< November 28	November 30 >

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. Kimchi.sg 11:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Category:Articles with example ActionScript code (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
Empty category; should never be used. Any page with ActionScript examples (other than article ActionScript itself) should be rewritten in a more popular language, for the benefit of the readership. --63.102.70.70 23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm the nominator. This is the first step in a proposal to clean up the Articles with example code category. I think that Wikipedia should not contain examples in uncommon or esoteric languages. (Except of course for the list of hello world programs, which seems to have vanished anyway.) Pascal, C, C++, Java, C#, Lisp, Python, Ruby, some modern FP language, some modern Web language, and pseudocode ought to be enough for anybody. Therefore, I propose to rewrite or delete a bunch of "language soup" sections such as the one at Singleton pattern, and then:
  • Delete as empty Category:Articles with example Euphoria code and Category:Articles with example REALbasic code.
  • Rename Category:Articles with example Octave code to Category:Articles with example Matlab code, as "Octave" is the name of the GNU implementation, not the original implementation.
  • Delete all but one of Category:Articles with example Scheme code, Category:Articles with example Haskell code, Category:Articles with example Ocaml code.
  • Delete all but one of Category:Articles with example Pascal code and Category:Articles with example Euphoria code. Euphoria's syntax is cleaner, but Pascal is standardized and better known. --Quuxplusone 00:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are other cats in that supercat that I think are superfluous, such as the JavaScript one, but I could be persuaded that those languages are good for explaining some point better than any other language, so I'm reserving judgment on them. (That's why I only want to rename, not outright delete, the Matlab article, for example; it has array operations as primitives.) --Quuxplusone 00:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Quux for now. Note that the list was moved to wikibooks:List of hello world programs. (Radiant) 09:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm copying my Master Plan to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Programming languages for discussion of the whole idea. The ActionScript cat is still up for deletion right now, of course. --Quuxplusone 00:18, 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. Kimchi.sg 11:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Category:People of Welsh descent in Great Britain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
Too broad, created by a disruptive user who is now banned (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rms125a@hotmail.com) Tim! 17:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; considering Wales is located on Great Britain the name is too broad or too vague to be of any use. -choster 18:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Choster. The category is a huge superst of "Welsh people" and serves no useful purpose. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wales is part of Great Britain. Sumahoy 03:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Coming next week, people of Norman descent in France, people of Celtic descent in Ireland, and people who are mammals on Earth doktorb _words^deeds 08:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:00, 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 delete. Kimchi.sg 12:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as triple intersection. Why is religion relevent here? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, strange mix of religion, nationality, and occupation. -choster 18:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 11:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Darwinek 11:42, 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. Kimchi.sg 12:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as triple intersection. Why is ethnicity relevent here? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, strange mix of ethnicity, nationality, and occupation. -choster 18:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this an all other such deletion nominations. Wikipedia:Overcategorization is a ridiculously rough draft and has no actionability whatsoever. A lot of people have gone to an awful lot of trouble to categorize articles thusly; there needs to be a very clear consensus that Wikipedia:Overcategorization should be Policy before all of that work is destroyed. Also, it is not a triple intersection, but a double one, of sportspeople and German-Americans. Treating "German-Americans" as a double intersection is bogus. We might as well say it's a dodecatuple intersection by such "logic", i.e. "human persons on planet Earth of one gender or the other who happen to be in North America and who have red blood and less than 17 eyeballs and..." Let's not be silly. It's two criteria, simple as that. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not quite the same, as German-American sportspeople is an intersection of 3 sets (People of German descent, Americans, and sportspeople), none of which are subsets of the other. Whereas in your case 'human persons' is a subset of 'things on planet earth' and 'things that have less than 17 eyeballs' and so on. Mairi 07:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thank you, SMcCandlish! My feelings exactly. There seems such a hurry to destroy a lot of work just for this nebulous idea of "overcategorization." I have had a lot of category destroyed by these zealots!! Thank you!! Pastorwayne 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I said it was a triple intersection, I meant nationality / ethnicity / occupation. That makes three, right? I don't see the usefulness of categorizing german-american sportspeople any differently than american sportspeople. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Pastorwayne, if you want to keep this category, can you explain what useful purpose it serves? "Keep it because I disagreed with some other category deletions" isn't a very persuasive argument. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP because it IS useful to some/many! Obviously, it is not useful to YOU. But it IS helpful and interesting, or it would not have been created. Why do just three or four of you get to decide what is and is not useful? Why is the creator's intentions not included in this decision, and in fact given HIGHER consideration - since it IS proof it IS helpful and interesting and useful?!? Thank you! Pastorwayne 11:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, in agreement with ProveIt immediately above. Not all categorization is valuable to an encyclopedia's users. And do we want to maintain (and vandal-patrol) several hundred "XXX-American sportspeople" categories, several hundred "XXX-American actors" cats, several hundred "XXX-American artists" cats, ad nauseam? No exaggeration; I sometimes use Equifax or eTech ethnic data at work, and they have hundreds of ethnic codes. Even if there are no notable Zambian-American actors, there's probably a notable musician or marathon runner with that ethnicity and nationality. Add another whole set of these for "German-Australian sportspeople" since Australia has had immigrants from many countries achieve accomplishments that were noted in English-language reliable sources. And "German-British sportspeople", and so on. Barno 00:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: a category which serves no useful purpose. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Barno. --Quuxplusone 00:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Barno. Sumahoy 03:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Barno. Wikipedia:Overcategorization makes things fairly clear in my opinion doktorb _words^deeds 08:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia:Overcategorization may not be binding at this point, but Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality is. Per the latter, I don't see how German-American athletes constitute a specifically encyclopedic grouping — is there something uniquely encyclopedic about being an American athlete of German heritage? That's the criterion that has to be met to justify a category like this, not simply whether people who fit the description happen to exist. Unless somebody can come up with a convincing reason why "German-American athletes" are actually a topic of inherent social or cultural or academic interest, delete. Bearcat 01:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If this one is OK, then what about Category:Japanese-Russian pornstars Bluap 05:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sumahoy. - Darwinek 11:44, 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 merge with Category:Articles that are too long. Kimchi.sg 12:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Redundant with Category:Articles that are too long. (Radiant) 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 03:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge Tim! 18:19, 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 merge with Category:Comics articles needing cleanup. Kimchi.sg 12:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Redundant with Category:Comics articles needing cleanup. (Radiant) 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge into the ARTICLES needing cleanup category, which has the accurate title. Doczilla 08:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge Tim! 18:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge per nom. Oh! That reminds me, I need some bags and short boxes... --HKMarks(T/C) 17:06, 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 merge with Category:Wikipedia articles that are too technical. Kimchi.sg 13:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Wikipedia articles that are too technical. Yes, I know it's not exactly the same but in practice the overlap is too large and the