< September 17	September 19 >

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 duplicate nomination - EurekaLott 15:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Synonyms for feces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This was an orphaned cfd notice, for a ridiculous category created by User:Nintendude who has also authored such great categories such as Category:Categories named after suffixes, Category:People who have been arrested and articles such as Super Monkey Poop Fight. Check his talk page archives for other such greats. This user needs watching. - Hahnchen 23:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Actually it is listed here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 9#Category:Synonyms for feces --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Didn't see that, the CFD notice was incorrect in that case. - Hahnchen 02:45, 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Jazz trumpet players to Category:Jazz trumpeters. My reasons are that "jazz trumpeter" is more commonly used see "Jazz trumpet" player versus "Jazz trumpeter". Also the German even calls it "Kategorie:Jazz-Trompeter"--T. Anthony 23:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. - EurekaLott 11:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:11, 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 delete --Kbdank71 17:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Seminal works (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Seems to be nothing more than the author's opinion. 70.127.153.69 22:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, POV by definition. --Dhartung | Talk 09:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Recury 13:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per everyone above. [talk to the] HAM 17:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV. Calsicol 17:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ridiculous POV. Prolog 22:19, 22 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 17:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies based in San Jose, CA to Category:Companies based in San Jose, California

• Rename. Lose state abbreviation. Vegaswikian 21:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Category:Companies based in the Silicon Valley, which is where all the other companies in San Jose, California are categorized. --evrik 14:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Companies based in the Silicon Valley. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:24, 24 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 17:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Companies based in Lake County to Category:Companies based in Lake County, California
• Category:Companies based in Butte County to Category:Companies based in Butte County, California
• Category:Companies based in the Central Valley to Category:Companies based in the Central Valley, California

• Rename. There are at least 7 Lake Counties in the US, and 3 Butte counties. Central Valley is common in several states and in a few countries outside of the US.

I wonder if it would be better to delete the Central Valley cat since these would be better listed in the actual county to follow the category scheme for the rest of the state? Vegaswikian 21:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, the current standard for naming the more than fifty sub-cats "Companies based in..." in the Category:Companies based in California has been solely the county name.

I would not oppose deleting the Central Valley category and farming those articles to the appropriate category. I would also not oppose doing one mass chnage renaming all the sub-cats to one standard name. --evrik 14:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However Lake and Butte counties are not unique to California. So those should not be used without additional disambiguation to avoid problems. Vegaswikian 17:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It goes back to my comments in the Orange County discussion, they should be named uniformly. --evrik 17:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that does not address the problem of dabing since those names are used in many places. Maybe your suggestion to change all of them is the best compromise. Vegaswikian 17:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing that all of these be changed to Foo County, California as an acceptable alternative to my suggested dab changes? If so, I would not object to that. Vegaswikian 17:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing admin. Note that these proposals match what is being supported in a related nomination. Vegaswikian 22:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay by me. --evrik 14:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add the tags to those other groups for renamimg and to this nomination so we can complete the process. Can we assume that you are changing your vote to support? Vegaswikian 17:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, disambiguation is necessary. They may all need changed if this would make them inconsistant with other cat names. --tjstrf 22:19, 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 17:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Right-wing politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Left-wing politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Right-wing organizations in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Right-wing parties and organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Defunct Right-wing organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Delete, These categories seem to be only adding confusement to the category hierarchy. When is something right-wing, when left-wing? Incinerator2.0 17:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all and create category:political spectrum for specific articles concerning left and right as political termsC mon 21:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all categories and related sub-categories. Listify if wanted. Supporters of "x" / critics of "x" categories require direct citations/evidence, which is not possible in categories. - jc37 01:46, 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 delete --Kbdank71 17:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Uncertain galaxies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. The description for this category was so vague that the articles included in it had little to do with each other. The articles formerly included in this article included an ambiguous catalog entry; a hypothetical class of galaxies; extragalactic objects identified as galaxies that were actually parts of galaxies; objects identified as star clusters that may have been galaxies; a galaxy that may have been false detection; and a galaxy that definitely was a galaxy but that may or may not have been part of the Local Group. Note that all articles were removed from the category, although a record was kept of the contents at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. George J. Bendo 16:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; inherently vague. David Kernow (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; this kind of category is really a tonne of potential tedious arguments about just how uncertain things need to be. Chaos syndrome 18:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Listify if wanted. - jc37 01:46, 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 delete --Kbdank71 17:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:M104 group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. A discussion on the Sombrero Galaxy page explains why the M104 Group may not exist. The corresponding article (M104 group of galaxies), after being nominated for deletion, was turned into a redirect to the Sombrero Galaxy article. This category is now empty, and it seems inappropriate to add any new articles or the Sombrero Galaxy article to the category. George J. Bendo 15:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as populating this category could be misleading. Chaos syndrome 17:59, 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rink Hockey to Category:Rink hockey

