< November 4	November 6 >

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:Wars of the Balkans. the wub "?!" 12:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wars in the Balkans to Category:Wars of the Balkan states

• Rename, more accurately reflects the actual contents (as noted in the category description) and matches the common naming convention for Category:Wars by country. Kirill Lokshin 23:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Question what about Serbo-Bulgarian War and Bulgarian-Latin Wars, both of which are in the category? Although I don't know much about southeast European history, I don't think that those can be classified as wars of "Balkan states"; can they? Picaroon9288 03:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, that depends on your meaning of "state"; I think pseud-states/groups would qualify, but we could go for Category:Wars of groups and states of the Balkans if we want to be pedantic. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 14:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is. This is about wars in the area called the Balkans, about which there is an article and category, both named 'Balkans', not 'Balkan states' Hmains 04:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, wars are categorized by participants, not by location. The common theme in this category is that the participants were located in the Balkans, not that the fighting itself took place there (which applies to a great many other wars); hence, the desire to use "of" rather than "in". I suppose we could just change it to Category:Wars of the Balkans, if that's clear enough. Kirill Lokshin 14:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  ok, I agree. Rename to 'Wars of the Balkans' Hmains 05:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to reflect contents (and per convention for the categorization of wars at WP:MILHIST). Although I have no real preference between Category:Wars of the Balkan states and Category:Wars of the Balkans. Carom 19:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Wars of the Balkans". Why should we not use "Balkan states"? (1) That would make this the only category which uses "states". Category:Wars of Africa doesn't, and neither do we have "Wars of the Mongol states", "Wars of the NATO states", etc. (2) "Balkan states", like "Baltic states", carries a political connotation of a smaller group of states than the geographic term "Balkans" or "Balkan peninsula" denotes. Greece in particular comes to mind; Balkan states, to me at least, carries the connotation of transition economies, those states that were until recently Soviet satellites. Greece is something of an outlier, so if we want to include it, we should say "Balkans." LordAmeth 20:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, to be a stickler for history, Bulgaria and Romania were the only Balkan countries that were ever Soviet satellites. See Tito-Stalin split and Informbiro. Picaroon9288 21:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Wars of the Balkans per above. Picaroon9288 21:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Wars of the Balkans sounds best. Kyriakos 07:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Wars of the Balkans, one only needs read the Balkan article to see the problems that could arrise out of naming this category Balkan States.--Dryzen 15:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is like having Category:Wars in the Pacific Rim. Balkan is not the isolated homogennous hellhole with string of closely related wars as the category suggest. To list together every war and conflict on area of Romania, Greece, Albania and half a dozen of medieval empires promotes absurd view on history, good only for a tabloid. Northern Wars did spill into Balkan (into the semi-independent Transylvania) - should I add it in? Pavel Vozenilek 22:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 20:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Beatallica songs to Category:Songs parodied by Beatallica

• Rename, These are not songs by Beatallica, only songs used by them in their parodies. GVOLTT 22:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do not rename; we don't want song articles flooded by categories for everyone who has ever covered or parodied them, and those subsequent derivatives do not redefine the original song (but if it isn't deleted, renaming per nom is better than keeping it as is). Postdlf 22:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. When I originally created the category, I hadn't thought it out as much, sorry. But since there is a Category:Songs parodied by "Weird Al" Yankovic, it is the perfect precedent for both a naming convention and for Postdlf to consider. We're not talking about a high school garage band, this is college level garage band. ;) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 03:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anyone should have such a category, it's Weird Al, but his parodies still do not become a definitive part of the original song. A list of parodies by...parodist (?) and a list in each song article of notable covers and parodies is the best way to present this information. Postdlf 15:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is not an inherent quality of the original songs. I'm skeptical of the Weird Al category, too. --Dhartung | Talk 07:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, not an inherent quality, but a link that helps the reader find similar articles and artists. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This was tougher to decide on than I had originally thought. Yes Weird Al has had songs and albums consistantly on the international charts, and so there really isn't a comparison there. However, I tend to lean towards Wikipedia is not paper-style inclusionism. However (again), I am also somewhat of an incrementalist, and in looking at these categories, I would presume that they will eventually list every Beatles and Metallica song. - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With the amount of Metallica and The Beatles songs available (roughly 270 it seems), I would doubt this would ever happen. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my comments above. - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is more appropriate as a list than a category. George J. Bendo 15:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—I just wanted to clarify that, in the event that there is not a consensus to delete, no one opposes the rename, correct? Postdlf 17:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That or something similar, I suppose. - jc37 01:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete who are they? Comparing nobodies to Wierd Al who is an international star who covered numreous artists to these guys is ridiculous. At best a list. Rgds - Trident13 19:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 20:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as personal user category. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Though I have to admit that User:Hunterd/Article assessment made me laugh : ) - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It is a Wikipedia user's personal ego trip. George J. Bendo 15:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn. --Kbdank71 12:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• CFD Withdrawn by nominator User:Smerus, see below. new CFD at WP:CFD#National_sub-categories_of_Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies to Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament representing English constituencies

• Rename in the interests of clarity; the proposed title reflects the apparent intention of the category. Many of the MPs listed here are not from English consituencies in their origins (for example Tony Blair , who is 'from' Scotland) but they do 'represent' English consituencies. An alternative renaming, which I personally would prefer, would be Category:Members of the House of Commons representing English constituencies- as members of the other house of Parliament, the Lords, do not represent consituencies in any case. --Smerus 20:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Note - I've tagged these other 5 categories to change "from"/"for" to "representing", as well, per BrownHairedGirl's comments. - jc37 11:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  {NB just for the record this sub-posting, although it appears from its placing to be from me, is not!--Smerus 16:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

