< April 27	April 29 >

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. --Xdamr^talk 12:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

category:television documentaries to category:documentary television series (note: the category already exists but all the articles tagged under "television documentaries" need retagging under "documentary television series") per category talk:television documentaries -Eep² 20:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from speedy. Brandon97 23:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - many television documentaries are not series and should not be categorized as series. Otto4711 00:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Otto4711. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recategorize articles as nominated: Otto, BrownHairedGirl, and others, did you even bother to read the discussion between the category creator and myself on category talk:television documentaries (as mentioned above)? There is a distinction between television series documentaries and a single television documentary film (not a series of films). The creator even mentioned this distinction when it comes to movie films. Obviously not every entry in category:television documentaries will be series so they can be recategorize under the already existing category:documentary television films. -Eep² 04:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Otto and BHG. Eep, the category name fits its members. There's no need to overcategorize it like you're suggesting. Doczilla 05:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes there is. Again, read the freakin' discussion between the creator of the category and me at category talk:television documentaries--I dare you. Mindlessly replying with regurgitated "per <person>" only shows the dictatorial nature of so-called "consensus". Put up or shut up. Provide REASONS for your statements; not just appeal to authority/consensus fallacies... -Eep² 07:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Eep: WP:CIVIL, please, particularly when in a glasshouse.
Having re-read the discussion, I note that the last comment from MakeRocketGoNow, to which you agreed, was: "I now feel Category:television documentaries is indeed too vague, and should be renamed Category:documentary television films, to distinguish it from Category:documentary television series." That is not what you have proposed here: your proposal would merge the two categories rather than distinguish them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I meant to say to change category:television documentaries to category:documentary television films, but there are some entries in "television documentaries" that need to be changed to "documentary television films". All of this beaurocratic nonsense gets annoying...next time I'll just do it instead of trying to discuss it with people who aren't involved--sheesh! I was just trying to get some automated quick way of changing a lot of page's categories at once. -Eep² 10:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Jeff~~ Eep, it's hardly the fault of any bureaucracy that you didn't say what you meant to say, and that people read what you actually wrote rather than what you meant to write. We all make mistakes, but when they do happen they aren't someone else's fault. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Jeff? I'm Eep. Anyway, yes, it was my fault but, had you (or anyone) read the original discussion on the category's talk page, they would have easily caught this simple miswording and prevented most of this misunderstanding in the first place. <sigh> It just shows how you all weren't even bothering to pay attention initialy... -Eep² 13:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to say Eep. And Eep, if you had paid attention initially, you'd have spotted your mistake and corrected it rather than sighing at everyone else. Per Johnbod below, I think that film is a bad name for a TV documentary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Broadly in sympathy, but I think the "films" in the new title confusing. The discussion on the talk page doesn't address what to do with individually notable episodes of series like Genocide (The World at War episode) or The Fishing Party(not The Fishing Party!). Most of the articles in the category are in fact series. I don't object to seperate categories for series and single documentaries, but films is the wrong word - maybe "Individual television documentaries". Johnbod 09:45, 29 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 to Category:Queen consorts. --Xdamr^talk 17:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Present Queens Consort to Category:Current queen consorts

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per capitalisation convention and to better match category:Queen consorts. Brandon97 23:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Queen consorts. No reason to segregate existing ones from former ones. Otto4711 00:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Queen consorts per Otto4711, and listify. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Queen consorts - Categories generally are not used to indicate status (current, former, deceased, living, etc). Dr. Submillimeter 22:51, 29 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. --Xdamr^talk 17:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Category is subjective by design - "prematurely" is an opinion. Category also appears to have been created to promote a website. -- ChrisB 22:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no non-arbitrary definition of a "premature" death. