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 Martinp23 20:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Athlete actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete People who have had more than one career are likely to suffer from category clutter already without the addition of extra categories that link those careers. If not deleted this category should be renamed to Category:Sportspeople-actors as athlete is used to indicate what Americans call "track and field athletes" in the category system. Osomec 23:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is already a Category:Actor-sportspeople with 2 articles in it. Her Pegship 20:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agreed. These articles presumably already will have both at least one athlete category and one actor category. It's not clear that have a combined category for "athlete/actors" adds much functionality. Moreover, theoretically you could take any two professions, combine them, and make a new category (athlete/lawyer, doctor/academic, politician/writer, etc). Imagine how many categories there would be if most of these job-pairs had a seperate, unique category for them. Dugwiki 23:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per comments above. - jc37 13:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Next of course would be Category:Irish-American athlete actors. Postdlf 18:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per comments above. Hoylake 18:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Per Above--SUIT 03:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, on the basis that athlete is not the term that wikipedia uses for persons who are in some sort of physical discipline: it's sportspeople.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:57, 29 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 Martinp23 20:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Apple printers to Category:Apple Computer printers

Rename as Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_4#Category:Apple_litigation_to_Category:Apple_Computer_litigation_or_Category:Litigation_of_Apple_Computer abd Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_14#Apple_Computer_category.Duwiwne 22:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - jc37 13:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Andrew c 02:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New Zealand football competitions to Category:New Zealand soccer competitions

Category:Football (soccer) players in New Zealand by club to Category:Soccer players in New Zealand by club

Category:New Zealand football clubs to Category:New Zealand soccer clubs

• "Football" in New Zealand means rugby union. As per other such categories the local name should be used. Grutness...wha? 22:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related page moves. Matthew_hk tc 10:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wimstead 00:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Matthew_hk tc 10:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Elections to the Parliament of Great Britain Martinp23 20:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British elections (1707-1800) into Category:Elections in Great Britain

• Merge, Seems like a duplicate category. I think if there is thought to be ambiguity in "Great Britain", and to be consistent with Category:Elections by country, then it should either be Category:Elections in the Kingdom of Great Britain or Category:Elections in Great Britain (1707-1800). Tim! 21:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Elections in the Kingdom of Great Britain because this is excactly what it covers. User:Dimadick

I set up this category before I was aware of the other one. I agree they should be merged and the change of name makes the scope of the category clearer. --Gary J 13:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Elections to the Parliament of Great Britain as more precise than Dimadick's useful suggestion (which could injclude local elctions, guild elections, church elections etc). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, should it not be Category:General elections in (Kingdom of) Great Britain? The specific parliamentary elections in the UK are Category:United Kingdom general elections, a sub-category of Category:United Kingdom general elections, suggesting a structure of Category:General elections in the Kingdom of Great Britain and Category:Elections in the Kingdom of Great Britain as its parent. Tim! 08:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Elections to the Parliament of Great Britain as the original proposal literally includes every election that has ever taken place on the island of Great Britain apart from UK Parliamentary elections post 1801. Hoylake 18:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Elections to the Parliament of Great Britain per above. Piccadilly 01:54, 28 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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:GPL accounting software to Category:Free accounting software

The useage of "free" is much more the convention then "GPL" (which is the most prevelant kind of free software); asides from being out-of-synch, this could potentially leave out some Free software. Oberiko 19:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Years by decade into Category:Decades

• Merge, Decades is nearly empty, and would seem a more natural parent to the individual decade categories. The decade categories contain more than just year categories so I find the name confusing. Tim! 18:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename the entire hierarchy "History by XXX" - I too find the current names confusing. All the contents are history. "History by year" "History by decade", "Histroy by century", etc... would be much better names for these categories, in line with the naming conventions of other subjects, and much more understandable. -- Samuel Wantman 22:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose proposed alternative rename, because they are also the supercategory of a broad range of events such as Dutch general election, 2006, which is in categories Category:2006 elections and Category:2006 in the Netherlands. Tim! 08:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me understand what your objection is. Are you saying that because the current decade includes current or future events, this should not be called history by decade? Currently, this is already part of the hierarchy called Category:History by period. Perhaps there is a word that conveys a timeline of events from past history into the future, but I can't think of one. If this is the problem you are objecting too, a not could be put on the current and future categories that articles in the subcategories might not deal with historical events for the current and future years. -- Samuel Wantman
      • Maybe I chose a poor example.... how about 1906 World Series, which is in Category:1906 in sports, and no history categories. I am not strongly opposed to your rename but the overall structure of these categories is Category:20th century, Category:1900s, Category:1906, Category:1906 in sports, Category:1900s in sports, Category:20th century in sports. Tim! 07:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe I'm not being clear enough. I'm proposing the following hierarchy: "History by year"; "History by century", "Histroy by decade", which would be holding all the categories you mention. I'm not proposing changing any of the actual year, decade or century categories. It would be possible to change the year categories like Category:1906 to Category:1906 history, but I don't think this is necessary. -- Samuel Wantman 19:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes I suppose it could work, history by year at least makes more sense than years by decade. Tim! 19:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Oppose This subcategory specificaly covers our year pages like 1800 or 1850. They are not decades in themselves. User:Dimadick
    • Are you opposing my original nomiation or Samuel Wantman's rename proposal? If mine you are wrong, the category contains decades such as Category:2000s. Tim! 15:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually the decades categoris include our years pages. Open them and see for yourself. User:Dimadick
      • Yes, but they contain other articles as well such as books in Category:2000s books which are not years, and 2000s fads and trends, which is not a year. Tim! 07:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Operations of the South African Border War to Category:Battles and operations of the South African Border War

