< September 1	September 3 >

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 17:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Dadaist Wikipedians. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename accordingly, cf. Category:Surrealist Wikipedians -- the GREAT Gavini 18:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -Doc 19:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pointless, non-encyclopedic. --Cyde Weys 23:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nomination.--Mike Selinker 23:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - Jc37 02:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 07:26, 4 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 17:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:James Patterson novels, convention of Category:Novels by author. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom - though I notice that not all the sub-cats follow this convention : ) - Jc37 02:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:34, 8 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 17:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use personal computers, same name proposed for Category:User pc. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -Doc 19:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-encyclopedic category. --Cyde Weys 20:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 100% pointless. Golfcam 20:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to category:Wikipedians who use personal computers as per the amended technology nomination from several days ago. There's no reason to delete this and keep all the others.--Mike Selinker 23:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're using a bad argument. It's not all-or-nothing. Put the others up for deletion and I'll say they should be deleted too. But keeping some crap because a whole lot of other crap hasn't been dealt with is, well, crap. --Cyde Weys 23:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are all up for discussion, and you can put in your deletion votes there too. But swamping these with delete votes will likely only lead to them being kept as is, which means we'll have to nominate them again because of the consensus to have "Wikipedian" in the titles. And that keeps them on this page until and unless they get a separate page. So I don't think you, Doc, and Golfcam are doing yourselves any favors if you want to see them off this page. Just my opinion, though.--Mike Selinker 23:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per the other CFD - And I suggest that this CFD be relisted AFTER the conclusion of that CFD. - Jc37 02:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and the previous CFD. --Cswrye 07:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Worthless. Osomec 10:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Covers most Wikipedians so totally pointless. Choalbaton 13:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use personal computers per Mike Selinker. I've updated the tag as well. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A waste of server space. Merchbow 22:06, 7 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 17:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Schools in Kanpur. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. - Jc37 02:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the naming convention of Category:Education by city. - EurekaLott 02:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per EurekaLott. Rama's arrow 15:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One category should be sufficient for all education articles relevant to Kanpur for the timebeing. 82.18.125.110 17:39, 5 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 17:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I recall, we decided against personal supermodel categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Michael 22:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, The result of the last discussion was delete, but it seems like only the parent cat and a few subcats were deleted. I don't see any listed at WP:CFD/W either. Maybe because I didn't tag all of them as it was a recent mass creation.

These all still need to be deleted (I have tagged all of them now.)

• • Category:Gisele Bündchen
  • Category:Heidi Klum
  • Category:Karolína Kurková
  • Category:Niki Taylor
  • Category:Twiggy
  • Category:Angela Lindvall
  • Category:Yoanna House
  • Category:Nicole Linkletter
  • Category:Adrianne Curry
  • Category:Danielle Evans
  • Category:Naima Mora
  • Category:Tricia Helfer
  • Category:Janice Dickinson
  • Category:Nicky Hilton
  • Category:Eva Pigford
  • Category:Stephanie Seymour

--musicpvm 22:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the tags for you, the umbrella format is a little different. To make the links work correcly, you need to specify the umbrella tag. It's best to include the transclusion date as well, or the link will stop working a week later. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete all No model merits a personal category. Golfcam 20:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sounds too similar to movies an actor has been in. - Jc37 02:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Redundant. Wimstead 17:36, 5 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 Per WP:CSD#G4, deletion of recreated material, as per deletion on July 13. Category protected against further recreation. Hiding Talk 23:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional blondes[edit]

Category:Fictional blondes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Far too broad... and is this really that important a trait? HKMarks 21:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We've deleted this category before.--Mike Selinker 21:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This may be important in some cases, but not in enough. Wimstead 21:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Look at the log entries, it's actually been killed twice before. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and bar recreation unless someone wishing to do so can gain a supermajority in favo/ur. David Kernow 01:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and salt per above. »ctails!« =hello?= 17:03, 3 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 17:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spanish-Canadians to Category:Spanish Canadians

