< November 24	November 26 >

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. David Kernow (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Coles Group as per name change. -- Nathannoblet 00:19, 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. David Kernow (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Psychopathic Records albums, convention of Category:Albums by record label. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:04, 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kid TV Show Superheroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Duplicate category created by suspected sockpuppet of User:Batman Fan. See other listings today for more of hir handiwork. CovenantD 22:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom and creator's other 'works' ThuranX 22:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vague category. Doczilla 00:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. (Radiant) 12:23, 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. David Kernow (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Apprentice National Contestants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Duplicate category (all of The Apprentice participants are already categorized by the season they appeared) created by a suspected sockpuppet of User:Batman Fan. CovenantD 22:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Actually, only Season 5 contestants have their own category, but Category:The Apprentice contestants exists. Tinlinkin 02:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, use a list instead. (Radiant) 12:23, 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 speedily deleted as recreation.--Mike Selinker 06:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Actresses who've done Nude Scenes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete It is empty and I believe it may be a recreation of a deleted category. Sumahoy 21:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete recreated. Otto4711 22:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete recreated and inaccurately capitalized category. Doczilla 00:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - per previous discussion, and performer by performance. - jc37 10:20, 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 delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Movies and Shows featuring Superheros (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Redundant; already covered by Category:Superhero Films --Mhking 21:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ThuranX 21:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to something like Category: Superhero television programs and remove films. A superheros on TV categroy is useful and encyclopedic. Otto4711 21:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Superheros" is spelled wrong, anyway. However, the current category could use expansion to cover TV shows. bibliomaniac15 21:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Super remove! Very nice! Sexy time without this category! (Sorry, I saw Borat recently.) --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 21:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ford MF 21:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. The user who created this and the following two categories is strongly suspected to be a sockpuppet of indef blocked User:Batman Fan and User:Dr. McGrew. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time we've had to do massive cleanup in Superhero, Soap Opera and Reality TV articles because of this very persistent editor. After a while the MO becomes very distinct. CovenantD 22:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete! redundant, misspelled, inappropriately capitalized category. Doczilla 00:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Since the trend is clearly to delete I went ahead and created the Superhero television programs cat. I look forward to its showing up here any moment. Otto4711 01:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. For the record I've also had to remove this category from several non-applicable articles such as Dr. No and The Saint, neither of which feature superheroes. 23skidoo 01:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Though I might have suggested to keep Category:Superhero themed TV series (or something like that). The trouble is that it's a slippery slope once we start looking at "themes", since what a "theme" is may depend on perspective. - jc37 10:20, 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 delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Superhero related films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Redundant category, already covered by Category:Superhero films. ThuranX 20:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per NOM Bignole 20:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nomination --Mhking 21:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per noitanimon! (Psst, read backwards) --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 21:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 00:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per my comments above in Category:Movies and Shows featuring Superheros. - jc37 10:20, 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 delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Movies and Shows based on Heroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, As written, it's circular logic to say the show Heroes is based on the show Heroes. As the creator is applying it, it's ridiculously broad, and would apply to jsut about any drama, action, fantasy, sci-fi show with protagonists. ThuranX 20:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per NOM Bignole 20:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nomination --Mhking 21:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Smite very freakin' disambiguous category title! --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 21:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete! Delete! Delete! Why does this vague, redundant, and inappropriately capitalized category even exist? Doczilla 00:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Seem to be rather blatant WP:OR. - jc37 10:20, 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 mute characters. David Kernow (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional mutes into Category:Fictional mute characters

• Merge, Duplicate cat. (trogga) 18:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify if wanted. If kept, Merge per nom. - jc37 10:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a defining characteristic. (Radiant) 12:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. (And I will differ here with Radiant and say that, in my opinion, a character being mute is probably an important, notable and defining characteristic. It has major impact on plots the character is in and how people perceive them.) Dugwiki 16:53, 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 no consensus; relisted at December 8 CfD. David Kernow (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters based on real people into Category:Fictional versions of real people

• Merge, Pretty much covers the same thing. (trogga) 18:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge "Versions of" is probably more restrictive, which is desirable as many, many characters are influenced by a real person to one degree or another. Sumahoy 18:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse Merge - "based on" is the better descriptor. Otto4711 18:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My question is, isn't one more like 'analogues' of a person, for example, movies were the Pres. of the USA acts with the mannerisms, speech patterns, and appearance of a real world president, but has a slightly different name, while the other is more like the President Bush in Marvel Comics, a fictional version of our own? ThuranX 21:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Just looking at the discussion above shows clearly that this should be a descriptive list, not a category. If kept, Merge to "versions". - jc37 10:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse Merge per Otto4711.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:11, 5 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. the wub "?!" 20:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Presidential siblings to Category:Siblings of Presidents of the United States

