of Category: Wikipedians born in the 1990s. Grutness...wha? 21:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've deleted the 1993+ categories in line with the WP page mentioned above. However, ((User current age)) is using some very advanced templating code to create the categories programatically and display user ages. I've asked for it to be modified to not work for <13yrs. --kingboyk 13:59, 3 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 as unused. the wub "?!" 17:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:The Nickelodeon Wikiproject Articles
• Category:The Nickelodeon Wikiproject Articles Approved By Members
• Category:The Nickelodeon Wikiproject Articles In Progress
• Category:The Nickelodeon Wikiproject Users

Delete, as unused by Wikipedia:The Nickelodeon Wikiproject. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:49, 2 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 "?!" 21:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC) <br/ Category:RENT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
Delete This is the only subcategory of Category:Broadway musicals and it is a precedent that should not be followed as some Broadway veterans could end up in dozens of such categories. The relevant links should just be given in the article. Piccadilly 19:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm opposed to a category for performers, but I'm not necessarily opposed to this category, as it has several legitimate members. --Dhartung | Talk 22:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yeah, I like this one too. It's good to get the film and the musical and RENT-head under one category, and this is it.--Mike Selinker 16:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteIf the category exists performers will be added. The only solution is deletion.Merchbow 18:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A worrying precedent. We don't have categories for individual films because of the category clutter that would arise and the same principle applies here.Cloachland 02:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wimstead 17:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems like a fine category Tim! 08:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I agree that categories for each film, play, or show is clutter...Lou I 18:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Having a set of these would be a disaster as actors' category-lists are already cluttered. Olborne 10:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not an actor category, it's for songs and the spin-off film and other stuff. Tim! 18:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In line with the policy for individual films. Nonomy 20:35, 8 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 "?!" 21:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listify, empty duplicate of Category:Iranian film directors. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Do not listify as Wikipedia has too many neglected lists already. Piccadilly 19:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there are already two categories here: Category:Iranian film directors and Category:Iranian theatre directors. Siba 17:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Wimstead 17:05, 4 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 "?!" 21:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Franklin High School (Livonia, Michigan) doesn't need a category. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Tim! 17:40, 8 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 09:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A specific role does not usually define an actor's career. There may be a few actors who are mainly known for one role, but there are thousands who might end up a category of this kind for a largely forgotten role while there will be no category for their better known one-off roles. That sort of skewing of the selections of categories at the bottom of articles is undesirable.

• Category:Actors by role
• Category:Actors who have played Dracula
• Category:Actors who have played Fagin
• Category:Actors who have played Frankenstein's monster
• Category:Actors who have played Dr. Frankenstein
• Category:Actors who have played Sherlock Holmes
• Category:Actors who have played Jekyll and Hyde
• Category:Actors who have played Jacob Marley
• Category:Actors who have played the Phantom of the Opera
• Category:Actors who have played Scrooge
• Category:Actors who have played Dr. Watson

There may be additional categories that are not in Category:Actors by role, so if you support deletion and are aware of any such, please add them to the list.

