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. Andrew c 01:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Francophonie to Category:La FrancophonieReply[reply]

• Rename, it says: "This is a category of members of the La Francophonie." The name of the organization is La Francophonie. Otherwise the name of category is confusing. `'mikka (t) 00:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename, I agree at a first glance it appears that the category implies that its members are French-speaking countries. TSO1D 01:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to category:La Francophonie members. - jc37 02:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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. ×Meegs 02:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Books about literature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Speedy delete, I created it and then thought better of it. (Should never do this sort of thing late afternoons...) ♥ Her Pegship♥ 23:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy delete, and so marked. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 13:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:ZB Fischer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Transferred from PROD, as PROD does not and should not do categories — 132.205.44.134 22:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All articles deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saga of Souls 20:52, 16 September 2006 user:Punkmorten

• Delete 132.205.44.134 22:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, this is an easy one. Punkmorten 07:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 13:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Gun politics advocacy groups in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Transferred from PROD, as PROD does not and should not do categories — 132.205.44.134 22:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adds an unnecessary layer of categorization since there are essentially only two possible views, both of which have categories that fit well in the parent(s), and are in fact categorized there already. 22:13, 15 September 2006 user:ChristTrekker

• Delete per nom - jc37 02:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• If kept or no consensus, rename to Category:Firearms advocacy groups in the United States. ("Gun politics"...?)  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC), converted to vote/request 19:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment If I understand correctly, the problem seems to be that while this cat exists, articles are being mis-categorized into it, rather than the sub-categories. And since there are only two (and presumably can only ever be two) sub-categories, there isn't a "need" for the umbrella category. - jc37 14:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep and merge/delete the two subcategories in it. George W Bush may only be able to see two sides to any argument, but many of us can do better than that. A combined category is the best way to avoid neutrality and miscategorisation problems. Calsicol 17:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• That's another possibility, though I think this issue is fairly binary, and most users would prefer to have the articles categorized by viewpoint rather than lumped together. If a third view arises, just find a new way to describe it in addition to "pro-" and "anti-". — ChristTrekker 18:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 13:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

• Transferred from PROD, as PROD does not and should not do categories — 132.205.44.134 22:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Binyamina-Giv'at Ada is slightly broader and Binyamina is no longer a separate entity, therefore this category is obsolete. 10:16, 20 September 2006 user:Ynhockey

• Merge? I suppose it wouldn't hurt. 132.205.44.134 04:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 withdraw nomination -will create Category:Think tanks based in the United Kingdom as a separate cat Tim! 16:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Political and economic think tanks based in the United Kingdom to Category:Think tanks based in the United KingdomReply[reply]

• Rename, For consistency with Category:Think tanks based in Australia and others. Tim! 22:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. - jc37 02:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong oppose It looks like this has been nominated because it was erroneously placed directly into Category:Think tanks, but it should only have been in the narrower Category:Political and economic think tanks. The analogy with other countries is thus false as the scope is different. Golfcam 03:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose per Golfcam. Apparently I didn't look deep enough. Thanks for the clarification : ) - jc37 14:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 13:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Merge] Category:Roman sites by country into Category:Roman archaeological sites[, then rename Category:Roman archaeological sites to Category:Roman sites]