• Rename, standard more inclusive naming convention for battle/operation by war categories in Category:Battles by war. Kirill Lokshin 17:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, altho this categ was based on the List of operations of the South African Border War which does not mention any battles as such. IZAK 21:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or maybe rename to Category:Military operations of the South African Border War (add the word Military but not "Battles") because it fits in with all the other categories in Category:Military operations by type, and many others in Category:Military operations such as Category:Operations involving special forces and Category:Military operations by country and many more, which do not require the word "Battles" that has a different connotation. Come to think of it, perhaps no change is needed because there are categories that are plain "Operations" as in Category:Operations involving special forces. IZAK 19:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "military operations of ..." categories are at a much higher level in the category structure than this; see WP:MILHIST#Conflicts and operations. The only time they're used for specific wars are in cases like WWI/WWII, where the category includes everything up to the theater level; in other cases, the standard naming convention for a category that includes individual operations during a war is "Battles and operations of ..." (e.g. Category:Battles and operations of the Vietnam War). (The name of the article is irrelevant, in any case; at least some of the engagements included in the category are clearly battles, regardless of the fact that the article is at the title "Operation ...".)
  • (And Category:Operations involving special forces is simply misnamed, of course.) Kirill Lokshin 20:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kirill: In terms of the Military history of Africa these were major operations! And in any case, in reviewing category guidelines, none of them has a category or name called "Battles and operations" of anything. Unless you saying something completely new now. IZAK 20:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • They're sub-campaign-level operations, though. Unless you plan to split the war up into a full set of theater/campaign/battle categories—and I don't think it was large enough to warrant that—the appropriate nesting is under Category:Battles by war. (And "Battles and operations of ..." is just an alternate name for "Battles of ..."; see WP:MILHIST#Category names.) Kirill Lokshin 20:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Kirill: Yes, now I do see your example of Category:Battles and operations of the Vietnam War, a good analogy, so perhaps you are right. IZAK 20:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Admittedly, the real cause of this confusion is that "operations" is being used in two different levels of the category scheme; it's an issue that WPMILHIST has discussed before, but we haven't come up with a better name for the high-level categories yet. Kirill Lokshin 20:33, 30 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 Martinp23 20:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least Rename to Category:South African alternatives, no clear inclusion criteria. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Overloaded word meaning nothing as a result. Pavel Vozenilek 14:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Alternative is outdated slang with no stable definition, not suitable for a category. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Hoylake 18:31, 26 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 per nom Martinp23 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Venezuelan military to Category:Venezuelan military personnel

• Rename, per convention agreed a few weeks ago. Category:Military of Venezuela is a parent of this category. Hawkestone 17:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Hoylake 18:32, 26 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 nom withdrawn. David Kernow (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Rename to Category:Squeeze, convention of Category:Categories named after musicians. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move to category:Musicians by band, where other categories with this naming scheme reside.--Mike Selinker 18:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn Didn't notice Category:Musicians by band. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Martinp23 20:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, contains only the article Jeremiah and an image, doesn't seem to need a category. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom plus inherently ambiguous. David Kernow (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was nom withdrawn Martinp23 20:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Streets and squares in Minneapolis, convention of Category:Streets and squares by city. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Minneapolis doesn't have any "squares" to speak of (unlike European cities or older American cities); all the streets in the category are actual streets. The street categories for most North American cities on Wikipedia are named "Category:Streets in [name of city]". One category that perhaps should be re-named is Category:Streets in Philadelphia, which does include squares.Eco84 | Talk 03:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Some cities have separate categories for street and for squares as subcategories of the "streets and squares" category, so this category name does not really breach the convention and it is accurate. Hoylake 18:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn I withdraw my nominatation. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:24, 30 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 moved to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians with PGP/GPG keys. Andrew c 02:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with PGP/GPG keys into Category:Wikipedians who use PGP