• Delete all as nom. Landolitan 18:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep all. The categories were not created arbitrarily; these are significant - perhaps iconic - dramatic roles; more often than not the fact someone has played one of these characters is enough to ensure their fame in a particular arena or give them an iconic status of sorts; ask any classic horror fan who Glenn Strange is, for instance. Of the above, I'd say at the very least Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, Sherlock Holmes, Jekyll and Hyde and Dr Watson fall into that "iconic" category. David L Rattigan 19:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I'd at least ask people to consider each category on its individual merits, as some are (to me at least) clearly more useful and appropriate than others. For example, Frankenstein himself has rarely had the same iconic status as his monster, so I find that category less useful. David L Rattigan 20:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If we allow some of these there will be no effective control because self-restraint isn't something the wiki-approach promotes. See Alec Guinness for an example of how ridiculous this looks on the article of a great actor. Piccadilly 19:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per David. This seems to be a good way to organize the information. —taestell 20:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete. Far better served as a list, since medium of performance, year, whether it was a one-off, etc etc etc can be more easily notated in that way. See previous debates on very similar subject last month (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006 October 5#Actors .2F Actresses who portrayed) Grutness...wha? 21:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Each of them, individually, is without merit. Hawkestone 22:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & listify per Grutness. I think lists would be more readable and allow for comparisons, etc. Pegship 05:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify per Grutness. I like this idea. Vegaswikian 08:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listifying sounds like a good idea. Can I request of admin that if the result of this debate is delete and listify, please could the categories be left up for reference while compiling the lists? David L Rattigan 09:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and do not listify. The main examples should be mentioned in articles. An encyclopedia should consist of carefully selected information not endless lists; that is what editing is all about.Merchbow 18:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to prevent category clutter. Cloachland 02:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per several previous discussions - jc37 12:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom and the others. Pavel Vozenilek 16:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as category-clutter generating trivia. Olborne 10:02, 7 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 "?!" 17:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Video-Forum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Another category created by User:Farhangnama, a newbie who seems to be solely here to promote a German artist, Shahram Entekhabi - who coincidentally the only member of this category. First edit of this category contained copious text explaining what the video forum is and it really doesn't deserve a category. Spondoolicks 18:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Useless, narrow category created to be an article. -- Scientizzle 07:09, 9 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 "?!" 17:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Java APIs, convention of Category:Application programming interfaces. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• (Speedy) rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 02:11, 4 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 "?!" 17:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Military use of children (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, What is this for? Even after all the extraneous text is removed I can't see what purpose it will serve. Only article in this category is apparently an artist, Shahram Entekhabi - nothing in his article about military use of children and (newbie) creator of this category has also made some other unhelpful edits (see The Video-Forum cfd above). Spondoolicks 18:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but first we should help the newbie how to make a new article and show him how to look if there's already one on the same topic to which s/he can contribute. I don't think User:Farhangnama is the same as User:213.122.9.182 because one completely replaced the text of the other one. The welcome provided on User talk:Farhangnama was well meant but probably too much info at once for most people. It seems s/he simply hasn't understood that categories are not articles. And comments like It has been deleted under both A1 and A7 of WP:CSD. are not the way to talk to newbies... I've moved the text to Talk:Military use of children and told him/her where it is. --Espoo 20:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Category that would get populated by nobodies once mentioned by sensationalistic media, not with serious articles like Children's Crusade. Pavel Vozenilek 16:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pavel Vozenilek Olborne 10:04, 7 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 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 speedy delete (db-author) and protect. David Kernow (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Ok, I created this category and I think the information it could provide is useful, but after giving some thought to the matter of wanting to keep model categories limited, I agree with deleting it - the purpose would seem better served by creating a list of Pirelli models, much as was done for Playboy models. --Nschloes 05:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, quick, kill it now, before it spreads. We've done this before. Eventually one very popular model ended up in over 70 categories. The whole thing bacame useless and we ended up deleting nearly every model category. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A pathogen category.--Mike Selinker 19:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and block as a recreation. Piccadilly 19:35, 2 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 "?!" 11:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Films directed by K. Viswanath, convention of Category:Films by director. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 22:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Prolog 13:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:57, 9 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 "?!" 11:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I see blasphemy as a POV dependant thing. How should we decide who should be included? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Cloachland 02:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This category ultimately serves no purpose, and is purely subjective in determining what would be included. --NMChico24 02:59, 4 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 but rename to Category:Bengali Nobel laureates. the wub "?!" 23:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as overcategorization, there are already cats for both Bangladesh and India. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well, there are more Bengali Nobel laureates (3) than Bangladeshi Nobel Laureates(2). If this is to be deleted, then that category (Bangladesh) ought to go first. I think both should stay. Idleguy 18:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, it should be renamed to Category:Bengali Nobel laureates. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That renaming shouldn't be a problem. Idleguy 18:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept or no consensus, sentence-case per ProveIt above. David Kernow (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It sets a precedent for creating lots of sub-categories by ethnicity, which probably isn't a good idea. Olborne 10:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: Bengali is a ethnic group; it really doesn't matter that there are categories for Indian and Bangladeshi nobel winners. There are things that these two categories can't express. For example, Rabindranath Tagore was an Indian (of united India) and also Bengali by ethnicity. Amartya Sen is a Bengali by ethnicity, born in West Bengal (later part of India), but his family is from what is now Bangladesh. How would Amartya Sen be classified? Classifying only as "Indian" hides the fact that he is one of the Bengali nobel laureates in terms of ethnicity. In the whole of south asia, Bengalis have the largest number of Nobel laureates than any other ethnic group. The ethnicity here is different from nationality (which in other cases, such as Dutch are both the same, but it's different here). So, the two nation categories do not by themselves convey the same meaning as this ethno-centric category. Thanks. --Ragib 07:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ragib. As a matter of fact, this cat should be an intersecting set for both Indian and B'deshi cats. Laureates like Rabindranath Tagore lived and died before India's independence and Bangladesh's creation. It is fair to say that Tagore was Indian, but the part that became Bangladesh was not separate from Tagore's Bengal, so Tagore and B'Desh are correlated. Rama's arrow 15:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Bengali and Tamil ethnic groups are the only two in the Indian subcontinent to have earned Nobel Prizes. Also rAgib and Rama's arrow have said enough, and my views are redundant.