• Rename - to avoid incorrect capitalisation Ian Cairns 15:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to speedy. David Kernow (talk) 18:50, 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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mayors and reeves of Gloucester to Category:Mayors and reeves of Gloucester Township, Ontario

• Rename, To match the name of the town's article (Gloucester Township, Ontario). To me Gloucester is a city in England, or (secondarily) a city in MA. kingboyk 15:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nomination - Ian Cairns 15:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't rename. Gloucester was not a township after 1982 I believe, when it became a city. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom or to Category:Mayors and reeves of Gloucester, Ontario. Golfcam 04:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you even read what I said? Gloucester WAS NOT A TOWNSHIP from 1982 until 2001. Renaming the category would be incorrect. And renaming will just be reverted by me on the basis of accuracy. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes and I made a sensible suggestion in response to it. The name I have suggested makes no claim it was a township in 1982, in 2001 or at any other time. Some more sensible suggestions: 1) Don't shout at other users; 2) read Wikipedia:Civility; 3) don't try to unilaterally overturn consensus if you don't want to be blocked. Golfcam 18:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I apologize, I hadn't noticed your suggestion. It is actually one I can agree on. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:49, 23 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 17:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Common Wealth MPs (UK) to Category:Common Wealth Party MPs

• Rename, Per precedent in Category:British MPs by political party and per parent cat (Category:UK Common Wealth Party politicians). kingboyk 15:51, 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 -- Drini 22:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Rename Category:LGBT rights opposition to Category:Opposition to LGBT equality--T. Anthony 14:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the category's discussion page, the category should be deleted rather than renamed without changing its meaning. ~Kruck 17:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by other rename efforts you can vote delete if you wish.--T. Anthony 22:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. How on earth can we make a category like this to include every social conservative in the world? I dislike the category under either name. I hate it very marginally less as Opposition to LGBT equality. Deet 23:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. How many of these "opposers of X" categories do we need? Probably none. It's not particularly NPOV in intent to start with. --tjstrf 18:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Deet. Choalbaton 01:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Supporters of "x" / critics of "x" categories require direct citations/evidence, which is not possible in categories. - jc37 01:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep this smells like anti-LGBT discrimination; we have lots of single issue categories, and this is a defining position one-way or another taken by most US politicians. See Category:Opponents of capital punishment, Category:Supporters of capital punishment, Category:Pro-life politicians, Category:Pro-choice politicians, etc., etc. Why pick out LGBT rights to delete? hmmmm..... Carlossuarez46 02:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First this was not "picked out" Things involving support or opposition for George W. Bush, as one example, have been voted on. Second I put this up to be renamed. I'm amenable to deletion, but I did not ask it be deleted. I have a problem with a category called "LGBT rights opposition" because it's too broad and prone to misuse. My somewhat clumsy rename idea was to lead this to the direction of saying "these people oppose LGBT being seen as equal to heterosexuality." I'd also be amenable to it being renamed Category:Opponents of the LGBT rights movement.--T. Anthony 03:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this and all categories that classify people by stance on issues. The only bias I see is that a very high-proportion of categories of this type are concerned with trendy liberal issues. Golfcam 04:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV title. I prefer to think of it as "supporters of the family and quality parenting", but that is politically incorrect. Calsicol 17:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm I put this up for rename. On further reflection I think Category:Opposition to the LGBT rights movement is the rename I want. That would limit it to organizations more and not individuals. Am I allowed to change my rename request to that? Also would that rename be any more acceptable?--T. Anthony 19:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Grouping by non-essentials LaszloWalrus 05:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Golfcam. Pavel Vozenilek 17:44, 24 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename -- Drini 22:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Places of interest in Crimea to Category:Visitor attractions in Crimea[reply]