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both. "Died before 30" might have had a chance. Johnbod 23:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per insurmountable POV concerns. Note that "died before 30" would also be deleted as an arbitrary inclusion standard. Otto4711 00:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category with subjective name. Any criteria would be arbitrary. Doczilla 05:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was their time, and now it's this category's time.A Musing 13:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one chord too little, one subjective category too many. Rgds, --Trident13 22:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it seems to me that this category lived its life like a candle in the wind. Bencherlite 14:09, 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 Rename to Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando. --Xdamr^talk 17:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Orlando area attractions to Category:Visitor attractions in the Orlando area per convention of Category:Visitor attractions by city. Otto4711 00:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree with this rename, but which of the 5 criteria above does this fall under? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No.4, as Otto mentioned. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Similar to my comment in the above discussion, this does not meet #4 IMHO. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename ~~per nom~~ to Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando. Note that this item has been relocated from the speedy renaming section. OrchWyn 20:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando. The city categories tend to include the surrounding areas in this class of categories and none of the existing ones specify area in the name. Vegaswikian 00:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando. Rgds, --Trident13 22:09, 30 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. --Xdamr^talk 17:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever y'all think - I made this a while back and I thought it was a worthwhile categorization scheme. I never got around to populating it though, and I don't want to spend the time on it should it be decided to delete it later. I'm fine with whatever happens to it. Otto4711 18:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OC#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^{Talk to me} or _{learn something new!} 20:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia category that will be too broad to manage, especially in light of modern CGI sequences. Doczilla 05:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. For categories on film techniques like this (and like films that include both black and white and color), I think we need a global solution. In general, categorizing key techniques will add two or three categories per film (think of how many get "montage" for example); I'd suggest listifying them with one category for the lists. Worth seeking comment from the relevant wikiprojects before taking this on broadly.A Musing 13:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not listify - Many special effects, including those before CGI, could be considered "animation" in a formal sense. Consider, for example, all the films that have used stop motion animation. Even the credits in many movies may be considered "animated". Hence, this would not be considered a defining characteristic. Dr. Submillimeter
Delete trivia Sleep On It 21:03, 3 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 Rename to Category:United States ambassadors to Canada. --Xdamr^talk 12:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American ambassadors to Canada to Category:United States ambassadors to Canada

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, As per naming conventions. "Ambassadors" are categorized by country not nationality -- Cat ^chi? 16:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Ambassadors are conventionally referred to adjectivally: the Irish ambassador, the French Ambassador etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You contradict Category:Ambassadors of the United States and Category:Ambassadors. -- Cat ^chi? 01:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look inside those categories, you'll find several different permutations in use. However, the US Embassy in London refers several times to the "American Ambassadors to the United Kingdom". Is that a sufficiently reliable source? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename. Actually, the official name, referenced in a few places on that cite, is "The United States Ambassador to the Court of St. James"; there are other places with similar unique titles for historical reasons. I'd suggest a common sense approach here, and do think "United States" ambassadors is preferential to "American" ambassadors, particularly when dealing with other countries in the Americas. A Musing 13:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources has nothing to do with this. This is intended to be a routine rename as per the categorization scheme. -- Cat ^chi? 16:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:United States ambassadors to Canada - The US State Department appears to use "United States" more frequently than "American" as an adjective, although "American" is sometimes still used. Note, for example, that the ambassador to the United Kingdom is called the "American Ambassador" but that the ambassador to Slovenia is called the "US Ambasssador". Since the United States Government itself does not appear to have a preference, I suggest using "United States", which is preferred on Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter 23:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there seems to be a missing category Category:Amabassadors of Canada. 70.55.201.213 03:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -Sean Curtin 05:35, 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. The others ought to form the basis of a separate nomination. --Xdamr^talk 12:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found this empty, and categorisation of celebrities by hobby is clutter-creating. Brandon97 16:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:OC#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic. Really it should be speedy per WP:CSD#C3. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^{Talk to me} or _{learn something new!} 23:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean WP:CSD#C1? Bencherlite 00:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe...yes. ^_^ --Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^{Talk to me} or _{learn something new!