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:51, 9 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 and redirect Category:Anti-Semitism to Category:Antisemitism consistent with article. the wub "?!" 21:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Anti-Semitism. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Opposite Redirect. Anti-Semitism was moved to Antisemitism per Talk:Antisemitism#Requested_move. Either the category should reflect this, or Antisemitism should be moved back. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both, one should become a redirect to the other. No preference as to which becomes a redirect and which is merged. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Most common name. Gene Nygaard 19:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Category:Anti-Semitism to Category:Antisemitism, since the main article is located at Antisemitism (without the hyphen). —taestell 20:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking with normal English spelling rather than POV-pushing attempts to change usage is more important in categories because category redirects don't work as well. Gene Nygaard 20:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, it doesn't make any sense to keep the spelling for a Cat. different from articles. Second, regarding "normal English spelling": as it's been noted, both spellings are perfectly acceptable, and many academics prefer the unhyphenated one. In any case, people stated their reasons/opinions and voted and while everyone is entitled to their POV, accusing others in "POV-pushing attempts" is as helpful as waving a fist after a fight. Third: is there an automated way to move Category:Anti-Semitism to Category:Antisemitism? Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with redirects isn't in not being able to move them. The problem is that if the soft redirect is used, it doesn't redirect but just goes to a category with a link to the proper one, and it is categorized only in the wrong one. FOr example, now Category:Convents only has one parent category, Category:Places of Worship, and it doesn't appear in Category:Religious places. Gene Nygaard 08:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gene, you're just trying to use this as a back-door way of undoing a previous consensus decision that didn't go your way. It's unseemly. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He might, but I'm not. Put the article up for a move again and I'll go for returning it to standard. Just tell me when.--T. Anthony 14:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Category:Anti-Semitism to Category:Antisemitism and its subcats, correspondingly. Keep the redirects, of course. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like you said, "both spellings are perfectly acceptable", and like I said, the "anti-Semitism" spelling is much more often used. Add to that the insistence of the editors of anti-Semitism in changing the actual title of the U.S. State Department's "Report on Global Anti-Semitism" to "Report on Global Antisemitism" four times (I fixed one of them), and the fact of POV-pushing is certainly satisifed to my standards. Gene Nygaard 13:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone made an honest mistake while making a tedious job. It's OK for people to disagree, but please WP:AGF. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move in the opposite direction per Humus sapiens. (Note: I was the closing admin at the RM, but I have no specific opinion on the issue). The consistency should be maintained. Duja^► 08:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Category:Antisemitism to Category:Anti-Semitism (and do similarly to associated articles and subcats). Wikipedia:Naming conventions is to use the most common term. - jc37 12:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• NO MERGER - The correct spelling as per wiktionary is "anti-Semitism" not "Antisemitism" only an ignorant would want to change the name. 65.94.112.69 12:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Like it or lump it "Anti-Semitism" is still the more standard spelling. I think it even is the more standard spelling in academia. (This is not proof, but see Anti-Semitism versus antisemitism or "anti-semitism" -antisemitism versus "antisemitism" -anti-semitism) If moving back the article to standard is too difficult I can understand, but for the category the standard/most-common usage should be preferred.--T. Anthony 14:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Antisemitism" is a perfectly acceptable nd less confusing spelling. I don't see a compelling reason to keep inconsistency. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think at times Wikipedians are so literal minded they must be disproportionately autistic. (My nephew has Asperger's so please don't take this as an insult) Maybe in a literal minded way "Antisemitism" makes more sense, but this is the English-language Wikipedia and 100% literal-mindedness is not a feature of this language. In addition to that putting a hyphen after "anti" is standard when you want to imply negativity. If we go by antiparticle then antisemitism should mean "corresponding to semitic languages there is associated antisemitic languages with the same nouns, but opposite verbs" or some such.--T. Anthony 00:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Consensus is that "antisemitism" should be used on Wikipedia, per academic consensus and reasonably common use. Category:Anti-Semitism should be moved to Category:Antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in academia more or less. There is no academic concensus. You can believe that this term will soon predominate, but I see no evidence it has yet. That people at the article was convinced there was a concensus is interesting, but not conclusive.--T. Anthony 00:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I'm confused about why this is being raised. There was recently a poll that decided to use the term "antisemitism" on Wikipedia, rather than "anti-Semitism," and this is now being applied through the encyclopedia for consistency. The reason for choosing "antisemitism," as one word, is that that's how most academics write it. Perhaps the nominator wasn't aware of the decision? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the nominator and really my only goal was to clean up the uncategorized categories list by removing the duplicate category. It seems to me that both terms are used, so one should redirect to the other. As to which direction to merge, I'm ok either way. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and no, I wasn't aware of the poll. When there's an old cat and a new dupe, I usually suggest merging the new into the established one, and that's what I did. If I had known about the poll, I probably would have suggested the other way initially, but as I said before, I could live with either outcome. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not what most academics used nor did the poll at the article prove this. The posters claimed scholars prefer "antisemitism" without any evidence whatsoever. In addition one or two votes revolved around "this will get rid of the pesky complaints about Arabs being Semites too" even though I don't see how it even does that.--T. Anthony 00:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We already had a poll and the result was quite conclusive. Perhaps some were not aware of it, and some were unhappy with it, but I think this issue is being raised here because after the poll we did not move quick enough to edit hundreds of articles. I was/am looking for an automated solution. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the poll, but looking at it the results were not initially that conclusive. It changed later based on an unproved, and I would go so far as to say wrong, notion that "scholarly literature favors the unhyphenated term." In addition to that you didn't deal with what I said. The poll did not show that a concensus of academics prefer this spelling, it only showed that Wikipedians decided to believe it did. As such it's more an example of wikiality than evidence. Show that the poll proved anything on "Antisemitism" being the preferred term in academia and we'll talk. --T. Anthony 01:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some authorities on the subject (e.g. Yehuda Bauer & Emil Fackenheim) prefer unhyphenated spelling. Others may prefer hyphenated spelling. Both are acceptable. There's been a poll already at Talk:Antisemitism#Survey, and the initiator of this thread did not know about it, so what's the point to do this again? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of further conversation with you? Probably no point at all.--T. Anthony 04:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are singing a different tune, Humus Sapiens. T. Anthony's point here is correct. Both SlimVirgin's claim here ("that's how most academics write it") and the similar claims on the article talk page are rank speculation for which little if any evidence was ever offered, as you just admitted, Humus Sapiens, in saying that both are acceptable.

