< October 20	October 22 >

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 15:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:The NHL on Versus, convention Category:National Hockey League media. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No expansion of the abbreviation...?  David Kernow (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should nominate the members of Category:National Hockey League media at the same time. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 04:51, 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 delete. the wub "?!" 21:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename to Category:Moroccan-Portuguese. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - jc37 11:37, 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 delete. the wub "?!" 21:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Independant comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Misspelt, had only two entries, and was made redundant by the Indie comics category . Mang 22:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Covered by existing category. ThuranX 00:38, 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 delete. the wub "?!" 21:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Television series creators, or Delete due to unclear criteria for creator. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Though I hope this is listified (with more information) somewhere. - jc37 11:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Creators is kind of an ambiguous term since program production involves a huge number of people. Normally I think by "creator" you'd be talking about the show's executive producer, so someone who "creates" a program should probably be under Category:Television producers, and possibly also Category:Television writers assuming they also wrote for the show. Dugwiki 17:10, 23 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 wub "?!" 21:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV, if kept, Rename to Category:Hideous buildings. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, how 'bout house of Baba Jaga, the log cabin that moves around on a pair of chicken legs? [1] Pavel Vozenilek 23:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" : ) - jc37 11:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This has a severe POV problem. George J. Bendo 14:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless I can put my next door neighbours' house in it. Next to that, the buildings in this category are positively works of art. Or that apartment building a few blocks away with the turquoise paint! --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 21:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems pure POV to me...  David Kernow (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per POV policy. -- lucasbfr ^talk 01:39, 25 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 wub "?!" 21:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:SNK vs. Series characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete for the same reason as Category:Marvel vs. Series characters; only this one arleady has its own list. The fact that Terry Bogard was licensed to use by Capcom in a particular intercompany crossover just as Spider-Man being licensed for a Capcom video game is hardly a defining feature at all. Just more unnecessary and trivial clutter on articles for the characters who appeared in both series. Pikawil 21:58, 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. the wub "?!" 22:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:POWER architecture to Category:Power Architecture

• Rename, "POWER architecture" is an obsolete term these days, and what's left of it is rolled up in "Power Architecture" that also includes such things as PowerPC and Cell (microprocessor). The capitalization is very important in this case: POWER != Power and "Architecture" shoud be capitalized since it's spelled that way in the brand name. -- Henriok 21:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarify as the article says that Power Architecture (branded) is distinguished from Power architecture (which includes the things you say). Do we really need a category matching the brand? --Dhartung | Talk 06:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way the categorization is used on Wikipedia reflects "Power Architecture" not "POWER architecture". The category should be renamed to match the brand so it reflects how it's used today (on Wikipedia) and how it's used in real life (by IBM, Freescale and others). If someone speaks of "power architectue" they mean "Power Architecture" not "POWER architecture". I can't stress the importance of correct capitalization enough here. -- Henriok 09:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename per nom and Power Architecture. - jc37 11:37, 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 reverse merge. The article is titled M.U.G.E.N (without the final period) see Talk:M.U.G.E.N#Move back to M.U.G.E.N ? the wub "?!" 09:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:M.U.G.E.N. related. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy merge - Category:M.U.G.E.N related appears to have been created with a missing period; otherwise, the two categories are duplicates of each other and should be merged. George J. Bendo 21:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. ThuranX 00:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Merge per nom (a jot makes all the difference : ) - jc37 11:37, 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 merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the larger Category:Film score composers. JW 20:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --musicpvm 03:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. - jc37 11:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Hawkestone 23:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. - Dogru144 00:17, 29 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 wub "?!" 20:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or suggest a better name. It's for film actors with careers of forty-plus years. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/listify. (List of long-serving actors or the like...?)   David Kernow (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If interpreted literally, this list should contain one person. George J. Bendo 21:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I believe something similar has been deleted before. Piccadilly 00:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per George J. Bendo, as I had exactly the same thought. ThuranX 00:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is misuse of categories. We've deleted several age-related categories precisely because people age. --Dhartung | Talk 06:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per GJB (smile - me too), and because even with a rename, this category has the potential to be a repository of all living actors over a certain age (especially those who started young). - jc37 11:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a resurrection of Category:Longest film careers, deleted 9/19/2006. [2]Pegship 04:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it is a ridiculous category; how can you include Lauren Bacall (b. 1924) and Ann Miller (1923-2004), who are young enough to be the daughters of Doris Eaton Travis, for instance (b. 1904)??HOT L Baltimore 10:54, 27 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 15:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Courts of Appeals judges to Category:United States court of appeals judges or Category:Judges of the United States courts of appeals.