• Merge and rename, Roman archaeological sites has no articles and only one subcategory, Roman sites by country. I also propose that the remaining category be named Roman sites, which is simpler and fits better with the other subcats of Archaeological sites by culture. Melchoir 20:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose not all Roman sites are archaeological sites in any normal understanding of the word: ruins, digs, artefacts. Some Roman sites have been so displaced by current habitation or their ruins carted off/destroyed/that there are no archaeological remains. Carlossuarez46 02:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Support as more clearly formulated so that the surviving category is Category:Roman sites. Carlossuarez46 06:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support I think that Carlossuarez46 has misunderstood the proposal, which is that the surviving category should be called Category:Roman sites not that it should be called Category:Roman archaeological sites Edton 02:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Have attempted to clarify two-step nomination above. Assuming this clarification correct, why not simply delete Category:Roman archaeological sites and retain Category:Roman sites by country...? Apologies in advance if I've missed the obvious. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 03:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neither name is really optimal. As long as our attention is here, let's call the category Category:Roman sites. Melchoir 03:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Do you think the category should/will be used for anything other than "...by country" subcategories...?  If so, I agree entirely, otherwise I'd say keep Category:Roman sites by country. I haven't explored anywhere beyond these categories' immediate parents, so realiz/se this detail may be inappropriate. Yours, David (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Probably not. But "by country" is just excess baggage. It's not as if there are other category trees by type or year of discovery. Names should be simple, and "Roman sites" gets the job done with a minimum of fuss. Or, to take it to the theoretical level: why invoke a meta-category when you can use an ordinary supercategory? Melchoir 10:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Fair enough; have now supported your proposal below. Thanks for your explanation, David Kernow (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge then rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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. David Kernow (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Scouting Jamborees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Mistakenly created mis-capitalized version. NThurston 19:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy Delete per ((db-author)). above - jc37 02:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Famous Baby-Boomers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Too vauge and unnessarry, likely going to include all people born between 1945 and 1970, we already got year of birth categories. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - I was waiting for the main category driver, apparently User:Jeromealden 85, to respond personally before nominating this for deletion myself. Technically, Post-World War II baby boom seems to be 1946 to 1964, but that's still going to be 19 times larger than the already painfully huge categories for each one of those years (say Category:1961 births which only gets to "B" on its first page), and of course completely redundant with them. Also "Famous" is hard to define beyond "has an article in the encyclopedia" - for example, is Susan Olsen really more famous than that many other people with an article? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. I suggested the category be renamed on its talk page and then wrote to the User mentioned above letting him know it needed to be renamed. By his contribs, I know he read my message and it has been ignored (to my knowledge) as of now. This category doesn;t provide much information. Whether a person is a baby boomer or not is evident by his or her birthdate. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 20:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Theoretically all the biographies in Wikipedia are supposed to be about notable people, which means that in essence they all could possibly be considered "famous". This category therefore would possibly end up with all or almost of the biographies from a 20 year period; way too unwieldy. Dugwiki 20:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per comments above. --Masamage 20:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per above. Tabercil 22:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per comments above. Golfcam 03:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete: Since categories by year of birth exist this category is redundant. Q0 03:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 13:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Eurobilltracker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Replaced by Category:Wikipedians who use EuroBillTracker . Category page, in fact, directs visitors there, though without providing a link. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 19:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, I just added the link to the proper category.. Avij 14:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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:Footballers at the 1996 Summer Olympics --Kbdank71 16:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Hungarian footballers at the 1996 Summer Olympics (Also see Category:Hungarian footballers at the 1952 Summer Olympics below)

• Delete. Too specialized. Can just use Category:Footballers at the 1996 Summer Olympics. Chanheigeorge 19:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete if both are deleted. I created this category and thought: If 1952 has its own category, then 1996 should too. But I have no problem with removing both. Punkmorten 19:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We can create a new category Category:Olympic footballers of Hungary that can include both and others. Chanheigeorge 21:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 13:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Fictional Christmas characters into Category:Christmas characters