• Oppose per Kari, Jay, SV and others. 6SJ7 00:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per jay and SV and others.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The issue has been resolved and closed. Beit Or 05:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Though I was also opposed to renaming the article from "Anti-Semitism" to "Antisemitism", what's done is done, and the category should be consistent with the article name. --SFDan 06:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per SlimVirgin. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per SlimVirgin, Humus Sapiens, and the others. Why would anyone want to dignify Marr, anyway? --Leifern 13:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per SV et al. `Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Opposeper Jayjg, SV, et al. Elizmr 23:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment split the difference Category:Anti-semitism 132.205.44.134 23:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose since while the previous discussions showed that they are equally valid phrasings, one was selected, and we should strive to keep this encyclopaedia consistent. Tewfik^Talk 07:11, 8 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 "?!" 23:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Wikipedia policy, see related discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I fail to see any reason whatsoever why this should be deleted. We have categories for survivors of silent films and surviving First World War veterans without any problems. It would tell us who the oldest people in the world are and so could last for about 10 years. Upkeep is obviously not an issue and I'm confident this will be of great use and interest to a lot of users, except the minority of users who want to delete categories like this. What an absurd and outrageous proposal. --Dovea 17:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't personally mind it, I just know that it's against policy to classify people based on living and deceased. So, either we change the policy or we kill the category. I understand the reasons for the general policy, and I don't think it's likely to change. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kill the Cat, reconcile with Category:Centenarians. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's something about the policy that's wrong if we can't even create categories like this. --Dovea 16:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right or wrong it's likely the policy will win out. The results were mixed at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 26#Category:Living_centenarians, although delete had more votes than keep, but the judgment was merge anyway. It might be more honest to just not discuss the matter when the result is predetermined, but still I guess protocol is protocol. I'll nominate the rest of the "surviving" categories as this seems to be the judgment.--T. Anthony 07:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Objectively, the category's title makes no sense. It almost sounds as though it refers to anyone currently living or dead who was alive on 1 Jan 1900 or 1 Jan 1901 (depending on what your definition is for the end of the 19th century). Given that it refers to living people born in the 19th century, it still seems like it is not useful, as it will simply become depopulated over time. George J. Bendo 21:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or at least rename, per George. David Kernow (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cloachland 02:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This seems to be a recreation of the Living centarians, that was rather recently deleted. - jc37 12:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as recreation. Pavel Vozenilek 16:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can't believe the ignorance of some of these comments. This is no re-creation of living centenarians. Centenarians are for over 100s. You have to be older than that to have been born in the 19th century. Of course it will become depopulated over time (just as survivors of silent films and surviving First World War veterans will [for which we have an excellent article]), but this category could last at least a decade. Dovea 10:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's just a random matter of timing that such a category exists. If Wikipedia had started half way through a century it would not. These people are not worth connecting with one another. All that is needed is a note on who the world's oldest two or three living people are, which I am sure exists in an article. Metthurst 06:09, 6 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 "?!" 11:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems like overcategorization to me. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per ProveIt. —taestell 20:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The few articles in it seem like possible deletion candidates themselves. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is a category of one at the moment, and I do not expect more articles to be added. It is not needed. George J. Bendo 07:27, 4 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 "?!" 11:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, how do we decide which ones are cool. Seems like POV to me. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per ProveIt. —taestell 20:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ProveIt. Cloachland 02:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ProveIt. darkestshining 01:40, 6 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 Tim! 11:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Subways to Category:Metro systems. With redirect in Category:Subways.