  My apologies, it seems I must have added an incorrect number of tildes. Added my signature to clarify.- jc37 23:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Correction: please note that the nomination of the other other articles in the format proposed here does not reflect my comments, and does not reflect the earlier discussion at Category talk:British_MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring. For that reason, the new CFD is appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  missing word "not" inserted before "reflect the earlier discussion" --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. The alternative suggestion will not do as this category is specifically for the post 1801 period, not all eras of Parliament. Metthurst 05:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - I've noticed lately that the nationality-based noms are typically controversial (not all, but quite a few). Try as I might, I can't seem to find anything controversial about the actual nom (the alternate, on the other hand, would seem to be opening a can of worms that I think we should avoid). Nice job : ) - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It would seem that I was wrong about controversial, sigh. - jc37 23:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: this category is one of a series of categories relating to UK MPs. They should be considered together, and named consistently. Please see the discussion at Category talk:British_MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring for an explanation of the context and a suggestion for renaming them all consistently. I would like to ask the nominator to withdraw this nomination and to explore the issues a little further at Category talk:British_MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring before bringing back a new CFD covering all the relevant categrories. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I should have added that I share the concen about "from" being an inappropriate word in this category name; my objections are that there are other issues worthy of attention in these category names, and the relevant categories should all be considered together (the full list is: Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Irish constituencies (1801-1922), Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Northern Ireland constituencies, Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies, Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies, Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Welsh constituencies and Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for University constituencies). Note that the last cat in that list (hich is he only one I created) uses "for" instead of from, and the creator of the other categories supports my suggestion for a shorter conssitent naming structure. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am content to withdraw this proposal if the category to be considered with other similar categories as advised - but can someone more nimble than I please draw up the new cover-all proposal? - and make sure that it avoids using the ambiguous 'from'? I believe that 'representing'is the least ambiguous alternative. Smerus 16:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am very grateful for Smerus's generous offer to withdraw this nonination. I am in the process of creating a new nomination to cover all the categories, and incoprorate both the proposal made for peliminary discussion at Category talk:British_MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring and the proposal in this CFD. I will not attempt myself to formulate the case for Smerus's propsals, and will invite Smerus to edit bthe proposal to make that case in his/her own words. Please bear with me for 30m minutes or so, because it's a little complicated, trying to make sure that it all ties together neatly. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The rest of the nomination are already nominated at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 6#Category:British female MPs and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 6#Category:Current British MPs, adding the "representing" as Smerus requested. I oppose the use of MP, as I feel that it's ambiguous. See also BrownHairedGirl's talk page. - jc37 23:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that those other nominations were made to rename the categories without offering as an option the names which achieved support at Renaming subcategories after restructuring, even though that discussion was known to Jc37 at the time of that Jc37 nominations.--BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all six categories as now listed. The new names are more accurate. Merchbow 18:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - New CFD at WP:CFD#National_sub-categories_of_Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Smerus, thanks for your offer to wthdraw this CFD; new CFD at link anbove, as promised. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Jc37, I think it's a real pity that you made all the other nominations without including the options which achieved support at Category talk:British_MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring. I quite respect your right to make alternative proposals, but it does seem to me to be unhelpful to to take an existing proposal which has achieved a degree of consensus and make new proposals which do not include the options which have been already discussed with support from all participants. To avoid a real mess, may I ask you to withdraw your nominations so that we can make new CFDs which offer all the options? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The pity is that you chose to not respond on your talk page, but instead decided to start a duplicate/counter-nomination? I would like to have faith that those who comment here will be able to determine consensus, whatever it may be. In any case, once the existing nominations have run their course, I don't see why you cannot then nominate your proposal for using MP. No harm, no foul, and life goes on, everyone's happy. As it stands now, I think I'd like an uninvolved admin to sort this out. - jc37 00:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Jc37, see above: I made the new CFD with the prior support of the nominator, who agreed to withdraw this CFD if a new CFD was made so that the pre-existing propsals could be considered alongside this nomination. That has been done, and as a result this CFD is now closed.
  The question of a reply on my talk page is secondary: this CFD was running, and my first priority was to try to get al options on the table simultaneously. I fail to see how your suggestion of letting this run its course first woukd help, unless you do not want the other option to be considered? I hope and assume that is not the case. How can there be a meaningful consensus if all options ae not properly considered?
  As to the other nominations, I guess that I will have to take this to WP:ANI, which seems a real pity. It would be so much more straightforwrad for all involved to just put all options on the table together and discuss them together :( --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#One CFD withdrawn needs closing, other CFDs apparent bad faith by User:Jc37 for the WP:AN/I noted above. - jc37 01:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If one were to discount my comments and BrownHairedGirl's comments, I wonder if there is a consensus one way or the other? - jc37 01:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jc37, as you know this CFD was withdrawn by the nominator, and a new one created at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 7#Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament_.282.29. There are five recommendations here, and 11 on the new CFD; this one is irrelevant. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:07, 10 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:Financial services companies of the People's Republic of China. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Financial services companies of the China to Category:Financial services companies of China