• Rename. This is a U.S. only category, a subcategory of Category:Presidency of the United States. Landolitan 17:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Sumahoy 18:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is a disparate list of people that only have in common that they were immediately related to one of 40+ people (and in many cases, to whom the relationship is with, is not immediately clear by name). This would make a great list. If kept, Rename per nom. - jc37 10:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not. This is the key defining aspect of most of these people and the main reason why they have articles. It is the only encyclopedic thing that links them, and if this category is deleted most of them might as well have no categories at all. Hoylake 18:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename This is the main reason why most of this people have articles. Hoylake 18:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a meaningful grouping. Several articles in here should be merged to the actual president anyway. (Radiant) 12:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Merging the articles into those about the presidents is inappropriate because it will distort the balance of those articles. It is quite common for presidential siblings to receive media and historical coverage, so the articles are legitimate, and being legitimate they need to be grouped together as their sibling status is a defining characteristic. Hawkestone 16:14, 2 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 merge per nom (and current conventions). David Kernow (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:People from Neyshabur, convention of Category:People by city in Iran. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Merging leads to some abiguations and I think this category is useful for people looking for a person that is not orriginally from Neyshabur but is notable of Neyshabur. For example Kamal-ol-molk is not from Neyshabur but his shrine is Neyshabur near Attar's shrine. Someone might consider him to be from Neyshabur but he can't appear in that category. So I think we'd better keep this article, It'll be useful for user.

from "Category:Neyshabur notables" talk page: When I created this category, I wasn't aware of catgory series of "People from ...", so I made the category according to its Persian translation. Then I thought that I'd better to create the other category but I didn't delete this one because some people like Kamal-ol-molk that weren't born in Neshabur but because the place they burried or their long residence in Neyshabur, are notable of Neyshabur. So this people might be searching in this category. It was the reson I didn't delete this category. Now, I think the others will judge better about the solution of this problem and this category merging.--Soroush ^{☺talk | ☼Contributions} 18:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should tell that Kamal-ol-molk isn't the only person. Ibrhim Adham(a Sufi from balkh, lived and burried in Neyshabur.) and some more people have this situation because Neyshabur was an important and major city in history and some non-Neyshaburian people (even out of Neyshabur quarter:in Persian : ربع نیشابور) lived and burried there and might be notable with the name of Neyshabur.--Soroush ^{☺talk | ☼Contributions} 18:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per convention. "From" is to be interpreted loosely. There are hordes of people in "People from" categories for places where they were not born. Sumahoy 18:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom or Delete as "notable" is inherently POV (and/or implied by inclusion in Wikipedia). Xtifr _tälk 01:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, as per convention. All can be included in Category:People from Neyshabur. Siba 07:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Whatever the result, any form of the word: "notable" (or famous, or cleberity, etc) should be removed. - jc37 10:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:People from Neyshabur. This should be eligible for speedy renaming. Hoylake 18:22, 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 Speedy Delete as an empty category and nominate Category:Hindi writers for renaming. -- Samuel Wantman 20:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as already a category 'Hindi writers' exist. Vjdchauhan 17:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

• Delete/Merge into Category:Hindi writers, since Hindi is a language. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both into Category:Hindi language-writers since Hindi is a language and the category names for writer-by-language categories should be consistent, clear and accurate. Sumahoy 18:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both into Category:Hindi language-writers. There are several similar categories that need to be corrected. Hoylake 18:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both into Category:Hindi-language writers. The dash should be between the name of the language and the word "language". Without the dash or with the dash in the wrong place it can be interpreted as language writers who are Hindi. All these categories should be "Fooish-language fooers". If there is no objection, I will speedy this category as an empty category and add Category:Hindi writers as a rename. -- Samuel Wantman 20:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category as well as several similar are now proposed for renaming here -- Samuel Wantman 01:31, 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 (but agree that either the category is merged with Comics writers or the like (per apparent unisex policy), or renamed so as not to remove suggestion of women appearing in comics). David Kernow (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women in comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a relisting from the November 11 CfD, which was overturned by DRV following presentation of a vital new argument. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per previous discussion. List of women in comics better covers the information wanted from the DRV. - jc37 17:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The role of women in the comics industry is frequently commented upon, and a major subject of academic attention towards comics. It is absolutely a way that somebody reading about comics creators would be invested in navigating the topic. As such, it is an appropriate category, and ought remain, as it clearly meets both of the criteria of WP:CSL for categories. Phil Sandifer 18:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An article will cover the topic in a better fashion and if no-one can be bothered to write one it can't be all that important. Sumahoy 18:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is nakedly fallacious reasoning, unless you're also supporting the elimination of WP:RA. Phil Sandifer 22:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Boggling that this is even a subject for discussion. Ford MF 21:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete excessively broad category. Doczilla 00:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Broad" category? Har har. Keep because it remains tiresome the number of women-specific cats get nominated under the false assertion that there's some policy that forbids them. Otto4711 00:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In their defense, there is a guideline saying not to create gender-based categories without a persuasive justification why gender is an important way of dividing the category. The thing is, in comics, there is. Phil Sandifer 01:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Guideline. Not policy. Problem is, a large number of the sex-based cat deletion noms don't grasp the distinction. Otto4711 02:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While you may be correct, just to assume good faith, I might suggest that disagreeing with your perspective doesn't necessarily equal a lack of understanding. : ) - jc37 10:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but only because the same information, plus annotations, footnotes, and much more appear at List of women in comics. --Tenebrae 19:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: existence of a list does not exclude that of a category. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV category. Piccadilly 01:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the male:female ratio is staggering and per Sandifer this is a subject of academic interest ([1] [2] [3] [4] &[5] for starters). "Excessively broad" is an untenable argument when you realize there are 51 articles in this category compared to 881 in Category:Comics artists--not even counting editors, writers, cartoonists, etc. --HKMarks(T/C) 04:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (As a side note, this is something that I personally would LOVE to write a paper about for school, if only I took a thematically-related course of some kind...) --HKMarks(T/C)