distinction far from obvious. (Radiant) 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "Confusing" invokes POV. Doczilla 08:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge Tim! 18:19, 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. Kimchi.sg 13:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We currently have over a hundred cleanup categories; obviously this means that not all of them will get the kind of attention they need (or indeed, any at all). This is an example of an extremely specific one that appears to be ultimately pointless. (Radiant) 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This cat corresponds to Template:Quotefarm, which I think is very useful and should not be deleted. However, not every template needs to correspond to a cat! Editors who want to help clean up particularly quotefarmy articles can visit Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Quotefarm and see the same list they'd see on Category:Wikipedia articles containing sections that are an unencyclopedically presented series of quotes, but without all the typing, and without the potential for editors to assume this has something to do with Wikiquote. (I initially thought this cat was supposed to be for pages like Bill Brasky, until I followed some links on the cat page.) --Quuxplusone 00:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 03:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Tim! 18:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename to "Articles with too many quotations". The cat is useful. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are too many of these variations, which clutter up category lists, undermining the navigability of Wikipedia. Hawkestone 16:01, 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 delete. Kimchi.sg 13:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be obsolete. Purpose unclear. (Radiant) 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The category no longer serves any purpose. Dr. Submillimeter 16:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete presumable something to do with templates. Tim! 18:17, 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. Re-categorizing articles tagged with this template into the regular cleanup by month categories is left as an exercise for those interested. Kimchi.sg 13:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think cleanup after AFD is different from any other kind of cleanup. Note that the 'regular' cleanup cat is split by month, for easier access. (Radiant) 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete afd is not cleanup :) Tim! 18:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as important part of the ((cleanup-afd)) tag. (see tag for more details) These two things would need to be deleted together... Or if we want to use Category:Cleanup instead, that would need to be discussed on either the template's talk or talk for AFD. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is easy to make that template point to the regular cleanup cat and still have a link to the AFD debate. (Radiant) 09:24, 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. Kimchi.sg 13:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless. You don't categorize an overlong talk page, you archive it. (Radiant) 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agreed. Tim! 18:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, looks like it's not being used anyway. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:47, 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 rename to Category:People from Richmond, London. Kimchi.sg 13:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from Richmond upon Thames, per discussions of November 8th and June 21st. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Richmond is the name of a town within the borough of Richmond upon Thames. The category only contains people from the town. MRSC • Talk 16:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd sort of like to know ... exactly how many places are named Richmond? -- ProveIt ^(talk)
    • Quite a few judging by the link you have provided. The real question is which is the most significant? If the London one is, we can leave it as-is and dab the others. If the London one is not the most significant then rename to Category:People from Richmond, London. MRSC • Talk 17:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Granted, but along with the rename, I suggest that we simply widen the category's scope to include all of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. The whole borough has a population of just under 200k, and should make for a nicely-sized category. This would avoid the need for disambiguation, which we would otherwise need (Richmond, Virginia also has a population of 200k, and many of the others are well-known). ×Meegs 18:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That has wider implications for other places and I think would be a bad move, especially as Richmond upon Thames borough was only created in 1965. Some people in a category covering the borough will have born and died long before the borough existed! or worse still will have lived in a part of the borough that was not part of Richmond historically, it would be an anachronistic application. MRSC • Talk 18:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then Category:People from Richmond, London it will have to be. ×Meegs 18:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People from Richmond, London per Meegs and MRSC. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People from Richmond, London Timrollpickering 13:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People from Richmond, London. -- Necrothesp 11:24, 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:Public holidays in Peru. Kimchi.sg 13:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Public holidays in Peru, or Category:Holidays in Peru, convention of Category:Public holidays by country. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:31, 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 speedy delete as advertising/conflict of interest (not to mention that categories aren't articles). (Radiant) 17:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not actually a category. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retain, Consumer Directed Personal Assistance is a unique form of Home Care, created to serve the needs of People with Disabilities, who require this level of service, and who wish to retain their independence. The program has grown slowly for many years typically starting in the 60's and 70's with small ad-hoc programs developed to serve the needs of a small group of vocal disabled people. As time past, these programs became more formalized and are gaining popularity across the country and around the world. -- Edlitcher ^(talk) 11:57, 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 Delete. The concerns expressed by people who want to see this category kept don't really address this category, but rather other categories which aren't nominated. Hiding Talk 14:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as triple intersection. These almost always result in overcategorization. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Besides overcategorization, the selection of nationality, occupation, and ethnicity/national origin as the axes upon which to group people smacks of systemic bias. -choster 18:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There's no reason these categories can't be added for groups underrepresented among Wikipedians.--T. Anthony 03:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean that unifying nationality, occupation, and ethnic/national origin might be understandable in the US, where they are commonplace ways to divide people, but not in others. In Afghanistan, clan counts for much more than loosely held notions of nationality; in Lebanon, it's religion. There's no way to universalize the intersection, so IMHO it's better to keep multiple separate categories for these traits rather than trying to combine them. -choster 22:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Something like Category:African American philosophers is a legitimate intersection. If you look at the names in it you'll mostly see people whose philosophy relates to African American culture and society. I'd think it's as valid as Category:Catalan philosophers.--T. Anthony 03:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise music can be strongly influenced by both ethnicity and nationality so Category:Jewish American musicians seems valid and is part of Category:American musicians by ethnicity. The others in this category don't necessarily seem valid to me.--T. Anthony 03:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP for all of these reasons and many more! Thanks. Pastorwayne 11:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 03:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. (Radiant) 16:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Such subcategories are excessive and this only encourages the creation of more of them. Hawkestone 16:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP again, why do we have categories such as Category:Jewish-American journalists if this nominated category is not acceptable. Category:Jewish-American journalists is a so-called "triple intersection." You who want all of these off Wikipedia have an aweful lot of work to do, because there are many. On the other hand, perhaps categories such as these ARE significant and meaningful and informational to others! Thanks! Pastorwayne 12:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please restrict yourself to one vote, and preferably not written in capital letters.
• Delete I wouldn't miss any of the subcategories. Osomec 21:14, 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 Delete. Only one voice in opposition, prior precedents and the discussion below declare a consensus to delete. Hiding Talk 14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Korean American religious leaders
• Category:German-American religious leaders
• Category:American religious leaders by ethnic or national origin