• Merge, I created the former category not knowing that the latter existed. I changed the link in ((user PGP)) to point to the latter, and in no longer makes sense to have two. Avi 14:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. David Kernow (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Martinp23 20:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Fictional characters by religion. (Radiant) 13:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "Devout" could be POV. Princess Clara is an obvious inclusive character, but is say, Peter Griffin?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Devout to what excactly? User:Dimadick
• Delete - I presume any character "devout" to some belief. - jc37 13:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vague category. Doczilla 07:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Martinp23 20:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a defining characteristic, not objectively defined. (Radiant) 13:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Category:Fictional racists, Category:Fictional sexists and Category:Fictional homophobes should cover that. But of course, two of those have been nominated for deletion (even though are fairly character-defining traits usually evident in dialogue). ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily want to keep this, but let me explain why I created it. People kept putting Ned Flanders in Category:Fictional racists. However this doesn't work as his prejudices are not racial or ethnic, but religious. So I intended this to be characters who are strongly prejudiced against other religions or cultures, Francis Griffin might also fit, but who don't appear to have any racial or gender biases. I feared it would never be used that way though and indeed it hasn't.--T. Anthony 11:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Irredeemably POV. Hawkestone 17:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - jc37 13:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Fictional misanthropes. David Kernow (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find this a rather weird name. It contains a number of aggressive aliens whom we've had fictional war with, and probably some of the more genocidally-inclined supervillains. This doesn't appear to be a meaningful grouping, so I hereby join Category:Real wikipedians who are opposed to this category. (Radiant) 13:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Postdlf 18:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and CfD's Radiant's new cat. ;) Danny Lilithborne 01:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional misanthropists (Animedude 04:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional misanthropes - per Misanthropy. - jc37 13:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. (I think misanthropists can be aliens or robots too, even if their reasons would be different)--T. Anthony 15:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I made it because a lot of the characters there were erroneously being put in the Fictional Racists category, which they weren't. It's basically there so characters like Demona and Millions Knives weren't lumped into categories with characters like Vernon Schillinger and Eric Cartman. If anything, the characters in the category are speciests, but I didn't want to use that term because it's really only used in the animal rights movement.--DrBat 23:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A misanthrope doesn't have to be a human. If you want we can create a "non-human" sub-category for Category:Fictional misanthropes.--T. Anthony 23:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I would be willing to renaming the category into Fictional misanthropes, though I'm not sure if we would need to create a subcategory for non-humans since almost all of the characters there are already non-human. --DrBat 18:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps creating a subcategory FOR human misanthropes would be better. Ones who have a distain for contact with other humans rather than an all out hatred of the human race. Animedude 07:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that; having a subcategory for human misanthropes (like Mandy (Billy and Mandy)).--DrBat 19:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per jc37 and subcategorise as suggested above. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep Martinp23 20:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A character's eating habits are not a defining characteristic. (Radiant) 13:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as long as it's noted in the article somewhere I feel that vegetarianism can be quite a notable trait as it has a distinctive a lifestyle impact.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, it's definetely a notable trait. Siyavash 17:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Zythe Hawkestone 17:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as it can be an important characteristic --Piemanmoo 19:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as it often is a defining characteristic (such as for Spock or Lisa Simpson) --Hnsampat 21:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems a quite worthwhile subject.--Mike Selinker 03:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For many of the listed characters it defines their beliefs and has been specifically adressed in strylines. User:Dimadick
• Keep Concur with all keepers Aljosa 01:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- For reasons stated above --SUIT 03:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may be too narrow. It contains only two characters, for one of which (Grandpa Simpson) the membership is not a defining characterstic but a one-off joke in a single episode. (Radiant) 13:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is underpopulated but then most of our extensive categories only started with a hand full of articles. According to our article on Freemasonry, fictional Freemasons also include Boycie and there is a list of novels with Freemason main or secondary characters. User:Dimadick