• Rename, in line with all the other european canadians categories. 86.144.69.133 17:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom Thanks Hmains 19:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Michael 22:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to unhyphenated name. --musicpvm 07:13, 4 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 17:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only Olympic team fans category, renaming to match other categories in category:Wikipedians interested in sports teams.--Mike Selinker 16:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -Doc 20:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - Jc37 02:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 07:26, 4 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 keep --Kbdank71 17:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hindu politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• this category was deleted and re-created twice. However, since Category:Muslim politicians was voted to be kept, I don't see why this principle shouldn't apply to this category. Inviting more input and general discussion. Rama's arrow 16:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-it is a relevent informationNooranadu mohan 08:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per decision on Category:Muslim politicians. Rama's arrow 16:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nom. There are many similar cats. (See Category:Politicians by religion). This one should be not be singled out. Either delete them ALL or keep them ALL. --musicpvm 16:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Category:Politicians by religion.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: there is a deletion review on for this category, which was created just as I created this CfD. If I have made a procedural error, I request an editor experienced on CfD procedure to correct it. Rama's arrow 16:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comments on the above mentioned deletion review -- Lost^(talk) 16:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Be consistent. Either delete all categories of Politicians by religion, or leave this one alone.nids(♂) 16:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in the same vain as Category:Jewish politicians, Category:Muslim politicians etc. --Ragib 17:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted,Infact there is nothing like Hindu Politician.Although there are hindu politicians they are not recognised as such.They may however be listed like Brahman Politician,Dalit Politician etc.Because the criteria here is notability.Such categories which does not exist in reality are hardly notable.HW 17:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• NoteReligion based politics/icians are not notable?Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:There are two separate discussions running here as pointed above by Rama's Arrow. Can somebody with knowledge of policy, correct this and bring the discussion to a single page please -- Lost^(talk) 17:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Extremely strong Keep, Bottom line is that is there are categories for Muslim politicians, Jewish politicians etc there should be a category for Hindu politicians also. Plus, to say that there is "no such thing as a Hindu politician" is completely false. There are many politicians in India and in other countries who are both of the Hindu faith as well as who campaign for issues that are pertinent and relevant to all Hindus regardless of sub-denomination. Members of the previouss center-right coalition govt, as well as members of various parties such as BJP definitely come under the category of Hindu politician.Shiva's Trident 18:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I do not know why there is another CfD when a previous CfD had reached consensus to delete. My main reason for delete is that this category's main purpose is to divide on basis of religious lines and thus insert POV into wikipedia. Look at the reasons above. - "Members of the previouss center-right coalition govt, as well as members of various parties such as BJP definitely come under the category of Hindu politician". Does that mean that the others are not Hindu politicians? Who is going to check if all entries are correct. Previously the people like Maneka Gandhi and Sangma were tagged as Hindu politicians. Quoting Hornplease from the previous CfD "If we leave this in, someone will go around randomly adding Indian politicians to the category, completing diluting the information value of the categories on pages with not much other information". - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 18:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Changed to no vote per my discussion with Bakasuprman.-Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow!Now that's what I call twisting my words to serve an agenda! I never implied exclusivity to the NDA (center right coalition) in my last post. Simply a notable example.Plus, the same reasoning as yours applies to the Muslim politicians sections too.Why aren't you bothering them there? Afriad of getting shot at? If somebody goes around "randomly adding politicians into the category" then another will "randomly" question their addition in the talk page, discussion will "randomly" ensue, a "random" consensus will be reached, maybe with a few admins hanging around to make sure everything's nice and kosher and then, quite "randomly", unmeritorious additions will be REMOVED. THAT'S HOW WIKIPEDIA WORKS!!!!! Anyone can randomly add anything anywhere. That's not a legitimate pretext to demand removal.Statement retracted in light of Aksi's new stand regarding this travesty.Shiva's Trident 20:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hindu politicians are not just restricted to India. There are many in countries like Fiji, USA or United Kingdom.nids(♂) 18:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, look at the first line of the category - "They may or may not be associated with Hindutva or the Sangh Parivar.". There should be no need to mention this if it was just another categorising like Muslim politicians or Christian politicians. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 18:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note sentence removed. Why only deleting the Hindu cat? Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aksi - we only need to invoke the policy of verifiability to take care of the last reason (the one attributed to Hornplease). For the benefit of others, other deletion debates for religion based categories may be found here -- Lost^(talk) 18:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - There is a simultaneous deletetion review going on at DRV. Please add further comments there for the sake of keeping discussion here onwards in one place. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 19:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and that DRV has a "speedy close" listed, because it's listed here.