Delete as triple instersection and recreated content, see also November 28th discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• do NOT delete there are categories for various ethnic groups as artists, writers, architects, etc., etc., etc. see just a few examples: Category:Jewish American architects, Category:African American philosophers, Category:German-American sportspeople. Why not religious leaders, too?!? Why is ethnicity or national origin important to those kinds of people.occupations but not to religious leaders?!?! It seems a unfair bias against religion/religious leaders!!! Pastorwayne 16:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the existence of unmerited categories elsewhere imparts no merit to the proposed.-choster 18:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• do NOT delete please see comments above for German-American Sportspeople. Thanks!! Pastorwayne _words^deeds 22:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are essentially voting twice. I request that you strike out one vote, but keep both comments.--T. Anthony 03:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment for closer. Note that there are multiple votes by one editor included here. Vegaswikian 23:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Note that the other triple-intersection cats mentioned above have now also been nominated for deletion, which is good. --Quuxplusone 00:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For consistency. I opposed the deletion of the others, I'd be willing to say as such if anyone puts them up for deletion review, but they were deleted. There is nothing about the remaining ones that merits them being treated different. In fact I'd say these intersections are slightly less notable. (Although there are Korean-American churches)--T. Anthony 03:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Overcategorization that is likely to be of minimal relevance to most of the articles. Sumahoy 03:52, 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, strong consensus evinced below. Articles tagged with ((Cleanup-date)). Hiding Talk 14:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC) We already have several "need attention" categories, and every now and then we get an extra one that is implied to be more urgent for some arbitrary reason. This needlessly convolutes the process further. (Radiant) 13:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Osomec 13:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Some articles are in need of attention, but some are more in need than others. Heh, what a silly thing this is. No need to have a cat like this, delete as per nom. doktorb _words^deeds 08:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Tim! 18:21, 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. David Kernow (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be a maintenance category but the only pages left in there are a number of user pages and archives thereof. In general, whenever a template is deprecated, a TFD bot is employed to remove it, so I think we don't need this cat any more. (Radiant) 13:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Osomec 13:51, 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 both. David Kernow (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not particularly helpful to categorize rewrites of pages as such; it is far better to notify people e.g. at RFC or the relevant WikiProject. At present, both contain only userpages. (Radiant) 13:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Osomec 13:51, 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 consensus. The TFD also closed as no consensus, so it seems fair enough to keep this for now. the wub "?!" 11:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than marking broken links as "broken", we generally remove such links. Thus there is no need for this category. (Radiant) 13:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Osomec 13:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I've nominated the corresponding Template:Cleanup-link for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 30 for the same reason. --Quuxplusone 00:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This category is not useful from a practical standpoint. Dr. Submillimeter 16:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Gaah! You should fix links by pointing to the Wayback machine if at all possible, rather than blindly deleting them! And if you don't know how to link to the wayback machine, then this category suddenly becomes useful! Xtifr _tälk 21:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Xtifr has a good point. Maybe we could invoke a bot to change defunct links to the wayback machine? The problem with this cat is that it doesn't show which links in the article are defunct, but it is technically possible to find them automatically. (Radiant) 16:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete More likely to expand in neglect while impeding navigation than to be regularly cleared. Hawkestone 16:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per WP:REF#What to do when a reference link "goes dead", we do not remove dead external links in references. Like many templates and categories, this one should be used by an editor who finds a problem, but lacks the knowledge or expertise to fix it. Not everyone is even aware of the "wayback machine", much less adept at using it. I agree with Xtifr that this category, and the corresponding template at Template:Cleanup-link, could become quite useful. -- Satori Son 20:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - see Wikipedia:Dead external links. --- RockMFR 01:32, 12 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. David Kernow (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with the many cleanup categories on content, style and expertise. (Radiant) 13:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Osomec 13:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant with other cleanup categories. This category was populated with Template:Clarifyme, which I have now edited to populate Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification. -- Satori Son 15:24, 9 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. David Kernow (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not really a category. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Osomec 13:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. --Quuxplusone 01:05, 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 rename all per nom. David Kernow (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Alias to Category:Alias (TV series)
• Category:Alias actors to Category:Alias (TV series) actors
• Category:Alias characters to Category:Alias (TV series) characters
• Category:Alias crew to Category:Alias (TV series) crew