• Merge. Redundant categories that need to be combined. The one without the 'fictional' prefix is older, and, to me, makes more sense. A "fictional Christmas character" sounds like a character in a show-within-a-show or something similar. Masamage 19:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would also be supportive of a merge going in the other direction, if that's better. --Masamage 20:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep The categories aren't identical. Some of the characters are fictional (eg Santa Claus, Scrooge), while some are actual historical people (eg Saint Nicholas, who is a real person). Therefore the categories aren't redundant; rather, Category:Fictional Christmas characters is a subcategory of Category:Christmas characters (which includes the non-fictional ones). Dugwiki 20:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • However, I would support renaming Category:Christmas characters to something Category:Christmas figures, to clarify that it can include both fictional characters and actual people. Dugwiki 21:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • That is an excellent idea. I was just thinking that it was a little weird to call real people "characters." As an example, the Spanish version of the category has a name more like "Christmas mythology;" I think I prefer yours, though. --Masamage 21:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Aren't the Christmas characters Jesus, Joseph, Mary, three magi and some shepherds? :-) Tim! 21:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Hee hee, no one actually knows how many magi. But this raises the good point that calling the category Christmas figures would make it feel a whole lot more appropriate to add religious figures. --Masamage 23:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge both and Rename to category:People associated with Christmas. (Christmas figures sounds like a category of statues : ) - jc37 02:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC) (added merge clarification - jc37 14:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC))Reply[reply]
• Comment - Should we perhaps merge them and then worry about the title? --Masamage 06:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 13:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Awards and decorations of the British military (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Now empty and redundant. Given the tri-service nature of UK decorations, has been replaced by three new categories: Decorations of the Royal Navy, Decorations of the British Army, and Decorations of the Royal Air Force. Xdamr^talk 18:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Vote changed to Keep and perhaps Rename Having considered Golfcam's rationale, I can now see the benefit of retaining this category. As a minor point though, I would propose that it be renamed Awards and decorations of the British armed forces. British military is not a common term of description - the usual (in the UK at least) term is the British armed forces (this also follows on from the style used for Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). Xdamr^talk 16:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong oppose There should be one UK category in each of the parent categories of this category to facilitate navigation. I expect the 3 separate categories are who knows where in the by-service menus. I will find them and place them in this category. Golfcam 03:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It was worse than I thought as all the British military decorations had been removed from the military categories altogether! No sign of them in Category:British Army etc. But I have fixed that now. I also found the all service Category:British Campaign Medals (which I have nominated for speedy renaming to Category:British campaign medals. Furthermore I noticed that many of the articles in the three by-service categories were the same. Anyway, it is fixed now and all the articles can be reached through the appropriate routes. Golfcam 03:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Certain decorations are awarded to members of all three services, therefore it is proper that they are listed in all three categories. Thanks for putting in the other categories, I meant to reinsert them, but computer failure prevented me from doing so. Xdamr^talk 15:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose It appears that the nominator is no longer in favour of the proposal. Calsicol 17:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 13:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename. Basically, this is a collection of essays on when process is or is not appropriate, including WP:SNOW and WP:PI and several others. I feel the title "process discussions" does not really reflect the content (I'd expect that to cover the talk pages of AFD and such). My first thought would be Category:Ignore All Essays since most of these essays refer to WP:IAR, but that name may be too tongue-in-cheek for most. I hope somebody here has a suggestion for a better name. >Radiant< 16:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep unless you can think of a better name. —Ashley Y 00:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to category:Wikipedia essays concerning when to apply process or something along those lines : ) - jc37 02:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedia essays concerning process.  David Kernow (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC), converted to "vote" 19:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment They're all essays, so I don't think we should use "discussion", especially since that implies a talk page. I originally had typed: category:Wikipedia essays concerning process, but I thought about it, and this isn't about process, it's about when it should be applied, vs when to "ignore all rules". (Hence my suggestion above.) If there is a better way to convey it, I'm interested ("concerning when to apply" seems a bit awkward, to me, though presumably correct grammatically.) - jc37 14:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Well, it'd be more descriptive... However, since I reckon most if not all essays about process imply application, I've "voted" for Category:Wikipedia essays concerning process above. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• WP:IAR is in this category but is not an essay. —Ashley Y 18:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I agree that it (IAR) should not be "in" the category, but a link to it should be in the category introduction. - jc37 09:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Not sure about which of the two above ideas to choose from. I like both in different ways. maybe I will come back in a few days and put another 2 cents in. Agree overall that the current name could be improved upon though. Ansell 06:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The present name is a nice "short and simple" name, and the other names proposed here are quite clunky. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 16:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Waste types, has been merged into Category:Waste

