< September 12	September 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 page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn --Kbdank71 20:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Sacramento State, to match Sacramento State. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The renaming of the article should also be reversed. "Sacramento State" is a marketing name/nickname; the university's website uses it, but also frequently uses the full name or "Sac State," and even the tagline "Capital University." As the official name, least ambiguous name, and most stable name, "California State University, Sacramento" is the best name for use in a general purpose encyclopedia. The official name is required by the university's news and publicity guide, and the new identity style guide notes that "Sacramento State" was selected as the best common name versus alternatives such as Cal State Sacramento or CSUS, not that it should replace the official name. Also note University of Maryland, College Park naming dispute and compare with numerous examples where the official name has been preferred, such as Category:Pennsylvania State University, Category:United States Military Academy, or Category:University of California, Los Angeles. WP should not chase fashion.-choster 23:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per choster and redirect other colloquialisms to it. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 23:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn ... although it does seem to me to be going against the policy of common name, where feasible. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:05, 14 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Category:National parks of Bosnia and Herzegovina, convention of Category:National parks. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename. Pavel Vozenilek 22:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename. Dale Arnett 07:38, 15 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Miami-Dade County Public Housing Projects. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and leave a cat redirect. Vegaswikian 17:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, I don't really see the use of those categories, there is only 2 articles in there and I prodded one as nn apartment complex. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:11, 21 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wars of Karelia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, the convention is to categorize wars by independent (or at least autonomous) states and groups participating in them. This was never the case for Karelia, and the idea of categorizing military conflicts by their modern geographic location was quite thoroughly rejected a long time ago. Kirill Lokshin 19:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• del per above. --Irpen 19:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• del per nominator. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• del per nominator. --Pan Gerwazy 14:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 23:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. — Dale Arnett 07:38, 15 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wars of Ingria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, the convention is to categorize wars by independent (or at least autonomous) states and groups participating in them. This was never the case for Ingria ("Ingria never formed a state; the Ingrians can hardly be said to have been a nation"), and the idea of categorizing military conflicts by their modern geographic location was quite thoroughly rejected a long time ago. Kirill Lokshin 19:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per above. --Irpen 19:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nominator. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nominator. --Pan Gerwazy 08:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 23:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. — Dale Arnett 07:38, 15 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was already merged --Kbdank71 13:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Jewish writers - upper case not necessary for the word "writers". -- the GREAT Gavini 19:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename and so tagged. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - dont put the reanmed cat for CfD though.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:13, 17 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:East Timorese writers, per all the other "writers" categories - Category:Finnish writers, Category:Indonesian writers, etc. -- the GREAT Gavini 19:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Twittenham 12:55, 18 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing against Rosina Ferrara, but it seems a bit biased. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fancruftcat Pavel Vozenilek 23:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pavel. — Dale Arnett 07:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Twittenham 19:30, 17 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Footballers of the Republic of the Congo, perils of fooian notation, Congo, Category:Footballers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 07:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Greg Grahame 01:58, 19 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete, Topic adequately covered by Category:Indy Racing League, which already contains the three articles in this category. Recury 17:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Dale Arnett 07:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -Drdisque 17:46, 21 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Centre College alumni, convention of Category:Alumni by university in the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Matter of fact, you could make a case that it meets speedy rename criterion 4 (nonconformance with established norms). — Dale Arnett 07:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Update: Actually, I was wrong. It may not match an established norm, but it doesn't exactly fit speedy #4.[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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Boston Men's Baseball League, one cat will do for something this small. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. — Dale Arnett 07:38, 15 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge:

• Category:Theme parks into Category:Amusement parks
• Category:Theme parks by country into Category:Amusement parks by country
• Category:Theme parks in Australia into Category:Amusement parks in Australia
• Category:Theme parks in Canada into Category:Amusement parks in Canada
• Category:Theme parks in Hong Kong into Category:Amusement parks in Hong Kong
• Category:Theme parks in the Netherlands into Category:Amusement parks in the Netherlands
• Category:Theme parks in the United States into Category:Amusement parks in the United States
• Category:Theme parks in the United Kingdom into Category:Amusement parks in the United Kingdom