rename all as info page name "Alias (TV series)". Woepzwr 06:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nomination, to add clarity for the majority of readers who will not otherwise know that Alias refers to is a particular TV series. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 13:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename 132.205.93.32 22:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Alias. It doesn't seem necessary to rename the others though. --musicpvm 06:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment+ Category:Alias episodes--Twkfw 07:36, 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 speedied as nonsensical. (Radiant) 09:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Category:Men who wear tight pants should be speedily deleted. It is bogus and empty and was created by a known vandal, who claims to be reformed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NEMT/Archive_1#Block I'm not sure he or she is fully reformed. Hu 05:39, 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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Colonna to Category:Colonna family

• Rename, for clarity and to match the name article in line with numerous prior renamings along the same lines. Sumahoy 04:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 13:52, 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 upmerge all to Category:Women in war, and delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I apologise for some of the over-categorisation in my attempts to sub-categorise this category, but 120 articles in the root cat was really getting, if not over-populated, then unwieldy and hard to navigate. Plus no-one else seemed to be taking on the task! :-) Neddyseagoon - talk 10:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to apologize Neddy, I'm sure you meant well and just got a little carried away. We'll get this crazy category straightened out. :) Asarelah 02:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women in war by theme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The word "Theme" refers to the unifying subject or idea of a story, and this is a category for real people, not a category for fiction or literature. Asarelah 04:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seemed the best title for the articles now within it, which are all not individuals, but topics within the wider topic of 'Women in war'. Suggest Rename to something like Category:Women in war by topic. Neddyseagoon - talk 10:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Added all this too: Category:Women in war by type (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Overcategorizing.

