< October 12	October 14 >

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Clear consensus to delete formed in the below debate and per comments at the previous debate. Hiding Talk 10:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serbian and Montenegrin footballers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category is redundant to Category:Serbian footballers and Category:Montenegrin footballers. The previous cfd, here, decided to keep it until split. I've finished splitting it, so it is time to delete. Picaroon9288 22:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant category. Doczilla 02:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. AuburnPilot 17:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. The consensus formed here feels the category is superfluous to French people. Although the process was interfered with, I think a quick glance through the contributions of the category emptier would allow a precis of what the category contained, and given only one user felt that was an impediment, I don't see that as an obstruction to closing the debate. 10:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Hiding Talk

---

Category:Individuals in the history of France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete: it strikes me as extremely weird and vague criterion for categorizing, and it is unmatched by any subcategory in other counties' "history of" categories. It also looks like it has been created without paying attention to its possible consequences: I am willing to bet that three quarters of articles in the category French people can go in there. The precedent created here is unmanagable. Or at the very least rename to "People in the history of France". Dahn 22:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As redundant to category:French people. All French people had some role in the history of France, even if very minor, and so did many foreigners. Hawkestone 11:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I think, as redundant to French people per Hawkestone. David Kernow (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - as the consensus seems to be towards deletion, I've jumped the gun a bit and emptied it. Hope you don't mind. User|Neddyseagoon 13:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Whawhawhawhahwawhawhat?! (Silly bit.) That is naughty, Neddy; please don't do it again (silly/serious bit). Apply at quonce, David Kernow (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Well, since it was prematurely emptied, I now have no way to know was in it in order to comment upon it, sigh. - jc37 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Regardless of what was in it. Sumahoy 00:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename, consensus below and here. Hiding Talk 10:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Modern aircraft carriers to Category:Active aircraft carriers
• Category:Modern aircraft carriers of the People's Republic of China to Category:Active aircraft carriers of the People's Republic of China
• Category:Modern amphibious warfare vessels to Category:Active amphibious warfare vessels
• Category:Modern auxiliary ships to Category:Active auxiliary ships
• Category:Modern cruisers to Category:Active cruisers
• Category:Modern destroyers to Category:Active destroyers
• Category:Modern destroyers of the Republic of Korea to Category:Active destroyers of the Republic of Korea
• Category:Modern frigates to Category:Active frigates
• Category:Modern frigates of the Netherlands to Category:Active frigates of the Netherlands
• Category:Modern missile boats to Category:Active missile boats
• Category:Modern patrol vessels to Category:Active patrol vessels
• Category:Modern corvettes to Category:Active corvettes

• Rename. Several weeks ago we had a CFD on this subject and decided to rename, but these categories slipped through the cracks. TomTheHand 16:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Seems to fit previous CfD. AuburnPilot 17:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename "Modern" is little better than "famous" as a category-defining term. Calsicol 11:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus - Rename and relist. I can see a strong move to delete, but I think there's a general agreement that this whole issue should be settled with discussion on all the categories in Category:Skeptics rather than simply take one out of the chain. So am renaming per our spelling usage conventions, but relisting as part of an umbrella nomination. This close should not be taken as endorsement of the category or a keep. Hiding Talk 10:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British skeptics to Category:British sceptics

• Rename, British spelling of sceptic for an obviously British category. Schaefer (Talk) 19:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename further or delete as overly vague. Sceptic towards what? Government? Religion? Economy? Wikipedia? What is the meaning of this cat? >Radiant< 20:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Radiant Dahn 22:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Radiant. Vegaswikian 23:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 00:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to conform to Wikipedia's English language standard. The Category:Skeptics is divided into nationalities. When more articles of biographies of the different varieties of skeptics then they can be divided further, but until then all of the above. FancyPants 00:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I suppose the idea was to group skeptic philosophers. I suggest turning all categories into "something skeptic philosophers", and drop inclusion of all articles that are not about philosophers (and rather about people who some user assessed as "skeptics"). Dahn 00:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would agree with that. The American category has Isaac Asimov and Julia Sweeney in it.--Mike Selinker 04:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Radiant. The word skeptic does not have an operational definition as applied here. (And if kept, of course it should be changed to the British spelling.) Doczilla 02:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename LW77 00:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - First, List of Skeptics and skeptical organizations, while interesting, has no discernable criteria for inclusion. One may be skeptical, and not necessarily be a skeptic. Second, I don't believe that these should be divided by nationality, so much as by topic (there are several psychic-power skeptics, for example). - jc37 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge all "Skeptics by nation" categories to Category:Skeptics, and Delete. (Since this nom only names one, do that one, and hopefully more will follow.) - jc37 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  note 3 British, 3 Finnish, 35 American