Rename:

• Category:Theme parks in Indonesia to Category:Amusement parks in Indonesia
• Category:Theme parks in Japan to Category:Amusement parks in Japan
• Category:Theme parks in Singapore to Category:Amusement parks in Singapore

Reasons:

• Theme park redirects to amusement park. Looking at the articles, it's not clear why each is in one category or the other. This is confusing to editors. Usgnus 17:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If "theme park" and "amusement park" are not distinct enough to have separate articles, why have separate categories. --Usgnus 23:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I was planning exactly this nomination a while back, but forgot. Thank you Usgnus. To some, theme parks are a subset of amusement parks, but many people do not make the distinction. We are better going with the inclusive amusement park categories alone and subcategorizing by geography if the cats become too large. ×Meegs 05:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Merge or rename all - The distinction between a theme park and an amusement park is probably too subtle to be worth a category. Also per Usgnus. —Cswrye 00:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. A merge would do also. — Dale Arnett 07:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Changing vote to support per Greg. Redirecting the "theme park" categories makes sense. — Dale Arnett 02:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but keep all the "theme parks" categories as redirects. Greg Grahame 02:00, 19 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Evidence-based medicine --Kbdank71 13:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Medical informatics. Poorly named, all of modern science is (or should be) evidence-based. However, from reading the lead article it seems that it has to do with using data-mining techniques for medicine. If you would like to keep it, please do suggest a better name. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I work for a health care consulting company, and evidence-based medicine is a term that I hear quite often. It's not just something someone made up for Wikipedia. It is named so because while the science of medicine is obviously evidence-based, the practice of medicine in hospitals often isn't. The term is used by groups like the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. I could see deleting it on the basis that it has too few articles for a category, but I think it should be given time. However, I would recommend a rename to Category:Evidence-based medicine. —Cswrye 18:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds reasonable. In that case, would you consider changing your vote from Keep to Merge into Category:Evidence-based medicine? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't notice that the category already existed. Merge. --Cswrye 05:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Evidence-based medicine. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Evidence-based medicine per ProveIt. David Kernow 11:16, 14 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a distinguishing characteristic. If you would like to keep it, please do suggest a better name. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not useful. Rbraunwa 16:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 23:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above (plus faulty capitaliz/sation). David Kernow 11:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too convoluted. Wimstead 18:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. — Dale Arnett 07:38, 15 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was merge. Runcorn 20:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:WikiProject Paranormal articles, per WikiProject conventions. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Whoops, hadn't noticed that other cat when I created this one. --InShaneee 17:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, it happens all the time... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:38, 13 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Lists of Dragon Ball characters --Kbdank71 13:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dragon Ball Character Articles to Category:Dragon Ball character articles

• Moved from speedy. Tim! 16:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Dragon Ball Character Articles to Category:Dragon Ball character articles --Mike Selinker 12:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Lists of Dragon Ball characters would probably be a better name. - EurekaLott 13:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Lists of Dragon Ball characters as EurekaLott suggests. ×Meegs 05:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to the "Lists of" category. That's good by me.--Mike Selinker 08:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Doczilla 07:05, 19 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per discussions of August 11 and August 30. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Vossanova ^o< 16:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vague. What level of criticism would land someone here? Rbraunwa 17:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some utility, but not enough. Also too likely to be misused.--T. Anthony 19:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Wimstead 18:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I can smell the POV coming... — Dale Arnett 07:38, 15 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:California State University, Sacramento alumni, convention of Category:Alumni by university in the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk)

- I'm OK with changing it to "Sacramento State", however the school recently was renamed and brands itself as Sacramento State, not CSUS.