• delete

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 16:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Categories named after suffixes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This is another category by User:Nintendude who has so far enlightened Wikipedia with such deleted categories such as Category:Synonyms for feces and Category:People who have been arrested. This is verging on vandalism, I've already given him a warning for the crappy page moves he makes, I suggest that he's watched more closely. Anyway, the only category that was ever in this meta-category was Category:-onym (another User:Nintendude category of little use, as they're all covered by -onym article anyway), and that was removed and placed in the Category:Suffixes. This is category is useless. - Hahnchen 15:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per the above. >Radiant< 16:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. Choalbaton 20:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 17:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 10:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 16:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete- Duplicate category. Page is empty. Category:People from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania is the correct, active category. Thanks! HOT L Baltimore 14:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Reverse merge to align with the other subcategories of Category:Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. - EurekaLott 14:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge as nominated. Follows form in Category:People from Pennsylvania. Also Harrisburg is not unique so it is likely that other sub cats in Category:Harrisburg, Pennsylvania should be renamed. Vegaswikian 03:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. This category is not for people from Harrisburg per se, but for people from the whole Harrisburg-Carlisle region. Can't blame the creator, as there are several older examples of cities being conflated with their metropolitan areas. Moving ahead we should clarify whether a city implies its environs, even settlements which are not conurbanized.-choster 15:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 16:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Famous Letter Writers to Category:Letter writers

• Rename, to remove capital letter and redundant word. Edton 13:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom - The word "famous" isn't necessary, since if the letter writer isn't notable or important or famous, there probably shouldn't be a Wiki article about them. Dugwiki 21:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: most people write letters, but there are only a few who are famous for their letter-writing. A category named just "Letter writers" would include a lot a lot of people... the capital letters have to be removed, of course.--K.C. Tang 01:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • But presumably for an article to be included in this category, it would have to actually make a notable mention of the person writing letters. I'm sure, for example, that Larry Bird once wrote a letter to someone in his life, but it's not mentioned in his article so he wouldn't belong in this category. Odds are that an article will only talk about someone writing letters if it's actually notable information about the person. Dugwiki 15:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. There is no sign of overuse to date. Golfcam 03:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. Just make sure to clarify at the top of the new page that the category is to include people famous for their letter-writing. I agree with nom though that "famous" is redundant here. Recury 17:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oh, it does that already, nevermind. Recury 17:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Partial Rename for capitalisation only. Being notable and writing letters is not at all the same thing as being famous as a letter writer. Given the implicit notability of the candidates (being WP articles already), the name of the category makes it explicitly clear that the members are famous specifically as letter writers. (i.e. Pretty much what K.C. Tang said.) One needs to bear in mind that although WP has to be stringent about its content, it needs to be readily comprehensible to the first time user. Cain Mosni 10:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 16:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Cold warriors to Category:Cold War people

• Rename,The current name is both melodramatic and slightly comical. Rename to Category:Cold War people to match most of the other subcategories of Category:People by war. Edton 12:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename the name is too pun-ish for me. - C mon 13:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. Category:Cold War people was previously deleted here. While I think a case could be made to retain it with limited scope, it would be difficult to police, so is probably best handled as a list.--Dhartung | Talk 15:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename or delete - no preference between those two, but don't keep as it is. Choalbaton 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - As above, since previous consensus was to delete Category:Cold War people, this category should likewise be deleted. They're identical categories except in name. Dugwiki 21:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - The Cold War was all about nobody quite doing anything, so trying to categorize those who "participated" in it is pretty weird. --Masamage 21:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 02:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete and Listify if wanted. - jc37 02:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• If kept or no consensus, at least rename to Category:People of the Cold War... ("We're the Cold War people! The Cold War people! We're for the Cold War!" etc)  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom or delete. Do not rename per David Kernow Golfcam 03:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment In looking over category:People by war, it's split between "X" people, and People of "x". Personally, I think for semantic clarity, they should all be People of "x". Therefore: If no concensus to delete, Rename to category:People of the Cold War. - jc37 14:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom or David Kernow (no preference). Agree that "people who participated" is not a good way of describing the inclusion criteria but it was an important historical event and deserves a category detailing who was involved. Recury 17:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. All the "by war" categories should be standardised to that simple form. Calsicol 17:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete: puts together very unrelated people from very differentr periods. Remember that "cold war" is basically journalistic term used to oversimplify complex reality. Potentially endless. Pavel Vozenilek 17:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep The Cold War was real and has many articles about it. The criteria for inclusion is stated in the category: these were leaders in countries involved in the Cold War, those who engaged in Cold War activities as described in Cold War articles. During the Cold War, these people referred to each other and were referred to by the press and public, as 'Cold Warriers'. There could be no more appropriate and correct name.