  • At this point, it would likely be better to nominate Category:Skeptics if that is what you want to do. There are four 'by country' subcats and two topic specific subcats. There are also some other articles listed. Vegaswikian 19:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fauna of the United States by state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Fauna of the United States really is enough. Up to 50 categories in a single article is beyond useful. See Puma for an example, and there are just 14 of them in there! And, if we have the fauna by US states category, why not start a similar categories for the fauna by Bundesländer? This just isn't useful. --Conti|✉ 19:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• While it may not be workable, as a person with an interest in biogeography I must take issue with the assertion that the categories aren't useful - they're definitely useful. Anyway, you can't delete a category without nominating it for deletion - so until all 50 categories are separately tagged & listed, I must register a Strong Oppose. Guettarda 19:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • What would be the point of seperately listing the 44 categories for deletion? The reasoning is exactly the same, and I can't imagine that there's a reason to keep one of those while deleting the other. So, either, all of them should go, or none of them. --Conti|✉ 19:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • • The point would be that it would allow interested editors (ie, those who have the categories on their watchlists) to weigh in. It's a basic courtesy. Guettarda 21:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think they have all been tagged now, could you please change your reason or vote? Thanks. --liquidGhoul 09:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose any such change, whether each article is tagged (as they are required to be by the delete rules) or not. Each state has its fauna and that needs a category to group them together. The supercategory is then needed to group them together. These categories are obviously useful for many purposes.

The number of them (by necessity) does not make them or anything else 'not useful'. Also, wasn't the same or similar deletion proposal on flora or fauna of the US states just defeated a couple of weeks ago? Hmains 20:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If so, there's no mention on Category:Fauna of the United States by state or its talk page about it. Just out of curiousity, would you support similar category creations for faunas of other states in this world? I see the basic idea behind these categories, but I don't see what the reader is gaining when he looks at a huge bunch of categories in these articles. --Conti|✉ 20:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Conti's idea. We should most definitely not tag each animal or plant by every country or state it exists in. Grass would have hundreds of cats added. That is simply not useful. Listify and delete. >Radiant< 20:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grass isn't a species. A reasonable person would just leave an overly common species out of these categories. In addition, categories like these tend to list only native species. Guettarda 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I've listed the categories here after I've seen this, so not all Wikipedians are reasonable persons, apparently. If these categories should exclude common species that are in all (or almost all) states, we should explicitly state this. --Conti|✉ 21:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Dahn 22:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It is absurd to categorize fauna by political entity. There was recent CfD on such categories Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_22#Category:Fauna_by_country_and_subcats reaching no result and leaving us with pearls like Category:Fauna of Andorra. Pavel Vozenilek 00:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what better solution do you have? It may be absurd, but it's one of the better systems that we have for biogeography - because that's the way people keep records. Guettarda 04:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the recurring problem is people who think only from the side of the category (i.e. whether it would be useful to find all <animals> which live in <country>). However, categorization should also be useful from the side of the article, to find useful metadata; the more cats an article is in, the less useful any of them become. >Radiant< 09:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The following is copied from nomination procedure on this page and is a well established policy, whether you agree with it or not:

"Edit the category. Add one of the following tags at the top of the category text of every category to be deleted or renamed." Hmains 16:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Not that it'll change anyones mind, but I've tagged the subcategories now. (Except for Category:Native fauna of Hawaii, because that actually seems to make sense.) --Conti|✉ 17:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all "flora/fauna by nationality" categories. These should be categorized by geography; Hawaii should be the only U.S. state to get its own state-specific wildlife categories. -Sean Curtin 00:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although it is more complicated when it comes to countries, I think the US states are very straight forward. If this passes, and they are deleted, we should figure out how to split up North America, and use it as an example to split up the rest of the world. Political boundaries are silly. Thanks --liquidGhoul 06:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They may be silly, but they are (a) the way that the data is available, and (b) units that are commonly used in the science of biogeography. For us to "decide on a better way" would be a noble endeavour, but such original research would be totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. Guettarda 04:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how it is original research. I am sure there are many sources, as there is with Australia, which seperate North America into biogeographical regions. I don't have the sources, as I am not as interested in North American fauna/flora etc., but I am sure there is someone who is. I also can't see how state borders would be used in the science of biogeography, except in the case of explaining the borders of biogeographic regions (e.g. 200km west of Virginia border). There would be absolutely no difference between one side of a state border than the other, unless there is a physical reason for the border (such as a river). I can see the use of these types of categories for people who, say, want to find a frog in New York. But, I don't think the alternative, such as eastern United States or whatever we end up using, would be any more confusing. Together with the fact that most non-Americans probably don't know all 50 states, and their locations, and it is very hard for me to find an animal I know is in a particular region of northern America. --liquidGhoul 07:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all "flora/fauna by nationality" categories. These should be categorized by physical geographical location, rather than political division. While island groups, such as Indonesia or Hawaii, may be nations/states, they are also considered physical geographical locations. - jc37 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes a country or subdivision of a country less of a useful geographic unit than an island. I don't understand what sort of geographic units you are suggesting we replace these with. Would you please explain? Guettarda 04:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I (hopefully) clarified my statement above. Flora/fauna of the western U.S., or of the Sahara, or of the arctic tundra, are all by geographic region/location/feature, rather than by Luxembourg, or Rhode Island, nations/states. Does that clarify? (See also: Template:Regions of the world.) - jc37 11:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Listify and then Delete. I am trying to get a discussion going on the Flora of <region>/Fauna of <region>/Biora of <region> categories. Please see Category talk:Biota by country GameKeeper 13:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• postpone i.e. keep for now wait until discussion on distribution categories at Category talk:Biota by country has reached consensus. Deletion of these categories now will loose data which may need to be used at a later stage. --Salix alba (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as they are useful for narrow endemic species, but encourage editors to be sensible: don't add a Cat:Fauna of Country/State if the species occurs in more than 4 or 5 countries/states; in those cases use larger regional cats (so a widespread species like Red Fox would be in Cat:Fauna of Asia, Cat:Fauna of Europe, Cat:Fauna of North America, but not in any country or state cats). - MPF 20:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous American Military Defeats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
POV cat with little content and little room for expansion PPGMD 19:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, POV. >Radiant< 20:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Dahn 22:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. On a side note, it doesn't follow Wikipedia rules for article capitalization. Doczilla 02:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWithout comment on the merits of the article, I recommend fixing errors of capitalization rather than deleting an article because the wrong words are capitalized.Edison 22:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 11:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Doczilla. --Aaron 22:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Save None of the above are valid. None of these battles is subject to POV as there is absolutely no doubt or debate as to whether these are famous american military defeats or not. This is simply a misuse of the POV concept. POV only means if there is more than one way to interpret an event, that is simply not the case here.--Sugarcaddy 19:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment POV cat with little content and little room for expansion. There are potentially many articles that qualify, this could be a very large category, it's brand new so unfair to expect it to be widely used yet --Sugarcaddy 19:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although I see the potential for POV problems with this category, it is a valid category. The cat does need some specificity as the battle of Little Bighorn is a more clearly defined defeat than the PT-109 entry, which seems to be nothing more than a casualty in a larger battle, which was won by the US. Ramsquire 20:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This should be an article (or at least a list), with citations/references. - jc37 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This oversimplifies matters. Sumahoy 22:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Criminal suspects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, This category is too vague and potentially too large. There's no definition for "suspect", and law enforcement agencies don't necessarily release lists of suspects so it is difficult to verify. Anyone who has ever been questioned by investigators or accused in the press could be included. Will Beback 18:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; the definition of "bona fide" law enforcement agency is furthermore problematic in parts of the world.-choster 18:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, arbitrary. We want facts, i.e. convictions. >Radiant< 20:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Dahn 22:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this vague category that potentially includes the majority of the human race. Suspects? Be serious. Doczilla 02:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be redefined. I intended it to cover people who are being investigated for crimes in current events, not anyone who has ever done something wrong. --Afed 03:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps too transitory to categoriz/se...?  David Kernow (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would we know when the subject ceases to be a suspect (barring an indictment)? -Will Beback 20:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and because it's a legal risk to Wikipedia. --Aaron 22:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha. --Afed 01:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Calsicol 11:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - suspect of what, and by whom? This is a very bad idea. It also just screams for citations/references. - jc37 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Escorts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete Category created to tag a single person, and unlikely to be expanded. No main article. Generally not (yet, nor likely to ever become) encyclopedic. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Changed vote to Merge. See below.[reply]