• Rename. Capitalization: when we are writing about a court of appeals, it is a generic and hence should not be capitalized. See Talk:United States district court#Move. Additionally, “United States Courts of Appeals” should be singular when used as an adjective; for example, we would not title a category United States district courts judges. I would find either United States court of appeals judges or Judges of the United States courts of appeals acceptable. Please review Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 10#Category:United States Courts of Appeals judges and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 13#Category:United States Courts of Appeals judges for previous discussion about renames to other targets. — DLJessup (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If the talk page is to be believed, this discussion has been going on since last year : ) - jc37 11:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:United States court of appeals judges. This is because the "judges" are at different courts, not any one specific court. (If I am understanding the terminology correctly : ) - jc37 11:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Keep the capital letters; the "courts of appeals" in question here is a specific entity, i.e. the ones that are a part of the U.S. court system; this is to distinguish it, for example, from each state's court of appeals. In reference to jc37's comment, there are several individual courts within this system, but they are known as the United States Courts of Appeals; see for example the capitalization used on this website. Paul 00:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you actually read the page you linked to? The first sentence below the title reads, “The 94 U.S. judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a United States court of appeals.” (emphasis added). — DLJessup (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:United States court of appeals judges. Seems like the right choice based on the previous discussions. Vegaswikian 05:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per vegaswikian and others; this has clear meaning Hmains 02:33, 27 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, empty --Kbdank71 15:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Leo cluster to Category:Abell 1367

• Rename - The NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database and the SIMBAD Astronomical Database do not list "Leo clutser" as one of the common names for Abell 1367. Most (if not all) astronomical scientific papers found in a search using the ADS Abstract Service list this object's name as "Abell 1367". Google lists many more pages using "Abell 1367" than "Leo Cluster". Therefore, this category should be named "Abell 1367". George J. Bendo 19:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- Henriok 10:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Is this the same as the "supercluster" redlinked at Supercluster? - jc37 11:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good question. The answer is no. Abell 1367 (identified in the category as the Leo Cluster) is part of the Coma Supercluster according to this reference. The Leo Supercluster is comprised of several other Abell clusters. (As a side note that will be relevant later: The above reference is from a journal that does not capitalize the first letter of the words "Cluster" and "Supercluster" when identifying specific objects. This is in contrast to the convention followed by the Astrophysical Journal and the Astronomical Journal and the apparent preference on Wikipedia after discussion and voting on other pages.) George J. Bendo 14:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename -- WilliamKF 20:29, 27 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 --Kbdank71 15:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Army soldiers to Category:United States Army enlisted personnel

• This may be less clear-cut; there's a proposal pending for a stub type with thi scope, whereat it was pointed out that the term "soldier" to mean "enlisted person" isn't necessarily entirely without scope for confusion. However, the MILHIST block vote hasn't a clear view yet one way or the other, and I don't much mind one way or the other, so this is really just a procedural nomination. No vote, would just like some clarity one way or another. Alai 18:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I would suggest that this could be merged directly into Category:United States Army personnel since anyone who's not enlisted will already be split out to some place under Category:United States Army officers. Kirill Lokshin 23:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would likely object to that merge and the rename. Don't know the current status, but the last time I was in there, many individuals were listed as being in the army. Their rank was not clear. So keeping a category for those of unknow rank would seem logical. When their more specific category is identified the article can be updated to get them in the correct category. Vegaswikian 19:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using Category:United States Army personnel for those without a rank would seem reasonable if the nomination below is sucessful. Would or should Category:United States Army personnel become a parent for the enlisted and officer cats? Vegaswikian 19:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in some form. If Kirill Lokshin's is implemented it won't be possible to tell whether or not all the officers have been correctly categorised without looking at every single article in here. 'No opinion on renaming. Piccadilly 00:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough, I hadn't thought of that point. It seems like a sensible renaming, then. Kirill Lokshin 00:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I would agree that the new name seems sensible. Not sure that the renaming is sensible without some cleanup to make sure that the entries in there should be moved. Now if it is only a handful, then maybe this is not a problem. I don't know if there are enough problems to make this an issue. Vegaswikian 19:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The page scopes the category as follows: "This category is for the notable people who are or have been enlisted personnel". This isn't a rescope, and if there's any content that needs to be cleaned up, that's already the case. Alai 22:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If nommed for deletion (which currently, it's not), keep. A bilateral division like officer/enlisted logically should map onto a bilateral categorisation, unless anyone particularly wants to categorise by specific ranks. Alai 00:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: see Category:Soldiers by nationality and all its (mixed up) subcats. Also, more research is needed. In the US Army at least, 'soldier' has been used for some years as the proper name for 'enlisted personnel'. Hmains 19:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that Category:British soldiers has as a subcat (among others) Category:British Army officers. Alai 22:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of those will need to be cleaned up at some point (which is why I commented that this nomination was a bit premature; WP:MILHIST hasn't had a chance to fully discuss military personnel categories in general yet). The general idea, though, has been to avoid country-specific usage as much as possible. (In any case, the colloquial usage of "soldier", even in the US, applies to all military personnel—e.g. "George Washington was a great soldier"—which makes such a category quite confusing.) Kirill Lokshin 22:51, 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 15:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Army people to Category:United States Army personnel