• Keep To dissentors who fail to realize that women in such a male-marketed, male-dominated field, gender IS a critical distinction, & I point you to Women in Refrigerators as just a glimpse into the subject. To those who posit that the list supercedes the cat: categories & lists just arn't the same thing. A category appears at the bottom of every page, which has its merits; a list puts them all in one place, which also has its merits. Why say we have to have one or the other? To me, this is a clear keeper. mordicai. 22:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment my first thought on seeing the title is that it's for comics characters who are women. And since grouping female characters and women who work in comics seems undesirable, I'd suggest renaming to Category:Women working in comics (as suggested in DRV) or such. Mairi 00:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also support a rename, for the same reason. --HKMarks(T/C) 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing vote to Keep but rename. Fair enough, I'm cool with a more descriptive cat title. Ford MF 05:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete And I don't fail to appreciate the counter argument, I just think it is POV and unimportant. Hawkestone 16:15, 2 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:12.7mm machine guns to Category:12.7 mm machine guns
Category:7.62mm machine guns to Category:7.62 mm machine guns
Category:7.92mm machine guns to Category:7.92 mm machine guns
Category:8mm machine guns to Category:8 mm machine guns

• Rename, space between the value and the unit symbol per Manual of Style. GregorB 17:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename since it's merely a <space>. - jc37 10:20, 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 delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with diseases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - This seems like a really ill-defined category. Any fictional character who's ever had a cold would fit. If not deleted, Rename to something like Category:Fictional characters with chronic diseases. Also not sure it belongs under the parent cat Category:Fictional characters with disabilities under its present name (although it might be a better fit if renamed). Otto4711 16:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Fictional characters with chronic diseases. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pointless, excessively broad category. Doczilla 00:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overly broad, not a defining characteristic. (Radiant) 12:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per User:Radiant!. JRP 15:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, as parent category now reorganized. David Kernow (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French films schools - Empty. It's one previous member has been upmerged to Category:Film schools. - jc37 16:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 16:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename Category:Film schools in France. category:Film schools should be fully subcategorized. Sumahoy 17:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Film schools is now subcategorized. Almost none of the article were previously accessible via the national education, cinema of television menus. It is depressing that after all this time large parts of the category system are still so poorly implemented due to a lack of lateral thinking. The nominated category can be deleted or kept as a redirect, it doesn't really matter. Sumahoy 18:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's to hoping that the categories you just created expand to more than one or two members : ) - jc37 10:20, 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 delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tarzan actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete for same reasons as the thankfully defunct category:Batman actors (which is marked as a deleted category) and category:Superman actors. Putting actors from versions of the same story made decades apart, often in mere cameo roles, is not useful and it is not a defining characteristic. Sumahoy 16:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per previous discussions. - jc37 16:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per precedent. Doczilla 00:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Piccadilly 01:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a well defined and unambiguous category which is easy to research and useful to students of film. The role in many cases defined their career. Elmo Lincoln, Johnny Weismuller, Buster Crabbe, Ron Ely and some other guys. Tarzan as the named leading role can hardly be a cameo. DeleteSince none that I named are in the category, but instead the bit players or sidekicks, clearly the category is not used sensibly and nothing is lost by deleting it. Where is the category of "Actors who played Tarzan?"Edison 17:54, 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 Delete

Category:Nickelodeon actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
'Delete Sorting actors by the production company/network they have worked for has to be one of the least worthwhile ways of generating category clutter that could be devised. Note that I am not nominating the subcategories; whether or not the categories for TV shows should be removed is a different debate. . Sumahoy 16:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This has several subcats that are not tagged. - jc37 16:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read my initial comment. Sumahoy 17:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I did. However, this will leave several of those categories "orphaned" somewhat (since most do not have a parent category named after the show in questions). - jc37 10:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant Keep - per my comments above, while its subcats exist, this umbrella cat should remain. - jc37 10:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jc37, remove actors from it who are not in a specific subcat. Tim! 08:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Tim!'s is not realistic. The subcategories have other categories. Piccadilly 01:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. (Radiant) 12:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Even if you assume all the subcats are kept, this parent category isn't needed because those subcats already fall under other categories such as Category:Actors by series. Dugwiki 16:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If any of the subcategories lack other categories, that should be fixed. Osomec 14:12, 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional lame characters to Category:Fictional characters with impaired limb function