You are correct, and I've updated the nomination to match. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:California State University, Sacramento alumni. The university was not renamed, it was rebranded. "Sacramento State" is ambiguous especially to those outside the United States who do not assume "State" usually refers to a university. -choster 23:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very well, although it seems to be somewhat against policy of common names, I've changed the nomination back to the way I had it the first time. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• How is it different from San Jose State, Fresno State, San Diego State? While internationals may not know the difference, it's how the school wants to be branded.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.231.56 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 13 September 2006
  • For one thing, the articles are not at the locations you indicated, but at San José State University, California State University, Fresno, and San Diego State University. Second, those are the official names of the institutions and so consistent with my position. The names of the institutions are part of California law; the reversion of CSUSJ to SJSU, CSUSD to SDSU, and CSUSF to SFSU were acts of the legislature.-choster 00:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Hey, what do I know, I only went to school there. Nobody refers to the school as CSUS. It's Sacramento State (Sac State for short)... unless you are an administrator with an inferiority complex about "university" not being in the school title, Sacramento State has always been the name of choice.
• Rename per Provelt. — Dale Arnett 07:38, 15 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Runcorn 20:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous Cochranes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, surname category, no encyclopedic use. The text is a copy from Cochrane, which also lists all of the articles that were in this category. It wasn't always empty so it won't qualify for speedy (I emptied it since it was easier to rollback the articles now than removing the cats after more edits have been made in the articles, if the category is kept, i'll revert myself). Bobet 10:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless I'm mistaken and we also have Category:Famous Changs, Category:Famous Daleys, Category:Famous Chapmans, etc.--T. Anthony 19:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above plus that word "famous"...  David Kernow 11:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with extreme prejudice. Opens the door to major catcruft. — Dale Arnett 07:38, 15 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Runcorn 19:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:IRA murder victims to Category:People killed by the IRA
• Rename, "murder victims" is POV. See this discussion. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ridiculously POV as it stands now and as there's no Category:People killed by the UVF, the category should be deleted in its entirety as it serves no purpose other than to further the notion that the "IRA" (which is an often incorrectly-used term) is a killing agent hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 10:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, they did kill a lot of people. A Category:People killed by the UVF category would be a good idea, all the "sides" could have a subcat. I think the only reason the IRA subcat exists is that there are already a significant amount of articles on people they killed. The correct use of the term IRA is also being discussed on the Irish Wikipedians' notice board. ie, whether it should include the historical forms of the IRA and the CIRA/RIRA.Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment I'm reconsidering this. As Hoopydink says, if an IRA subcat exists then a subcat should exist for each "side". The problem with this is that not all killings were claimed, or were blamed on a certain organisation which then denied it was responsible. Another solution may be to list each article by locality, rather than organisation responsible. There is already a Category:The Troubles in Northern Ireland by locality category, with subcats for each county/major city. So I propose that people either vote for the category to be channged to:
    • Category:People killed by the IRA, or the category is deleted and each page recategorised under:
    • Category:The Troubles in Northern Ireland by locality Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are plenty of killings clearly attributable to the IRA, so that's not an issue. Before Hoopydink I'd already made the point about what constitutes 'the IRA' under the rename discussion, and that's a valid concern. I'd have no problem with a category Category:People killed by the Loyalist Paramilitary groups and a category Category:People killed by the Republican Paramilitary groups . CAIN categorises deaths including by Loyalist and Republican [[1]] so this is hardly controversial or new.User:Flexdream 13:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More commenting If sources will remain neutral in attributing articles of people to these categories, then I think it'd be a good idea to have categories for both Category:People killed by Royalist Paramilitary groups and category Category:People killed by Republican Paramilitary groups. However, at certain points the "IRA" was the official defence force for Ireland and anyone killed during those times should probably not be included (casualties of war; no categories for British Armed Forces or US Army deaths). hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 16:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm happy to go with that, but without the capitalisation. So Category:People killed by loyalist paramilitary groups and category Category:People killed by republican paramilitary groups. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 18:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There was never any doubt that other categories would be created for victims of the UVF, the INLA, the UDA, the UFF, 'Real' IRA etc etc. --Mal 16:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Minor point, but I think it's better to have capitalisation for 'Loyalist' and 'Republican' to show that this is a noun, not an adjective. Not everyone who wants a republic in the UK is a 'Republican' in this context. I think it also clarifies that this is a category related to Northern Ireland. --User:Flexdream 11:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Victim" is the standard police term - it makes no difference whether the people murdered deserved it or not. Mirror Vax 18:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as Category:People killed by the Provisional IRA. --Mal 16:51, 14 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 20:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IRA murder victims to Category:IRA homicide victims

