< April 21	April 23 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gay rights by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Gay rights in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Gay rights in Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Gay rights in Romania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Gay rights in Iraq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Years in gay rights

Delete, already depopulated and moved to Category:LGBT rights by country, Category:LGBT rights in Canada, Category:LGBT rights in Mexico, Category:LGBT rights in Romania, Category:LGBT rights in Iraq, and Category:Years in LGBT rights per discussion at WP:LGBT. Fireplace 23:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Delete - The move had support at WP:LGBT. These categories are redundant and could be speedy deleted as empty. Dr. Submillimeter 07:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/rename to LBGT rights in (country name)- no need for duplicates, and consistancy is important, but otherwise the category is relevant.--Sefringle 02:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Characters portrayed by Johnny Depp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, as recreation of Category:Fictional characters by actor, see discussion of July 12th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 01:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Postlebury 07:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Jmlk17 07:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 21:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- this category is no different the main Category:UFOs given that the UFO topic is secret, this category has no real use because all the UFO articles are subcategorized into more specific branches of the Category:UFOs (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 22:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, misguided POV pushing. There's no lead article, and the claim that information about UFOs is being suppressed and kept secret belongs at Conspiracy theory, not in the category tree. At best, we could have "Purported UFO secrecy". Xtifr _tälk 23:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV and per nom. Postlebury 07:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The category suffers from POV problems, and the category is empty anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 14:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Dr. Submillimeter. Greg Grahame 11:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Jeff Township to Category:Jeffersonville, Indiana. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jeff Township to Category:Jeffersonville, Indiana

• Rename. The target is currently the proposed rename for Category:Jeffersonville, IN. There seems to be a lot of overlap with this category and the other one proposed to be renamed. Also, this name does not appear to follow any guideline. Vegaswikian 21:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The category name is simple. Also, it allows for the disparity of locales in the Township: the main city of Jeffersonville (Jeff), the "town" of Clarksville (which may deserve its own category, especially if the Jeff Township category is deleted), and areas which are often thought of as part of Jeffersonville (Watson, Oak Park).--Bedford 01:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Clark County, Indiana. The list at Jefferson Township (with just five states worth of Jefferson Townships) should be enough to demonstrate that township-categories are just a bad idea; but, if it has to stay, then Rename to Category:Jeffersonville Township, Clark County, Indiana. - Neier 13:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not object to either of those suggested renames. Vegaswikian 23:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Jeffersonville, Indiana, or failing that, rename or upmerge per Neier. There is no article for the (colloquial) term Jeff Township, for fairly obvious reasons. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Israeli Charities to Category:Charities based in Israel. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Israeli Charities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Charities based in Israel, convention of Category:Charities by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 19:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Clear case, supported by guidelines. Misnamed Category perhaps? Have the projects and editors been informed, BTW? ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 10:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- Eliyak T·C 23:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom though 'charity' is not the best way to describe the Hebrew Tzedakah, it is nonetheless the most common. --Shuki 23:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above--Sefringle 02:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Old Jeffersonville Historic District to Category:Jeffersonville, Indiana. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old Jeffersonville Historic District (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Jeffersonville, IN, which is itself being renamed to Category:Jeffersonville, Indiana. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. Since the district has 500 buildings, it makes sense to consider keeping these in one category. While only 3 building are listed there now, I suspect that more may be added over time. Vegaswikian 21:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. As the one who has done the most work in Jeffersonville, I can tell you that any buildings worthy of discussion on Wikipedia already have their own articles.--Bedford 01:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and Bedford. Sumahoy 21:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge per Xtifr. --Xdamr^talk 16:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Khaleeji female singers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, or create Category:Female singers by language. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is an active WikiProject working on cataloging musicians (including vocalists); I'd suggest that is the right place to deal with the question of subcats by gender and language; I note there is a full categorization of female singers by nationality, and that these artists are already so categorized. A Musing 19:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a notice of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization.A Musing 19:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because signing is a gendered occupation, and it appears that this language is a useful way to categorise the singers concerned, who it seems might otherwise be divided between several national categories. I'm not sure, though, that a wider set of singer-by-language categories would be necessarily be useful, except for minority languages which cross national boundaries. If there are any other useful female-singer-by-language categories, then create Category:Female singers by language, but best not to pre-empt the subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, categorizing singers by the language they sing in does not seem practical, especially considering quite a lot of singers can and do sing in multiple languages. Instead, we categorize such people by nationality. >Radiant< 08:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Rather, perform a dual merge as suggested by Xtifr below. >Radiant< 10:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepMerge. I think singers by language is already broadly used (see Category:Singers by language), as are gendered splits within singers; I think Khaleeji is likely more useful than Bahrani, Omani, etc., and will split the category less fine, which will often be the case with other languages. Also, I'm hesitant to get rid of this without input from the relevant wikiproject, which appears to have been quite careful and active in setting up categories. Endorse the position below by User:Xtifr; I'd reconsider if I see evidence of a debate within [[WP:MUSICIANS], but this looks like a rational approach and categorization by dialect does indeed strike me as problematic (though a fine area for a list to tackle - it this were a fuller category I'd suggest that we listify). A Musing 01:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: none of the gendered splits nor the Category:Singers by language tree are endorsed or supported by WP:MUSICIANS, nor have they been discussed within the project in the six months that I've been a member. At present, we only endorse categorization by instrument, nationality and genre. For unendorsed "by X" categories, the official position is "where such categories do exist, feel free to work them into the structure the same way you would with the others." That statement predates me, and I'm not sure where (or if) it was discussed, but it worries me slightly, as I don't think we want to end up with categories like Category:Female Canadian-Armenian Muslim Alto French-speaking rock singers (an intersection of gender, nationality, ethnicity, religion, vocal-range, language, genre, and instrument), which is a possibility if everyone takes that literally. In other words, I don't think we should necessarily split all subcategories-of-singer by gender just because many are. Some further points:
  • We don't have Category:Khaleeji singers.
  • Khaleeji is a dab page, which says that Gulf Arabic is a dialect of Arabic, so this is really singer-by-dialect.