• Rename - Per discussion at Fictional wheelchair-bound people CfD it's apparent the cat needs renaming to better distinguish it from the wheelchair category. "Lame" is also objectionable in the same way that "dumb" is an objectionable way to describe mute people. If adopted I think the cat description needs to reference the wheelchair cat so as to avoid duplication. Otto4711 16:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - You've got a grand total of 5 entries in this appropriately-titled "lame" category. Renaming it to a politically correct title won't improve that situation. Where is Doctor Gillespie? Tiny Tim? Ironside? Dr. Strangelove? What is the purpose of this category, anyway? Wahkeenah 16:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Ironside and Dr Strangelove would belong in the wheelchair-bound category. Tiny Tim has been added, thank you for pointing out the ommission. If by Doctor Gillespie you mean the character from the Dr. Kildare series, he does not appear to have a separate article. If a category is underpopulated and you know of articles which belong in it, the solution is to add the cat to the articles, not delete the cat. And the suggested rename has nothing to do with "political correctness." It has to do with using language that is not insulting. Otto4711 16:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So, there are separate categories for wheelchair-bound and those who merely require a cane? Why not a single "handicapped" category? And who's going to scan all the articles looking for other candidates? This gets to the nub of why I think this site goes nuts with categorization. Unless you're going to cover all possible candidates, it becomes a hodgepodge of entries that only appear when someone happens to think of them. The Doyle Lonnigan character in The Sting walked with a limp. Presumably he should be in the list, too. Curly, of The Three Stooges, had a limp in real life. On-screen he played a fictional version of himself, who also walked with a limp, of course. Does he count? Also, who do you know personally who has told you they feel insulted by the term "lame"? Wahkeenah 16:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Doyle Lonnegan does not have a separate article. According to the Curly Howard article he did not walk with a limp on-screen, he walked in an exaggerated fashion to hide the existing limp. Also, Howard was a real person and so would not properly be categorized in a fictional characters category. As far as mandating deletion of the category absent scanning every possible article, that's a ridiculous objection. If someone wants to scan every single article to see if they fit then more power to them. If, as seems to happen with many articles, people reading them realize they belong in a category and add them, that's a terrific illustration of good work by editors. Otto4711 17:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry was the real person, Curly was an on-screen persona. Who do you know who is offended by "lame"? Is the issue that "lame" has come to mean "weak"? That's why I once wrote that this category belongs in its own very-short list. Whatever. Wahkeenah 17:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (Do not merge.) - As important or incidental as Fictional bald characters. - jc37 16:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Starting with Mr. Clean, who, ironically is called Maestro Limpio in Spanish. Wahkeenah 16:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - have you actually read the articles? A cursory review indicates to me that the characters' disability is a pretty "defining characteristic," to borrow a phrase from some of the more delete-happy amongst us. Otto4711 17:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Which makes this a great "list". That's my general opinion of all "fictional characteristics". Fiction is diverse enough to cover MANY genres, and what's useful or (ugh) "notable" in one genre may not be as "noteable" in another. This is a place where lists shine. - jc37 10:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• See, here we suddenly have another standard being put forward. Umpty-leven categories get deleted because people decide that the thing they categorize isn't a "defining characteristic" and now here we have a categorization of something that for the majority of those currently included is a defining characteristic and you're saying the standard should be "list." What's a wide-eyed novice editor to believe? Otto4711 13:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I presume you've already read Wikipedia:Categorization, check out WP:CLS as a good start. It's about the advantages and disadvantages of of each way to group pages. One key thing to keep in mind with categories is that besides an (hopefully) descriptive introduction, there is no way to explain the inclusion of any single category member, so citations/references are typically not possible. And grouping disparate pages, due to some coincidental shared "characteristic" is likely not a good idea either. Otherwise we could have categories deling with bald, lame, missing fingers, blonde, brunette, nude, taken as a hostage, caucasian, barefoot, illiterate, genius, etc. etc. etc. However, many of those examples could be interesting lists (or even articles), with proper references/citations, showing reasons for inclusion, and showing why inclusion is "defining" (as you note). Hope this helps clarify : ) - jc37 13:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Simple delete', leaving wheelchair category alone.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. (Radiant) 12:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above. JRP 15:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eurovision Song Contest host cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_17#Category:Eurovision_host_cities, essentially the same category. Tim! 15:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just a trivial incident in the history of a city. Hoylake 18:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Recury 20:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Hoylake, and listify (if not already listified). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:01, 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 merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:American bishops, this seems like overcategorization to me. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• do NOT merge there are lots of other categories organized by State. See Category:American people by occupation by state Indeed, this further categorization was done at the suggestion of Mairi. Thanks. Pastorwayne 16:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge - nothing there except one subcat.--D-Boy 19:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment my comments regarding by state categorization were intended to clarify the current categories for UMC bishops, not to address the issue of dividing by state. I think the best solution is to create categories for (all) ecclesiastical jurisdictions of bishops (as that is what defines their position), and then put those in the relevant Religion in Foo categories. Mairi 00:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge; bishops not only may transfer from see to see but their ecclesiastical jurisdictions do not necessarily correspond to civil jurisdictions. The intersection of a bishop and a U.S. state is far less strong than with his/her denomination and area of authority. -choster 18:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and choster. Over-categorisation prompted by the over-categorisation of US Methodist bishops. It's rather ironic to see these categs having been created by an editor who argued against putting an "American" label in the opening sentence of these articles on Bishops born in America an who worked in America, on the grounds that "U.M. Bishops are Bishops of the entire WORLDWIDE church, though they may have special responsibilities in the U.S.A. Leave the U.S.A. out of this part, including it (when appropriate) to identify localities. The UMC is worldwide, and its Bishops are over the entire worldwide church" (see Talk:James Samuel Thomas. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:09, 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 15:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Worst Actress Razzie nominees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Worst Actor Razzie nominees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Worst Supporting Actor Razzie Nominee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Nominated due to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 17#Category:Worst Supporting Actress Razzie nominees. I did not nominate the director category as there is no corresponding winner category to be kept if it's deleted and I withdrew the "worst picture" category here. I am also not voting.--T. Anthony 14:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all I am working on articles about actors, and they have a major category-clutter problem. Sumahoy 16:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per numerous precedents. (Note: Category name also violates Wikipedia guidelines regarding capitalization.) Doczilla 08:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all nominee categories. Hesitantly suggesting listifying if wanted, to clarify by year, at the very least. - jc37 10:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all These awards are just a humorous publicity stunt. Hoylake 18:24, 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 delete. David Kernow (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former National Lacrosse League players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete -- Wrong name - I should have made it Retired players. I've already created the new category, so this one should be deleted. I should have requested a Speedy Rename - sorry. MrBoo (talk, contribs) 13:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both There shouldn't be separate categories for former/past/dead or anything along those lines. Osomec 14:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - db-author. - jc37 10:20, 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. David Kernow (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gainsbourg to Category:Serge Gainsbourg