• Strong Keep per Ragib (consistancy with other similar categories). - Jc37 02:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for consistency. Besides which there are politicians where their being Hindu is clearly important. Like in Fiji or Suriname and in cases of some members of Hindu parties.--T. Anthony 15:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Ragib _Doctor Bruno_^_Talk_/_{E Mail} 01:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Why does this not include Mulayam Singh Yadav, Jyoti Basu, Indira Gandhi,Rajiv Gandhi, Nehru?Are they not Hindu Politicians?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TerryJ-Ho (talk • contribs) 23:06, 7 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Reply - Thats not really a good reason to vote delete. Its quite easy for you to add them if you so wish.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is what I wrote on the deletion review page: I voted to delete earlier. But it appears that consistency suggests that this cat must exist, although I continue to think that all religion based cats are unencyclopaedic unless religion directly impacts what the person is notable for. (So "Christian philosopher" is automatically acceptable, but "Christian athlete" is not, unless the athlete in question is notable as an evangelical or his religion itself has received public attention.) Further, the last time the cat was appearing randomly on various cats - such as Indira Gandhi, without citation. As I mentioned that time, on what basis do we classify someone as Hindu? Being born Hindu is not enough. I raised the issue of Bal Thackeray, who proclaimed atheism after his wife died. But does that mean he is no longer Hindu? Nehru was an outspoken atheist, and we have no idea what Indira and Rajiv believe. What about communists like Jyoti Basu? This cat will be simply meaningless. All religion based cats have this problem, but Hinduism, because of its unique structure, poses a particular problem. So I suppose my vote is delete.Hornplease 06:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Why the discrimination? No major commies have been added, neither have any of the Gandhi's or Nehru seeing as they were probably Muslim.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:It would be discriminatory to delete this category on account of the fact that the same ambiguities apply to all other religious categories but they will not be deleted. Hindu politicians means those politicians who speak for Hindus as a people, so communists like Basu, Karat etc do not count into the category. Thackeray should not ,ideally, count either, nor do Gandhu, Nehru etc since neither of them spoke for the Hindu point of view.Hkelkar 23:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am even more concerned after the last two comments. The first comment is beneath notice, but Kelkar's comment reveals (a) some people mnay have missed the point that Hinduism, as it is more pliable than practically any other religion in terms of what one may believe and still proclaim that one is a Hindu, raises unique questions of ambiguity and (b) "speaking for Hindus as a people" is a particularly difficult categorisation, and if that is what is meant, the title of the cat should reflect it. Note that that interpretation clashes with what Subhash Bose, writing as Shiva's Trident, says above. Hornplease 05:59, 10 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 17:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Wikipedians who like SpongeBob SquarePants. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -Doc 16:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge. Wasn't this category just merged?--Mike Selinker 16:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_21#Category:SpongeBob_SquarePants_fans
    • If you kill it, it just comes back. I'm changing my vote to Redirect. -- ProveIt ^(talk)
      • Hard redirect...?  David Kernow 01:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Merge and Redirect. - Jc37 02:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per the previous discussion, and redirect if possible to prevent this from happening again. --Cswrye 07:26, 4 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 17:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge [both] into Category:Eritrean media, convention of Category:Media by country. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Michael 22:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both per nom. David Kernow 01:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both, per nom - Jc37 02:33, 4 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 17:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Orange Country Wrestling Federation. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom - Jc37 02:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Choalbaton 13:45, 5 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, G5, created by banned user evading arb-com ban thgrough sock puppet, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/T-man, the Wise Scarecrow. Hiding Talk 15:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DC Animated Universe characters[edit]