Therefore, I recommend Merge to both Category:Female singers and Category:Arabic language singers. Xtifr _tälk 12:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:James Bond people into Category:James Bond, delete Category:James Bond cast members. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:James Bond people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:James Bond cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - there are different issues for each category but I think both can be deleted. For the "People" category, once the two subcats (which are both marked listify and delete) are deleted there will only be the authors subcat and I don't see any reason why that can't be housed directly in Category:James Bond without the intermediate level. For the cast members cat, it's already marked for listify/delete but as with some other cast categories we'e deleted without listifying, this one is capturing cast members from multiple projects, so I feel it should be deleted without listifying so as not to mix up actors from different films. Otto4711 17:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete vaguely named category per many, many precedents. Doczilla 01:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a defining characteristic for articles such as Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton. Tim! 16:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Except of course that you know as well as anyone that we don't categorize actors on the basis of the roles they have played. We've had this discussion repeatedly. Otto4711 17:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Following precedent and severe problems with cast member categories in the past, the cast member category should be listified and deleted. (If necessary, I can cite previous discussions.) If Category:James Bond cast members is deleted, then Category:James Bond people will only contain Category:James Bond people, so Category:James Bond people will not be needed. Dr. Submillimeter 08:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The cast category is already marked for listification and deletion. I nominated it in the hope of having it deleted without listifying it, because (similar to other categories which capture blended cast lists) the subsequent list would capture actors from multiple projects including films and video games. See for example this CFD for Haunted Mansion actors which captured actors from the film and the amusement park attraction. Otto4711 17:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete cast members, as actors-by-performance is over-categorization per extensive precedent. Merge people (which is effectively what nom asked for) per nom. Xtifr _tälk 22:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:List of Malayalam films from 2006 to Category:Malayalam-language films. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of Malayalam films from 2006 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Malayalam-language films, convention of Category:Films by language. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Spa resorts in Bulgaria to Category:Spa towns in Bulgaria. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spa resorts in Bulgaria to Category:Spa towns in Bulgaria