• Rename, in line with usual NPOV practice per WP. Jobles 00:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This proposed renaming does nothing to neutralise the category (in my humble opinion) hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 14:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm suggesting that we Delete this category and I ask the closing admin to take into account how ridiculously POV it is, especially due to the complete lack of understanding that the IRA refers to different entities throughout history. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 20:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Incompatible with parent categories. Mirror Vax 21:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. Murder and homicide are interchangeable synonyms, not differences of point of view. That said, a refactoring of this cat tree might be better done as Category:People killed by the IRA, with subcats like Category:Politicians killed by the IRA and Category:Police killed by the IRA (or some word that might combine police & military) and of course Category:Civilians killed by the IRA. I can see how that can step in it in other ways, though. --Dhartung | Talk 06:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, now I see the discussion above. Hmmm. --Dhartung | Talk 06:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Murder and homicide are not interchangeable synonyms. Homicide may be justifiable; murder never is.--Runcorn 19:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as Category:People killed by the Provisional IRA per discussion at Wikipedia talk:Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board. --Mal 16:41, 14 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Victims of The Troubles to Category:People killed during the Troubles

• Rename, as per discussion at Irish Wikipedians' notice board "Victims" is point of view and inappropriate as the category includes paramilitary deaths. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just noticed this category includes hunger strikers, so "killed" isn't appropriate. Maybe Category:Deaths attributed to the Troubles is a better description. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Deaths related to The Troubles...?  Regards, David Kernow 11:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and discussion at Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board. Hunger strikers and people who committed suicide should be categorised as appropriate - separately from those who were killed by a third party. --Mal 19:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: "the Troubles" is not Irish specific term. Pavel Vozenilek 23:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I haven't heard of any other conflict being called the Troubles. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Neither have I, but calling it Category:Deaths attributed to the 'Troubles' relating to Northern Ireland or something similar might help people like Pavel, but not hinder people who know what 'The Troubles' means. User:Flexdream 11:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think an alternative solution would be to ensure that each category and subcat page includes a link to The Troubles article and a short explaination. --Mal 01:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename 'Victims' has overtones of 'innocent victims', and many of those killed were far from innocent.--Runcorn 19:51, 19 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 12:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Spanish international footballers to Category:Spain international footballers

• Rename, in line with other categories such as Category:England international footballers Chanheigeorge 07:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and for consistency. Qwghlm 08:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. – Elisson • Talk 14:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 07:38, 15 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 12:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:German International players to Category:Germany international footballers

• Rename, for clarity, and in line with other categories such as Category:England international footballers Chanheigeorge 07:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and for clarity. Qwghlm 08:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. – Elisson • Talk 14:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Dodge 02:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 07:38, 15 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French International players to Category:France international footballers