  • I would asume that the main article would be escort service. Vegaswikian 22:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and possibly merge article into Category:Courtesans and prostitutes The only article in the category appears at a glance to also possibly fit under Category:Courtesans and prostitutes. Now if more articles about people whose profession is "escort" are added, then I'll change my vote to Keep (since categorizing people by their stated profession is standard). Dugwiki 18:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Dugwiki. Guettarda 19:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and rename to Category:Courtesans, escorts and prostitutes. There have been WP:BLP concerns raised about identifying escorts (which supposedly does not necessarily involve sex, wink, wink, nudge, nudge) as prostitutes, an illegal activity in many places. Gamaliel 20:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Say no more! >Radiant< 20:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Gamaliel. Ramsquire 21:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Delete but No Merge/Rename The rename failed last week on he concern that associating criminal activity with non-criminal activity as BLP issue. Not sure why a merge should succeed now. --Tbeatty 21:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge into Category:Courtesans and prostitutes. The fact that the word 'prostitution' is stigmatized is not reason to switch to allegories. Pavel Vozenilek 00:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- by its very nature a trap for Wikipedia to get itself into trouble through violations of WP:BLP Morton devonshire 00:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for multiple violations, for lack of operational definition, and for plain ole tackiness. Doczilla 02:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Oppose "Prostitution" is an illegal activity and describing someone as a prostitute is saying they are a criminal, a very serious characterization. The article for which the category was created, Jeff Gannon / talk, references the fact that Gannon admitted he had advertised himself as an escort but never said he was a prostitute. Since an escort can, in fact, be many other things besides a prostitute, there is a difference, and the categories should not be merged. It is also not unlikely that an encyclopedic article could be written about the history of the usage of the word and its various meanings depending upon historical timeframe, participants, activities, etc.—Chidom ^talk  04:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prostitution is not illegal everywhere. Vegaswikian 04:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but not many places use the term without having some derogatory connotation associated with it. And per Florida law, where WP is based, it is illegal. --Tbeatty 05:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see how Florida law affects this in any way. It does not decide what is legal or illegal in other states and countries. While the term may have a derogatory connotation, that does not mean it is illegal or should not be applied to certain individuals. Maybe it's time to start listing members of the US Congress here! This is an encylopedia and it needs to present with a NPOV. We simply need to classify articles correctly. Vegaswikian 22:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This category has been removed from the parent category:Sex workers to its parent, Category:Personal care and service occupations. It no longer automatically assumes that an escort is a sex worker. -Will Beback 05:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - This category was created as a compromise to avoid the liability of categorizing Jeff Gannon as a prostitute, a crime which he has never been charged with or convicted of. It is only several weeks old, so it should not be assumed that other subjects will not be added to this category. It is a legitimate category that does not imply criminality, as "prostitutes and courtesans" does, and should be used more, where people have not been adjudicated as criminals. If this category is deleted, it will only reignite a long-running edit war on the Jeff Gannon article, which could eventually lead to a liability problem for the Wikimedia Foundation. - Crockspot 13:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per Gamaliel with courtesans & prostitutes. Derex 17:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge seems appropriate (and Tbeatty's comment about last month's rename attempt is irrelevant; the "result" of the rename was no consensus with only 4 comments — there's no reason not to revisit it, but it's out of process unless that category is tagged again.) Courtesans are not necessarily illegal even where prostitutes are, so the arguments against merging suggest that Category:Courtesans and prostitutes should be summarily killed under WP:BLP for any which are L. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not happy with the circumstances under which this cat was created, it has only two entries, is unlikely to be expanded, and is a libel suit for Wikipedia just waiting to happen. Besides, how many people notable enough for Wikipedia are known mainly as "escorts"? This cat is only going to be used for quick-and-dirty hit jobs on living people, and/or by the type of editor who's so overzealous that he'd create Category:Blue-eyed Britons just so he could put Stephen Hawking in it. --Aaron 22:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Useless category. In general, anyone notable enough to be listed here would also be in other categories that are probably better suited to whatever profession they are in. Vegaswikian 22:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Category:Prostitutes and courtesans. -Sean Curtin 00:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful categorization that avoids the accusations of criminality and WP:BLP issues that would be caused by merging. There are plenty of sex industry people who will admit to working as or being categorized as former escorts. I was able to add several entries to the category easily with a Google search of the Wikipedia, and there are dozens more. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you did add some. However I think you proved my point that they are better listed under their other categories. Two of those articles mention this in passing, nothing to say it is notable. For the third, it is not at all clear that he worked as an escort. Yes he was a prostitute, but that as far as the article goes in that area. Vegaswikian 21:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per the various faction discussions above. This deserves citations. - jc37 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If merged, rename the target cat to include "escorts" in its title, to quell those concerns. (Didn't we just have a CfD along these lines? - jc37 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comment Because it is a new category, it has not been used on every article where appropriate. For example, many gay porn stars have also worked as escorts; while that information may be in their article, the article is not in this category in that it didn't exist at the time the articles were created. That could be remedied, which would add articles to the category.—Chidom ^talk  18:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Ford vehicles :-)) MPF 20:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Lewis and Clark Expedition. Vegaswikian 05:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lewis and Clark to Category:Lewis and Clark expedition