• Rename, I believe eponymous categories standardly use the full name of the person. Tim! 12:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 14:24, 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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2000s pop songs (first decade) to Category:2000s pop songs

• Rename,Unnecesary disambig, there is only one decade in the 2000s. Tim! 11:15, 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. David Kernow (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fluffy creatures - empty (had two disparate members - a wikipedian category and a film school article). Seems to have been used as a "placeholder" category to give a category to something that didn't at the time. - jc37 09:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 09:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 14:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Zytron 14:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Fuzzy delete. (Radiant) 12:23, 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 No consensus. Shyam ^(T/C) 09:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Category:Fictional documentaries into Category:Mockumentaries[reply]

• Merge - The two categories cover the exact same ground and the article is Mockumentary. Otto4711 08:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. - My initial inclination was to Oppose, but in looking over the category, I see that it was just not very clearly named. - jc37 10:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a fictional documentary need not be a "mockumentary", an "in-universe" documentary would not be a mockumentary, but it would still be fictional. 132.205.93.32 00:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Are there any such in-universe documentaries in the fictional docs cat or are they all mockumentaries? Otto4711 22:05, 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 No concensus. Shyam ^(T/C) 10:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Category:Extreme Championship Wrestling roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
There is no good reason this category needs to exist. The ECW that is around today, is part of WWE. From what I know, we don't list each and every wrestler under a category with roster in the title. There is list pages of rosters: and they serve listing the current roster and that's it. There should be only an ECW alumni category, which lists former ECW stars... of the promotion, not the ECW that is part of WWE. RobJ1981 04:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm confused. I was actually going to vote delete based on your comments but then I took a look at the category page itself and I can't find any mention of any wrestlers from today's WWECW. There is no Paul "Big Show" Wight listed in the category. There is no Andrew "Test" Martin listed in the category. There is no Mike Hettinga Knox listed and thankfully, no Barbara "Kelly Kelly" Blank either. The category is actually an ECW alumni category. It's all performers from the original ECW only. This seems to be exactly what you want based on your comments above ... so do you really have any beef with this category? --Anarchodin 07:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If this is for "former members", then I might suggest that it be listified. - jc37 10:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There already exist a list of the original ecw alumni (former members not being the same thing as some of the original ecw alumni are part of the current wwecw incarnation). --Anarchodin 11:46, 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 proposal withdrawn (see post at bottom). David Kernow (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As territories (non-sovereign areas) as well as countries (sovereign states) are included in these categories, suggest:

• Category:Countries to Category:Countries and territories¹
  • Category:Lists of countries to Category:Lists of countries and territories
  • Category:Categories by country to Category:Categories by country or territory
    • Category:X by country to Category:X by country or territory²
  • Category:Lists by country to Category:Lists by country or territory
  • Category:Countries by characteristic to Category:Countries and territories by characteristic
    • Category:Former countries by characteristic to Category:Former countries and territories by characteristic
    • Category:Island countries to Category:Island countries and territories
    • Category:Landlocked countries to Category:Landlocked countries and territories
    • Category:Adriatic Sea countries to Category:Countries and territories bordering the Adriatic Sea
    • Category:Philippine Sea countries to Category:Countries and territories bordering the Philippine Sea
    • Category:Red Sea countries to Category:Countries and territories bordering the Red Sea
  • Category:Countries by continent to Category:Countries and territories by continent
    • Category:X countries to X countries and territories²
      Category:Former countries by continent to Category:Former countries and territories by continent
      • "countries" to "countries and territories" in subsequent subcategories²
  • Category:Countries by international organization to Categories:Countries and territories by international organization
  • Category:Countries by language to Countries and territories by language
    • X-speaking countries to X-speaking countries and territories
    • Category:Slavic countries to Category:Slavic-speaking countries and territories
  • Category:Countries by status to Category:Countries and territories by status
    • Category:Former countries by status to Category:Former countries and territories by status
    • Category:Freely associated states to Category:Freely-associated states (deleted per Quuxplusone below) David Kernow (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Country classifications to Category:Country and territory classifications
  • Category:Fictional countries to Category:Fictional countries and territories
    • Any subcategories need similar renaming...?
  • Category:Former countries to Category:Former countries and territories
    • "countries" to "countries and territories" in subsequent subcategories²
  • Category:Country locator maps to Category:Country and territory locator maps
  • Category:Country name etymology to Category:Etymology of country and territory names
  • Category:Wikipedia good country articles to Category:Wikipedia good country and territory articles