• Merge into category:Spa towns in Bulgaria, convention of Category:Spa towns. This also has the advantage of making it clear that like its siblings this category is being used for settlements, not for hotels with spas. Honbicot 17:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. AshbyJnr 08:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Kingdom film locations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, some of these are film studios, while others are simply a place where a movie was filmed, not a good way to categorize locations. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Thousands upon thousands of place in the UK have been used as film locations, and such use is not a defining characteristic of those places. [[Honbicot]] 17:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. --Sachabrunel 18:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I created it and agree it would be better to list them on a page rather than as a category. Sealman 10.20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Regionally Important Geological / Geomorphicological Sites (RIGS) in Cumbria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cumbria, convention of Category:Sites of Special Scientific Interest in England. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep RIGS are not SSI. Merging the 2 would confuse this matter. Steventee 21:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sabena Flight 548 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the category holds the article on the flight and for its notable victims. A complete list of the dead exists in the main flight article and the various articles are interlinked with each other by virtue of being on the same skating team or in some cases members of the same family. The category is unnecessary for navigational purposes. Otto4711 16:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Illinois authors to Category:Illinois writers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Illinois authors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Illinois writers, convention of Category:American writers by state. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. The overarching convention is writers, not authors, as ProveIt says - Category:Authors is on permanent redirect to Category:Writers as proof. Bencherlite 00:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Players that scored from the own half (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - non notable, there are infinite possible categories such as this for footballers who have scored certain goals/done certain things during matches. WATP  16:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. WATP  16:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Surely the category should be "their own half" anyway. --Sachabrunel 18:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless list, there are probably numerous players throughout the world, and throughout the history of football, who have scored from their own half. Goalkeepers have scored when clearing the ball for instance. But this list seems to serve no purpose. And yes it should be "from their own half".♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Categories are not needed to list the accomplishments of every footballer. Besides, footballer articles suffer from category clutter problems anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 19:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - hardly a comprehensive list. Darkson - BANG! 21:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this mess. Doczilla 01:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Even if it were comprehensive (unbelievably, no Chilavert!), it is not a defining characteristic. Neier 14:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 08:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It might be an interesting (albeit trivial list), but not defining enough to be a category, esp in an area of activity which tends to be overcategorised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Church Hockey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as non-notable intersection, or at least Rename to Category:Church hockey. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Otto4711 16:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Djsasso 16:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per norm. Kaiser matias 17:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nom. Utterly non-notable, contains but a single underlying page.  RGTraynor  19:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above comments. Jmlk17 07:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per RGTraynor's comments above--Pparazorback 23:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 21:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Permanently underpopulated category, it's only article is unlikely to survive its AfD. Resolute 19:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These municipalities were only future until January 1st 2007, and everything has now been moved to the current municipalities category. No need for this empty category any longer, then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilac Soul (talk • contribs).

• Delete per unknown nom. AshbyJnr 08:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all to the format Category:Films based on works by author. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Films based on books by author to Category:To be determined by consensus

• Category:Films based on John Grisham's books to Category:To be determined by consensus
• Category:Films based on Tom Clancy novels to Category:To be determined by consensus
• Category:Films based on the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs to Category:To be determined by consensus

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - The above nominated categories serve as a sample of the the various ways categories in this tree are named. My feeling is that the parent should be renamed to Category:Films based on works by author and the subcats renamed to Category:Films based on X works both to simplify and make uniform the subcat names and to reflect that films may be based on a variety of source works. Otto4711 15:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)))[reply]

• Rename all per nom, and thanks for cleaning up that corner. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Lilac Soul 08:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename and Repurpose to talk pages per precendent. --Xdamr^talk 16:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Limited geographic scope to Category:Articles with limited geographic scope