• Delete per nom. - jc37 13:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There have to be more than these two fictional freemasons out there. I think that the request for population works for now. (Caveat: I was the creator of the cat. It was created out of an attempt to sort out a category for Freemasons that conatianed waaaay too many articles) youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 22:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would think that in many cases where this attribute is mentioned in fiction it is intended to be highly important. Hoylake 18:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Fictional United States Democrats and Category:Fictional United States Republicans. the wub "?!" 10:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These should probably be renamed to counter systemic bias. Outside the USA, "democrat" means "someone who is democratic", not "someone who supports the USA Democrat Party". (Radiant) 13:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, are "democrat" and "Democrat" the same thing? :P ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps, but "Republican" has a number of meanings in the UK including both anti-monarchists and Irish unificationists. Timrollpickering 21:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer not to have two cats that differ only by capitalization; that'd be confusing. (Radiant) 22:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perhaps Category:Fictional members of the Democratic Party (United States) and it's Republican counterpart? CovenantD 00:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beat met to the comment Covenant. I'd agree if the cats didn't seem exceedingly redundant since they each contain a link to a relevant, better titled list. In light of that, keep the lists and Delete the cats. — J Greb 00:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There are many "Democratic" named things, one of which is the US Democratic party. Similarly, there are many "Republican" named things. 132.205.45.206 01:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename the categories categorise characters included in List of fictional United States Democrats and List of fictional United States Republicans respectively. They should be renamed to match their source articles. User:Dimadick
• Delete - Merge to the aforementioned lists, if wanted. - jc37 13:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional United States Democrats and Category:Fictional United States Republicans Tim! 15:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Based on one of the rename suggestions. (I have no preference)--T. Anthony 15:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to the category names suggested by Tim!. - NTXweather 02:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Tim. I created these categories and have no problem with the change (though it makes the names considerably longer). Michael 03:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Tim, far too ambiguous otherwise. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The lists are better for these. If kept, rename to Category:Fictional members of the Democratic Party (United States) and Category:Fictional members of the Republican Party (United States). Vegaswikian 22:45, 30 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, although perhaps members ought only qualify if their fictional source/s state they are anarchic...  David Kernow (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this may constitute original research, as for most fictional characters being "anarchist" is poorly defined. For instance, Captain Nemo is in here, but he is more an escapist who lives away from governments; and V (for Vendetta) is more a revolutionary in that he wants a government but not this one. (Radiant) 13:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I don't think it's really OR. Usually it's made quite clear in the text. V fits the definition of anarchist (and revolutionary). Anarchy can be defined as someone who believes in a bottom-up system of power, not simply someone who advocates chaos.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Zythe Hawkestone 17:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If they fit this political philosophy, then add them. Also make comparisons to the ideologies represented in Past and present anarchist communities which covers historic anarchy. User:Dimadick
• Delete - per the Democrat/Republican nom, above (and because citations/references would be wanted). Listify if wanted. - jc37 13:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I am an anarchist myself and personally, I'd like to see what books have been written with anarchist characters. Or films that featured anarchist characters, whether featured positively or negatively. At the moment, the category does not look that good but that does not mean it cannot be improved. Whether Captain Nemo belongs on the list should be of no relevance. Imperfections on a page does not mean that the page should simply be deleted. There are many instances where the author makes it explicitly and indisputably clear that a fictional character is supposed to be an anarchist - including Ursula K. Le Guin, Joseph Conrad and Alan Moore. By all means, get rid of the original research and improve this category but why single this out for deletion? There is a huge list of categories devoted to fictional characters. There are categories for fictional characters of the French Revolution, fictional characters with superhuman power and fictional characters of the Second World War. There are categories for fictional characters that are Nigerians, Ainu, Serbians, Cubans and numerous other ethnic groups. Most relevantly, there are categories for fictional christians, fictional muslims, fictional fascists, fictional nazis and various other modes of beliefs. I do not see how a category for fictional anarchists differ from any of these. --Anarchodin 06:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Debates over which characters can be called anarchists should be carried out on individual talk pages. Owen 19:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  If it requires a debate, then it requires citations/references. And if so, it should be a List, not a Category. - jc37 10:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I feel that the particular category in question has been much abused with the inclusion of Bart Simpson (a trouble making youth), the Left Hand from Vampire Hunter D (a creature of fantasy horror), Flag-Smasher (an anti-nationalist), Winston Smith (a dissenter), and Nemo (an escapist). The inclusion of these characters is never justified, and so they were or should be removed. This seems to be tied with common misconceptions of what is an anarchist. To clarify the matter, inclusion in this category should require that the character in question or author explicitly states the character is meant to be an anarchist, and that the article for the character should explain how this is the case. Not that they have some incidental "anarchist" qualities, or make some modestly "anarchic" remarks. There are many such characters, either major or minor, in the works of Alan Moore (V for Vendetta) and Le Guin (The Dispossessed) as mentioned above, as well as in the work of Alan Grant (Anarky) and Philip K. Dick (The Last of the Masters.) The category should be kept, but refined. Cast
• Delete - 3 edits in 9 months implies there is a very low likelyhood of this being cleaned up or maintained properly, and requires too much WP:OR to determine. Noting the inviduals as having an anarchic outlook would suffice. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 22:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. POV cat. Vegaswikian 22:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Worth cleaning up and keeping. Certain characters - such as V and King Mob - have been identified by their authors as anarchists. Others clearly self-identify as anarchists in their respective stories. Any problems with the category are fixable and the result of editor misunderstanding, not problems inherent to the category.