• Rename due to wrong grammar of the title. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  20:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Shouldn't it be Category:Financial services companies of the People's Republic of China? Postdlf 00:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Financial services companies of the People's Republic of China per Postdlf. - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 21:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Puppets Who Kill characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of things. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Keep - Changing vote as per Postdlf below (thank you for the clarification). May need to merge into one article to avoid fancruft anyway, but that's for AfD. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild keep, I don't see this as any worse than any of the other Category:Television characters by series. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 22:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC) See below.[reply]
• Delete, but only because all four of those included articles only have about one paragraph's worth of content, and so need to be merged (if anything is left) and redirected to the parent article (which can easily accommodate the character descriptions) for lack of independent substance. Postdlf 00:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose deleting the category is premature before the articles are merged. Postdlf 15:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not EVEN trivia. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. This would be an appropriate category for a puppet encylopedica. Maybe. -THB 01:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Puppets Who Kill is the title of a television series. Not all of those leaving comments seem to understand that. Postdlf 02:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is? Oh, that is relevant. I would suggest renaming to Characters in Puppets Who Kill or "Puppets Who Kill" characters or somesuch, since it looks confusing otherwise. Also, no objection to merging the lot of them. >Radiant< 15:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Postdlf. I don't see it really expanding much past the 3-4 main character articles tho. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 03:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Another "characters" category. "Weak", because it's underpopulated, and is likely to stay so. (Rename/UpMerge to Category:Puppets Who Kill might be preferrable.) - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The category collects characters from a television series and follows standard naming conventions. The only problem is the resulting unintentional interpretation of the category name. The explanation in the category clarifies its purpose. George J. Bendo 15:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - as others have said, not even Trivia. At best a list, if someone can be bothered. Rgds, - Trident13 19:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 21:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American judges by state to Category:American state court judges

• Rename, along with all subcategories (e.g., Category:Alabama judges --> Category:Alabama state court judges), to avoid ambiguity so that judges who only served on federal court will not be mistakenly added. Postdlf 20:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as not every judge within a state is a "state court judge." Otto4711 20:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's exactly why it should be renamed, to avoid the ambiguity. Postdlf 20:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there then going to be categories for judges within a state who are not "state court judges"? If so then I withdraw the objection (heh, that's lawyer talk), otherwise the categories as they stand are better choices so as to include anyone who's a judge in a particular state and not just those who sit on particular benches. Otto4711 21:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're still not understanding the issue. "Alabama judge" strongly suggests state court affiliation, yet is just ambiguous enough that someone may mistakenly think a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Alabama belongs there. That federal court judge will then be mistaken by many as having served on an Alabama state court by virtue of his inclusion in the category. I have only found a handful of federal judges so categorized since the state judges categories were created, which means that the categories are largely being applied only as state court categories, and which consequently means anyone included is probably going to be presumed to have served on a state court. If you can think of a completely clear supercategory to include both Alabama state court judges and federal judges who sat on courts within the state of Alabama, let me know, but the current category is not it, and isn't being used as such on the whole. Postdlf 21:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, just because I don't agree doesn't mean I don't understand. As long as it's clear that the cats include judges within the state at all levels other than federal then I don't really care what it's called. If someone mistakenly slips a federal judge into the state category, well, then, that's why we have editors. Otto4711 05:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you "don't really care what it's called," does that mean you're no longer opposing the rename, which is intended to make it even more "clear that the cats include judges within the state at all levels other than federal"? Postdlf 05:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Otto4711. There are too many judges called "district court judges" and "superior court judges" the like who wouldn't be put into the categories if renamed as proposed, and that's more of a problem than some federal court judges getting put in there. Gene Nygaard 07:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't understand your comment (nor how it relates to Otto4711's comments above)—why wouldn't state trial court judges be put in a state court judge category? "District court" and "superior court" are simply the titles many states use for their trial courts. Postdlf 13:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a well-written text in the category's text itself will take care of the problems Otto4711 and I have pointed out. After all, we have to deal with New York's "Supreme Court" judges in Category:State supreme court judges in the United States, so they don't get in that category but in this one where they belong. I'll change my vote to neutral on the assumption you will take care of that. (I think the point about federal judges is already made in the category text, quite adequately, and that no change the name of the category is really necessary; it will just substitute different issues which need to be clarified.) Gene Nygaard 14:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I strongly support the intent of the nomination in clearing up ambiguity. I have to ask though: Is "state court judge" the accurate term? Is there another term/title? - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each state has its own names for what it calls its trial courts, intermediate appellate courts, and court of last resort, so the generic "state court" is the only catch-all term. It's also the clearest term to use as an opposite to "federal court." Postdlf 13:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also state court. In everyday legal practice as well, it's the most obvious term to use to make it clear that one is not talking about federal court in the U.S. Postdlf 15:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to 'American state court judges by state'. When we have categories broken out 'by state' then the category name includes 'by state'. In this case, it would be: 'American state court judges by state'. Hmains 04:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel very strongly about that, though I had left off the "by state" so subgroupings for Category:State supreme court judges in the United States and an eventual Category:State trial court judges in the United States could be included. Postdlf 04:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Category:Category:Categories by state of the United States which is certainly a mixed bag of names: some with 'by state'; some not. I don't know which way the trend is going, but the American people categories seem to be 'by state' Hmains 05:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom, though I similarly don't have strong feelings about the mother category. My stronger opinion is about the subcats. I'm similarly confused by whether Otto is opposing or not.--Kchase T 10:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters based on insects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete as vague and superficial. A similar category, "Fictional bug-based characters," was previously deleted, (see CFD) and the same reasons apply to this one (speedy delete it?). Categorizing by motif is not useful or instructive because the relationship is too superficial. The Charlton Comics version of Blue Beetle, for example, bears far more similarity to the Golden Age Hawkman (both derive their powers from Ancient Egyptian animal-totem artifacts) than to Ant-Man (a scientist who develops a shrinking chemical and a helmet that can communicate with insects), despite the fact that both beetles and ants are insects. I also think it's telling that when the Blue Beetle was parodied in Watchmen, that character's motif was made an owl, not another insect. The groupings just aren't any more meaningful than if you were to categorize characters by costume elements (cape or no cape?), and in most cases this is simply going to be a categorization of characters who have insect forms on their costumes (as the category description invites). Postdlf 19:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. — J Greb 20:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - the idea seems to be fairly common in fiction. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea of animal motifs? Yeah, comic book creators have commonly used animals of all kinds for visual appeal, for catchy names, and to ostensibly explain certain superpowers. But please address the arguments as to why this doesn't work as a category. Postdlf 21:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete this recreation of previously deleted category. This one has inadequately defined criteria for inclusion. This category invoked speculative POV in some cases. Do you really know what the character was based on? Did you ask the creator? Spme characters are not based on insects but are merely named for them. What does "based on" mean? And how could this possibly be a useful category? Whatever meager worth is has can be covered by a simple list, which can be properly annotated and broken down by the different ways the characters are "based on" insects (name, powers, appearance, mating habits). Doczilla 21:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivia. And also, speedy per Doczilla. >Radiant< 22:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. a category with too many characters with too little real connection. You might as well have Category:Comic book characters with names beginning with the letter Y. You would get a similar grouping with just as little connection to one another. Stephen Day 00:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the many reasons above. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 03:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - First of all, these are characters in comic books (not in all fiction, though I suppose that may come later), so renaming might have been in order. However, "animal-based" characters, whether insects, bugs, spiders, snakes, cats, or whatever, all sound like GREAT lists, but not-so-great categories (some aren't obvious by the article name, for example). - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete! - Spider-Man alone has fifty or so spin-off characters, like the various Spider-Women, Venom and offspring, not to mention his many foils: Scorpion, Ezekiel, Doppelganger etc. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This is not the only category of this type. There is also, for instance, Category:Fictional cat-based characters. (Just an observation. What you make of it is up to you.) --Paul A 07:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 21:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Da Ali G Show to Category:Sacha Baron Cohen