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per convention of Category:Articles lacking sources and ((unreferenced)). Current title is confusing per talk page. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-22 14:43Z

• Delete or at least move to talk pages as a non-defining self-reference. (But the latter option is not feasible as this category is template-generated, so just delete). Honbicot 17:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Alumni of NYU SOM to Category:New York University School of Medicine alumni. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alumni of NYU SOM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:New York University School of Medicine alumni, convention of Category:Alumni by university or college in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Honbicot 17:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and per convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. I think there would be consensus for some kind of rename. Vegaswikian 00:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films by writer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Films written by Charlie Kaufman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Launder and Gilliat films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Suzan-Lori Parks screenplays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - I don't have really strong feelings about these categories but since the category tree is early in its development I thought it would be a good idea to get a consensus on it sooner rather than later. My feeling is that it's not a good idea to categorize films on the basis of who wrote the scripts. Often multiple screenwriters are credited for the same script and establishing categories for each screenwriter seems like overcategorization. IMHO this is more akin to a films by actor category because of the potential for multiple categories per article than it is to a films by director category of which in the vast majority of cases there will only be a single cat. Otto4711 13:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, books, plays etc. are all categorised by author, so films should be too. Tim! 13:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a particularly persuasive argument. The vast majority of books and plays have a single author, unlike many films which have multiple screenwriters. Did you have any comment on that aspect of the nomination at all? Otto4711 13:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• These well established categories so are obviuosly a good reference point. Please give examples of films written by multiple authors as I suspect they are few and far between - at least no more frequent than for plays or books. Tim! 16:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Casablanca has three credited and one uncredited screenwriters. Gilda has four credited writers. The Flintstones has three credited writers. Sunset Blvd. has three credited writers. I could provide more examples easily, as these are just the first films that happened to pop into my head. It's quite common for scripts to be written by one person and re-written by one or more other people during pre-production and even well into production. Otto4711 18:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There are cases where other stuff exists for a reason. I know people who intentionally look for films, or TV episodes, by a particular writer. It's not common, but it happens.--T. Anthony 18:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Multiple authorship isn't really a problem, as long as you find who those multiple authors were. Pericles, Prince of Tyre is still sensibly categorized as a shakespeare play, even if other people had a hand in the beginning of it. Lesnail 14:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "(X) screenplays", probably. There's the danger of a film like The Flintstones (film), which had 35 writers, being bogged down. But it seems like directors get category-level credit for their films, so screenwriters, of which there are usually only one or two, probably should too.--Mike Selinker 15:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Screenplays sounds good, though would we want to distinguish betwen film and television? Tim! 16:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Should these categories survive, then a naming convention should be developed for them. Since I'm not convinved yet that they're desirable I have no suggestion for such a convention. Otto4711 15:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I think this kind of thing is only of a minority interest. Still might be enough of one to count.--T. Anthony 18:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though of course work needs to be done, these really should be kept. --Sachabrunel 18:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify; this information is easily accessed from the article about the writer. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency, no opinion on keep vs. delete, but there's three different naming schemes here and that's not useful. >Radiant< 08:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename for consistency. I think it is right that this is not as useful as movies by director, but there are many movies, particularly the best movies, where the screenwriter is interesting. But these need to be consistent.A Musing 01:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the comment below, my thought is that the best consistent use would include the word "screenplays", so either "Screenplays by A_Musing" or "A_Musing screenplays"; that said, I would happily concede to anything that seems to gather consensus.A Musing 13:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There appears to be a consensus to keep this category, and also to standardise the naming format ... but so far, (as Radiant notes) there is so far no consensus on what format should be used for the standardisation. May I suggest that this CfD be let open a little longer for discussion of the renaming? I will msg all participants to suggest that they may want to work on this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree to leave it open. "Screenplays by" sounds like an interesting rename, but I'm uncertain. I'm afraid I have little substantive to add.