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 14:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a defining characteristic. It would technically include almost all superheroes and fictional spies. (Radiant) 13:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "Patriot" is a much abused word that is best avoided. Hoylake 14:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inherently POV as it would include most combatants in either side of a war and an undefined number of characters with nationalistic beliefs. User:Dimadick
• Delete - "patriot" = nationalism? Too broad. - jc37 13:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all reasons listed above --Hnsampat 02:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or move relevant articles to Category:Fictional nationalists. Owen 20:42, 26 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 with Fictional murderers per Radiant. David Kernow (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization, merge back to "fictional murderers". And I've learned a new word today :) (Radiant) 13:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. One of the entries doesn't even belong: Chris Moltisanti didn't kill his wife; he and Ade were only engaged, and Chris just ratted her out to Tony as an informant...Sylvio pulled the trigger. Ahem. Postdlf 18:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge And they are different to other murderers because.... ? User:Dimadick
• Merge per nom. - jc37 13:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the category because I thought killing your spouse was more significant than just killing a stranger (I specifically created it for Saul Tigh's character). --DrBat 23:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The weird thing is that this category states it should only be used for villains, and lists Luke Skywalker as an example of someone who is a mass murderer (since he killed a bunch of storm troopers) but can't be listed since he's a good guy. We should either rename this cat to reflect that, or reword the header to straighten it out, or simply merge into "cat:murderers". (Radiant) 13:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Fictional murderers — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Then Luke Skywalker would be included in that too and it would be ridiculously huge. I think there is a pretty big distinction from a murderer (say Andrew Wells) and a mass murderer (say Cassidy Casablancas in terms of scope and portayal. And it's not say only for villains. It's just, murder isn't a soldier killing an enemy soldier. It's something else. And no, that doesn't make the entire category POV, there is simply a difference between a murderer (example: Johnny Allen (Eastenders)) and someone who has killed before (example: every Sci-Fi/Fantasy character ever, even Doctor Who...) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Keep The term mass murder does have a definition by a US gov't agency (which will need to be reflected in the cat description). It's subject to POV interpretations, but not to the point of being unmanagable. CovenantD 00:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment members of this category should only include characters acknowledged to be mass murders within the fictional universe that the character exists in, and not an outside standard that may hold no value within the fictional universe. That would be original research, as it would be an application of a new standard to something. 132.205.45.206 01:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Based on the anon IPs comments, I realize that it IS an unmanagable category because many different, perhaps conflicting, standards could be applied. CovenantD 02:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:

This category does clarify its standard in its introduction. "This page lists fictional people in literature, film, television, and comic books who have committed mass murder, defined as the killing of four or more people in a single incident.

For fictional characters who have committed multiple separate murders over a period of time see category:Fictional serial killers. Note that someone who has killed in war or battle or self defense is not necessarily a murderer."

So no point in distinguishing heroes and villains here. User:Dimadick

Comment That standard is the same one set forth by the United States government - it's what prompted my initial weak keep. CovenantD 12:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Delete per nom. - jc37 13:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering most speech impediments (e.g. those by many cartoon characters) are just silly jokes (as opposed to real-life speech impediments that are not) I do not consider this a meaningful characterization. (Radiant) 13:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I've been meaning to nominate this myself for a while. Another problem is many animal cartoon characters are included in a category that deals with a human characteristic, so Daffy Duck is considered unable to speak properly even though ducks can't speak at all (unless they're animated). It's a bit like saying the animated fish in Finding Nemo are Category:Fictional characters with disabilities because they can't walk. Maybe it should be renamed it to Category:Fictional people with speech impediments. As long as it no longer includes animal characters. Psychonaut3000 20:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are anthropomorphic animals. They have human characteristics and qualities as per definition. And to quote are article: "The use of anthropomorphized animals has a long tradition in art and literature." They are arguably people in their own right. User:Dimadick
• Keep Even if they are jokes , still covers the depiction of speech impediments in fiction and allows it to be researched. User:Dimadick
• Delete per nom. Half of the Warner Brothers' characters would qualify. (And Elmer Fudd isn't an animal.) - jc37 13:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. If you want to "cover the depiction of speech impediments in fiction," write Speech impediments in fiction. Postdlf 18:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overly narrow - only one entry. Indeed, in most genres of fiction it is never mentioned whether characters can read well or poorly. (Radiant) 13:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I would disagree with the characterization that it is overly narrow. It's a disability, just like any other disability listed on the fictional people with disabilities parent category. Only one entry -- there are quite a few topics with 1 or few entries on the categories to populate template, that in itself doesn't seem to be a strong reason to delete. In modern times, disabilities are being discussed more and more in fiction and among characters, even protagonists. Let's be conscious of the times that are a changing. :) Siyavash 17:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per Siyavash - Skrewball
• Keep Being underpopulated is not a good reason for deletion. Being flawed in conception or definition is. User:Dimadick
• Delete - it could possibly be re-created if it's needed in the future. (At which point I have a feeling it'll be back on CfD again : ) - jc37 13:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep Martinp23 20:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Appears to be redundant with Category:Fictional lame characters, except that the latter may contain characters in a setting where wheelchairs have not been invited yet. Suggest merging. (Radiant) 13:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep They mean different concepts. Also I really don't like the name Category:Fictional lame characters. Aside from it being potentially insulting the word "lame", in American English anyway, has a double-meaning that makes it confusing.--T. Anthony 15:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -highly defining. I do think perhaps lame characters should be CFD'd though.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or merge, under the condition that Fictional lame characters is properly renamed. Siyavash 17:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears the three of you are actually arguing for merging both categories into a different name. What name would you prefer over "fictional lame characters"? (Radiant) 22:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I have CfDed Category:Fictional lame characters. Go weigh in. Otto4711 16:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not the same thing as "lamed" Hawkestone 17:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Rename to Category:Fictional wheelchair-bound characters to match all of the other fictional characters with disability categories. Otto4711 16:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC) Clearly not redundant with the lame characters category, as is obvious from who is listed in the lame characters category. Otto4711 08:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not the same. The definition of lame in Wiktionary includes "moving with pain or difficulty on account of injury, defect, or temporary obstruction of a function; as, a lame leg, arm, or muscle." Plenty of characters fit the definition due to one conditior or another without being wheelchair-bound. User:Dimadick
• Keep per Dimadick — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was category relisted on December 8 CfD. David Kernow (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Multiple people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, or, because I realise deletion is a very bold proposal, at least rename to Category:Biographies of multiple people. I do not think that being "multiple people" is a defining characteristic of any of the subjects of articles in the list, or of its sub-categories: at random, the Wright brothers, Dorothea, and Margaret of York, Gilbert and George, Flanders and Swann, Marx brothers are not notable because they are more than one person, but because they have made a notable contribution in their field of collaboration, Category:Married couples are perhaps notable for being married, but not for being more than one person, Category:Multiple births are notable for being more than one person only in gynaecology. This category answers only the question "what articles are about more than one person?" which I do not class as an encyclopedic question. Its parent category is Category:People by status, but being more than one of you is not really a "status", and after some thought I have not been able to suggest another useful parent cat. The category's current title is too broad: jury, cabinet, quorum, string quartet, Queen (band), and collective bargaining all arguably fit its current name. I feel it should be submitted for discussion, anyway, to test whether I am a lone voice, and in case a consensus is forthcoming. RobertG ♬ talk 12:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a meaningful characterisation. (Radiant) 13:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A meaningful characterisation. One of the most prominent attributes of most of these people. Hoylake 14:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps meaningful, perhaps prominent, but if Wikipedia categories simply categorised everything and everyone by every meaningful or prominent characteristic there would be no need for WP:CFD. Is it an encyclopedic characteristic? Are you saying that every prominent group of people should be in this category? --RobertG ♬ talk 14:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although I'm not wild about the name I can't think of a better one. Being a multiple person certainly is defining in cases like the Dionne quintuplets. That said I'd ideally prefer this to be much smaller. Possibly just Category:Multiple births and maybe Category:Sibling duos (Along with their subcats)--T. Anthony 17:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment, but the Dionne quintuplets aren't in this category, they're in "multiple births", and I haven't nominated that category (and they are not notable for being multiple people, they are notable for their multiple birth). --RobertG ♬ talk 20:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  True, but this makes a useful parent category. The name is slightly strange, unless we mean people with a disassociative disorder who may/may-not be in a sense "multiple people", but it's purpose should be as a parent category so it doesn't have to be well-titled.--T. Anthony 04:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. But I love the name: "I am a multiple person." That one cat litter commercial ("for multiple cats") always makes me snicker too. It's probably because I read too many comic books. Postdlf 18:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: would we keep Category:Individuals? --RobertG ♬ talk 20:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No as it would be a duplicate of category:People. Osomec 23:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it wouldn't, because people in this category would fit in Category:People, but not in Category:Individuals. --RobertG ♬ talk 19:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this good category. There are a lot of categories that bother me but I know I have to live with as they will never get deleted, but this isn't one of them. Osomec 23:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think you missed the point. As per its introduction This category identifies biographies of multiple people and locates which articles incude them. The category does not reflect on the people themselves. Its main use is being always able to locate the articles and decide which may eventually be turned into seperate articles. For example my combined article on Agnes of France was at first included here since 5 May, 2005 and was eventually expanded and turned into two seperate articles as of 11 June, 2006. - User: Dimadick