Typology within the topic, as above. Grouping by type is a valid - stops root cat becoming overcrowded.Neddyseagoon - talk 10:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women in the invasion of Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Overcategorized and underpopulated.

Category:Women in war in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Overcategorized and underpopulated.

Category:Women in the Vietnam War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Underpopulated.

May well be underpopulated, but the 3 above categories make it easier to navigate within Category:Women in 20th century warfare and Category:Women in 21st century warfare, which are both, if not overpopulated, large enough to be difficult to navigate. Women's service within these wars are also themes within those wars themselves. And with women's continued participation within the Israel and Afghanistatan conflicts, those 2 may well grow in the future in ways we cannot predict, so keeping them would 'futureproof' the root cat in itself. So, in the case of all these 3, Keep.Neddyseagoon - talk 10:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women in the First Iraq War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Underpopulated.

• concur to merging - I created it, expecting it become larger than it did! :-) Neddyseagoon - talk 10:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women in the Korean War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Underpopulated.

• concur to merging - I created it, expecting it become larger than it did! :-) Neddyseagoon - talk 10:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women in the Spanish Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Underpopulated. Asarelah 04:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• concur to merging. (Radiant) 09:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• concur to merging - I created it, expecting it become larger than it did! :-) Neddyseagoon - talk 10:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all deletions for now. It seems to me that we are dealing here with a huge number of subcategories of Category:Women in war, many of which are underpopulated, and that the situation really merits a more careful review at category talk. However, these categories do seem to be underpopulated, so I support deletion without any prejudice to recreating them if the need arises. I suggest to Neddyseagoon that the best way to try to unravel this might be to start with a a few multi-column lists in talk space, and try to get some measure of the likely size of the categories. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all I would support deletion of every related category. Osomec 13:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all "Women in war", "Fictional Amazons", all seem to be poorly titled and misused. I would normally support "women in specific wars" being merged or remaned to "soldiers in", but all just seems too messed up. I mean, would a soldier's wife count as a "woman in war"? Would a simply fictional crime fighter or modern day radical like Cassandra Cain count as a "woman in war" or an "Amazon"? Once all the categories are deleted, proper ones can always be created in their place. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all and merge back per nom. Few of these sub-categories could support a decent lead article anytime soon. The article Female roles in the World Wars needs a bit of work; but I'd guess that extending and subdividing it would give the best framework for new categories that are well-populated. And maybe a more "contemporary"/C21st article too?? Mereda 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Category:Pro-life commentators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete. Category was overlooked as part of a recent CfD nomination deleting "Pro-life and pro-choice activists by profession." Severa (!!!) 04:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 132.205.93.33 05:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, consider speedying as I'm pretty sure I've seen it before on here. (Radiant) 09:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, consider speedying per Radiant. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.--Andrew c 22:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:29, 3 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. David Kernow (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Protagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Every main character of every short story, film, novel, epic poem, rock opera, and bubblegum comic would fit into this category, making it impossibly broad, though the category is underpopulated now. JRP 04:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, overly broad. (Radiant) 09:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as far too broad to be of any encyclopedic value. -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this useless damn category. Doczilla 08:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I'd like to bring up Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 2#Category:More protagonists. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:11, 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 withdrawn by nom. (Radiant) 09:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional fauns to Category:Fictional deer Rename or Delete, Category has only two entries and it would be silly to have "fictional aardvarks" to "fictional zebras" so I recommend Delete, but failing that it should be renamed to Fictional Deer, to use the proper name for the animal (and to prevent the need for "Fictional Stags" down the line. JRP 04:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: this is for fauns, which are a mythical creature that doesn't have all that much to do with deer (unlike fawns, which are baby deer). Mairi 04:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ack. That was silly of me then. I withdraw the nomination. JRP 05:51, 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 as nominated. the wub "?!" 09:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Xena to Category:Xena: Warrior Princess