--T. Anthony 13:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Screenplays by..." is good. It allows for the possibility of a renowned but unproduced screenplay getting its own article, should that ever happen.--Mike Selinker 14:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are some things in Category:Cancelled films and Category:Unfinished films that might count. It seems like there was a nominee for Nebula Award for Best Script that was never actually produced.--T. Anthony 15:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I could definitely see "Screenplays by Roger Ebert" happening, and Who Killed Bambi? qualifies even though it was never finished.--Mike Selinker 15:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be Name screenplays. Tim! 16:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Would this nomenclature apply to television series scripts as well? Would we need "Film screenplays by" and "Television screenplays by"? Or maybe "Film scripts by" and "Television scripts by"? Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't see utility as having relevance here. Surely all of the IMDb info is useful, but it would be impractical to categorize everything by all criteria. How difficult is it to create a filmography section in the screenwriter's article (or even split it off to a separate page if necessary)? While it's easy to get everyone to agree that directors are "significant" enough to warrant cats, what about producers? Cinematographers? Editors? Production designers? The salient point to me is that this isn't a potentially diffused category where there may not be a central place to locate these articles. There is - the individual screenwriter's article. We're not losing any information here, and in fact it actually will make tracking changes much easier. Girolamo Savonarola 10:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oprah's Book Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - These are books that are so famous that they win many awards and accolades anyway, and they probably appear in many other "best books" lists. (At least one of these books won a Pulitzer Prize.) Hence, appearing in Oprah's Book Club is just one of the may honors that are given to these books. Many similar categories (for Time's 100 best novels, for example) have been deleted. Hence, I recommend deleting this category. Note that the books are already listed at Oprah's Book Club. Dr. Submillimeter 09:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and precedent and in deference to the list within the main article. Otto4711 12:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The list within the article is good enough. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I'd suggest putting notices for this sort of thing on the list or the book club page, but this one strikes me as ideal list material.A Musing 17:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge x2. >Radiant< 12:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Footballers from London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, What purpose does this category serve? Each entry already has an entry (usually) according to their place of birth as well as several relating to their footballing activities, so this category is superfluous. Daemonic Kangaroo 05:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo 05:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:English footballers. Categorizing footballers (or most people in my opinion) at the city level is overcategorization. The country level is sufficient. Otto4711 06:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Footballer articles already contain too many categories. Categories specifying cities in which they have lived are unnecessary. Moreover, as people in general live in many cities during their lifetimes, footballers could potentially accumulate multiple categories just for all the cities in which they have lived. Dr. Submillimeter 09:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I presume it means footballers born in London rather than any who happen to have lived there, but I still agree it is over-categorisation therefore merge as per the others ChrisTheDude 15:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:English footballers and Category:People from London. Punkmorten 16:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, besides anything else a nightmare to define and maintain. --Sachabrunel 18:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The players will already be listed presumably in Category:English footballers, certainly Tony Adams is.