¹ Suggest Category:Countries kept as redirect.
² All these categories not tagged (WP:SNOW)

I volunteer to undertake the work necessary at WP:CFD/W. David Kernow (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all as nom. David Kernow (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Is the idea to add "and territories"? It sounds fine, but I'm curious what inspired this change. - jc37 12:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Originally prompted by the time and energy spent (and still being spent) over what to include in templates listing "countries" and "territories" of the world; the rationale, though, is as given at the start of the proposal and expanded below. Regards, David (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for clarifying. : ) - I think I can understand your reasoning, and the renaming scheme, in general, should hopefully reduce the possibility of edit-warring by various nationalist Wikipedians, each side in good faith making actions that may both be right from one standpoint, but can be disruptive, from another. I think this would seem to be a great compromise. - jc37 10:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree with en-masse move. For example there are "Slavic countries" (a very, very vague terminology and practically irelevant) but no "territories" whatever it may be. Territory is not well defined and accepted terminology and the last thing WP needs are yet another "Kurdistan everywhere" wars. Pavel Vozenilek 14:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  If the Slavic category/ies were bypassed, would you support the proposal?  "Territory" seems apt for the reason you give, i.e. "countries and territories" is meant to imply countries (sovereign areas) and any kinds of non-sovereign areas. Regards, David (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. Like Jc37, I'm curious why the change was proposed. I guess that it may have been to accommodate the likes of the West Bank, which are in an anomalous sub-nation-state position, but that's only a guess. If that guess is right, I think that this renaming may be a useful idea in principle, but I also think that if it is to be workable, it requires a definition of "territories" which is reasonably robust, straightforward and NPOV … otherwise there are going to be endless arguments about inclusion. I don't think that CFD (with its deadlines and process focus) is the right place for that sort of reflective discussion, which is why I oppose this nomination. --15:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)

  Per the below, my intention is to address what is currently a misdescription rather than engage in a formal definition of "territory" or other word (which may amount to WP:OR...?). Meanwhile, I've posted this announcement on the WikiProject Countries' talk page; anywhere else you think it would be appropriate to copy...?  Thanks, David (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  PS Re "territory", have just been reminded of Territory (country subdivision).

  Unfortunately, without a definition of "territory", the category starts to become vague. Does it mean dependent territories, or colonies, or ocuppied territories, or principlaties, or administrative subdivisions of a nation-state? Sovereign state at least has a reasonably clear consensus definition, but territory doesn't. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  To answer your question: Yes!  See Territory (country subdivision). Regards, David (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Rename per nomination (changing my recommenbdation from the oppose above. Many thanks to David for all the clarification of intent. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a category whose boundaries are intentionally fuzzy (if I understand your intent correctly). Do you think that (for example) the Northwest Territories are clearly included or excluded? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone could add articles/subcategories relating to the Northwest Territories or the like, but given the company they'd share, I reckon it'd be less rather than more likely. (Alternatively, if/when someone did add them, I reckon they'd be recategoriz/sed accordingly.)  Per the above, the intention is accuracy, i.e. to update the categories' names so they reflect what the categories already contain or may in future contain: mostly subcategories and articles about countries (sovereign states) or areas some folk regard as countries but also subcategories/articles about territories (non-sovereign areas - or areas some folk regard as non-sovereign). "Territory", per Territory (country subdivision) seems the most appropriate term for the latter, but alternatives with rationale welcome!  Thanks, David (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, David. I am warming to the idea, but I am still concerned that Territory (country subdivision) seems to me to include two distinct types of "territory": local govt areas (such as the Northwest Territories), and the assorted occuppied/administered/colonised areas such as Hong Kong. The latter category seems to me to be a useful additon to the concept of "country", since it frees the category from over-rigid adherence to the 19th century fixation on theoretical "sovereignty"; but allowing the likes of the Northwest Territories in seems to me to be like categorising Wales alongside a parish council.