• The military-people-by-country categories were renamed to use "personnel". Same logic would seem to apply here, so rename. Alai 18:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - per nom. - jc37 11:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: problem: this category is currently used to include various people associated with the US Army, including Secretaries of the Army. Yet, in no way, should the Secretary of the Army be considred part of 'US Army personnel'. Same with 'contract surgeons', 'Indian scouts' authors of books about the Army, chaplains before they were Army Officers, etc. Hmains 19:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, that seems unnecessarily formal; the conventional usage has been to use "personnel" generally, rather than meaning "members of the armed forces", so Secretaries of the Army would qualify. As far as "authors of books about the Army", they shouldn't be here anyways; the sub-categories of Category:Military personnel are meant specifically for people involved with the military, not merely those who happen to comment on it. Kirill Lokshin 22:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I wondered about that too, but as KL says, the by-country cats have taken one view on that, and those are supercats of the Army, Navy, etc categories, that ship has effectively sailed (or APC driven off, in this case).

• Rename per nom. Kirill Lokshin 22:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, although the contents will need cleanup. Carom 19:34, 23 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Simpsons Guest stars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Resurrection of an old category that has long since been deleted. I don't remember the exact name of the old category but it did the same as this cat aims to do. This will just cause a bunch of "guest stars of..." cats. Dismas|^(talk) 17:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this should stay at wiki becuase people might want too know who has guest starred on the simpsons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.106.214 (talk • contribs)
  • That's true, but the better way to present that information would be as a list article that lists actors who guest starred on The Simpsons, including the part they played and episode dates, not as a category. Dugwiki 17:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Piccadilly 00:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I wonder if this could eventually include all celebrities? : ) - jc37 11:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or at least Rename to Category:The Simpsons guest stars. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify if it hasn't been done already... inappropriate for a category, especially given that everyone and their brother has guest starred on the Simpsons at one point or another... Anthony Hit me up... 14:07, 25 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 --Kbdank71 15:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clouds to Category:Clouds and fog

• Rename, combines similar phenomena (I also agree on "clouds, fog, precipitation"). It is important to notice that fog is not type of cloud. Pflatau 16:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Cloud, fog and precipitation as the latter also included; is there a (single, simpler) meteorological term for "cloud-related phenomena"...?   Regards, David Kernow (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, Fog is a type of cloud, so it's unnecessary to include it in the title. Category:Fog is also a subcat of Category:Clouds. --musicpvm 03:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about Clouds and precipitation...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Precipitation already exists as well, so I'm not sure if it's necessary to include both "Clouds" and "Precipitation" in the title. --musicpvm 18:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So it does – I must've typoed when trying it; apologies. As the nomination indicates, however, confusion is possible; but Clouds and cloud-related phenomena isn't particularly compact/straightforward... David Kernow (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per musicpvm. I don't see the justification for naming both. I'm not sold on the clouds/fog/precip division but it does seem to me that distinctions here are useful. --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fog is not type of cloud. How can you say "distinctions are useful" and, in the same time say that "fog is type of cloud"? These are contradictory statements. 137.110.7.57 07:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the classifications in Cloud. - jc37 11:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please show where is it mentioned there. Fog is not a cloud Pflatau 16:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fog is a cloud. It is stated in the first sentence of the fog article and also in the cloud article. "Fog is a cloud in contact with the ground. Fog differs from other clouds only in that fog touches the surface of the Earth." Fog is just stratus clouds that touch the ground. --musicpvm 18:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• (Clarifying my "oppose") - I am opposing the rename to "clouds and fog". Whether fog is water vapour is immaterial to the categorisation. Clouds are rather clearly defined (See: Cloud#Cloud classification). As such, fog is not congruent to cloud. - jc37 21:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good idea - I followed suggestions above and kept "clouds" but introduced new cat which incudes SEPARATELY fog and clouds. Pflatau 15:34, 24 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 15:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Catholic lay societies to Category:RCC lay societies