• Rename The main article of the category is 'Lewis and Clark expedition'. While this category includes bio articles on Lewis and Clark, the focus of the category is on the 'expedition', not just the two leaders of it. This rename should improve clarity. Hmains 16:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, and I think Lewis and Clark Expedition should be renamed to reflect this capitalization as well. -choster 17:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• revision I accept that my rename proposal should be changed to:

Category:Lewis and Clark to Category:Lewis and Clark Expedition to match the article and to match capitalization rules Hmains 20:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me guess, this has two articles (Lewis and Clark)? Ok, that wasn't very funny. Rename, anyway. >Radiant< 20:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Lewis and Clark Expedition per modified nom and note on category's page. David Kernow (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Lewis and Clark Expedition Calsicol 11:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Renname. -Sean Curtin 00:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Lewis and Clark Expedition. - jc37 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (cf also #National Parks discussion below). David Kernow (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Rmhermen "Please no" comment on my talk page:
• Rename Category:National parks of the United States to Category:National Parks of the United States

"National Parks are capitalized because the U.S. maintains named National Parks as well as other areas which represent the same level of protection but are not so named."

—Chidom ^talk  16:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC) on behalf of Rmhermen talk[reply]

• Oppose per convention of Category:National parks. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This has gone back and forth a couple times. I thought consensus was to capitalize because the category then unambiguously refers to an official designation (e.g. a Wilderness Area being quite different from a wilderness area, Gettysburg being a national park but not a National Park)" see CFD 2006/Feb/16. -choster 18:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Content of this category is absurd. Pavel Vozenilek 00:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object I believe this falls under [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Institutions}Wikipedia:Manual of Style: Institutions]]; parks should have "title case" when a specific park is being named, but not when the type of instituion is being referenced. The example in the WP:MOS using "university" and "University of Ottawa" would, in this instance, result in:

"the national parks are managed by the United States National Park Service, which is an agency of the United States Department of the Interior",

but

"Acadia National Park is managed by the...." (etc.)

This would also conform to the usage of the National Park Service (NPS) itself. They refer to "national parks"—nps.gov NPS History and Culture—but list individual parks by their proper names: NPS View All Parks A-Z (hyperlinked index). They give proper names to all parks, historic sites, etc., and refer to them individually by those proper names with title case, but when referencing them as groups, use lower case.—Chidom ^talk  04:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The capitalisation policy applies to the U.S. as much as it does to the rest of the world. Hawkestone 11:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - From everything here, it would look like the specific usage in this category name means that the "p" should be lower-case. - jc37 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Divide into Category:Robbi McMillen songs and Category:Robbi McMillen albums. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've moved all the contents into those categories (and un-disambiguated them all), as I don't expect anyone has an objection to that. No opinion on whether the category stays, though I certainly don't mind its existence.--Mike Selinker 14:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Category:Categories named after musicians would apparently be it's parent cat. (I'm restraining myself... really... all these musician/singer cats are a mess.. really...) - jc37 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete now that it has been divided. I don't think eponymous categories should be created just to house the main article and the album and single subcats. --musicpvm 23:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Low Saxon into Category:Low German