Rename as Xena: Warrior Princess Waaavsd 03:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Xenaverse, because it contains Hercules. 132.205.93.33 05:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, "Xenaverse" strikes me as the sort of neologism we should avoid both in articles and in cat names. Otto4711 15:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment Then it should be "Hercules:The Legendary Journeys", because Xena is a spin-off. Xenaverse gets 44,000 ghits. 132.205.44.134 23:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Xenaverse per 132.205.44.134. The only thing really wrong with the original name is that it might be taken to refer to Eris (dwarf planet); "Xenaverse" doesn't have that problem. ("Neologism" isn't really an argument against it, when you consider that the Xenaverse TV shows didn't exist 20 years ago. There's some precedent; see Category:Fandubs for the first obviously neologistic cat I found.) --Quuxplusone 01:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Xena: Warrior Princess. Tim! 18:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Xena: Warrior Princess or keep as is. Do not under any circumstances rename to a horrid neologism like "Xenaverse" (makes my keyboard feel dirty just to type that)! Xtifr _tälk 20:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, although for the record I have no problem with Xenaverse as it is a fairly well used term (compare Buffyverse and Whoniverse, both AfD survivors).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment lolz, xtifr said it well. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:58, 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 no consensus, bordering on keep per conventions. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:British pro-life activists to Category:Pro-life activists in the United Kingdom
• Category:English pro-life activists to Category:Pro-life activists in the United Kingdom
• Category:American pro-life activists to Category:Pro-life activists in the United States

• Rename. "British" and "English" are redundant. Would be better expressed in more inclusive category, "...in the United Kingdom." "American" is non-specific and confusing — it could also refer to North Americans, South Americans, or Latin Americans — and, being that "America" herein is intended to mean "United States," it should be renamed to reflect this fact. Renaming will harmonize category titles with conventions applied to other categories in WikiProject Abortion. -Severa (!!!) 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Severa (!!!) 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The conventions used for categories of people are very well established and the existing names are correct. Sumahoy 04:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this should be "Anti-abortion" and not Pro-Life. Not all of them are activist pacifist vegans who wouldn't hurt a cryptosporidium that vocally oppose the death penalty. 132.205.93.33 05:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Terminology is not what is at issue. A previous CfD and WikiProject Abortion convention has established the precedent of using self-identifying terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life." -Severa (!!!) 07:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to "Anti-abortion activists etc" per 132.205.93.33. "Pro-life" is a POV title, and the short debate at the previous CfD does not create a binding precedent. Note that WP:MoS#Identity is not policy, just "some nonbinding guidelines that may help" and that the same guideline notes that WP:NPOV and WP:OR take precedence.

However, this nomination is unfortunate in that it also fails to accomodate the distinctions between British and English (and the differenvce between both of those and the United Kingdom), so I propose that the renaming should be:

• Category:British pro-life activists to Category:Anti-abortion activists in the United Kingdom
• Category:English pro-life activists to Category:Anti-abortion activists in England
• Category:American pro-life activists to Category:Anti-abortion activists in the United States