• RCC lay societies, to clarify the term, Catholic, with the abbreviation RCC. Freder1ck 16:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck[reply]

• Keep as it is rather than make this change. RCC is not a term in sufficiently common use as to warrant making it part of the name of these category (note its multiple meanings at the disambiguation page). If clarification is needed, use a name such as Category:Roman Catholic lay societies instead of anything including "RCC". --Metropolitan90 18:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Ministries-Roman Catholic Lay Societies to Catholic lay societies text=Merge, 1. Catholic lay societies is shorter and simpler; 2. These groups are not official ministries of the RCC, but are based upon free association; 3. These groups have a broader purpose than simply ministry. Oh, and while we're at it, I'll propose that Category:Catholic lay societies be renamed RCC lay societies. Freder1ck 16:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck))[reply]

• I believe ambiguous/not well-known abbreviations such as "RCC" are meant to be avoided (cf WP:NCC). Regards, David Kernow (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Roman Catholic lay societies for clarity and accuracy. Piccadilly 00:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I can't find any reference/article/link using the term "lay society". - jc37 11:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Roman Catholic laity, which I think it the correct term. (See: Laity.) - jc37 11:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that laity was a term for the individuals and not the groups. Laity are those who belong to groups. This cat is for groups. Vegaswikian 23:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Catholic lay societies to Category:Roman Catholic organisations. Rename Category:Roman Catholic Ministries-Roman Catholic Lay Societies to Category:Roman Catholic Ministries. The latter suggestion is based on the malformed request above. Vegaswikian 23:19, 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 delete --Kbdank71 15:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animal homosexuality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete Might just as well start a category for animals that are brown, or animals that eat fish. BabyNuke 15:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-defining characteristic and smells of anthropomorphisation. IMHO it has similar systemic problem to "Fauna by country" type of categories, recently here. Pavel Vozenilek 21:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Piccadilly 00:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The category already links to a far more encyclopaedically named list, 'animals who display such behvior' which is better anyways. ThuranX 00:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Twittenham 11:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It seems unwise to delete the category just at a time when there is more interest than ever. An example is the "Against Nature?" exhibition which is running in Oslo at the moment. The exhibition shows there are well documented cases of homopsexuality in the animal kingdom. This is not anthropomorphism - human characteristics are not being attributed to animals - they are characteristics the animals themselves possess Damson88 12:46, 29 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:The Corrs songs, convention of Category:Songs by artist. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per convention. --musicpvm 03:12, 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 delete. the wub "?!" 20:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional nerds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Fictional Nerds? Just about anyone that reads excesivley or is smart is considered a "nerd". Not to mention there are several view points on what a nerd actually is. Should be deleted. UnDeRsCoRe 15:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Clearly, this category will have a POV problem. George J. Bendo 19:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not worth the aggravation it is likely to cause. Piccadilly 00:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category holds lots of 'losers' who aren't 'nerds'. If it had been focused on true 'Nerds', that is characters who self-identify as such, and of havbe been identified by their authors as such, it might be different, but it's a mess right now. ThuranX 00:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm alittle curious as to what you considered a true "nerd", Spiderman, who is the category, has never considered himself a "nerd", yet hie most definatly is. I think the semantics of "nerd","geek","dork","loser","brainiac","poindexters" and "Bill Gates" are ridiculous. All these groups have something in common and a category for them isnt a bad idea.(Animedude)