Thanks Hmains 03:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 both to Category:Fictional hares and rabbits --Kbdank71 16:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Fictional hares into Category:Fictional rabbits

• Merge, They are both Leporidae and I have heard rabbit & hare used interchangeably (especially with Bugs Bunny). Additionally, there is only one entry in the fictional hare category. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge per nom. Rabbits and hares are close enough for a category like this. Recury 18:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge+Rename I know they're fictional, but zoology demands "Fictional hares and rabbit" for accuracy. jnestorius^(talk) 00:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge and rename to Category:Fictional hares and rabbits per jnestorius. David Kernow (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge and Rename to Category:Fictional hares and rabbits. <smiles and asks about bunnies, coneys, and jackalopes> - jc37 14:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Category:Fictional hares, rabbits, coneys, jackalopes; that kind of thing (know what I mean?)...?  Chuckle, David Kernow (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• awwww you forgot the bunnies... and I forgot cottontails, jackrabbits, and leporide. Oh and let's not forget - Bunny rabbit and Belgian hare, which apparently are distictly different. (and what the heck is a leveret?) - jc37 19:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Well... to be slightly serious for a moment, I guess Category:Fictional leporids is line with its parent Category:Leporids per Blotwell below, but I had no idea what leporids were until this thread; at least they're not diseased aliens. Leverets are baby rabbits or hares...?  Yours, David (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge and rename to Category:Fictional leporids to be consistent with parent Category:Leporids. —Blotwell 14:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge into category:Fictional hares and rabbits.--Mike Selinker 13:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 16:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Makeup artists to Category:Make-up artists

• Rename. There are currently two nearly identical categories, Category:Make-up artists and Category:Makeup artists. It doesn't matter to me which one remains, but cosmetics spells it make-up (with the hyphen). Also, the category:Make-up artists is older. GilliamJF 11:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. Recury 23:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge/rename to Category:Make-up artists per nom. If this is how the debate closes, I'll try to remember to rename Makeup artist and a few other articles' disambiguation accordingly. I also note Category:Make-up artists specifies "film make-up artists"; presumably "film" would need to be removed...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 16:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Michael Palin has been created to group together films and TV programmes featuring a particular person, which is something we've already decided not to do with the Films by star categories. JW 09:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Many individuals have categories and Palin has had had a diverse career. There are also books, plays and television dramas in the category. Edton 13:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - I'm against this one. The reason is that with actors in particular, if most actors have their own category, then you end up with every major movie and television show requiring a different category for each notable actor in the cast. That could mean 10 or 20 or 30 or more categories for a single article. Also, the category isn't even theoretically needed, because any books or films or television shows the actor has done or written can be included in his article in the "works" sections. (ie Want to find a movie Michael Palin was in? Just look at his article in the filmography section). Thus further categorizing those links doesn't seem to add much in terms of searching for articles related to Palin, and in principle categories devoted to actors are a generally a bad idea. Dugwiki 17:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, better handled in the Michael Palin article or a subarticle. Giving everyone of Michael Palin's stature categories like this would get ridiculous very fast as Dugwiki points out. Recury 18:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per above. And can we please get rid of this and its subcats too: Category:Actors by series. --Mais oui! 19:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just FYI, Category:Actors by series already survived a deletion request, so it's not likely to be deleted at this point. See the discussion page on that category. Dugwiki 21:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment In the UK, for about 20 years, Palin has primarily been known as a presenter of television travel programmes and writer of accompanying books. Calling him an "actor" suggests a rather out of date, possibly U.S. centric perspective. Choalbaton 20:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • FYI, television presenters are still technically actors. Second, Palin also being an author doesn't alter the reasoning above against him having his own category. There are plenty of actors who are also authors, directors, politicians, lawyers and other things, but giving them their own unique categories is still a bad idea. Dugwiki 21:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment I can fully understand the principle behind not simply indexing every film a figurehead has appeared in with a dedicated category. However, I can see that this might be a case meriting special treatment. Michael Palin's works are many and diverse. Cain Mosni 11:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete although I could just see this working if limited strictly to Palin-centric projects. But that would be impossible to police. --Dhartung | Talk 11:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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:Footballers at the 1952 Summer Olympics --Kbdank71 16:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Hungarian footballers at the 1952 Summer Olympics (Also see Category:Hungarian footballers at the 1996 Summer Olympics above)