Rare term. Metro is more widespread around the world. Elk Salmon 14:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it's a well known term, at least in the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. New Yorkers are familiar with the term 'subway', but there are many more metro systems than the one in NY. Moreover, most of the metro systems in the US are called thus, not 'subway'. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Rename to something other than Category:Metro systems. The term "subway" is quite common worldwide (see the list of rapid transit systems) although not as common as "metro" – however, "subway" has an additional connotation that "metro system" does not, namely that the system is (partly or mostly) underground. The Chicago 'L', for example, would fall under the category of Category:Metro systems but not under Category:Subways. Perhaps Category:Underground metro systems? --Bill Clark 16:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could see that working. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Subway is the common name and is in wide spread use. Why create a category with a name like Category:Underground metro systems that no one will equate to a subway. Just because the primary usage of a term is American does not mean it needs to be changed in the category. Vegaswikian 19:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong rename to category:Metro systems There is no excuse for imposing American English where neutral terms are available. Piccadilly 19:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure this is really an example of American English, since the term "subway" is used in many places outside Europe (see the list of rapid transit systems for examples) — in particular, every single such system in South Korea has "subway" in its name (unless I'm misunderstanding the list, and those are just Americanized translations, in which case they should indeed be changed). --Bill Clark 21:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment At least some of the South Korean instances of "subway" do seem to be official names, as indicated here and here. However, the term "metro" is still far more prevalent (particularly in Europe), so it should be used as part of the category name regardless. --Bill Clark 21:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong rename. The term "subway" has different meanings in different countries. In some, it is a pedestrian underpass. The term metro, however, is in widespread use and is understood even in countries where it is not the principal term in use. Grutness...wha? 21:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about local usage? Transport vs. transportation being one example? Vegaswikian 06:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've no objection to individual categories by location having local usage names. There's nothing wrong with "Subways in the United States", or "Metros in Europe". Some one overall name for the overall category is needed, though - and the one which is understood by more people and is less ambiguous would make sense as being the one to use. And since the term subway means a pedestrian underpass in some countries, it clearly fails the latter criterion. Grutness...wha? 22:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, David Kernow's suggested name (below) is better still, so I'd support that over metros. Grutness...wha? 07:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Moderate Rename. Through this site, you can see that a majority of the world's subway/metro systems use "Metro" in their names or the letter "M" in some variation. I agree, since I am in the U.S., that the term "subway" is more recognizable, but to an American, not globally. A suggestion for a rename would probably be :Mass Transit Systems or Underground Railways or Metro-Subway Systems. Note: it should be named with some respect to the origins of the modern-day underground rail system (from England).Herenthere 00:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Stong rename as "metro" is far less ambiguous. Timrollpickering 18:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong renameThe primary meaning of subway in my country is pedestrian underpass.Merchbow 18:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - In the United Kingdom, "subway" is used to refer to an underground walkway (such as one that passes under a busy urban street). The category's name will not make sense, although I do not know if "metro system" is better. (I could also mention the sandwich shop, but that would just be silly.) George J. Bendo 21:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Rapid transit systems per main article Rapid transit. David Kernow (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC), withdrawn per Wimstead immediately below 05:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are missing the point. Category:Rapid transit is the parent category. This category only covers a specific type of rapid transit. Wimstead 17:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Rapid transit systems per DK. Note:Metro is actually worse than subway in ambiguity (and in some places, it's a proper noun). - jc37 12:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are missing the point. Category:Rapid transit is the parent category. This category only covers a specific type of rapid transit. Wimstead 17:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak rename to Metro due to current ambiguity. Do not change to "rapid transit systems", that's a superset. Pavel Vozenilek 17:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Metro systems. Wimstead 17:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I took some time to go through the varied members of this category (or rather more importantly, their external references). "Metro" is not used in all of them, and those it is used in, seem to identify it as a shortened form of "Metropolitan" (though often in other languages), which is also apparently "short" for "Metropolitan (underground) railway system" (Not all of them are underground, Chicago's "El", for example, is both underground, and elevated above the streets). Others use "Mass-transit", or "subway", or "transit system". I think the point of these is that: a.) they are metropolitan (city-based); b.) They are underground; c.) They are a rail-based train system (and in many cases, electric). - jc37 01:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Metropolitan underground railway systems, based on my comments above. - jc37 01:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Metropolitan underground railway systems per jc37. "Metro" is a short form and even less clear than subway. Here it's the name of a newspaper. If I were to see "Category:Metro" without context I'd only know it was something urban. And apparently "metro" sometimes applies to light rail, running above ground. --HKMarks(T/C) 04:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the term "underground" is not very precise. The trend in construction of new lines in some metros (e.g. in Prague) is to place the tubes on the surface outside of the city centre (it's cheaper). The tendency is also to integrate various forms of city transportation systems (like single ticket, coordination of the schedule, handling emergencies). Pavel Vozenilek 15:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Metro systems. "Metropolitan underground" is not normal English and it introduces the issue of the ambiguities of the phrase "Metropolitan area". Metthurst 06:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename to Category:Metropolitan underground railway systems. Rename would be wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Metro systems as the alternative put forward is silly. Olborne 10:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Metro systems is absolutely wrong, as Category:Subways implies that the system is underground. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If renamed, Rename to Category:Subway (metro). There seems to be much discssion about the name above without consensus. The problem presented was that subway has multiple uses. This suggestion also reflects the support for retaining local names. If the closing admin sees no consensus for a new name, then consider this name as a consensus alternative. Vegaswikian 20:59, 8 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 09:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Education in Ancient Greece to Category:Education in ancient Greece
• Category:Ships of Ancient Greece to Category:Ships of ancient Greece
• Category:Wars of Ancient Greece to Category:Wars of ancient Greece
• Category:Battles of Ancient Greece to Category:Battles of ancient Greece
• Category:Arts in Ancient Greece to Category:Arts in ancient Greece
• Category:Coins of Ancient Greece to Category:Coins of ancient Greece
• Category:Military ranks of Ancient Greece to Category:Military ranks of ancient Greece
• Category:Military ranks of Ancient Rome etc.
• Category:Coins of Ancient Rome
• Category:History books on Ancient Rome
• Category:Topography of Ancient Rome
• Category:Dynasties of Ancient Egypt
• Category:Geography of Ancient Egypt
• Category:Art of Ancient Egypt
• Category:Wars of Ancient Egypt
• Category:Battles of Ancient Egypt
• Category:Tombs of Ancient Egypt
• Category:Aristocracy of Ancient Japan
• Category:History of Ancient Pakistan
• Category:Wikipedians interested in Ancient Israel
• Category:Political office-holders in Ancient Rome
• Category:Wikipedians interested in Ancient Egypt
• Category:Sport in Ancient Rome