• Rename to something less POV, but obviouisly all these characters have something in common. No one is having a problem with the category Category:Fictional goths. (Animedude 17:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment I don't have a strong opinion on this, just want to point out that if this category is worth deleting then perhaps the same will apply for the article List of fictional nerds? Spebudmak 03:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subjective definition of who might or might not qualify as a nerd. Dugwiki 17:15, 23 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 wub "?!" 20:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorizing people based on accusations made by their oponents? . This type of categorization violates WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people guidelines as well WP:BLP. What we will see next? Category:Journalists accussed of lying, Category:Politicians acussed of bribery, Category:People and grous acussed of bigotry? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per the category's description:

  This category contains scholars and groups accused of cult apologism, as defined by the cult apologist page.
  Groups and individuals not explicitly defined within that article as having been accused of cult apologism, should not appear here.

  All groups and individuals categorized in such a manner have already been clearly addressed as such on the cult apologist page. Their status in this manner is therefore deemed to be sourced, and not in question. Therefore, this is most certainly not a violation of WP:NPOV or WP:BLP. Yours, Smeelgova 15:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment to closing admin, User:Jossi is depopulating the entire category, less than 30 minutes before the category was created. This does not give time for discussion on the actual issue of the category itself. As stated above, all groups and indivduals had already been established without question, and sourced, on the cult apologist page. Yours, Smeelgova 15:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Smeelgova, the creator of this category, may not be aware that this category violates Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people, and in some situation it also violating WP:BLP. There is no such a thing in WP as a fait acompli or "stakes in the ground. If an editor disagree with the addition of an article to a category, the editor is in his right to challenged the addition and remove an article from a category. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, then this shall all be discussed in the CFD. However, I would most appreciate it, and you will find that I will respond much more amiably, if User:Jossi would take a more kind attitude towards this process, and let it play out in the community. Yours, Smeelgova 15:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Comment there is a well-documented divide, though not a clear-cut one between on the one hand scholars and scientists, and others who emphasize the harm done by cults, and on the other hand authors who emphasize the persecution of cults by governments, and stigmatization of cults in the media etc. This divide should somehow and somewhere be made in Wikipedia. Andries 16:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one is disputing that there are people and groups acussed of being "cult apologists" by their critics. That is discussed in the cult apologist. The dispute is about the use of categories to assert that viewpoint. As a controversial subject, it is best left to the article itself, where counterpoints and context is presented. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that was the kindest and most neutral language I have heard you use to describe your argument to date, User:Jossi, very well put, and I'm glad to see you're dealing more amiably with this discussion. Yours, Smeelgova 16:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Listify. Lists allow sourcing, attribution, and commentary, all of which would be helpful in a matter like this. -Will Beback 17:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. Smeelgova 17:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

There is already cult apologist. Why do we need a list? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi is correct, that article already contains a list. -Will Beback 00:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia should not participate in rows and accusations. Piccadilly 00:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - accusation = a need to citations/references. - jc37 11:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm changing my vote. User:Jossi made a good argument on this one, especially as applied to categories related to individuals. Yours, Smeelgova 05:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Apologist is a loaded word and far from the standard that category members should be self-evident[3]. Antonrojo 19:03, 25 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 --Kbdank71 15:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to WikiProject Vancouver articles, usual convention for WikiProjects. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This category is used to keep track of talk pages that have not yet been sorted into a category for a specific ajacent city (see talk page). I think the person who nominated this category for deletion is unaware of this. -- Selmo ^(talk) 20:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe make this backlog part of WikiProject Vancouver anyway...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 12:37, 25 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 --Kbdank71 14:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE into Category:Italian_languages

• Merge Redundant--Endgame1 12:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong keep No it isn't redundant. None of the subcategories in it as of now are for articles about languages. Piccadilly 00:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose if this is a distinct linguistic family. If anything it looks more like it's a subset of Category:Italic languages. The header states that it is not the same as Category:Languages of Italy. --Dhartung | Talk 07:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The two categories cover entirely different things. - jc37 11:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merger. Category:Italian language should be kept as is (but no, it shouldn't be in Category:Italic languages). What's problematic is Category:Italian languages, which should be renamed Category:Italo-Dalmatian languages (see Italo-Western languages for this term). —Angr 13:27, 25 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 wub "?!" 20:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Minority languages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, defined by lack, rather than presence, of a distinctive feature. Too large to be useful — 99.9% of living languages would belong here. · Naive cynic · 08:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nonomy 12:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• May as well delete. At the time the category was made, Wikipedia didn't have an article on every idiolect claiming to be a "language", but it does now. —Angr 14:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Overlaps with Category:Endangered languages, poorly defined. Pavel Vozenilek 14:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I wonder if English is the minority language in China? : ) - jc37 11:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - despite Angr's pessimism. -- Evertype·✆ 08:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this nonsensical category. Twittenham 11:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 23:06, 25 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. the wub "?!" 21:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Intertemporal to Category:Intertemporal economics