However, I can't see any better form of labelling, and it does seem to me that the most important thing is to avoid excluding the likes of Hong Kong and the West Bank. Despite the concerns expressed about whether category name accurately includes countries which are not sovereign (e.g. Scotland), the proposed renaming seems like the bext option. I'll change my vote, above, to a 'rename'. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recogniz/se my proposal isn't a "perfect solution", but, as I'm glad to've indicated, I believe it's an improvement. Meanwhile, Domino below may propose something better (otherwise, I hope, support the present idea). Yours, David (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose. Have there been problems with people revert-warring over these categories? Otherwise, I can't see any reason for the move, since it seems to be just clarifying and/or changing the meaning of these cats. In particular, "Former countries" means something very different from "Former countries and territories" — e.g., Canada. On the other hand, "Fictional countries and territories" is two words longer than "Fictional countries", but not any different in meaning; therefore, that move would just be annoying to editors. None of these moves seem worthwhile, and some of them are just wrong. --Quuxplusone 08:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure why clarifying categories' names is not sufficient reason; alongside deleting malformed categories, I'd say it's a CfD norm. I think their meaning would be changed if (say) I'd proposed renaming them using "territories" in place of "countries"; instead, I'm suggesting the categories' names are updated to reflect what many of them already contain and/or could contain in future. Yours, David (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I also think that they should not be "bundled" together like this; each category (or group of related categories) should be debated on its own merits. There are several distinct kinds of move being discussed. --Quuxplusone 08:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Per Pavel above and yourself below, please point out those exceptions you think ought to be made; I'd say this is also a CfD norm. David (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "Category:Freely associated states to Category:Freely-associated states" is just plain wrong. Adverb-adjective phrases do not take a hyphen, in English. Also, "Slavic-speaking" doesn't make any sense to me, but then I don't speak Slavic. (See what I mean about distinct kinds of move being discussed?) --Quuxplusone 08:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but I don't see it as a problem because you have posted this very objection. Duly struck from the proposal!  Yours, David (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all - per precedent of such things as: "...computer and video games" and "...anime and manga". (And support the use of the hyphen in the two above mentioned categories.) - jc37 10:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, Domino; I recogniz/se this issue isn't straightforward. Since, though, the categories listed above do contain areas that don't commonly seem to be regarded as countries, what kind of solution do you propose (that wouldn't risk antagoniz/sing nationalists through removal/recategoriz/sation)...?  I'm keen to consider any approaches that (1) address the current inaccuracy while (2) minimiz/sing the chances of upsetting anyone. Thanks, David (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose - Clarifying a minority of terms at the expense of needlessly making the majority of terms more complex does not make any sense. Simply changing "countries" to "countries and territories" across the board does not solve the problem. Better to have it simple and not completely right than extra complicated and not completely right. - 52 Pickup 09:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Since, though, there are areas other than countries included within these categories, how would you indicate this in their names...?  Per the above, "territories" seems the most accurate description... Regards, David (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It is a valid problem, but the definition of Territory is not universal. To a lesser extent, the definition of Country is also not so clear-cut. My concern is that if these changes are made, someone else in the future might think that "countries or territories" is still not enough to cover everything and will want to change things again. There is no single word (or couple of words) that will cover this situation to everyone's satisfaction (any combination of: country, state, nation, territory, entity, sovereign or dependant, etc.). I appreciate that you want to solve this problem, but I believe there is no long-lasting solution to this problem, short of having very long category names - and nobody really wants that. - 52 Pickup 15:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support —MJCdetroit 21:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sovereign states are only one type of country. Self-governing dependencies and areas of special sovereignty are often treated by various international organizations as distinct countries. Why does the UN reocgnize 230 or so countries? --Polaron | Talk 05:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No opinion yet, but I would like to point out that not all countries are sovereign, the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom being a prime example. I agree that the categories are a mishmash, though. Perhaps we should have a better definition of terms and then restart the conversation? JChap2007 20:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawing proposal per JChap2007's and similar comments above; also per here.

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). 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 concensus to rename. WinHunter ^(talk) 09:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Category:Successful requests for adminship to Category:Wikipedia Successful requests for adminship[reply]

[T]o clearly identify that [these are] Wikpedia administration or maintenance categor[ies], [not] article categor[ies] 132.205.45.206 02:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How about Wikipedia adminship requests (successful) and Wikipedia adminship requests (unsuccessful) or the like...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedian Requests for Adminship (successful) and Category:Wikipedian Requests for Adminship (unsuccessful) respectively, per Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship. - jc37 12:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object to the parenthetical naming. "Succesful" is a perfectly reasonable adjective. (Radiant) 12:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments, wouldn't we then have to change Category:Requests for adminship to Category:Wikipedia requests for adminship too? Looking at Category:Wikipedia administration, there does seem to be a majority of subcats with the "Wikipedia " prefix, so perhaps this is a standard? If so, I support the original rename nom (but with proper caps: The Words Shouldn't all be Capitalized, afaik.)
  And, I agree with radiant - the parenthetical wording would only be useful to help alphabetically order them in a long list, but they're the only 2 subcats of their parent cat. Almost no categories use parenthesese. --Quiddity 21:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I named Category:Requests for adminship to match Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• First, I've seen quite a few categories with parenthetical disambiguation. (Think about musical groups with names that are also common objects, places, or animals, for example.) And I think that the name(s) I suggested would be fine. However, that said, if no consensus to rename, Keep original name. As far as I can tell, only the nom, my rename suggestion, and the original category names, include all the words "Request for adminship". - jc37 14:25, 2 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. David Kernow (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian dissidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Transferred from PROD as PROD does not and should not handle categories 132.205.45.206 02:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian activists is the right category for Russian activists; Category:Soviet dissidents is the right category for (historical) Soviet activists. This category serves no purpose. 02:27, 23 November 2006 user:Quuxplusone