The problem with "British" in this context is that it does not satisfactorily cover Northern Ireland (half the people there reject the idea of Britishness), and there is no adjective for "United Kingdomish" ... so a renaming to include the term United Kingdom is necessary and requires a move to a noun rather than an adjective. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose above suggestion. "Pro-choice" is also a debatable term, and, yet, no one is advocating changing "pro-choice" to "pro-abortion" in any category. WikiProject Abortion has longed favoured the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" in articles and in categories; we have had many CfDs in order to maintain this consistency. We have chosen these terms because they are more preferrable than alternate terms, like "abortion rights" or "abortion rights opposition," which carry a bias, or "anti-abortion" or "pro-abortion," which do not give the whole picture. BrownHairedGirl's suggestion would create a discrepancy between the titling conventions applied to the nominated categories and all other WikiProject Abortion categories, decreasing, rather than increasing, consistency. -Severa (!!!) 20:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think "Pro-Choice" should also be renamed, to "Abortion access advocacy" (or similar). "abortion access" is a term that is used, though much less so than "anti-abortion" 132.205.44.134 23:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As was pointed out by GTBacchus, when you and Osomec brought up the same points in a June 2006 CfD, "Abortion access advocacy" is unintuitive and sounds contrived. It is an inaccurate portrait of the pro-choice movement to suggest that it is about nothing but securing the right to an abortion (consider, for instance, the pro-choice movement's lobbying for emergency contraception and sex education), and equally that the pro-life movement is concerned only with preventing abortion (consider its opposition to euthanasia). The issue at hand isn't whether these terms are appropriate; let's try to avoid straying away from the main focus as occurred in the June 2006 CfD. If you have concerns about the accuracy of the terms in question, perhaps these would be better addressed to WikiProject Abortion, or the articles Pro-life and Pro-choice. The use of these terms throughout Wikipedia is a lot more prevalent than in just these categories. -Severa (!!!) 02:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all "American", "British" and "English" are all standard legitimate terms used on hundreds of categories. Wikipedia reflects the world as it is. Northern Irish people are British whether they like it or not, just as many other minorities are categorised by their state of citizenship whether they like it or not. I thought we had seen the last of the "someone else might be confused as to what "American" signifies" argument months ago. Osomec 13:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Northern Irish people are also automatically entitled to Irish citizenship, and many reject the British label. Whatever anyone thinks of the merits of that view, I hope wikipedians could acknowledge that the term "British" is not NPOV in that part of the UK (anyone notice that there was a wee bit of a conflict there?), and try to use neutral terms. The nation of which Nothern Ireland is part is not, in law "Britain": it is "the Untied Kinbgdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". When there is a neutral term available, why not use it? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing that is a breach of NPOV is breaking conventions on how we categorise people due to political pressure. The categories for Northern Irish people should be in both the relevant Irish and the relevant British category, and the last time I looked most of them were. That deals with the issue quite adequately. There is absolutely no reason for these few small categories to deviate from the forms that have been used for many hundreds of large categories for years. Osomec 05:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Boggle This is not about bowing to "political pressure", it is about avoiding favouring one side of a political dispute. The term "British" is central to the political divide in Northern Ireland: half the population accept it, half reject it. How on earth is it a breach of NPOV to use a naming format which is both more accurate and does not favour either side of a political divide? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is absurd. As I understand it, if the categories were already at the proposed names they would be eligible for speedy renaming to the current names. Anyone who wants to change the convention should start with category:American people and category:British people, not in a forgotten corner like this. Hawkestone 11:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel here — just bring the naming conventions of these categories into alignment with those used for other WikiProject Abortion categories. Besides, there's currently a grand total of one article in "English pro-life activists," and "British pro-life activists" is completely empty, so, if anything, the split is unnecessary and excessive. -Severa (!!!) 07:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for biographical articles should follow the conventions for biographical articles. The non-biographical abortion categories follow the conventions for whatever type of category they may be. That is the why the category system works across thousands of subject areas and there isn't the slightest glimmer of a reason why abortion should be any different. Hawkestone 21:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Abortion in the United Kingdom is not a UK wide matter - Northern Ireland has a different level of provision (none) and I think it's a devolved matter in Scotland. Someone who may be an activist for a position in one area (say in England) may not be at all in another where the provision is already what they desire (say in Northern Ireland). Timrollpickering 13:18, 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. the wub "?!" 09:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as included in a published list, and certainly copyrighted. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It doesn't seem right for Wikipedia endorse such subjective lists in this way. Sumahoy 04:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think very carefully about the implications If this one should be deleted, what does that mean for categories such as Category:Forbes 400, Category:Dow Jones Industrial Average, and Category:S&P 500 - aren't these all "subjective lists" and WP:Copyvios as well? 68.160.221.170 05:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, arbitrary. (Radiant) 09:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as highly subjective. In response to 68.160.221.170, the Dow Jones is based on impartial empirical criteria, based on market capitalisation. The list of 100 Best companies to work for is based on a subjective assessment of several criteria which are themselves either subjectively weighted or arbitrarily allocated equal weight. The CNN page linked above itself asks "What qualities are you looking for in a great employer?", offering a choice between widely differing factors such as training, company size and diversity. A disabled black lesbian mother competing for a low-grade job is likely to allocate very different priorities than would be chosen by a single white male looking for a senior mangerial post, and all a list can do is to subjectively apply some averaging. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Totally unacceptable category. Category:Forbes 400, Category:Dow Jones Industrial Average, and Category:S&P 500 are not subjective in this way, but they should all be deleted in any case as it is easier to assess whether a list is up to date. Osomec 13:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Generally speaking magazine "best" lists should be handled as list articles, not categories. Dugwiki 17:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although inclusion in the DJIA and S&P 500 are somewhat subjective, and the Fortune 1000 and Forbes 400 also rely on editorial judgment calls, they are longstanding, culturally iconic classifications (e.g. "outperforms the S&P 500" "a Fortune Global 1000 company"), and the market indices are widely followed and quoted daily. None of those traits apply to this list. Publishers are constantly inventing awards and lists of "Top Places to Live" or "Best Sports Bars" and the like because they they sell magazines, and because one day their best or worst this-or-that might become as well-known as Time's Person of the Year or the US News & World Report Best Colleges. Fortune's Top 100 Places to Work in America is not there yet.-choster 18:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This category is NO more subjective then the S&P 500. Fortune defines the list and because the list is defined from an outside and notable source then it's not arbitrary or subjective. (Fortune's selection might be subjective, but now that thier selection is done, our inclusion of an article in the cat is NOT subjective).... so keep as a cat or convert to a list. It's notable, it's often quoted, and it's not a copy-vio if kept in a cat like it is. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try a Nexis search on "S&P 500" versus "Fortune's Top 100 Places to Work in America." To compare the two is to compare apples with apple orchards. -choster 00:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is very much more subjective. The S&P 500 is based on numbers, whereas every aspect of the decisions made for this list requires subjective judgements. Copied POV material breaches Wikipedia:Neutrality just as much as original POV material, not to mention possibly coopyright. Wimstead 00:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 09:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, High schools don't need their own categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, overcat. (Radiant) 09:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, as over-categorisation. -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The same effect can be achieved by linking to the article about the school from the alumni category's header. Hawkestone 11:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, there's a Cat for the alumni of a h.s.? Where is the line? -- RCEberwein | Talk 11:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:59, 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 speedily deleted and salted as recreation, per previous consensus. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per October 31st discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:09, 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 speedily delete and salt per previous consensus. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per October 31st discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense by banned User:Nintendude working through a sock.--Isotope23 02:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt the earth. Let's not have this category recreated.--Mike Selinker 02:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nintendude category (for real this time!). And fuckcruft ^_^ Danny Lilithborne 03:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and tag as a deleted category. Sumahoy 04:51, 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 Consensus. Split debate which doesn't come down in favour either way, and nothing from guidance jumps out as settling the issue either. Hiding Talk 14:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Artists from Pittsburgh
• Category:Actors from Pittsburgh
• Category:Businesspeople from Pittsburgh
• Category:Sportspeople from Pittsburgh
• Category:Writers from Pittsburgh
• Category:Reality television stars from Pittsburgh
• Category:Politicians from Pittsburgh
• Category:Musicians from Pittsburgh
• Category:Pittsburgh coaches
• Category:Comics creators from Pittsburgh