• Rename, category contains items related to Sacha Baron Cohen, but not necessarily to Da Ali G Show. If renamed, the category will itself need to be recategorised. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, there are enough Ali G specific-entries to justify it, such as the episode list. A better solution might be to create a Cohen category as a parent. Postdlf 22:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and reparent per Postdlf. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 03:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename the character/episodes of AliG are unlikley to be expanded greatly in the future, while work such as Borat and other characters/productions are. At present there is no Sacha Baron Cohen category, making this an illogical first creation. Rgds, - Trident13 19:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename... SBC is broader and makes more sense as the category name than just one of his projects.
• Rename and redirect per nom, and because redirects are cheap. 69.170.17.132 22:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete useless category, only two entries, no clue what it suppose to mean, singers and dancers who act? Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and per "wtf??" Postdlf 22:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, don't see the point. >Radiant< 22:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Well in looking at Special:Contributions/TSOP, it would seem that this is about actors on stage. I am thinking "in acts" means that they were a part of an "act". (compare to being a part of an act on the vaudeville stage. This would seem to be a new creation, so I might suggest giving some time for this to see where it's going before we arbitrarily delete. - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see what usefulness these add and the names are way too confusing. Merchbow 18:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This does not look like a useful way to associate singers/dancers/actors. George J. Bendo 16:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 21:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Daredevil films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Two entries, only one of which should even be there. It should be merged itno Category:Films based on Marvel comics. :) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per Zythe. >Radiant< 22:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• UpMerge per nom. (Wasn't this recently deleted?) - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge - Daredevil simply is not that popular. George J. Bendo 16:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's nothing to merge because they're both already covered. Doczilla 07:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Sports in Puerto Rico. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (and redirect) per nom. - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, empty --Kbdank71 20:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Television logos, duplicate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 03:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). These are not television manufacturing logos, they are logos for TV program productions/companies. The disambiguation between the unit and the programs is "TV" for the programs and related, and "television" for the unit itself. (Note that even the associated template uses "TV".) - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The current name doesn't work. However, I would support merging both into Category:TV logos, providing that all of the children are delt with at the same time. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine with me : ) - jc37 01:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. The convention against using abbreviations trumps any misguided "convention" created by a few people working in one field. Olborne 09:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Professional wrestling direct-to-video films. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Professional wrestling DVDs, or Merge into Category:Professional wrestling films. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Either merge per above, or rename to Category:Professional wrestling direct-to-video films, to match Category:Direct-to-video films and avoid categorizing by the specific recording media. Postdlf 22:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Professional wrestling direct-to-video films, per Postdlf - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Professional wrestling direct-to-video films, per Postdlf. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 20:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Weather modification into Category:Meteorology

• Merge Delete, Limited category that can be discussed entirely within one article if desired. All topics also relate to Meteorology, so opted for the merge into parent instead of delete. WindRunner 16:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to delete upon viewing the restructuring debate in Category talk:Meteorology. This is an unnecessary subcalssification with 2 stubs and the remaining are brief articles, with the exception of Weather control. Delete seems more appropriate now as there are so few articles directly under Category:Meteorology. WindRunner 16:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Actually, per that breakdown, Category:Weather control is listed. It was renamed to Category:Weather modification according to its deletion log. COnsidering that the article name is also Weather control, I think that that probably should be the name of the category. Is there a previous CfR out there somewhere? - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Weather control per my comments above, pending further information. - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Singer-bassists --Kbdank71 20:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Singing Bassists to Category:?