Merge into Category:DC animated characters, an existing subcat of Category:DC animated universe. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename one of those--The Judge 13:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The "DC Animated Universe charactes" category contains all DC Comics characters appearing in the DCAU (the TV series and movies created by the production team of Bruce Timm and Paul Dini, while Category:DC animated characters contains only the DC characters *created* in *any* animated TV series (Filmation, Hannah-Barbera, Bruce Timm, Jeff Matzuda, etc.). Some of the last category have been already adapted to the current continuity comics, but not all of them. However, I was never sure about the name of the category, maybe it should be moved to something like "Characters appearing in the DC Animated Universe"... but then again, I ignore how would it affect the artcles linking to the category with its current name.--The Judge 13:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The merge probably shouldn't happen as nominated. The DCAU is separate from, say, Teen Titans (TV series) so merging them together destroys the encyclopedic value of the category. I'm not sure the encyclopedic value is all that high, but it's definitely different.--Mike Selinker 15:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Teen Titans continuity is somewhat tied to DCAU's so there is not much problem there. The problem, however is that the Filmation, Hannah-Barbera and Jeff Matzuda aren't so merging them together would destroy the encyclopedic value of the category as you said. --The Judge 21:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unfamilier with the subject, and happy to go along with any consensus... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I created the category, but if I could, now that it's still soon enough (meaning there is not much people involved with the category yet), I'd move it to "Characters appearing in the DC Animated Universe", since that's more appropiate for the porpouse of the category, wich is to list all articles about characters created by DC Comics that also appear in the series and movies created by Bruce Timm.--The Judge 05:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion: Have the "DC Animated Universe characters" category (including only characters from the Dini-Timm series) as a subcat of "DC animated characters" (including characters from series such as Teen Titans and Superfriends). Perhaps rename to make the distinction clearer. -- Supermorff 19:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, DC animated characters is only for characters created in animation. DC animatd universe characters is for ALL characters apeariing in the universe created by Bruce Timm and Paul Dini.--The Judge 00:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, then forget that suggestion. I've attempted to make that distinction clearer with an introductory paragraph to the "animated characters" cat. It does raise the question of what to do with the "Category:Teen Titans animated series characters", which technically doesn't belong as a subcat of either and yet is a subcat of both. "animated characters", as you've described, also no longer belongs as a subcat of "Cat:DC animated universe". -- Supermorff 10:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to category:Characters appearing in the DC Animated Universe - Jc37 02:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, over-categorisation, listify instead, where there will be better opportunity to allow annotations. Hiding Talk 11:58, 6 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 17:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Kill it now, before it spreads. This is even worse than the guest star categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice The most useless category on Wikipedia ever. Wasted Time R 13:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Calsicol 20:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. It'd make interesting trivia for some other article. --The Judge 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into what? --musicpvm 22:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --musicpvm 22:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Listify only if wanted - Jc37 02:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. If someone wants to listify it, let them. --Cswrye 07:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fancruft at it's worst. People need to realize Wikipedia doesn't need useless categories like this. RobJ1981 16:40, 12 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:Message-orientated middleware --Kbdank71 17:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Message Oriented Middleware to Category:Message oriented middleware

• Rename, Capitalisation of general terms per WP:MOS. --Pkchan 09:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Message-orientated middleware. Have updated eponymous article accordingly. Regards, David Kernow 01:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per David Kernow. --Pkchan 05:02, 3 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 17:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American football kickers to Category:American football placekickers