Probably many other categories and page titles still need to get CfD templates or get RMs. It'd be good to get this done once and for all, but i'll need help. Here are some that i haven't added templates to or placed in RM:

• Adoption in Ancient Rome (blocked by redirect)

• Rename, All equivalent categories with "ancient Greece", "ancient Rome", "ancient Egypt", etc. and "ancient Greeks" etc. not at the beginning of the category name should not be spelled with a capital "Ancient". In the case of "ancient" + people name in the singular, e.g. "ancient Greek", one has to make sure this is not a reference to a language because "Ancient Greek" etc. is correct (both as noun and adjective) when talking about languages. This is the policy in the articles themselves on the basis of well-established use as shown by Britannica and the reputable sites listed here and (badly) implied in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters). Please help add similar categories to this umbrella nomination now and clear directions at the WP manual so this doesn't have to be rediscussed many times and doesn't continue to waste huge amounts of editing time and efforts in the articles. --Espoo 14:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename + Comment: This is a problem in the article space as well; "ancient" has been wrongly capitalized in plenty of titles. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, i noticed your efforts along those lines while fixing the same problem in many articles. Since you seem to agree and don't want to waste time correcting article errors caused by incorrect titles (and engaging in unnecessary discussions), you probably want to add a "Rename" here, not just a comment. --Espoo 19:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Rename - Since it's a capitalisation issue of "ancient". - jc37 12:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I fully recognize the reasons for this move, and for the standardization of a lowercase "ancient". I simply wanted to point out, as the creator of the categories of "Ancient Japan", "Classical Japan", etc, I capitalized these things in order to enforce the idea that they are titles of historical periods, much like Pre-Columbian and Colonial America, and Communist China. But anyway, I'm not voting against; I'll gladly & faithfully abide by the standards dictated by consensus. LordAmeth 21:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you meant "illustrate" or "clarify", not "enforce", which is not the job of an encyclopedia or, in fact, even of modern dictionaries, which are all descriptive. The accepted practice in this field (as shown by Britannica and those university and museum sites i found) seems to demand that the examples you give and in fact most historical periods be spelled without capitalisation. The only exceptions to this default rule seem to be major geological eras (even those unknown to the general public) and only those historical periods that are well-known and used in general English. The reason "Communist China" is capitalised is not because it can be used as the name for a period but because it's the name of a country and therefore a proper noun (despite not being the official name of the country). I guess the reasoning is that all periods unknown to the general public are essentially descriptive and not really proper nouns; this is especially true of periods that are not clearly defined or that are defined in different ways by different authorities. http://today.uci.edu/resources/word.asp?key=370 says: historical periods and events Capitalize names of widely recognized epochs in history: the Dark Ages, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Civil War, the Atomic Age, Prohibition, the Great Depression. Capitalize only the proper name in general descriptions of a period: medieval France, the Victorian era, the fall of Rome. For additional guidance, follow the capitalization in Webster’s New World Dictionary. Looks like there is a huge amount of cleaning up to do on WP and the misspelling of "ancient" is only the tip of the iceberg...