• Rename, This category should clearly be renamed (it's contents are "Bands in which the lead vocalist is also the bass player.", quite an interesting category I think so I'm not proposing deletion). However I'm not sure what it should be called so over to the floor... kingboyk 15:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Singer-bassists to match Category:Singer-guitarists and Category:Singer-keyboardists. TimBentley (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with that is that the 2 categories you mention contain the individual musicians. This category contains bands who have a singing basssist. --kingboyk 11:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this category should contain singers who play bass, not bands with the bass player as the lead singer. -- ndrly 9:25, 7 November 2006
• Rename to Category:Bass-guitarists that sing as at first I thought this was for singers with bass voices. Landolitan 20:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Firstly, the category needs to come off the bands and go onto the singer-bassists themselves. "Bands in which the lead vocalist is also the bass player", while that might be interesting, isn't consistent with how the category describes itself or where it's filed in the category tree. Such a category would not belong in Category:Bassists or Category:Singers by instrument, for one thing; it would belong somewhere in the distinct Category:Musical groups tree. Accordingly, I've moved the category whenever possible from the band to the individual musician. As for the rename, I'd go with Category:Singer-bassists for consistency with the other similar categories. Landolitan, a singer with a bass vocal range is called a bass, not a bassist. Bearcat 09:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a defining characteristic. It seems there used to be Maxim Hot 100 article, but it is now just a redirect. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, trivia. Postdlf 20:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, we see "top X" categories all the time and we don't want them. >Radiant< 22:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. A similar category was the subject of a CFD shortly after the category system was implemented; worth a read-through for the rationales. I believe that the actual lists aren't kept on Wikipedia because of copyright concerns, as the "100 sexiest" whatever lists are formed from the creative decisions of editors as to who gets included and in what order. Postdlf 02:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Metthurst 05:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the consensus on the "top X" categories seems to shift every time they come up. What I seem to recall is that a List is a bad idea due to possible copyvio, but that a category is ok since they are not listed in the same "top" order. However, everyone and their cousin has a "top x" list these days... Not to mention, I seem to recall that we also frown on model categories. So I think delete is the way to go with this one. - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Furthermore Maxim produces a different list in each country where it has an edition each year, so this tag might end up on thousands of articles, but one would not know which Maxim Hot 100 was relevant (as if it matters). Calsicol 14:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No more useful than any other such list.--Mike Selinker 18:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Listify an obvious category for a listification. Rgds, - Trident13 19:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional MySpace people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I could go about adding various Nip/Tuck and Veronica Mars characters or we could nip this in the bud before we get category:Fictional characters by online media in which they have been officially represented or similar nonsense.. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with great prejudice. Every fictional character has a MySpace; this in no way makes the character nor the site any more notable or interesting. -- Kicking222 15:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Kicking222. Postdlf 22:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete uhmk. Danny Lilithborne 03:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark 04:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete George J. Bendo 16:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 07:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete about the dumbest category I have ever heard of, and would set a dangerous precedent. What next, fictional people resident on Mars? Rgds, - Trident13 19:06, 11 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 result of the discussion was: SPEEDY DELETED as obvious misspelling. Postdlf 22:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Beaver Falls, Pennsylvanis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Please delete this category (Category:People from Beaver Falls, Pennsylvanis) due to misspelling of state (Pennsylvanis). Thanks.HOT L Baltimore 14:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename it to the correct spelling instead...~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. You can do speedy rename to fix spelling mistakes, btw. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 rename as nominated. the wub "?!" 20:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:English cricket from 2001 to Category:English cricket seasons from 2001

• Rename to fit convention agreed per decision in previous discussion – this should have been renamed at same time but was overlooked. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per BlackJack. Sam Vimes | Address me 14:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per convention and oversight of previously agreed change. — Moondyne 14:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as above. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per previous nom. - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per BlackJack. Loganberry (Talk) 03:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:English cricket seasons from 2000 because that is the year that most people agree the 21st century began. Olborne 09:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is POV because my belief is that the overwhelming majority of people consider the 21st century to have begun on 1 January 2001. The point is in any case irrelevant to the discussion here as the date of the category is already set and is not at issue: the nomination is about inclusion of the word "seasons" to make the title consistent with other similar categories. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 19:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Female comedians into Category:Comedians

• Merge per Wikipedia gender neutral policy Vegaswikian 07:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per comment on Women poets nom. Otto4711
• Keep Doc ♬ talk 08:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep – proposal smacks of political correctness. There is absolutely no reason not to split genders. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Comedians are often rather gender-specific in their source of material. (Even a comedienne complaining about a girlfriend is usually going in a different direction than a male comedian talking about his girlfriend)--T. Anthony 14:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, no need to categorize by gender. >Radiant< 22:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Just an observation. It would seem that women in entertainment (actresses, comedienes, and sports), or "gender-specific official title", tend to garner more votes of keep than other gender-split categories. That said, recently most of the actress categories were merged to actor due to consensus. - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Mais oui! 09:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Postdlf 15:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Landolitan 20:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Guinnog 18:01, 12 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. the wub "?!" 17:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Women poets into Category:Poets