• Rename, More understandable, consistent with general naming scheme JQ 05:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename; "Intertemporal" alone is too vague. David Kernow (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom... - Ohhh it's economics : ) - jc37 11:37, 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 keep. the wub "?!" 21:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Redundant --Endgame1 05:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep separate One is about the lines of the LIRR, the other is about the different stations of the LIRR. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep separate Possibly a bad-faith nom. The LIRR's stations are not redundant to articles about LIRR lines, railcars, and projects. Even the merge of a parent category to its child is mind-boggling to me. (LIRR → LIRR stations?!) Look at other railway-related categories (e.g. Category:London Underground, Category:New York City Subway, Category:Amtrak) and their hierarchies. A station category spin-off will be inevitable as there are about 129 LIRR stations. Tinlinkin 02:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Can someone explain how these two are 'redundant'? Vegaswikian 05:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - jc37 11:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There are plenty of articles about the LIRR that are not about its stations. As an aside, why is there an article for each station, when each station is comprised of a concrete overpass and some ticket machines? (At least, the LIRR station I take, Floral Park, is...or is my daily commute an encounter with Notability? :) Paul 00:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all LIRR stations are elevated or have an overpass and there are a few without ticket machines. And Floral Park is an interesting station compared to other some other LIRR stations. Tinlinkin 08:19, 24 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 merge Category:Marvel Comics Villains to Category:Marvel Comics villains. Category:Marvel Comics villains, non-superpowered has been nominated separately, and Category:Marvel Comics supervillains was not tagged so I will nominate now. the wub "?!" 13:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, duplicate of Category:Marvel Comics supervillains and Category:Marvel Comics villains, non-superpowered. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom UnDeRsCoRe 02:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• MERGE them all --Endgame1 05:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge allThuranX 00:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all to Category:Marvel Comics villains (lowercase v; to avoid distinction between "super" and not.) --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 00:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all, per HKM. I floated a similar stub type at the comics wikiproject a while ago, and the sentiment then was eliminating the super/non- distinction, too. Alai 02:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it makes sense to have a general villians cat, but I'd recommend keeping Category:Marvel Comics supervillains as a subcat of it and Category:Supervillains by publisher. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse Merge both Category:Marvel Comics supervillains and Category:Marvel Comics villains, non-superpowered to Category:Marvel Comics Villains, per discussion above. - jc37 17:14, 25 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 14:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Greek punk rock groups, convention of Category:Punk rock groups by nationality. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is fine. Do not delete it. Place it under another category if you want to, but don't delete it, or rename it.Nikos papadopoulos 20:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category was nominated for renaming, not deletion. And no, it is not fine as it does not following naming conventions. --musicpvm 03:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --musicpvm 03:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - jc37 11:37, 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 to Category:Galaxy clusters --Kbdank71 14:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Galactic groupings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - The term "Galaxy groupings", as described in the article, is not one recognized in amateur or professional astronomy. Moreover, this category claims to contain "galaxies that are visually situated in close proximity to each other, and form an observable group" (i.e. the galaxies appear close in the sky but are not physically associated). Most of the objects in this category at the time of this nomination (the Leo Triplet, the Magellanic Clouds, and Stephan's Quintet) are not chance alignments of galaxies but are (mostly) galaxies that are physically associated with each other. This category almost looks like it could be used for galaxy groups if the text at the top of the category is rewritten, but Wikipedia already contains a Category:Galaxy clusters that contains all nearby groups and clusters. Therefore this category serves no purpose but to cause confusion (and duplication) and should be deleted. (Note that the Leo Triplet, Stephan's Quintet, and the Magellanic Clouds are going to be removed from this category after I finish this nomination.) George J. Bendo 00:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• MERGE' --Endgame1 05:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Galaxy clusters? That would be OK with me. George J. Bendo 10:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Galaxy clusters, per above. - jc37 11:37, 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.