  Comment: "the category does not reflect on the people themselves" - an unanswerable argument for deleting any category? Also, even if its use is as you say (which I don't think it is, because among my examples only Dorothea qualifies as a possible article to be split) then it's a project category, and the talk pages should be in it rather than the articles. --RobertG ♬ talk 19:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If kept, this category should be emptied, with its members shuffled into its subcats. - jc37 13:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Irrelevant classification, misleading name. Pavel Vozenilek 14:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, has many obvious subcategories (i.e. musical groups), seems both clear and useful to me. Emptying per Jc37 sounds reasonable, though, but I think it's a very logical and useful super-category. Xtifr _tälk 01:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've recently made an effort to take this in a more inclusive direction. How else would you propose we collect articles about groupings of six, seven, eight, nine, forty-seven, or seventy people? –Unint 07:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it encyclopedic? Have you considered not categorising groups by the number of people in them? --RobertG ♬ talk 12:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  There are a number of commonalities amongst these articles. Patterns I notice include groups of prosecuted people, groups of atheletes, groups of historical people, or groups of people who precipitated a significant event. History attached collective names to these people for a reason. Also, what's the alternative — categorize these articles as individuals? –Unint 20:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  So the category is actually "Groups of people with a collective name"? OK, I see where you are coming from; I just don't agree with you. And the Birmingham Six are categorised as "British wrongfully convicted people"; the Edinburgh Seven are categorised under "History of medicine" and "Women's rights"; the Traitorous Eight are categorised under "History of computing"; the Nine Saints are categorised as "Ancient Roman saints"; the Forty-seven Ronin are categorised as "Samurai", "traditional stories" and "Seppuku"; the Seventy Disciples are categorised as "followers of Jesus". I think in each case, among the least notable things about them is that they were more than one. Should every group that either acted collectively or have been collected into one article by a Wikipedian belong in this category? What about the LSO, United States Army, the NAS/UWT, the Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet (UK), the 5000, the Rat Pack, nude celebrities on the Internet? I think we will have to agree to differ! --RobertG ♬ talk 10:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Quite possibly we will have to agree to disagree regarding the level of abstraction we like for our categories. However, if you are asking how we're supposed to exclude all those examples you named...

  • Most of what you named are formal organizations of some sort; their articles are not about the many people who are members of those organizations, but about the structures, histories, practices, etc. of the organization themselves — nobody would mistake those for articles about people.
  • Orchestras are categorized under musical groups, which is a subcategory of this to begin with; they're included, but we don't have to worry about the two categories interacting.
  • "Entertainment cliques" like the Rat Pack do belong here; the article covers groups of people referred to by some collective name. It's a new concept to me, though; I won't say that I know how valid the category is to begin with.
  • The nude celebrities on the Internet article isn't even a list of people; it's a description of the phenomenon itself.
  • Perhaps there might be a need to diffuse the current contents of the category into "historical groups" as opposed to "names used by multiple people", but there's a distinct difference from historical organizations and historical phenomena. –Unint 16:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - At first reading of the nomination, I felt that this should be a list, and after reading the several comments in the discussion above, I am convinced - this would be better as a list, than as a category. There is simply too much disparate information. And (as somewhat noted above) why aren't military groups, marching bands, and houses of government listed? This vague category has the potential of ballooning to a rather grandiose size. - jc37 10:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or weak rename per nom. It is a jumping off place for articles that include more than one person, which is necessary since it is somewhat of an anomoly (like the Olsen Twins, or conjoined twins, or comic duos that are only known as a pair. I would hesitate to rename it biographies, but would prefer this to an outright deletion.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The nominator says that "jury, cabinet, quorum, string quartet, Queen (band), and collective bargaining all arguably fit its current name," but I don't believe is in reality being used in this manner.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename Q0 03:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename NTXweather 00:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Andrew c 02:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Not a defining characteristic. Way too many characters in series have won a lottery at some point. (Radiant) 10:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I can't think of any not mentioned in the category already, and even if there are some, the category is puny after six months, so there is no reason to delete it now. 2005 11:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is nevertheless not a defining characteristic. I could add most characters in Donald Duck (especially Gladstone, but including the nephews, Daisy etc), Homer and Bart Simpson, as well as Abe's girlfriend iirc, a bunch of Looney Tunes, Leisure Suit Larry, and arguably all five characters from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. That's only because I don't watch soap series, because most of those also include a lottery winner or three. (Radiant) 13:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 2005 — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, this mass category deletion drive is getting as bad as the silly category creation one...~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't think we should categorise by plot device. (Fictional car crash victims, for another example.) - jc37 13:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For some characters such as Hugo "Hurley" Reyes and Earl Hickey, it most definately IS a defining characteristic.--T smitts 19:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per T smitts Piccadilly 01:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I fail to see why this is a defining characteristic. Heck we even had a TV series with, what was it, 20 who won a million? Vegaswikian 00:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Judaic views (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete as nominator - after nearly one month of existence category contains only 3 articles; other categories exist to assume articles contained; category's practical function will continue to be the duplication of existing article content/mirroring other category content. Sam 08:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. the wub "?!" 13:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Alpha Flight Members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Alpha Flight members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Thunderbolts Members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Speedy delete as re-created categories. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_17#Marvel_Comics_superhero_team_memberships. CovenantD 07:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - please separate/split this nomination. - jc37 08:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, I get flak when I combine similar CfDs and I get flak when I leave them separate. I give up trying to get it right. There is no right way to format similar categories. CovenantD 11:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Alpha Flight - Keep and Merge "Members" to "members". - This organisation does not have the mass character overlap that many other superteams have (which was the over-riding concern of the previous nominations). - jc37 08:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really true. The overriding concern expressed for the first batch of team membership categories (DC Comics) was the inability to annotate the entries versus a list.[1] The Marvel teams were based on that logic. CovenantD 11:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thunderbolts - Delete per previous discussions. - jc37 08:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seen it before. (Radiant) 13:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Postdlf 18:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as pert nom. — J Greb 00:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. David Kernow (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as nominator. Category has only one article in it. Blast 11.24.06 0146 (UTC -5)