• Merge per Wikipedia gender neutral policy. Note, I am not doing an umbrella nomination since I believe that these categories must be considered on a one on one basis. If someone thinks that they all should go, then feel free to do an umbrella nomination. Vegaswikian 07:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Comment Keep is largely because I don't think the stated reason for the nom is valid. The cited "policy" is a convention/guideline, not a policy. There's nothing that forbids categorization by sex if there's a valid reason for doing so. The convention you site might apply if there were categories called Category:Poets and Category:Poetesses because the two are not gender-neutral (see example in guideline of "Kings" and "Queens" versus "Monarchs"). The question should be whether or not there is a valid reason for categorizing women poets and given the number of women poets who write mostly or exclusively about women's issues and women's experiences, I'm not convinced that there isn't a valid reason for the category. Otto4711 07:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we should create a category of Category:Men poets to be correct? Why is the gender of a poet important? If we need a category for 'poets who write mostly or exclusively about women's issues and women's experiences' then we should create that, but this category does not serve that purpose. It just serves to split out women. Vegaswikian 04:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps. In modern times poetry is sometimes seen as unmanly. Likewise there are poets who deal with specifically male issues. I believe there was a Welsh poet who wrote paeans about his penis, William Blake wrote poems about whoring and wondering why Cupid was male, Rudyard Kipling had several poems dealing with masculinity, etc. Still I think I might favor a merger with an option of Category:Feminist poets and Category:Masculist poets being created later.--T. Anthony 05:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Otto Doc ♬ talk 08:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep – proposal smacks of political correctness. There is absolutely no reason not to split genders. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was not nominated to be politically correct. I think that PC is a bunch of <insert the 4 letter word of your choice here>. Vegaswikian 04:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, no need to categorize by gender. >Radiant< 22:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Vegaswikian. Postdlf 05:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per the discussion above, though I would not be opposed to Category:Feminist poets (or is it poet feminists?) which would be a restructure at the very least. (And I think that would be masculinist, rather than masculist?) - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Mais oui! 09:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Landolitan 20:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete both. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Playgirl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Playgirl models (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. Empty category except for cat for models. No need for the parent cat. Otto4711 04:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Sigh. Keep of course. It might have been empty but clearly shouldn't have been: I've added the eponymous article (Playgirl); with the subcategory that's quite enough for it to be useful, and I daresay there are other articles which could be categorised there too. --kingboyk 15:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Withdraw my position. If the models cat is going we don't need the parent cat. I don't know how career defining an appearance in this magazine is so I don't wish to comment. --kingboyk 18:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Parallel to category for Playboy, Penthouse, etc. Though I admit a few more entries would be worthwhile. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and delete Category:Playgirl models too. An appearance in a magazine is not a defining characteristic. Metthurst 05:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Playgirl models is now tagged. Metthurst 05:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and repopulate) Category:Playgirl. - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Playgirl models. Models in a magazine series, comparable to actors in a TV series, I presume? - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC) [Changed from Keep to delete, due to discussion below. - jc37 01:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
• Keep model catageory. What is with this "defining characteristic" business? If that were the standard then 80% of the categories on here would be deleted. Otto4711 15:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you believe the standard to be? We don't categorize articles by every fact that is true of the subject (Category:People who have three brother-in-laws, Category:Countries that have been visited by George W. Bush), because this would result in articles being classified by mere trivia, and eventually cause category tags to swamp the article content. Instead, categories should be limited to the most useful in both classifying the articles and aiding navigation to the most significantly related articles. We should aim to only maintain categories that are integral to article subjects, such that the fact or relationship being documented would generally be important enough to be mentioned in the introductory paragraph. For this category, it should be asked whether modelling in the magazine defines the individual's career in the same manner as being a Playboy Playmate, about which I do not have an opinion. But models of any stripe should not be categorized merely by every magazine in which they've ever appeared. Postdlf 16:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a happy medium between trivial to the point of uselessness and defining characteristic. As I said, if we went through all the categories using "defining characteristic" as the standard than IMHO the vast majority of them would fail that standard. As for this particular category, some of the men listed used the magazine as a springboard to other fame, some were the subject of controversy after posing, some are celebrities and thus unusual since male celebrities don't pose nude as readily as female celebrities and some are otherwise not particularly notable. Probably, I imagine, much like the Playboy models who're listed in that category. It's just as reasonable to believe that someone would be interested in an encyclopedic listing of Playgirl models as it is that someone would be interested in an encyclopedic listing of Playboy models. Otto4711 17:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both Doing a shoot for a magazine takes a few hours, and some people have been in hundreds of magazines. It is not a career defining category. Merchbow 18:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both Category:Playgirl models does not represent a defining characteristic and without it there will be insufficient justification for the existence of the parent. Olborne 09:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Merchbow. >Radiant< 15:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as trivia. Playgirl is a pretty minor magazine. Landolitan 20:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nowhere near as strong a category as category:Playboy models. It has nothing to do with gender: Playgirl is a magazine with 100,000 readers, and Playboy has 3 million.--Mike Selinker 18:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If this is defining characteristic it should be mentioned in an article. Pavel Vozenilek 22:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DreamWorks animated films to Category:DreamWorks Animation films

• Rename, company name is DreamWorks Animation FMAFan1990 04:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename – sensible proposal to remove ambiguity. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Olborne 09:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - The proposal is very sensible. George J. Bendo 16:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian Capital Territory elections to Category:Elections in the Australian Capital Territory