• Rename, for clarity, and in line with other categories such as Category:England international footballers Chanheigeorge 07:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and for clarity. Qwghlm 08:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. – Elisson • Talk 14:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Dodge 02:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 07:38, 15 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 19:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mormon composers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, per all other random religion and occupation combos. ...And Beyond! 00:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Rename if these are only composers of Mormon religious music. ...And Beyond! 01:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: I have blocked User:...And Beyond! as a sockpuppet. Please ignore his contributions.-Runcorn 19:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Mormons do have the big Tabernacle choir, etc so they do have composers for it. That said it needs renamed. Maybe something like "Composers of Mormon religious music."--T. Anthony 19:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If thats the case, then a rename would be ok. ...And Beyond! 01:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd almost wondered about delete, but enough of the names seem to be musicians for the Mormon church (mostly LDS proper) that I think it was apparently done in good faith. That said Maren Ord looks a bit marginal to me as she doesn't even seem to be a composer in the way I think this means.--T. Anthony 01:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per T. Anthony. — Dale Arnett 07:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - religion cats are useful.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:29, 17 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Internet video series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Not well defined ("Internet" is the only parent category), and only three articles at the moment. Vossanova ^o< 00:42, 13 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transgender and transsexual scientists and engineers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Oh my god. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, we do not make a category for every combination of everything possible. ...And Beyond! 00:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: I have blocked User:...And Beyond! as a sockpuppet. Please ignore his contributions.-Runcorn 19:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete what a ridiculous category Syrenab 23:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Brammen 00:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You know there's also Category:Transgender and transsexual sportspeople. Anyway I think I'd go for there being a Category:LGBT scientists with this merged in. On its own I'd say it's too minor and maybe needs deleted.--T. Anthony 19:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They can't be nominated all at once. ...And Beyond! 01:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They could be, of course. I think there's a much better case for relevance in the case of sportsmen-er-women, though. And for the record, actors and politicians. Other professions, not so much. Delete. --Dhartung | Talk 06:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Wimstead 18:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Absurd classification apart of artists and politicians. Pavel Vozenilek 23:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Catcruft City! — Dale Arnett 07:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While I can't verify it, I distinctly recall reading a study a few years ago reporting a higher incidence of the so-called "well-adjusted" transgendered individuals being employed in science and engineering fields versus others. It may have even attempted to correllate scientific aptitude with transsexuality, but I don't remember. If you were to visit the site TS Successes, which has a photo gallery of "successful" transgendered people, you can see that while there are an extremely wide variety of careers represented with no particular majority, science and engineering careers make up a clear plurality of the listings. I'd also like to point out that I noticed elsewhere on this page that the nominator, ...And Beyond!, has been indentified as a "sockpuppet". Kiranna 08:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a List of transgendered people a section on scientists could be added to deal with this and it could contain more information why it matters. Transgendered scientists could then be made as a redirect to the transgender list. Now I'm not voting deleting, or voting at all, I'm just saying this might be worth considering if you care about this issue.--T. Anthony 23:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wouldn't it be sufficient to categorize a person separately as transgender and a scientist? How complicated do categories need to become? Doczilla 20:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Kiranna inadvertantly makes the case for deletion very well, by showing that the main function of this category is to make a biased point. Greg Grahame 02:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is just one of the subcategories of Category:Transgender and transsexual people, which includes Category:Transgender and transsexual actors, Category:Transgender and transsexual musicians, Category:Transgender and transsexual sportspeople, Category:Transgender and transsexual politicians, and Category:Transgender and transsexual writers, which have not been nominated for deletion similarly. If you want to delete one, nominate them all, please, but it is not correct to single out engineers. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:26, 20 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Symbols of Cape Verde to Category:National symbols of Cape Verde

• Rename, in line with usual practice per Category:National symbols by nation. Brammen 00:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 11:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 07:38, 15 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete with extreme consensus --Kbdank71 19:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who have been arrested (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, I don't see the use of this category. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't seem like a defining characteristic to me. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A mere arrest isn't automatically noteworthy (nor does it make the subject a proper member of Category:Criminals). Brammen 00:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If someone has been arrested it can be noted in their bio, but I can't imagine anyone wanting to navigate among articles collected in this category, so it fails the #1 guideline of Categorization. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Joke. Pavel Vozenilek 23:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Way too broad to serve any useful purpose. Serpent-A 23:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Way too broad and without further context tends to be defamatory in nature. I also notice that current U.S. political and social figures have been categorized instead of people such as Mahatma Gandhi, Paul of Tarsus, and Joan of Arc. --Allen3 ^talk 00:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with extreme prejudice per nom. This category could be a libel lawsuit waiting to happen. — Dale Arnett 07:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Way too broad as mentioned, also it could encourage muckraking.--T. Anthony 04:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally useless. Twittenham 19:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this useless and never-ending category that would cover billions of people. Doczilla 20:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I strongly suggest that every single category that User:Nintendude has created by looked over. See Category:Categories named after suffixes. He's one of the most inept editors I've come across. - Hahnchen 23:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yes. Punkmorten 19:08, 21 September 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 page.