• I'd have no real problem moving Flanagan up into Category:BDSM. It is remarkable that this category is so empty when (I just checked, following a guess) Category:Dominatrices has 12 entries and Category:Bondage models has a whopping 76. [Warning, slightly tasteless humor follows.] Just goes to show what the nerdboys writing articles in this subject area are into, I guess. And at a quick look, 100% of the bondage models listed are female. Don't we have any gay nerdboys into leather here at the 'pedia? Practically worthy of WP:CSB. - Jmabel | Talk 03:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This should be a valid category. It certainly has the potential to assist research on the subject ... but not with just one entry! Surely someone somewhere out there can help to fill out the list with some more names? The category obviously suffer more from neglect than any reason to delete it. Should this be brought to the attention of the WikiProject Sexology and sexuality group or the WikiProject LGBT studies group? Members there might be able to flesh out these categories (dominatrix and submissive) more. --Anarchodin 06:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good thought. I cross-post to those WikiProjects. Can we try to give this a week or so to see what happens before we decide whether or not to keep? It's hardly as if the presence of the category is an active problem. - Jmabel | Talk 18:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If you look at the parent, it does not appear to have any people included in the 185 articles which begs for more subcats. Given the current size and the likelyhood that more entries for this category, keeping seems to be reasonable. Another option would be a Category:BDSM people for single entries like this. Vegaswikian 00:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:People from Thiruvananthapuram. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prominent Trivandrumites to Category:People from Trivandrum

• Rename, per convention. Sumahoy 04:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per convention. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People from Thiruvananthapuram, since Trivandrum is a redirect to Thiruvananthapuram. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People from Thiruvananthapuram Piccadilly 01:56, 28 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 11:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional anti-heroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Speedy delete as recreated category. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_13#Category:Anti-heroes. CovenantD 00:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but not speedily as May 13 is over 6 months ago. Sumahoy 04:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I have some recollection of it being recreated and deleted again since May, but can't find any evidence of that and so went with the documented date. CovenantD 05:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nonspecific category, vaguely defined with excessively broad criteria. Doczilla 05:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Separating an Anti-hero - from an Antagonist - from a Protagonist - is a matter of perspective. - jc37 08:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, it was recreated on the 7th June, whereupon I speedied it as G4, and this category was created 16th October, but a timelag doesn't preclude speedy deletions. Hiding Talk 13:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Query why would six months matter? WP:CSD G4 does not list any arbitrary time limit. (Radiant) 13:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There should certainly be some sort of time limit, as the logic of there not being one is that a decision made by a handful of people in 2006 will remain binding in 3006, even if the arguments for keeping the category have become far stronger by then. Hawkestone 17:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what Wikipedia:Deletion review is for; deletion decisions do not expire, and neither does your ability to seek to overturn a deletion decision. Postdlf 18:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I don't accept the argument put forward for deletion. The speedy deletion rule should not be used as a tool designed to enable deletion of as much as possible. Please come up with a content-based reason. Hawkestone 17:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Um, "deleting as much as possible" is YOUR interpretation of the motivation for nominating it. I included a link to the prior CfD so that editors can read the reasons for themselves and not rely on my summation. You may notice that I didn't participate in that one, although interestingly enough you did and voted to delete it back then. CovenantD 00:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt as recreation, and endorse original deletion due to inherent subjectiveness in applying label to any particular character. Often merely a marketing term to make a character seem "dark." Postdlf 18:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Postdlf. — J Greb 00:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Normal Delete. Exactly how can you decide that a character belongs in this category without doing original research? Ken Arromdee 23:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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