• Merge, Category:Low Saxon should be merged into Category:Low German. Both refer to exactly the same concept, but the name Low German is more common in English sources, see Talk:Low German (linguistic sources have been adduced especially in the following two contributions: [1], [2]). ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 14:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per nomination. Dahn 11:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Low Saxon. The term is ambiguous. - jc37 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the only ambiguities are between a set and two of its subsets; and those subsets do not have and do not need subcategories in Category:Low German. For categorization purposes, those are irrelevant distinctions that only make information harder to find. Deal with the sets and subsets in articles. Gene Nygaard 18:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:E-RPG System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete Category created to house adverts for the game system's component sourcebooks - now empty except for the E-RPG System article. Percy Snoodle 12:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 23:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous redheads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Redundant to List of redheads, which, though in need of cleanup, can be much better defined and therefore avoid POV. Also, only one person was added to it. Shannernanner 12:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy, recreation. We don't cat by hair color, and we don't use 'famous' in cat names. >Radiant< 14:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hoylake 17:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Radiant above. Dugwiki 18:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 00:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. We do not categorize by hair color. Hair color changes, you know. These hair color categories just keep getting deleted. Doczilla 02:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and leave ((deletedcategory)) per above. David Kernow (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, people should not be categorized by appearance. --musicpvm 17:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of redheads - Due to "famous", and because the list is much better. - jc37 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Estudios Churubusco films

• This is a category for films shot at the Mexican studio. This seems a bad precedent, we could end up with a category for every major (or minor) film studio. There is already a list at Films shot at Estudios Churubusco so a category isn't really necessary. JW 12:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As this seems to have caused some confusion below, I'm just going to make it clear: The parent category Films by studio is for films produced or distributed by a particular company, eg Category: Paramount films or Category: Columbia Pictures films. Category:Estudios Churubusco films is the one rogue sub-cat; it is for films shot at Estudios Churubusco, not films produced by Estudios Churubusco. The equivalent would be Pinewood Studios films or Shepperton Studios films. JW 09:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why not for Mexican studio? or Russian? We can have cats like Films by Country by studio -> American films by studio, Mexican films by studio and so forth Kmorozov 12:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The category is for non-Mexican films shot at the Churubusco studios, so it wouldn't come under Mexican films by studio. "Studio" in this context means "a place where a film is shot", not "a company that produces films", which I think is what you mean. JW 13:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: this is going to be yet another useless category platered over all movie articles. I think the ability to have visually distinguished primary and secondary categories is long overdue. Pavel Vozenilek 00:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per precedent: We have 35 other studio subcats in [[Films by studio#(({2))}|Films by studio]], and 32 entries in this one. (And I believe the parent cat is indeed for films produced by a particular company.) Her Pegship 16:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That is my point. The parent category is for films produced or distributed by a particular company, but this sub-cat is not. This category is for films shot at Estudios Churubusco. It includes, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Hunt for Red October and Free Willy. These aren't Mexican films made by Estudios Churubusco, they are films partly shot there. This category is completely different from the others in Films by studio, and there's no precedent for this. It isn't the same as United Artists films or Twentieth Century Fox films. JW 09:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - So the point seems to be that "Films by studio" is meant to be "Films produced by studio" and not to be "Films produced at studio"? If so, then I suggest Category:Films by studio be tagged for a rename. - jc37 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have the feeling this and the nomination below might best be closed as with no consensus, pending clarification of the "Films by" categories...  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I would second that. - jc37 03:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Films by Miramax to Category:Miramax films
• Category:Films by Lions Gate to Category:Lions Gate films
• Category:Films by London Films to Category:London Films productions

A rename to bring these in line with the other categories in Category:Films by studio, Category:Paramount films, Category:United Artists films, Category:New Line Cinema films etc. "Films by..." isn't appropriate in these cases as the categories include many films distributed, but not produced by these companies. London Films is a slight exception, because "London Films films" wouldn't make sense. JW 12:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Have amended Lions Gate proposal. Keep third category proposed (Films by London Films) as "productions" not a synonym for "films"...  David Kernow (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Her Pegship 16:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I am seriously confused by this nom, especially in light of the one directly above. Can someone further clarify? - jc37 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a rename to match the other sub-cats. They are all called "X films" not "Films by X". "Studio" is being used here, incorrectly really, to mean production company or distributor. JW 08:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Norms (mathematics). David Kernow (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Norm

• This is a bad title: propose renaming as Category:Normed spaces. Charles Matthews 11:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Either that, or Norm (mathematics), to match the principle article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to Norms (mathematics). I forgot the plural convention. Sorry.  :-o — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Norm (mathematics) - Category names should almost always match their main article. Dugwiki 19:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Norms (mathematics) (plural) per above and below. Seems a good case for disambiguation. David Kernow (talk) 04:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC), pluraliz/sed 03:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't mind Category:Norms (mathematics) (plural, as per the general run of category names); Category:Normed spaces would fit as a subcategory of that.Charles Matthews 10:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point; have amended my post accordingly. Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per David Kernow's suggestions. --Bookgrrl 21:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per DK. - jc37 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs heard at Kansas City Chiefs home games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, this is an extremely trivial characteristic and also unverifiable. musicpvm 10:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 14:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hoylake 17:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this trivia. Doczilla 02:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. (Listify if article includes citations.)   David Kernow (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ooo, ooo, can I be the organist/DJ at a sporting event so that I can balloon such categories? : ) - jc37 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. David Kernow (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:RPG Series to Category:Computer and video role-playing game series