• Rename, For consistency with other state cats in Category:Elections in Australia. MH au 04:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 20:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Page Three girls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Another classification of models. We just cleaned out a bunch of these. Need to ask if thss one should also go. Vegaswikian 03:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Unique category. A Page Three Girl is known as a Page Three Girl much more than she is as a model. Landolitan 05:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Landolitan. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Landolitan. --kingboyk 16:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In the United Kingdom, Page Three Girls in the most popular newspaper in the country (even if it is a rag!) are very notable and in a very recognisable category. -- Necrothesp 16:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the UK equiv of the Playboy Playmate. Postdlf 20:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Performer by performance. (it would be like a category for all actors in TV commercials.) - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is the principal defining characteristic of most of these women. Merchbow 18:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm in favor of these categories when the models in question become an elite sorority, such as category:Sports Illustrated swimsuit models, and this is one of those.--Mike Selinker 04:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Comparable to the Playboy bunnies? - jc37 01:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In the UK, yes. See, for example, Samantha Fox. --kingboyk 11:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• When I asked that I didn't think that the Playboy models were categorised. Category:Playboy models showed me how incorrect I was. However, I wonder if it should be deleted as well? (See also the Playgirl models discussion above.) - jc37 13:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I can understand the logic of nomination, but to a Brit (whatever your views on topless photo's), this is much akin to a non-Brit nominating Playboy for deletion. For a country with non-Prostitution laws and before the American lap-dance clubs came here, it must have be amazing to non-locals to be reading a morning newspaper with a topless lady next to the morning headlines. Its very high profile, encyclopedic as a category (they either were or weren't - no grey area unlike Playboy: did they feature as a centre fold or just a feature model?), and as a category rather than a list allows users to quickly move between different british model-focus sections. If we were talking about the Sport newspaper models (who allow those with silicone enhancement), then I would be agreeing with deletion. But this is much like suggesting we dump the pound for the Euro! Rgds, - Trident13 11:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm fascinated that a number of the people who voted to delete the Playgirl models category with comments like "people shouldn't be categorised by the magazines they appear in" and "it only takes a few hours to do a photo shoot" and "not a defining characteristic" are voting to keep a category for models based on a newspaper they appeared in after a photo shoot that, I assume, took a few hours to shoot. Interesting that an appearance in Playgirl isn't defining but an appearance on Page Three is. Otto4711 03:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It may seem odd, but it's true. Playgirl has nowhere near the cachet of Playboy. There really aren't very many of these that make the cut: We deleted "Pirelli Calendar models" recently, and I'd vote to delete ones for Penthouse and Black + White if they came up. I'd say the keep list is Playboy, Page Three, and Sports Illustrated. I can't come up with a fourth.--Mike Selinker 18:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't seem "odd." It seems hypocritical. And the amusing thing is that I'll bet not one of them recognizes his own hypocrisy. Otto4711 01:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's actually a valid opinion. Check out Wikipedia:Notability. Personally I try to avoid it because it's often used in POV arguements (like this one). However, it's at least justifiable, to base their vote/comments/opinion on it. Personally, I think we should delete the models from SI, and Playboy, as well, but that's not what's being nominated atm. : ) - jc37 01:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh please. Have you read some of the articles in this category? Yes, there are some who've done something else besides bare their bosoms on Page 3 but I pulled up several at random and a lot of them were "so-and-so is a model, notable for having very large breasts." A category for women known for showing their large breats in a UK tabloid is a keeper but an equivalent category for men who've posed nude--itself a much more rare occurrence than that of women posing nude--is about to get deleted because the very same people who voted to keep the category for women with big titties also voted to delete the male cat. Frankly, the rarity of men, especially celebrities, posing nude make the cat more notable than one for naked women. Otto4711 03:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I just noticed we have Category:Playboy Playmates, which includes only those who were "Miss [Month]" and appeared in the centerfold, thus acquiring the designation, as well as Category:Playboy models, which includes everyone who's ever had a nude spread published in Playboy. The latter category, the equivalent of Category:Playgirl models, should go because simply having posed for Playboy is not categorically career-defining in the way that being a Playmate is; such women are always referred to as a "former Playboy Playmate." Postdlf 03:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rivers named after women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not a defining characteristic for rivers. Vegaswikian 03:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lena River is missing. More seriously, it is rather likely that results of hydronymy studies won't be used, instead people will populate the category with everything that sounds like a female name. Pavel Vozenilek 04:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it is generally impossible to prove if a river was named after a woman. There are probably case where a woman's name was based on the name of a river. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 22:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of above. And I love that we have an article on hydronymy. Postdlf 02:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per aboves. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 03:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Due to other languages adding gender to words, this could become somewhat ambiguous. - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 20:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lesbian actors into Category:LGBT actors

• Merge. Fails categorization by gender guideline. Otto4711 01:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I would not mind deleting both, but combining people into one LGBT category makes no sense to me. Landolitan 05:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Oppose merge Why would you lump lesbian actors into bisexual and transexuals? A subcategory of LGBT yes, but not eliminate where the orientation is clear. As above the cited "policy" is a convention/guideline, not a policy. There's nothing that forbids categorization by sex if there's a valid reason for doing so. Were there an equally accepted term for male and female homosexuals that could be one category. Doc ♬ talk 08:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment See comment on Gay actors nom below. Otto4711 09:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge I guess as I think dividing actor categories by sex is itself sensible. Also if these "sexual orientation of actors" categories must exist lumping them all together into "LGBT", a term many people still are unfamiliar with, is probably not the way to go.--T. Anthony 11:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep category as is. Having said that, shouldn't it be called Category:Lesbian actresses? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Actor" is considered a gender neutral term. The term "actress" I believe is even seen as demeaning by some Wikipedians. Hence there are a few women, like Sophie Ward in this category, whose article never uses the word "actress." Granted in actual reality "male actor" would be deemed redundant to most folks, but Wikipedia is correct going by the dictionary.--T. Anthony 14:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need gender neutrality in this case? Is there such a thing as a male lesbian?! --kingboyk 16:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I heard of lesbians who became men and bisexual transgendered men who became women who were attracted to women.--T. Anthony 16:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose, it would cause FAR too much confusion.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What confusion would result? Is someone going to see a male's entry in the LGBT category and think he's a lesbian? Otto4711 18:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The bi/gay thing. For example, Billie Joe Armstrong is listed under Category:LGBT people from the United States which prompts many user's to protest "he's not gay!!!11!" ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're suggesting that an encyclopedia cater to stupidity? That seems...counterproductive. Otto4711 18:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, "lgbt" is the common term for cat'ing. >Radiant< 22:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The LGBT categories are nonsensical, like Category:French, German, Dutch or Spanish people. Metthurst 05:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Mais oui! 09:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The difference between lesbian and bisexual is a slight but an important one, and ought to be maintained. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 16:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a separate category for bisexual actors. Otto4711 17:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There won't be if Lesbian actors is deleted. Both would be merged to LGBT actors, which isn't a useful category. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 18:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't there be if this cat is merged? Categorizing by sexual orientation isn't the same as categorizing by sex. "Lesbian" and "gay" categorize by non-heterosexuals by sex. "Bisexual" doesn't. Otto4711 18:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, the difference between lesbians and transsexuals is an enormous one. I think the LGBT people categories need to be eliminated; it makes sense for equal rights efforts to form an alliance of non-mainstream gender/sexuality identities together, but not for biographies. The conglomeration just ends up laughably uninformative. Postdlf 04:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose proposal; keep no need to lump them all together. Carlossuarez46 00:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No need to mix lesbian people with bisexual ones into a single category, let alone with transsexuals. User:Dimadick