} 22:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for the actually nominated category: No huge objection to deletion that one, for now; WP:SNOOKER is way too busy updating the ongoing World Snooker Championship 2007 and all of the player article fallout resulting from each day's happenings, to get around to populating this category right now. I think it would be courteous to leave this alone for a few weeks, as there are probably really only about 5 truly active members of that project, but whatever. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as empty and clutter. Part of a clutter-tree: Category:Cue sports celebrity amateur players, Category:Pocket billiards celebrity amateur players, Category:Pool celebrity amateur players and Category:Carom billiards celebrity amateur players which have a grand total of two articles: Jules Grévy (a French President (no less) who played billiards) and Jackie Gleason (an actor who hustled pool when growing up). Suggest we delete these other four categories too whilst we're at it. Bencherlite 00:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 4 per Bencherlite. OrchWyn 10:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per suggestion of Bencherlite. Rgds, --Trident13 22:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Categorisation by hobby is just category-clutter. Honbicot 10:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural objection to nomination scope expansion: The others were not (and still are not) CfD tagged, giving opponents of them a ~3 day lead in the debate. Relist separately if you want to go after those. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I should have done so and will not be offended in any way if the closing admin decides that the decision on the merits should be confined to the original proposal. Bencherlite 09:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Substantive objection to same: Keep those that have articles in them, and the supercat. They are there for a reason (namely to keep the "players" categories free of non-professional player clutter). The number of articles that will be in those categories will be high enough at some point; populating them has been a low priority, but they serve a maintenance purpose. It is better to have the "clutter" of a handful of categories that aren't earthshakingly essential (cf. stub sorting; no one would keel over and die if ((England-footy-bio-stub)) upmerged into Category:English sportspeople stubs) than to have the actually maintenance-impeding clutter of tens or eventually maybe hundreds of miscategorized articles (cf. again WP:WSS, under which an English sportspeople stubs subcategory like Category:English football biography stubs exists to make maintenance easier). The list of players to so categorize is already fairly long (it can be recovered from Cue sport article history, I believe (was removed a while back to keep article length down, but with the ultimate intent of becoming a separate article). This isn't simply categorization by hobby; no one is proposing Category:Celebrity players of Playstation 3, but there is no such thing as a pro player in that, eh, field, thus no such confusion about what sort of "player" belongs in the (nonexistent) "players" category for it. The situation is simply different in this case. We need somewhere for people who are a) notable for something (acting, statemanship, etc.), b) not professional pool (snooker, whatever) players, yet also c) actually notable on the side as amateur pool/whatever players, without gunking up the pro players category, which has radically different maint. needs (e.g. ((Infobox snooker player)), ((Cue sports project)), ((Snooker-bio-stub)) etc, none of which should appear on the article or talk page of the aforementioned French president (who wasn't just a player, but a world-class amateur one; even so, not of particular interest to WP:CUE). Or another way of putting it, AWB becomes more dangerous, and less useful for what it's actually good at, for me or anyone else using it on the cue sports corner of the categoryspace without this dividing line. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Categorization by "hobby" isn't the issue or intent here. Genuinely notable amateur or pro-am play in such an activity is considerably beyond just a hobby. It would be about on par with someone like Kevin Costner actually becoming a real Minor League baseball player (vs. engaging in occasional rock climbing or liking to weave baskets). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:27, 5 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 Rename to Category:Unicorns in fiction. --Xdamr^talk 12:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A unicorn is a fictional kind of animal. The word "fictional" doesn't give any additional info. Georgia guy 14:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Unicorns in fiction, although this is breaking the conventions of one of the parent categories (Fictional horses). All unicorns are legendary/mythical, not all are characters in works of fiction. Johnbod 14:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Fictional" here means "from a work of fiction," not "unreal."--Mike Selinker 15:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have a big concern people will think from the existence of this category that there are such a thing as real unicorns, which is why this title isn't so easy to clarify. Georgia guy 17:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Take a look at Shadhavar and Re’em. These are not fictional unicorns, they're unicorns from folklore (which people may have believed as real). And so they are not in this category. That's why "fictional" here means from a work of fiction, not "not real."--Mike Selinker 17:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do plenty of Americans today think there are real unicorns?? Georgia guy 17:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No. But plenty of Americans (including me) believe there's a difference between fiction and religion. And that's why calling some out as fictional makes sense.--Mike Selinker 17:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Its the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^{Talk to me} or _{learn something new!