Delete as overcategorized. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Category:People from Pittsburgh is huge; this is a way to reduce the hugeness. And there are certainly enough actors, athletes, businesspeople, writers, and politicians to populate these categories; I am currently in the process of migrating the majority of the the People from Pittsburgh articles into these categories. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 01:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination of Category:Pittsburgh coaches. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Category:People from Pittsburgh has gotten much too large. These categories can be used to lighten the load there. – Paschmitts 03:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment why is, say, Category:Reality television stars from Pittsburgh (or Category:Sportspeople from Pittsburgh) useful to a reader? I can see why Category:Writers from Pittsburgh might be, as where writers are from can influence their writing, but in what way is Reality television stars from Pittsburgh any more than an intersection of two random categories? Mairi 04:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Reality television stars from Pittsburgh and Category:Comics creators from Pittsburgh as overcategorisation; keep the rest per Paschmitts and Chris Griswold as useful subdivisions of Category:People from Pittsburgh. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• General keep Without getting into the specifics of each subcategory, generally speaking I don't have a problem with a large city category being subdivided by occupation, provided it is done in a way that keeps the number of such categories per article limited. Dugwiki 17:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't care if any of these are kept but if the reality TV category is kept then it should be Renamed to Category:Reality television participants from Pittsburgh to match the parent cat Category:Reality television participants. Otto4711 18:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• General keep per Dugwiki. ~ BigrTex 16:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The parent category Category:People from Pittsburgh is a valid, accepted categorization of people by place. This sub-categorization by occupation is misleading. It implies that there is a connection between the subjects in their combined origin and occupation (ie. influence). If there is something about the place that provided a similar connection in the subject's origin then categorize by that. But this category ignores that and says 'these subjects may or may not have similar influences because they are from Pittsburgh, but we are not going to tell you what that influence is, if it exists.' These cats falsely imply that all artists are similar because they are from Pittsburgh. ·maclean 05:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Wow, I really don't see that implication at all. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:33, 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 delete without hesitation. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Shit
• Category:Nigger

A collection of articles with the word in their name. Doesn't seem to be particularly useful. Same reasons as above (Category:Fuck)-- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, beyond the fact that these are completely spurious categories, this is almost certainly more of banned user User:Nintendude's delightful brand of profanity-based disruptive editing (working through one of his many sockpuppets).--Isotope23 02:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not a recreation, but if it gets recreated let's salt these too.--Mike Selinker 02:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nintendude category (for real this time!) Danny Lilithborne 03:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and tag as deleted categories. Sumahoy 04:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unhelpful categories. -Will Beback · † · 05:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:SPEEDY] G10 as attack pages; otherwise strong delete as abusive and POV. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Be gone! Delete without hesitation doktorb _words^deeds 08:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Chris 19:34, 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.