• Rename, to match the parent category:Visitor attractions in Ukraine and the scores of subcategories of Category:Visitor attractions. There is no Category:Places of interest. Merchbow 13:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Calsicol 17:30, 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). 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 17:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UK OMRLP (Loony) politicians to Category:Official Monster Raving Loony Party politicians

• Rename, Per article (Official Monster Raving Loony Party) and parent category (Category:Official Monster Raving Loony Party). kingboyk 13:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 18:52, 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 speedy delete as nonsense (CSD G1). - EurekaLott 15:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:!!!!aaaaCategories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, nonsense redirect, possibly a test. ZimZalaBim (talk) 11:39, 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, empty --Kbdank71 17:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Soviet concentration camps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Category:Gulag already exists and is more accurate. Errabee 11:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• merge/delete to ensure nothing is omitted from Category:Gulag. 17:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete though concentration camps is technically more correct (GULAG covers only part of the history). Pavel Vozenilek 17:47, 24 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 withdrawn --Kbdank71 17:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World War II games to Category:World War II computer and video games

Category:Vietnam War games to Category:Vietnam War computer and video games

• Rename [both], as per everything else in Category:Computer and video games with historical settings. ["World War II games" / "Vietnam War games"] should still exist, but also include board wargames etc, with the proposed rename above as a subcategory (as per Category:World War I games. Marasmusine 08:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per nom. David Kernow (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, at first I didn't realize that Category:Vietnam War games existed, so I've already created Category:Vietnam War computer and video games--TBCTaLk?!? 17:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Tenative Oppose: So, why aren't you using these as the broad categories, and just moving the CVG stuff to a new subcat? If the answer is that it would leave these empty, that can be easily fixed, expecially for WWII. That would mirror the WWI categories properly. --Rindis 20:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Rindis: there are quite a few boardgames, and likely some cardgames and other non-computer non-video games set in those periods, for example, Axis and Allies. All mentioned categories should exist, none should be deleted.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an automatic way of recategorizing all those WWII computer games? If not I'll start doing it manually later today (along with the Vietnam games). Either way I withdraw my nomination. You live and you learn. Marasmusine 07:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's done. Just need to start populating Category:World War II games and Category:Vietnam War games with various board games etc. This can be cfd can be closed I suppose? Marasmusine 21:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Rindis and Piotrus. -- JHunterJ 16:39, 23 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 17:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American conservatives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, cat is difficult, at the least, to correctly maintain. Whose definition of "conservative" are we going to use? May be better to listify. Dismas|^(talk) 04:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Twittenham 12:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Conservative" is such a slippery term that it is inappropriate in a category name. Choalbaton 01:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ANY category regarding political philosophy and current affairs must have its problems, but that hasn't stopped people from calling themselves conservative, being called conservative by others in a generally accepted way. The problems are at the margins. Also, the category is useful: If you are interested in conservatives and want to find out about others, what OTHER category name would be so useful? Why make unnecessary work for readers?Noroton 04:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)added comment:I just added about 200 names to the list. It's no longer small, and it's considerably more useful than it was.Noroton 17:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)3rd comment:the people we have on this list are almost entirely part of the "conservative movement" which is still rather well defined, and even neoconservatives and paleoconservatives consider themselves conservative. Notice in the individual articles their conservatism is often mentioned in the first paragraph. This is not rocket science and prominent conservatives either embrace the label or aren't offended if someone makes the easy mistake. For other ideologies it may be different because of different historical circumstances (marxists, socialists, fascists, liberals, islamofascists?), I don't know, but this kind of list works for conservatives. William Kristol, for instance, has no problem being called a conservative, and Patrick Buchanan calls his magazine "The American Conservative."Noroton 22:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, This is no different than other political categories that are not totally black and white (See Category:Opponents of capital punishment, Category:Pro-choice politicians). These two issues have just as many gray facets as conservative vs. liberal, but can be applied to people who show a consistent and clear stance. If someone calls themselves a conservative and are considered as such in the public arena (i.e. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc) I see no problem with such a category. These are meant to help people navigate wikipedia, and this category fulfills an essential role. Joshdboz 22:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this category and both sub categories. Supporters of "x" / critics of "x" categories require direct citations/evidence, which is not possible in categories. - jc37 01:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Joshdboz. See I don't only vote to delete liberal-agenda categories. Golfcam 04:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Noroton and Joshdboz's comments. -- Dcflyer 07:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep But remove the subcategories, which are not necessarily restricted to Americans. Calsicol 17:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Classification: Politicians by political orientation → Conservatives → American conservatives is totally valid. Verifiability is the issue for articles, not categories. If you wipe this out, all "political orientation" categories are at risk, which is absurd. Rfrisbie^talk 17:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Categorise by membership, not issue or belief. An activist organisation, a political organization (such as the Republican party), and the like are categorisable. There is at any given moment a finite number of members. A person's belief or ideology is not something so easily quantified. (Ask several individuals about their view on abortion to see how complex that issue can be). All politican orientation categories should likely be restructured, due to the need for citation/evidence. - jc37 18:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Noroton and Joshdboz's comments. —Morning star 00:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Any political category gets slippery, because people are often unpredictable bundles of sometimes contradictory opinions. But the basic idea of the category is sound. It's a reasonably well-defined grouping of people on the political right. Casey Abell 01:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an important subject, with hundreds of entries. I don't see the rationale for deleting it. Ruthfulbarbarity 03:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems pretty straightforward to me to keep. Yeechang Lee 14:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's ridiculous to delete this. This a major political ideology. What are you trying to gain from this by deleting it. Im with Ruth, there are also almost 200 entires, and there should be more. --Zonerocks 18:23, 22 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 of the proposed deletion of the category below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename -- Drini 22:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Category:IRL drivers to Category:Indy Racing League drivers[reply]