• To match article name, which is at placekicker, and to reduce possible confusion about who's a "kicker", and who's a punter, per existing attempts to clarify this on the category page's scoping text. Alai 07:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Seems okay to me. The corresponding category:Canadian Football League kickers would have to change too, though.--Mike Selinker 16:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Recury 14:58, 5 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 16:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• category:Rugby football supporters to category:Wikipedian rugby football fans
• category:Users who support the Illawarra Steelers to category:Wikipedian Illawarra Steelers fans
• category:Users who support the Widnes Vikings to category:Wikipedian Widnes Vikings fans
• category:Users who support Stade Français to category:Wikipedian Stade Français fans
• category:Super 14 supporters to category:Wikipedian Super 14 fans
• category:Users who support the Auckland Blues to category:Wikipedian Auckland Blues fans
• category:Users who support the Bulls (rugby club) to category:Wikipedian Bulls rugby fans
• category:Users who support the Canterbury Crusaders to category:Wikipedian Canterbury Crusaders fans
• category:Users who support the Cats (rugby club) to category:Wikipedian Cats rugby fans
• category:Users who support the Central Cheetahs to category:Wikipedian Central Cheetahs fans
• category:Users who support the Otago Highlanders to category:Wikipedian Otago Highlanders fans
• category:Users who support the Queensland Reds to category:Wikipedian Queensland Reds fans
• category:Users who support the Sharks (rugby club) to category:Wikipedian Sharks rugby fans
• category:Users who support the Southern Spears to category:Wikipedian Southern Spears fans
• category:Users who support the New South Wales Waratahs to category:Wikipedian New South Wales Waratahs fans
• category:Users who support the Stormers (rugby club) to category:Wikipedian Stormers fans
• category:Users who support the Waikato Chiefs to category:Wikipedian Waikato Chiefs fans
• category:Users who support the Wellington Hurricanes to category:Wikipedian Wellington Hurricanes fans
• category:Users who support the Western Force to category:Wikipedian Western Force fans
• category:National Rugby League supporters to category:Wikipedian National Rugby League fans
• category:Users who support the Brisbane Broncos to category:Wikipedian Brisbane Broncos fans
• category:Users who support the Canberra Raiders to category:Wikipedian Canberra Raiders fans
• category:Users who support the Canterbury Bulldogs to category:Wikipedian Canterbury Bulldogs fans
• category:Users who support the Cronulla Sharks to category:Wikipedian Cronulla Sharks fans
• category:Users who support the St George Illawarra Dragons to category:Wikipedian St George Illawarra Dragons fans
• category:Users who support the Gold Coast Titans to category:Wikipedian Gold Coast Titans fans
• category:Users who support the Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles to category:Wikipedian Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles fans
• category:Users who support the Melbourne Storm to category:Wikipedian Melbourne Storm fans
• category:Users who support the New Zealand Warriors to category:Wikipedian New Zealand Warriors fans
• category:Users who support the Newcastle Knights to category:Wikipedian Newcastle Knights fans
• category:Users who support the North Queensland Cowboys to category:Wikipedian North Queensland Cowboys fans
• category:Users who support the Parramatta Eels to category:Wikipedian Parramatta Eels fans
• category:Users who support the Penrith Panthers to category:Wikipedian Penrith Panthers fans
• category:Users who support the South Sydney Rabbitohs to category:Wikipedian South Sydney Rabbitohs fans
• category:Users who support the Sydney Roosters to category:Wikipedian Sydney Roosters fans
• category:Users who support the Wests Tigers to category:Wikipedian Wests Tigers fans
• category:Rugby League supporters to category:Wikipedian rugby league fans
• category:Users who support the Bradford Bulls to category:Wikipedian Bradford Bulls fans
• category:Users who support the Harlequins RL to category:Wikipedian Harlequins Rugby League fans
• category:Users who support Hull FC to category:Wikipedian Hull FC fans
• category:Users who support the Leeds Rhinos to category:Wikipedian Leeds Rhinos fans
• category:Users who support the Newtown Jets to category:Wikipedian Newtown Jets fans
• category:Users who support the Sheffield Eagles to category:Wikipedian Sheffield Eagles fans
• category:Users who support a national rugby union team to category:Wikipedian national rugby union team fans
• category:Users Who Support the All Blacks to category:Wikipedian New Zealand national rugby union team fans
• category:Users who support the France national rugby union team to category:Wikipedian France national rugby union team fans
• category:Users who support the Japan national rugby union team to category:Wikipedian Japan national rugby union team fans
• category:Users Who Support Los Pumas to category:Wikipedian Argentina national rugby union team fans
• category:Users who support the Scotland national rugby union team to category:Wikipedian Scotland national rugby union team fans
• category:Users Who Support The Springboks to category:Wikipedian South Africa national rugby union team fans
• category:Users Who Support the Wallabies to category:Wikipedian Australia national rugby union team fans

Continuing the proposed conversion of the international subcategories of category:Wikipedians interested in sports teams. I tried to keep the distinction between rugby league and rugby union, which I have been accused (correctly) of not understanding. I'm proposing "fans" to match all changed categories of category:wikipedians interested in sports teams. As always, if you have an alternate proposal, speak up.--Mike Selinker 05:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all -Doc 16:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, irrelevant to the central purpose of Wikipedia and the reason categories were created in the first place. --Cyde Weys 16:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guys, you know there's no way we're deleting just the rugby categories.--Mike Selinker 18:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. --Cswrye 19:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless the national team categories are amended The current proposal defines people as supporters of the national rugby unions, ie the governing bodies. I doubt this is true in many cases. It should be Category:Wikipedian Australia national rugby union team fans etc. Wimstead 21:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I amended the nomination to reflect this.--Mike Selinker 00:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per amended nomination. Blarneytherinosaur 08:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Cyde, if you disagree with the entire concept of User categories, create a discussion about it. If the result of the discussion is that they are to be deleted, so be it. If Wikipedia overall disagrees with you, they will be kept. However, the way to get your point across is not to spam each CfD with your own ideas. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 23:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and Keep - Jc37 02:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. --kingboyk 07:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as amended. Merchbow 22:08, 7 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 16:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Catholic Churches in Washington, D.C. to Category:Roman Catholic churches in Washington, D.C.