} 20:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I just answered the question I was asked. I'm sure most of the English-speaking world thinks religion and fiction are different as well.--Mike Selinker 02:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:OC#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^{Talk to me} or _{learn something new!} 21:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sadly the category has probably only just scratched the surface for unicorn characters. The policy says "Avoid categories that will never have more than two or three members" which clearly does not apply here. Johnbod 21:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be merged into Category:Unicorns. Aren't all unicorns fictional? Why have another category? It only has 6 members in it anyways. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^{Talk to me} or _{learn something new!} 22:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Unicorns - I imagine that many articles can be written on specific unicorns, so the category should be kept. Also, where else would articles on unicorns be placed? The word "fictional", however, is not needed. Dr. Submillimeter 23:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - to differentiate fictional unicorns from real unicorns such as Elasmotherium. More seriously, in perusing a number of other categories in Category:Legendary creatures it seems to be standard practice to maintain a fictional beastie sub-cat and use it to differentiate the beasties drawn from fiction and the beasties drawn from myth, legend or folklore. Given that this appears to be a fairly well-established scheme I see no reason to disrupt it for this category only. If the entire structure were put up for discussion I might consider deleting/merging all of them. Otto4711 03:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where would Pegasus fit it? A winged horse or a horse with a horn should be categorised diferently from "fictional horses" IMHO. I am not supporting nor opposing this category btw. -- Cat ^chi? 10:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Mythological horses. At any rate, Pegasus isn't a unicorn. -Sean Curtin 05:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there an original article or category for a Unicorn/Pegasus being? ~I'm anonymous
Keep. Articles and categories on folklore and mythology are already cluttered up with modern fiction; there has been consensus for quite some time to keep the two separate. -Sean Curtin 05:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Unicorns in fiction". The distinction Johnbod raises and others reaffirm in other words (mostly with "Keep") is a valid one, and the rename gets around the "otherwise implies unicorns are real" issue. Neat and tidy. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename — to Category:Unicorns in fiction per reasons stated by Johnbod and SMcCandlish. ~I'm anonymous
Keep, rename to Category:Unicorns in fiction or merge into Category:Unicorns but do not delete as this is a valid grouping.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete begs the question what kind of unicorn isn't fictional Sleep On It 20:41, 3 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 Keep. --Xdamr^talk 12:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Endangered languages, or at least Rename Category:Endangered island languages. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The proposed rename is much less clear and accurate - the "islands" are all or mostly metaphorical, not geographic - Canadian Gaelic etc. I expect this is a term familar to linguists - see Diaspora language. This is a heavily populated category covering a very distinct category. No reason has been given for the nomination, and I can see none. Johnbod 14:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to agree with this statement as the next best opinion for this category. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^{Talk to me} or _{learn something new!} 23:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:OC#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth and somewhat for WP:OC#Narrow_intersection. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^{Talk to me} or _{learn something new!} 21:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That policy says:" Avoid categories that will never have more than two or three members". This one has 25 already. This category is not an intersection of anything. I don't think you have looked at what is in the category. Johnbod 21:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category "Catalan-speaking countries" was deleted. How could you consider this different? How is it going to expand? It is a narrow intersection. How does having a Category "Island langauges in diaspora" contribute to the encyclopedia? Read this; particularly the first paragraph. Having a list of "island languages in diaspora" is ok, but not as a category. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^{Talk to me} or _{learn something new!} 22:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan-speaking countries was deleted because it could only have one member. This category already has 25 and for all either of us know could have more. What has WP:NOT to do with it? What do you think it is an intersection of or between? This is a distinctive group of endangered dialects of languages that have been long isolated from the main language-speaking area - Welsh in Patagonia, Venetian Italian in Mexico, Texan German and so on. Johnbod 23:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Never mind. What I think should happen won't, and this isn't the past to propose an idea. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^{Talk to me} or _{learn something new!} 23:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

keep pending input from participants in the language wikiproject - they've got a solid, scholarly project going, and I'd respect language categories until their input is sought. This one looks interesting, but I don't know enough to say if it is meaningful or trivial.A Musing 13:34, 29 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. --Xdamr^talk 17:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Birds of Central African Republic to Category:Birds of the Central African Republic