• Rename, Expand abbreviations, consistency with other subcats of Category:Indy Racing League. Recury 01:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename.--Mike Selinker 01:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 02:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. When I saw the name I instinctly thought it meant "In Real Life". While it probably says more to the fact that I spend too much time online, clarity is good. --Roninbk 20:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Roninbk. ;) --Rindis 21:42, 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). 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 17:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional cursed characters to Category:Cursed fictional characters

• Rename "Fictional cursed characters" is very grammatically awkward. Sandmaster 00:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, due to conventions of Category:Fictional characters by nature, although I agree it is awkward. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the term "cursed" means something widely different depending on which fictional universe it's used in, so this is not a meaningful characterisation for fictional characters as a whole. >Radiant< 16:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Cast Death on it. "Cursed" is so vague as to be totally useless in sorting. It could mean anything from "has slightly bad luck" to "is pursued by daemons on a daily basis". In fact, many of the fictional characters by nature are similar in their vagueness. --tjstrf 22:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I attempted to clarify the meaning of the category in its description. Basically, it's for characters who have specifically had a curse placed on them; just having "slightly bad luck" would not be sufficient.Sandmaster 18:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't think this is keepable, but first, I'd like a better idea of what is meant with 'by nature', as that might limit things enough to be workable. I think I have an idea what you mean, but you need to do something better than just link the root Nature article. --Rindis 23:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Fictional characters by nature is an often hellishly vague set of categories which attempts to group characters by some sort of archetype, ability, or personality trait. I've tried to get the worst of them deleted in the past, without much success. --tjstrf 23:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to category:Fictional characters who have been cursed (compare to category:Fictional characters with alter-egos) - jc37 01:46, 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.