History of Japan now has a chaotic mixture of "Kofun Period" and " Kofun period" for this and other terms whereas the table on that page has everything correctly without capitalisation. --Espoo 08:52, 7 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 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 duplicate, already being deleted --Kbdank71 18:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional elementals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Your There was originally a discussion about what would happen to this, and it was agreed "something would happen to it". Those plans would appear to have fallen through. It now serves no purpose ("elementals" are absorbed by "fictional characters with the power to manipulate..." etc.) An "elemental", to me, is also impossible to define. . ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment see September 23 discussion. ProveIt ^(talk) 14:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This category is actually useful.Hmrox 21:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This one has already been resolved as Delete. See September 23 discussion and User talk:Kbdank71#Category:Fictional elementals. (And renaming, as listed on the tag, goes against consensus) This nomination should be speedily closed/withdrawn. {Note that this is also listed on Nov. 1st.) - jc37 17:24, 3 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 both. the wub "?!" 11:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Political parties in Catalan Countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Youth wings of political parties in Catalan Countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
POV-pushing n categorization. The concept of PP.CC. is far from overwhelmingly accepted the the areas of the proposed PP.CC., and should not be used for categorization by country categories. Soman 09:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete [both] per nom. Osomec 14:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. Cloachland 03:00, 4 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 (actually, just reverse the sense of the ((category redirect))). --RobertG ♬ talk 10:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fresh water islands of Scotland to Category:Freshwater islands of Scotland

• This was originally the subject of speedy rename (the I was capitalised), but there is now debate as to whether "Fresh water" is one word or two. My opinion is that both are entirely acceptable, but that one word is perhaps preferable as an adjective. Please discuss. RobertG ♬ talk 09:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Freshwater (adj) is the correct UK wording in the context of islands located in freshwater rivers and lochs, as opposed to sealochs and saltwater estuaries. Richard Harvey 13:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Having both created the category and asked for the speedy rename I think it is fine either way, and the rename will make it congruent with the (now changed) List. What a guddle, as we say in Scotland. Ben MacDui 13:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I must admit I wondered about this when it came up for speedying. Note that the article will also need a rename. Grutness...wha? 21:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/merge as I believe "freshwater" is the adjectival (later used as a name for towns, etc). David Kernow (talk) 02:01, 4 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 Tim! 11:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Motherwell into Category:Natives of North Lanarkshire

• Merge, As with People from Arbroath, the category is small without much potential for growth. It is also inconsistent with the general trend for categorising people by Scottish settlement, where only the 4 proper cities have a separate "people from" page, all other smaller settlements (such as Motherwell) presently being covered by "natives of (local council area)" categories. Caledonian Place 06:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The proposal is inconsistent with the global trend to classify people by town. Personally I think this is a better option than cross-categorisation by sub-national place and occupation, as some people could end up in numerous cross categories. Osomec 14:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If the consensus is to classify people by town, should this be instead of council area? If not, this creates extra levels of categorisation that you are keen to avoid (eg. Robin Cook would be in both "Natives of North Lanarkshire" (as presently) and a future "People from Bellshill", and he could conceivably also be included in "People from Edinburgh", given he lived most of his life there). If categorisation by town replaced categorisation by council area, is there a minimum settlement size at which this process would stop, ie. should a settlement which has less than 10k inhabitants have a category, or should the criterion be 1k+ to warrant a category? At the moment there are people classified in the "natives of (local council area)" whose place of birth/residency is so small as to not even have a Wikipedia article, let alone a category (eg. Willie MacFadyen) or who were born in an isolated country house {eg. John Gibson Lockhart) and will never fit into a town/city category.

Until the creation of the categories "People from Motherwell" and "People from Arbroath", all Scottish categorisation was by council area. (please see Category:Scottish people by council area) There also exists a Category:People by city in Scotland, however, the only previously existing "People from (city)" categories were for the 4 large Scottish cities (Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow), which happen to have specific city councils, ensuring there was no city/council cross-over. My initial suggestion was that this system worked well in a Scottish context, with few other Scottish settlements having a large enough number of notable natives/residents to warrant an individual category. Caledonian Place 00:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Natives of Foo, has a huge problem dealing with people who live in a place they were not born in. Also many times this leads to an issue where you know where someone lives, but not where they were born. How do you categorize them then? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I accept this point but would refer you to the issues I mention in my reply to Osomec above and suggest two solutions. Rather than have small categories like Category:People from Motherwell, your concern would be better addressed by changing the existent "Natives of (local council area)" to "People from (local council area)", or a create pages similar to the existent Category:People associated with Edinburgh. Caledonian Place 00:23, 3 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 & delete as recreated category (actually, on reflection, I think it best to convert it to a ((category redirect))). --RobertG ♬ talk 10:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine, for Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as recreation of deleted content (if eligible due to different wording) per Category:Children of Protestant Ministers deletion 11 Sep 06. --Dhartung | Talk 06:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. - jc37 12:13, 4 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 10:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Preacher's Kid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, classifying people based on their parent's occupation seems like a bad idea, both as far as proliferation of categories and not being a central characteristic of a person. This particularly category and name also has a stereotypical connotation to it (as opposed to, say, Children of clergy). Mairi 06:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as recreation of deleted content (if eligible due to different wording) per Category:Children of Protestant Ministers deletion 11 Sep 06. --Dhartung | Talk 06:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I believe this is a variation on a deleted category. Osomec 14:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mairi. —taestell 20:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As it's a recreation and an inferior one at that. The wording is too vague/strange and all it seems to be categorizing is Methodist bishops.--T. Anthony 13:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Being a Preacher's Kid is a uniqueness to personality worthy of recognition and categorization. It is often what makes someone who or what they are! Thanks. Pastorwayne 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no way of knowing what influence parental occupation has had on an individual. Olborne 10:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sure there is! The person can tell us (if living), or biographers will note it. It is often very significant!! Pastorwayne 15:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per discussion of September 11. ProveIt ^(talk) 22:08, 8 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 Tim! 11:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Arbroath into Category:Natives of Angus