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 20:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gay actors into Category:LGBT actors

• Merge. And yeah, I get the irony that I've argued in favor of keeping sex-based categories before, but in this instance the category fails the classification by gender guideline. Otto4711 01:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I would not mind deleting both, but combining people into one LGBT category makes no sense to me. Landolitan 05:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Oppose merge Why lump all gay actors into a group category with bisexual and transexuals? As above the cited "policy" is a convention/guideline, not a policy. There's nothing that forbids categorization by sex if there's a valid reason for doing so. Were there an equally accepted term for male and female homosexuals that could be one category. Doc ♬ talk 08:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I said in my nom that it was a guideline and not a policy. The "equally accepted term" that includes male and female homosexuals that seems to be in usage throughout Wikipedia is "LGBT." Dividing LGBT cats into lesbian cats and gay cats is just another way of dividing by sex which, as you and I well know, is not forbidden but should be avoided if there's not a valid reason for it. Looking at the people listed at the lesbian actor and gay actor cats, there are very few if any who define themselves or their creative output by sex in the way that a woman poet might. I don't see a valid reason for subdividing LGBT actors by sex, any more than there's a valid reason for subdividing heterosexual actors by sex. Otto4711 09:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly diagree as LGBT includes two orientations that do not apply to either male or female homosexuals so it is less specific. Doc ♬ talk 03:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge I guess as I think dividing actor categories by sex is itself sensible. Also if these "sexual orientation of actors" categories must exist lumping them all together into "LGBT", a term many people still are unfamiliar with, is probably not the way to go.--T. Anthony 11:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge. I really don't see why people should be defined according to sexual taste as I presume I will not find Category:Nymphomaniac actresses or Category:Heterosexual actors anywhere. If we are going to have gay, lesbian, bisexual labels then it is sensible to keep them separate per T. Anthony. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness I did put Category:Bisexual actors up for delete see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 19#Category:Bisexual actors. I ended up wanting to withdraw the nomination as it caused too much fighting and was clearly no concensus.--T. Anthony 14:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose, it would cause FAR too much confusion. Also, I dislike the use of the word "tastes" as used above. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, "lgbt" is the common term for cat'ing. >Radiant< 22:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The LGBT categories are nonsensical, like Category:French, German, Dutch or Spanish people. Metthurst 05:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's more like Category:French, German, Dutch, or emigrant people. Postdlf 04:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Mais oui! 10:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The difference between gay and bisexual is a slight but an important one, and ought to be maintained. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 16:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose, the difference between gay and transsexual is enormous. See further comments in above nom for merging lesbian actors category. Postdlf 04:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose proposal/keep, per the above and my comments on the Lesbian proposal above. Carlossuarez46 00:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Doczilla 08:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose MergeThere are already other categories for lesbians, bisexuals, and transexuals, I believe. Therefore I think it would be a mistake to merge gay actors into LGBT actors, unless you were also planning to merge the other categories as well. As someone said above, they proposed deleting Category:Bisexual actors and it caused too much disagreement. I think the separate categories serve their purpose. kc12286 16:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)kc12286[reply]
• Keep No need to mix lesbian people with bisexual ones into a single category, let alone with transsexuals. User:Dimadick

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as not a distinguishing characteristic. There is already a list in the American Masters article. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Having a list is no reason to exclude a category of the same name. A category takes you from article to article, through connections that aren't obvious. The list will take you to another article if you go to the article on American Masters. With the category you can go from Charlie Chaplin to Louis Armstrong. Is there a rule that if you have a list you can't have a category of the same name? What is the rule? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I mentioned there is already a list, that just means that there is no need to create a list article. If there hadn't been a list already, I would have suggested creating one. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category clutter. Not a defining characteristic. Landolitan 05:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the title is meaningless. Master of what? My first thought was that it must be misnomer for the US Masters golf tournament. Pointless category. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above: 1) having an American Masters biography made is not a defining characteristic of the subject; 2) the unelaborated, context-less title is meaningless as a category name. If the American Masters bio was significant enough to the subject to be mentioned in his/her article, then going to that article will enable navigation to other subjects of American Masters bios, and without either of the downfalls of this category. Postdlf 20:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While rather interesting, I think it is better served as a list. (Can you imagine a category listing everyone who's has a "biography" on A&E or The Biography Channel?) - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about Category:People with Wikipedia articles? Postdlf 04:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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