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In the case of a large city it helps form a sensible category hierarchy to break down topics. It also makes it easier to group people in the city according to subject. For example, IMHO a sensible structure would be to also have said category as a sub-category of Category:Sport in London (possibly Sports people? in between?). Whilst in smaller places such categorisation would quite validly be over-categorisation, in a large city "People from..." categories, even just describing people who were born in the city become so large and diverse that they are largely meaningless. Category:People from London has well over 1000 member articles. IMHO, that makes it useless for the casual observer looking for articles related to the current one he is looking at and adds little extra "meta-data" to organising the article. Pit-yacker 15:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Category:People from London is also IMHO overcategorization by what amounts to geographic coincidence. Only in rare cases does someone's city of birth or city of residence offer any definitional utility in grouping them with others (i.e. Category:Lord Mayors of London) and in most instances it's just clutter. Otto4711 17:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, it is one of the fundamental characteristics of a person, and one of the types of categorisation that is most likely to be of interest to readers from all over the world. AshbyJnr 08:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:English footballers and Category:People from London. AshbyJnr 08:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:English footballers and Category:People from London. per AshbyJnr. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is a Footballers from Manchester cat, so there should be one for the capital London.GSR05 21:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The flip side of that argument is that the Manchester cat should also be upmerged. That WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean that this should. Otto4711 18:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Gay sportspeople.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT figure skaters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Trying this again. It is true there is a "gay stereotype" concerning male figure skaters, but so far as I know there is no corresponding stereotype concerning female figure skaters. In addition to that discussions or controversies about a stereotype are not worthy of a category. "Figure skating" Jews gets about the same level of scholarly interest as "Figure skating" LGBT. Neither is defining in this sport.--T. Anthony 03:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable intersection. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(expanded comments - edit conflict) *Merge to Category:Gay sportspeople since everyone in the category is male. Although the existence or non-existence of stereoytpes are not relevant to a categorization scheme, this is the only sport currently broken out under the "LGBT" category name and I don't see much utility in it at the moment. Although, as I said the last time this came up, my preferences would be to upmerge all of the subcategories of Category:LGBT sportspeople into the parent cat. We should also be looking at upmerging categories like Category:African American football players as a similar level of overcategorization but that's a different discussion. Otto4711 04:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Merge is a good idea. Category:Gay sportspeople is not overly full at the moment so it should not be a problem.--T. Anthony 04:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Otto. As long as Category:Gay sportspeople exists, then this should be merged into it. I don't agree that the gay sportspeople category makes sense either, but that's a separate issue. Doczilla 05:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Gay sportspeople. I have no problem with category:LGBT sportspeople (for verifiables, anyway), but I don't want it broken up by sport.--Mike Selinker 06:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Gay sportspeople - Generally, sexual preference should be irrelevant to performing as a figure skater. If LGBT people have faces some type of discrimination battles specifically in figure skating, I suggest discussing it in an article, which can explain more about why this is an important topic of study. Categories like these are just lists of names that convey very little useful information on the notability of the topic. (Perhaps Category:Gay sportspeople should be discussed as well?) Dr. Submillimeter 09:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The case for that category seems a lot stronger, given the very notable reaction to John Amaechi and others upon their revelations of sexual orientation.--Mike Selinker 06:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If sexual orientation is an issue in sports, then it is much better discussed in an article, which can discuss specific incidents, such as the reaction to John Amaechi. Simply placing John Amaechi's name in a list says nothing about the importance of the issue. Dr. Submillimeter 08:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A reasonable position. Still, that's not the nominated category, so we can consider it after this one is dealt with.--Mike Selinker 07:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Irrelevant intersection. Haddiscoe 09:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Overcategorisation. Honbicot 17:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a notable intersection, especially when it comes to Rudy Galindo. Kolindigo 20:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there is a case or two where it matters. There is also a case or two where a figure skater being Jewish or married mattered, but we don't do Category:Jewish figure skaters anymore and never did Category:Married figure skaters. When we have same-sex pairs skating maybe it'll matter, but until then it's too likely to be irrelevant or misused.--T. Anthony 09:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Irrelevant intersection. Rudy Galindo competed in the same competitions as other skaters. AshbyJnr 08:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete as irrelevant overcategorization. Sumahoy 21:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted under G7 (author requested). Sam Blacketer