• Merge, I would contend that the category is small without potential for growth. It is also inconsistent with the general trend for categorising people by Scottish settlement, where only the cities have a seperate "people from" page, all other smaller settlements (such as Arbroath) presnetly being covered by "natives of (council area)" categories. Caledonian Place 06:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per my comments 3 items up. Osomec 14:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as per response 3 items up Caledonian Place 00:25, 3 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 10:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Methodism to Category:United Methodist Church

• Rename, to match the main article United Methodist Church and match other categories about specific churches (such as Category:Roman Catholic Church or Category:Evangelical Lutheran Church in America). Mairi 05:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 22:26, 2 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 --Kbdank71 16:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies without an unabbreviated name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Orphan initialisms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Merge into new category. The first category has the disadvantage of being exlusive to companies. The later appears to be a neologism. I propose something like Initialisms without long forms for the new name. —taestell 05:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify for anyone who isn't sure, both categories cover initialisms that have lost their original meaning (i.e., BP no longer stands for British Petroleum, ACT no longer stands for American College Testing). —taestell 20:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Taestell. --Bill Clark 07:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep separate, and Delete only Category:Orphan initialisms - These are two entirely different categories. One is about groups (companies) whose names are initials, and the other refers to groups which used to be known by initials, but those initials have now become ambiguous, (so apparently they don't anymore?). The first is a useful reference, the second would seem to be POV. - jc37 12:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both categories are about initials/acronyms that have evolved, for various reasons, and no longer stand for what they used to. The problem with the first category is that it is limited to companies, and articles like ACT (examination) can not be included. The second category does not limit itself to companies, but it uses a neologism in its name, which should be avoided. The best solution, then, would be a merge. --taestell 06:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that's not what the first one is, as I mentioned above. It's about companies whose acronym name is the actual name of the company. That's quite different from acronyms which "someone" is claiming are becoming ambiguous (the latter category). - jc37 07:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The acronym is the actual name of the company... meaning that the original phrase is no longer used. Meaning the acronym can stand on its own, and is no longer tied to what it stood for. In other words, the name of the company is an orphan initialism. The two categories really do cover the same ground. The majority of articles that belong to one group could be included in the other one. —taestell 06:11, 7 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 16:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Polonism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete This seems little more than a forum for nationalist sounding off, misrepresentation of motives, formerly through its placement in Category:Racism (which I have removed) libel, and in the case of Polish plumber sense of humour failure. Cloachland 03:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Osomec 14:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are people who are anti-Polish. --Deodar 21:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV-pushing. Most of the entries are debatable and as this will be of more interest to Polish nationalists than anyone else one can have no confidence in it achieving a stable neutral condition. Hawkestone 22:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This seems just as valid to me as Category:Anti-Arabism or the empty Category:Anti-French people.--T. Anthony 11:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV-pushing. Why are people always defending bad categories by reference to other bad categories? I will nominate the two mentioned above later. Merchbow 18:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually think this category is bad. I mention the others as a kind of "citing precedent." I think there are people who could be deemed anti-Polish as in having an actual ethnic hostility. Not as in "I don't like the way the Polish government is ran and Polish food gives me gas" or something.--T. Anthony 14:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - jc37 12:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? Wimstead 17:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Because I think this is just in need of clean-up, and is valid enough, per T. Anthony's comments above. If you feel I am incorrect, please enlighten me. : ) - jc37 01:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "Anti-Polonism" is the grandfather who spawned numerous useless "anti-anything" articles. The category (and the article) is magnet for warriors, unencyclopedical and the whole classification schema is invented here. Pavel Vozenilek 16:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom and Pavel Vozenilek Wimstead 17:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would suspect such a category of being overpopulated by biased nationalists and therefore would not use it. I wouldn't recommend it to children doing homework either. It is untrustworthy so it has no valid purpose. Metthurst 06:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article was previously submitted for CFD and the result was keep. Appleseed (Talk) 04:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per arguments above and because it is a logical category for events related to Anti-Polish sentiment.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, quite useful. I scanned it a few times to find relations between articles and to add some valuable inner links (to be precise: links of different nature). BTW, as far as I can see, overpopulating by biased nationalists is just an imaginary fear. --Beaumont (@) 09:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for total lack of trustworthiness and hopeless vulnerability to misuse. Most of the present entries show bias as they appear to impute things with many motives primarily to Anti-Polonism. Olborne 10:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most any subcategory of Category:Prejudices and Category:Anti-national sentiment has the potential of misuse. You just work to fix it. I've tried to remove most that seem invalid and it wasn't at all hard to do. (I kept Polish plumber as it seems possibly relevant to me)--T. Anthony 11:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Almost all the entries are tendentious. For example many Poles were killed in the Katyn Massacre, but then the Bolsheviks were brutes who were ready to kill anyone. Did they have deep-seated national prejudices against every national group in Eastern Europe and Central Asia? I would say probably not. Landolitan 14:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing all non-relevant ones I can find and replacing a few with relevant articles. (This category will still likely lose out in the end, but I gave it a shot)--T. Anthony 15:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I revised some of your removals and revised them in cases where based on my knowledge the given article describes an event which affected many Poles on purpose.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--T. Anthony 17:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Splette :) ^Talk 16:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there would be endless debates whether to include an article into the category or not. //Halibutt 17:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We don't delete "difficult" articles because they are difficult. The same for categories. --Lysy^talk 17:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per ignorance of nom, who thinks that putting Polish plumber in this category is sense of humour failure.--SylwiaS | talk 01:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Antipolonism is a reality. logologist|Talk 02:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the feverish minds of some Poles. Lots of people did bad stuff to Poles, but then people just do a lot of bad stuff to each other all around the world. There is no conspiracy. Nonomy 20:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except I'm not Polish, I don't even know many Polish-Americans. Still the concept, if not the word, is something I'd heard of sense I was a teenager. Although I would favor a rename to "Anti-Polish sentiment" to match the article.--T. Anthony 03:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Inflammatory category with arbitrary content, just another pretext for flame wars. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Indeed inflammatory and will be added (as it is) to arbitrary articles. --Irpen 07:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my Delete vote for Category:Anti-Lithuanians. All Anti-X and X-phobia categories should be deleted as inherently POV. Alex Bakharev 07:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, all Anti-smth stuff is POV, potentially inflammatory and quite useless to boot. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and various others including Halibutt -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       10:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE as has been stated by others above, pretty obvious why it must be deleted. --Jadger 12:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nom. Besides, Anti-Polonism is not really an english word, and first appeared when a now banned user created the article that has since then been renamed to Anti-Polish sentiment -- Chris 73 | Talk
• Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political blog. Nonomy 20:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Following on from Chris 73's comments "Anti-Polonism" gets a miserable 743 google hits. The first few listed can be traced back to Wikipedia and almost all the others are on low-grade Polish sites. It is not a term recognised by scholars in the English-speaking world. Pinoakcourt 20:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as all anti- stuff is POV and potentially inflammatory. I've had a look at some of the related categories and articles and imo they are a swamp of overstatement and tenuous associations. Hanbrook 21:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination (even though the Polish Plumber article wasn't supposed to be a humorous subject) and I agree with Hanbrook. Sciurinæ 22:33, 8 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 10:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Superman Returns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete as nom. Category cruft with only two entries. Relevant contents are already in the parent category of Category:Superman films. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JW 13:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 22:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete underpopulated cruft, overcategorization already covered elsewhere. We go through this all the time. It is not practical to add an additional category to every actor's, producer's, etc. article based on every bit of work they've ever done. The category doesn't have such people yet, but if it continues to exist, it inevitably will. Doczilla 04:09, 3 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 10:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least Rename to Category:October birthdays. Not much better than the astrological signs. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong delete This is completely worthless category-cruft. Cloachland 03:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is this any worse than categories such as Category:1913 births? At least there would only be 12 of these.. --Bill Clark 07:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cloachland. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is much worse than Category:1913 births because the people in that all lived in the same era, whereas this one selects people at random. And in any case the year of birth categories are among the least valuable in Wikipedia. Osomec 14:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not really random, per se, but I understand your point. However, I could see something like Category:October 15 birthdays or Category:15 October birthdays being useful (at the very least for generating "This day in history" style reports) and Category:October birthdays would be a good parent category for that. At this point I'm leaning toward saying we should keep this category, but I'd like to hear more of the arguments against. --Bill Clark 17:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Day of birth categories have been deleted before, and if they pop up again I am confident they will be deleted again. Categories should focus on people's key encyclopedic achievements only or we will end up with so many categories that the system will be totally useless (and please don't say that we have such and such dumb categories already, I know that, but it is no excuse for deliberately making things worse). The category system should not be used as a database or substitute for a search tool because it would be a very poor one and the attempt would destroy its best features. Piccadilly 19:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If consensus has been to exclude day of birth categories (and I'll take your word for it, since I'm having too much trouble searching for past examples) then I'll concede that month of birth categories should be treated similarly. I've registered my support for deletion, below. Thanks for providing some historical context on this issue. --Bill Clark 21:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete A complete waste of time and server space. Piccadilly 19:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Bill Clark 21:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Massive Delete Category isn;t remotely useful. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 04:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I was going to say that this plus 11 others would be a list of all person-based articles... However, since there are more than just the Latin (Gregorian/Julian) calendars around the world, we have a potential of many more : ) - jc37 12:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 16:14, 4 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 09:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least Rename to Category:New Hollywood filmmakers, already a list in the New Hollywood article. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a helpful category. This name is a rather old publicity gimmick, and is now rather confusing. Cloachland 03:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cloachland. JW 13:08, 2 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 16:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgia Tech to Category:Georgia Institute of Technology
Category:Georgia Tech alumni to Category:Georgia Institute of Technology alumni
Category:Georgia Tech People to Category:Georgia Institute of Technology people
Category:Georgia Tech Sports to Category:Georgia Institute of Technology sports

• Rename to match Georgia Institute of Technology. -- ProveIt^(talk) 01:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was wondering about the nonstandard capitalization of those two categories (People and alumni)... this fixes it. Just wondering, what other categories are common with large colleges? :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Often there will be a faculty, category, see Category:Faculty by university in the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does that "Faculty" category typically include past and present faculty? i.e., if someone was a physics professor at GT in 1970, you'd add them to that one? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we don't classify as current / former due to upkeep issues. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Bill Clark 07:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Category:Georgia Tech should be kept as a redirect to Category:Georgia Institute of Technology. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion After looking at Category:Cornell University an dreading ProveIt's hint about the "Faculty" category, I think the following should take place instead of the GT People --> GIT People move:

Category:Georgia Tech People to Category:Georgia Institute of Technology faculty

Category:Georgia Tech People to Category:Georgia Institute of Technology presidents

—Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:32, 3 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.