• Delete. Too specialized. Can just use Category:Footballers at the 1952 Summer Olympics. Chanheigeorge 08:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Agree that category is too specialised, but would recommend using a nationality-based system instead (ie. something like Category:Hungarian Footballers, or similar. [Should also collapse the 1996 Olympic version as well.]
• Delete if both are deleted. I created the 1996 cat, reasoning that if 1952 has its own category, then 1996 should too. But I have no problem with removing both. Punkmorten 19:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We can create a new category Category:Olympic footballers of Hungary that can include both and others. Chanheigeorge 21:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 16:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Latin digraphs into Category:Digraphs

• Merge, the two categories cover the same material. In principle, Category:Digraphs could be a supercategory made up of subcategories like Category:Latin digraphs, Category:Greek digraphs, Category:Cyrillic digraphs, etc.; however, at present there are no articles on any non-Latin digraphs, so there's no reason all current digraph articles can't be simply in Category:Digraphs. Angr 06:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment That's not strictly true. We have articles on Cyrillic digraphs such as ы. —Blotwell 14:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge per nom. Looks like premature categorization to me. Recury 18:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 16:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Famous Members of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, This is both a parent and child of the "proper" Category:Omega Psi Phi brothers. No need to merge, the only article is already in both category. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete This seems like an enthusiastic but misguided attempt to highlight a few members of the category. --Siobhan Hansa 01:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge into Category:Omega Psi Phi brothers -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 listify to List of weapons influenced by the Kalashnikov design --Kbdank71 16:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:List of weapons influenced by the Kalashnikov design to Category:Weapons influenced by the Kalashnikov design

• Rename, This is a category, not a list. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  ...or is/was there more than one design by Kalashnikov?  If so, rename to Category:Weapons influenced by Kalashnikov's designs or Category:Weapons influenced by Kalashnikov. David Kernow (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: this would be better as a list. The list may contains additional details on who/what/when. Anything "influenced" should not be used in categories. Pavel Vozenilek 17:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Listify as the AK-47 design is essentially a generic gun type. Influence is very difficult to quantify, and a list allows for inclusion of criteria. --Dhartung | Talk 11:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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:Images of flora of the Lower Colorado River Valley --Kbdank71 15:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:List of flora (LCRV) to Category:Images of Flora of the Lower Colorado River Valley

• Rename, All the articles are image lists and also to expand the abbreviation. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• If nothing else, rename to Category:Lists of flora of the Lower Colorado River Valley as the category does contain lists. However, I'm not convinced such a category required, nor that the names of its member articles should begin "List of..."; "Images of..." would seem more apt...? (In which case the category, if kept, would become Category:Images of flora of the Lower Colorado River Valley.)  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - yes, sorry, I definitely made a mistake on the capitalization of "flora". Not sure what to do with those other articles, perhaps they should be converted from lists to categories, which could be children of this one, or maybe dump all of them in here directly? I imagine we might have to deal with the articles at Proposed/Requested Moves. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Ideally, I reckon the articles are probably best renamed to "Images of flora of the Lower Colorado River Valley (Xx-Yy)" (where Xx and Yy identify the genus range shown) and indexed under Xx; and the category renamed Category:Images of flora of the Lower Colorado River Valley per amended nom. Another thought, however: in lieu of checking these images' copyright etc (time for me to go), perhaps they might be hosted in this manner on the Commons rather than Wikipedia...?  Yours, David (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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. Andrew c 01:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Category:List of People Associated with Sciences Po to Category:People associated with Sciences PoReply[reply]

• Rename, Per WP:NCCAT, categories beginning "List(s) of" should only contain list pages and also to correct capitalization. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 15:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:List of Dutch given names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, List of Dutch given names already exists in mainspace. This category contains only one entry. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[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.