• Rename, (1) To be consistent with higher level categories. (2) "Roman Catholic" avoids ambiguity (other churches claim to be "catholic") & (3) "Churches" should be lower case --dm ^(talk) 05:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, and I'm surprised that Wikipedia has no coverage of George Stallings. --Dhartung | Talk 13:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This rename is a violation of WP naming conventions and policy. Please see User:Vaquero100/CC vs. RCC for a thorough presentation. Vaquero100 17:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (1) "Catholic Church" directs to the article describing the organization to which these congregations belong, so it is already consistent. (2) It is already unambiguous, as there are no other churches having the name "Catholic Church". SynKobiety 17:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean apart from the ones listed in Catholic Church (disambiguation)? Osomec 10:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Abstain There is a current debate underway at Talk:Roman Catholic Church whether to change the name. While I support consistency throughout wikipedia, I'd urge editors to NOT move pages while this discussion is on going. I've proposed a freeze on wikipedia in regards to changing the name (either from RCC to CC or vice versa). While I can't expect everyone to know I've proposed that, nor can I expect people to do what I say, I still think we should wait out for the main discussion to have some sort of closure before bringing this debate out into every other catholic subpage. Update I've decided to change my vote from abstain to Rename, per Gimmetrow's reasoning, and the likihood of voting on every single page seems more plausable than reaching a consensus policy.--Andrew c 17:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC); 14:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Kylef81 17:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 18:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - for points (1) and (3) of nom; the category should be changed for consistency with other categories in the hierarchy. However point (2), the notion of simply changing because "RC avoids ambiguity" is being debated in general, as Andrew c mentions. Gimmetrow 23:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions

This page in a nutshell: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

--WikiCats 01:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many English speakers do you know who would not recognise the phrase "Roman Catholic Church"? Osomec 10:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and standardisation. - Jc37 02:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency. - EurekaLott 03:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Chonak 07:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Necessary disambiguation. Osomec 10:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose 2nd Piston Honda 11:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename in line with Category:Roman Catholic churches in the United States and its 19 other subcategories. Olborne 09:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per naming convention. The opposition to renaming has a whiff of POV, ie it may reflect a Roman Catholic rejection of the claims of all other churches to the status of Catholic. Whether or not this is true of the people voting oppose, Wikipedia must be seen to be neutral. Choalbaton 13:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for clarity. Wimstead 17:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per most of the relevant hierarchy of categories. Merchbow 22:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose User:Kolbe 11:38, 9 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 17:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:City and town seals of California to Category:Official seals of places in California

Category:City and town seals of Idaho to Category:Official seals of places in Idaho

Category:City and town seals of Massachusetts to Category:Official seals of places in Massachusetts

Category:City and town seals of New Hampshire to Category:Official seals of places in New Hampshire

Category:City and town seals of Ohio to Category:Official seals of places in Ohio

Category:City and town seals of Pennsylvania to Category:Official seals of places in Pennsylvania

Category:City and town seals of South Carolina to Category:Official seals of places in South Carolina

Category:City and town seals of Virginia to Category:Official seals of places in Virginia

• Rename, These should be changed to match the naming convention used for other Official Seals (see subcategories of Category:Seals of places in the United States) and to broaden the scope. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:58, 2 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 17:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Entertainers of Louisianan Creole Decent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Entertainers of Louisianan Creole Descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Delete, See previous discussion here where Category:Entertainers from Creole Decent was deleted. It has been recreated with a different title and once again with poor spelling. I don't know if a Louisiana Creole category is a good idea either as the term is still vague (see the "Definitions" section of the article), and it is also already listified at List of Louisiana Creoles with sources (you can't do that with cats). It should at least be renamed to fix the spelling. Also, I don't see why it should be limited to "Entertainers" when there are no other Creole categories. If kept, it should be renamed to Category:Louisiana Creole people or Category:People of Louisiana Creole descent. musicpvm 02:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vague, wrongly listed, and fails WP:V. Michael 04:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & Michael & previous occupation/ethnic blended cats. --Dhartung | Talk 13:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the user has now created a THIRD category. I have added it above. --musicpvm 15:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, just not worth tracking. Calsicol 21:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. Golfcam 20:03, 3 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.