• Rename, Use of "RPG" in article titles is discouraged by WP:MOS and WP:RPG style guidelines. Further, the category is for computer role-playing games, not role-playing games, so that should be reflected in the category title. Percy Snoodle 08:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename per nom - jc37 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. David Kernow (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:College football defunct bowls to Category:Defunct college football bowls

• Rename, College football defunct bowls is a very awkward title and it doesn't match Wikipedia convention. Woohookitty^(meow) 06:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename per nom. - jc37 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename all to variations of Category:National parks in Foo. Everyone noted that the P should be lower case in Parks but also that "in" was preferred to "of". Hiding Talk 18:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved a related group from speedy. Please discuss as a group at the end of the listing. Vegaswikian 06:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:National Parks in Puerto Rico to Category:National parks of Puerto Rico ProveIt ^(talk) 20:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:National Parks in Oregon to Category:National parks of Oregon ProveIt ^(talk) 20:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:National Parks in Nevada to Category:National parks of Nevada ProveIt ^(talk) 20:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:National Parks in Florida to Category:National parks of Florida ProveIt ^(talk) 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:National Parks in Montana to Category:National parks of Montana ProveIt ^(talk) 20:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:National Parks in California to Category:National parks of California ProveIt ^(talk) 18:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:National Parks in Maryland to Category:National parks of Maryland ProveIt ^(talk) 18:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:National Parks in Colorado to Category:National parks of Colorado ProveIt ^(talk) 18:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:National Parks in Alaska to Category:National parks of Alaska ProveIt ^(talk) 18:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Start discussion here.

• Comment since the categories are for national parks in general; not part of a proper name, we know it should be parks and not Parks. So it should either be National parks of Foo or National parks in Foo. The in form is normal for parks in a state, but the of form is specified for national parks in the naming conventions. I think the in or of is debatable, but it should be parks and not Parks. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose They are national parks of the United States which are in Alaska [etc], not national parks of Alaska [etc]. Brammen 11:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC) (moved ten identical commments here)[reply]
• Rename to proper capitalization; no opinion as to 'of' or 'in'. >Radiant< 14:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove capital Ps" but do not change to of as U.S. states are not nations. Hoylake 17:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the in forms are currently 244 through 251 on the list. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment looks like User:Averette created this discussion by creating new cats and moving articles around without a discussion. Vegaswikian 23:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to proper capitalization; Strong Oppose to changing 'in' to 'of'. Vegaswikian 04:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to proper capitalization; Strong Oppose to changing 'in' to 'of'.Calsicol 11:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename "p", per nom. Normally I would agree with "of", but I think in this case it should be "in". If it was the Park Service of Oregon, or something like that, then I would agree, but it's not. - jc37 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Clear consensus below and in previous cfd debates. Hiding Talk 18:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

per respect of English grammar. Pascal.Tesson 21:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy renames. Vegaswikian 06:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and Delete What is the benefit of categorising actors by character? It seems over the top to me. Olborne 22:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we've just gone through a huge similar batch of these - see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_5#Actors_.2F_Actresses_who_portrayed. Grutness...wha? 23:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see some utility in Category:Actors by role as there are classic characters that are notable for their varied interpretations by actors. This is not really an example, unless maybe we count theatrical interpretations as well. That said at present we don't have a female role in the mix so perhaps it's time for Category:Actresses who have played Miss Havisham or Category:Actresses who have played Elizabeth Bennet or Category:Actresses who have played Lady Macbeth or something. Those would make more sense anyway as Miss Havisham, Elizabeth Bennet, and Lady Macbeth have articles, but Sandy Olsen does not.--T. Anthony 08:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not sure that a renaming would be useful. I can see having a category for a character like Sherlock Holmes or Tarzan but not one who has only been in 2 movies. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and, as mentioned in the earlier debate, that's far better done by a list than a category, since far more information can be added (medium, straight or parody, year, production, etc etc) Grutness...wha? 23:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this inappropriate population. Do not categorize every single character that has been played by more than one person. It's inefficient. If noteworthy, it will already be mentioned in the actors' articles and in the character's article. That's more than enough cross-reference. Doczilla 02:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this looks like it will go towards deletion, which is fine by me. However if this ever miraculously survived deletion, don't forget to rename! Also, I suspect that the creator of the category is a troll. Some competent admin might want to check out his contributions... Pascal.Tesson 14:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This category is a subcategory of Category:Grease actors which itself is underpopulated. Besides, the character Sandy was originally named Sandy Dumbrowski on stage, only being renamed Olsen for the 1978 film, so most of the actresses who have portrayed this character never played Sandy Olsen. [3] --Metropolitan90 15:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Useless and absurd. Dahn 17:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a defining characteristic. Calsicol 11:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Also, please check out Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 16#Performers by performance, and comment. It, and two associated discussions immediately below it, is a request for discussion about this topic. - jc37 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Opposed. No consensus for the proposed rename, in fact a clear consensus to keep the current name. Hiding Talk 18:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category: United States Courts of Appeals judges to Category: United States circuit judges