• Keep Dissidents dissent specifically against their government, and the term is mainly used in the context of communist and post-communist regimes. Activists have all sorts of concerns, and increasingly national activist categories are subdivided by topic. This is just one such subdivision and is as legitimate as the others. Osomec 14:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Historical term incorrectly moved into the present. (The word "activist" is also extremely overused and could mean anything.) Pavel Vozenilek 14:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this means pre-Soviet dissidents against the Tsars, maybe keep. Uncertain.--T. Anthony 15:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I wouldn't categorically call the 3 entries in this category "activists". And they are/were "dissidents" post-Soviet era. The associated articles are also rather clear about that as well. This seems to be a valid category. - jc37 10:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in the absence of a better proposal. Hoylake 18:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This term is never used with regard to pre-Soviet dissidents against the Tsars. It is only used with regards to dissidents in contemporary Russia. It is correctly used by analogy with Soviet dissidents. We will probably see a lot of Russian dissidents in the future. There are many already. Activist means almost nothing.Biophys 02:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think all current members of Moscow Helsinki Group belong to this category, including Henry Reznick, Lev Ponomarev, Gleb Yakunin, and Aleksei Simonov. There are many others, such as Limonov or Shenderovich. Each of them is prominent enough to have a Wikipedia article. Biophys 23:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• There are already 14 people in this category. This category helps a lot to identify people who are in active opposition to the currently ruling regime in Moscow. Biophys 23:54, 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. David Kernow (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rodney Rude (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Transferred from PROD as PROD does not and should not handle categories 132.205.45.206 02:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I question whether this warrants its own category; all the articles in this category are already linked to the main Rodney Rude article 10:00, 23 November 2006 user:DH85868993

• Delete - nowhere near notable to have an eponymous category. Otto4711 08:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Quuxplusone 08:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The three articles should just link to each other. - jc37 10:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per Otto4711 Hoylake 18:26, 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 delete (empty). David Kernow (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Perl programming language family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Transferred from PROD as PROD does not and should not handle categories 132.205.45.206 02:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

empty cat, no likely members 01:30, 23 November 2006 user:Quuxplusone

• PROD2A:If this category were in fact necessary, then a couple months after it was created it would already be populated to some degree. This Category is 6 months old. 19:34, 23 November 2006 user:Eli Falk
• Delete. As above, empty cat, no likely members (or rather, maybe one likely memeber, which makes it tautological). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are no "language families" in programming languages. This is linguistic term incorrectly transferred into programming world and practically always misused. Pavel Vozenilek 14:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as empty. Though I totally disagree with the assertion above. Programming language "families" do exist. Just as spoken languages influence and are influenced by other languages, and just as there are languages that are similar, so too are there in relation to programming languages. To use BASIC as an example, technically, Q-Basic, Commodore Basic, Atari Basic, MS-Basic, and a horde of other similar languages, which had varying code, but were similar were all of the same "family", but implemented in different ways. The Peek and Poke of Commodore Basic being one of its idiosyncrasies, not unlike the idiosyncratic differences between Australian English and American English. And that's just dialectuals. C owes a lot to both Pascal and Fortran (through ALGOL). (etc etc etc) - jc37 10:20, 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 all remaining. David Kernow (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Category:SAARC members plus abbreviations disambiguated by context, suggest:

• Category:ASEAN member states to Category:ASEAN members
• Category:African Union member states to Category:African Union members
  Withdrawn per Briaboru below. David Kernow (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:CARICOM member states to Category:CARICOM members
• Category:Members of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf to Category:CCASG (GCC) members Category:CCASG members  (simplified per below; David Kernow (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Category:Members of the Commonwealth of Nations to Category:Commonwealth of Nations members
  Withdrawn per grammar. David Kernow (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:European Union member states to Category:European Union members
  Withdrawn per Tim! below. David Kernow (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:OIC countries to Category:OIC members
• Category:World Trade Organization member economies to Category:WTO member economies

David Kernow (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the African Union category dealing with these countries as is, because the AU has said that it is modeled after the European Union and because of that, whatever EU category there is it should have an AU counterpart. there seems to be a reasonable expectation that European Union member states are refered to as just that, so African Union countries need to be called the same. Briaboru
• Rename all as nom. David Kernow (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, but comment — it should be "Category:CCASG members" unless there's some very good reason to keep the old abbreviation in the name of the category. "CCASG (GCC)" isn't any more meaningful to the layman than "CCASG". --Quuxplusone 08:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Understood; have amended proposal accordingly. Thanks for your feedback, David (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all Though I was wondering about the parenthetical myself : ) - Also, While US, UK, and NATO are fairly standard in naming conventions now, do all of the rest of the above qualify for non-expanded names? - jc37 10:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe so, given the context in which they'll be found. David (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename the Gulf one to Category:Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf members as the abbreviation is obscure. Rename the others too. Hoylake 18:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I thought the reason for renaming was to make everything standard and grammatical, in which case "Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf members" would be pushing it. "Members of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf" would be more acceptable English, but wouldn't match the other cats; so "CCASG members" seems best to me. Anyone who wonders what the heck "CCASG" is can click the link and find out. :) --Quuxplusone 19:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  That, in two sentences, is my thinking – thanks for the summary, Quuxplusone!  Also, if there isn't consensus re CCASG members, I too would favo/ur Members of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf over Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf members on grounds of syntax. Surely, though, neither of these monster names are appropropriate or necessary given the one or two contexts in which the category is to be found...?  Regards, David (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose European Union members, the correct term is member state (see for example [6]). Neutral on others due to infamiliarity. Tim! 23:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Withdrawn. David Kernow (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks :) Tim! 18:36, 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.