Category:Sorel Black Hawks alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category was created in error, not realizing that a category already existed called Category:Sorel Eperviers alumni. All entries that were on that page (only 4 players) were put into the other category This category is now empty. Pparazorback 03:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I am the creator of this erroneous category. Please delete. Skudrafan1 03:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete:Per the creator, Skudrafan1, and the fact that it is now empty.--Pparazorback 03:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per creator. --Djsasso 15:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - empty, author requests deletion. Resolute 16:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Television episodes by series --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Episodes by television series to Category:Television episodes by series

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - for consistency with the similar Category:Television characters by series. Otto4711 03:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, it makes sense. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename. Yeah, it makes sense. Doczilla 04:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) to Category:Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) episodes

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - everything in the category save the show article is for an episode. Otto4711 02:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and create the episodes category. This category will be needed for the various lists which some people seem to think are needed these days. Tim! 11:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The lists of which you speak can be happily housed with their brethren in the appropriate actors by series or director by series lists categories. They would be lonely all by themselves in this big empty category with no one to talk to. Otto4711 19:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. >Radiant< 08:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) directors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete improper director by series categorization, per strong precedent. Otto4711 02:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 06:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (token). Tim! 11:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 21:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Black Donnellys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - canceled series, category contains one subcat categorized elsewhere and a template. No likelihood of growth. Otto4711 02:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 06:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:CSI (television franchise). --Xdamr^talk 16:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:CSI (television franchise). CSI is a disambiguation page. The category refers to the various television series, not the College of Southern Idaho, Church of Scientology International or the Computer Society of India (among others). Grutness...wha? 00:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - We seem to use "(TV series)" as the construction for ambiguiously named series, so Category:CSI (TV franchise) may be better for consistency. In the alternative, the lead article is CSI franchise and it's generally a good idea for the article and category to match. Or we could just delete the category and house the material within other various character and episode by series category trees. Otto4711 02:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to (TV franchise) as per nom & comment. LordAmeth 07:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, oppose delete suggested by Otto4711 because this the natural parent of six subcategories. Tim! 11:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Fujiwara family to Category:Fujiwara clan. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fujiwara family to Category:Fujiwara clan

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to better match the standard format set by Category:Minamoto clan, Category:Taira clan, and the article Fujiwara clan (to which Fujiwara family is a redirect). There have been a number of very brief discussions over the use of the term "family" vs "clan", either on WP:J or WP:MOS-JA; I'm afraid I can't find those discussions right now, but I think the basic idea of having standard formats is a good thing. LordAmeth 00:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename - The category should match the name of the main article on the subject, Fujiwara clan. The rename will also match the name to the names of other categories on Japanese clans. Dr. Submillimeter 07:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+...rename as per nom. --MChew 07:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep without renaming --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

five new ones

• Category:Metropolitan areas of Alaska
• Category:Metropolitan areas of Connecticut
• Category:Metropolitan areas of Louisiana
• Category:Metropolitan areas of Maine
• Category:Metropolitan areas of Virginia

Rename all to Metropolitan areas in Foo, like cities, man-made things should be in Foo, not of Foo. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The "in" form is used for settlements and the "of" form is used for subdivisions (even though they are man made). "Metropolitan area" lies uncomfortably between these two categories, but the term is used so aggressively, that it seems to be it is more like a type of region than a type of city, and therefore it is closer to being a subdivision than a settlement. Osomec 01:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reasoning is that they are man made objects, so it should be in. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I note that the of form is used for the parent "Metropolitan areas of the United States" (which is why I used the of form) as well as its sister categories for other countries. Is there some plan to change all of these? Hmains 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this goes through, I'll nominate the others as well. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Category:Metropolitan areas of Washington, D.C. This should be Metropolitan areas in/of the District of Columbia. Washington is a city, and therefore is a metropolitan area in and of itself. 70.55.85.67 06:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Osomec. A metropolitan area is not an "object", it is a geographical concept. Haddiscoe 09:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete them all. These seem to be almost entirely supercategories. They thus duplicate the list found in Table of United States primary census statistical areas, which is sortable by state. Mangoe 22:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Mangoe, these categories are essential navigational tools, which remove clutter from two sets of parent categories, which is one of the main purposes of thousands of categories. AshbyJnr 08:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as per WP:OC#Arbitrary_inclusion_criterion. Being a "Metropolitan" area has an arbitrary criteria. the categories do not seem to be well populated either. "School districts at the top 7% on Pennsylvania standardized tests" or "Areas with # people living there" (aka metropolitan) sound same to me. -- Cat ^chi? 13:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Keep them as they are, but note that they are no more arbitary than cities, indeed rather less so, as the boundaries are designated on a reasonably consistent basis. Sumahoy 21:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.