• Rename. The new name is compact and elegant; any judge of a court of appeals is named a circuit judge by statute. (See 28 U.S.C. § 43 and 28 U.S.C. § 44.) It also avoids arguments over whether court should be singular or plural and whether we should be referring to “X judges” or “Judges of X”. — DLJessup (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 10#Category:United States Courts of Appeals judges. Since there were at least five suggested move targets and only four contributors to the discussion, I withdrew the original nomination and started this follow-up. — DLJessup (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The problem I have with this is that many states use the term "circuit court" for their lowest level courts so then the judges of those courts are called circuit judges. So using circuit judges here is confusing. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The current name is just fine as it is. No reason to change it at all. Hmains 16:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revised vote: Rename to 'United States courts of appeals judges' as the per capitalization rules and per the actual name of the courts Hmains 16:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • It is simply untrue that there is no reason to change the name of the category. At a minimum, “Courts of Appeals” should not be capitalized, because it is a common noun referring to a class of courts rather than a specific court. — DLJessup (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As above, ambiguous with local "circuit judges" Dugwiki 19:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Woohookitty and Dugwiki have a point about ambiguity. I will withdraw this nomination soon. However, the current name of the category is unacceptable to me due to capitalization issues, so I would like to relist, and I would like to have some idea of what other people find acceptable before I relist a move. To the individuals opposing this move and to anyone else who wants to comment: do you find Category:Judges of the United States courts of appeals an acceptable alternative?
  • Actually, I think the name as it is is clearer than your alternative proposal. --Woohookitty^(meow) 22:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment United States Court of Appeals or United States Courts of Appeal are properly capitalized: capitalization is used for the names of specific (proper) persons, places or things. See Category:United States Courts of Appeals and its subcategories and articles. The only item I notice as wrong is the main article 'United States court of appeal' which has a redirect from the proper name of 'United States Counts of Appeal'. To be correct, this re-direct should be reversed. This is not withstanding new attempt at speedly rename of the category that I just noticed. That is as wrong as this rename attempt. Hmains 17:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, no. The article United States court of appeals has been so named for over a year now, so it's hardly new. This was discussed at Talk:United States court of appeals#Move before the move took place. United States court of appeals is only a proper noun if we are referring to a specific court; in this case, we are referring to the class of such courts, so it is a common noun. As far as I can tell, the category is miscapitalized because of simple omission, rather than as the result of a debate on the issue. — DLJessup (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now understand and agree with you. thanks Hmains 19:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A category "United States Circuit Judges" would be broader than "United States Court of Appeals Judges," as it would include judges of the United States Circuit Courts that existed prior to the Evarts Act of 1891 and the final abolition of the Circuit Courts in 1911. (A well-known trivia question asks, "Who was/were the only judge(s) to serve in their lifetime(s) as a U.S. District Judge, a U.S. Circuit Judge, and a U.S. Supreme Court Justice?" This question has two correct answers; if "U.S. Court of Appeals Judge" is substituted for "Circuit Judge," it only has one.) Newyorkbrad 20:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right on that. It's moot now, as I'm already planning to withdraw this proposal on the basis of the ambiguity problem; I'm just waiting to figure out how I should list the target. — DLJessup (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename. No objections noted below. Hiding Talk 18:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Reference pages to Category:WikiProject Contents pages

• Rename, Matches new "main page" name, Wikipedia:Contents. Rfrisbie^talk 03:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per nom --Quiddity 19:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, to coincide with rename of corresponding project page. --The Transhumanist 10:55, 14 October 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.