Category:Birds of Cook Islands to Category:Birds of the Cook Islands
Category:Birds of Federated States of Micronesia to Category:Birds of the Federated States of the Micronesia
Category:Birds of Islamic Republic of Iran to Category:Birds of Iran
Category:Birds of Samoan Islands to Category:Birds of the Samoan Islands
Category:Birds of United Arab Emirates to Category:Birds of the United Arab Emirates
Category:Fauna of Central African Republic to Category:Fauna of the Central African Republic

Adding a "The" to each, except Iran, which is only seen as "Iran" in other categories.--Mike Selinker 14:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod 15:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. ~I'm anonymous

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—many suggestions, but no discernible consensus for any in particular. --Xdamr^talk 14:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Land birds of Anguilla to Category:Birds of Anguilla
Category:Land birds of Antigua and Barbuda to Category:Birds of Antigua and Barbuda
Category:Land Birds of Aruba to Category:Birds of Aruba
Category:Land birds of Barbados to Category:Birds of Barbados
Category:Land Birds of Bonaire to Category:Birds of Bonaire
Category:Land Birds of Curaçao to Category:Birds of Curaçao
Category:Land birds of Dominica to Category:Birds of Dominica
Category:Land birds of Grenada to Category:Birds of Grenada
Category:Land Birds of Guadeloupe to Category:Birds of Guadeloupe
Category:Land Birds of Martinique to Category:Birds of Martinique
Category:Land Birds of Montserrat to Category:Birds of Montserrat
Category:Land Birds of Saint Kitts and Nevis to Category:Birds of Saint Kitts and Nevis
Category:Land Birds of Saint Lucia to Category:Birds of Saint Lucia
Category:Land Birds of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines to Category:Birds of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Category:Land Birds of the Caribbean to Category:Birds of the Caribbean
Category:Land Birds of the Lesser Antilles to Category:Birds of the Lesser Antilles
Category:Land Birds of the Netherlands Antilles to Category:Birds of the Netherlands Antilles
Category:Land Birds of Trinidad and Tobago to Category:Birds of Trinidad and Tobago

These are the only places where we've tried to categorize by "bird by type by country," which seems a bad three-way intersection. I'm also having trouble pinning down the meaning of the term "land bird."--Mike Selinker 13:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that a "land bird" is a bird that is not a seabird. I'm not sure about this - my guess is that in this area the sea-birds are common to most or all of the islands, but many of the land birds are only found on a few islands. So the distinction might make sense here - you might only need one category to cover Seabirds of the Caribbean. Has anyone been contacted to ask? I don't know anything about the subject & I suspect the nominator doesn't either. Keep for now.Johnbod 15:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't. Nonetheless, as far as I can tell, the absence of water birds in this category doesn't create the need for this category. The birds have to live somewhere, and it won't be in the sea.--Mike Selinker 16:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually many or most species sleep on the wing or on the water, and only return to land to breed and nest, which they often only do every two years (says the article). Johnbod 20:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all except Category:Land Birds of the Caribbean using "Endemic birds of X"; merge Category:Land Birds of the Caribbean into Category:Birds of the Caribbean - Some of these categories are being used for endemic birds, while others also include more widespread birds. I suggest limiting the categories to endemic birds alone (as has been done with Category:Endemic fauna of Hawaii and Category:Endemic birds of the Galápagos Islands). If the categories include widespread birds, then some widespread species (like the house sparrow) will accumulate too many categories (as has happened to the Zebra Waxbill). The word "endemic" also automatically implies that the birds are limited to the islands. As for Category:Land Birds of the Caribbean, I suggest merging that into the broader Category:Birds of the Caribbean, since the differentiation between "land bird" and other birds may be difficult to describe accurately. (Divisions into passerines, water fowl, seabirds, etc. may be appropriate.) Dr. Submillimeter 15:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree There's no point having categories with names that a lot of people don't know about. I've seen endless bird pages weith null categories because of these. Dixonsej 19:08 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Could Dixonsej please clarify who he is agreeing with? Dr. Submillimeter 09:27, 4 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 Rename to Category:Fortified French chateaux. While the consensus is to not delete, there is more of a consensus to rename rather then simply keep. This includes one editor who would prefer a delete. I suggest discussions on the talk page to resolve any remaining issues. Vegaswikian 05:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category was renamed/merged at an April 23 CfD. DRV overturned, in light of extensive new information brought forward. Please consult the DRV before commenting here. This a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 13:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The recreation of this category would only create confusion and inconsistency. Haddiscoe 14:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am clear there is a need for this category, which is for 175-odd fortified chateaux that are not country houses, palaces, or any sort of building to which a wine estate is attached. But I think the proposed name is too confusing. I have previously suggested Category:Fortified French chateaux & still think that the best. "Fortified castles in France" would be ok, and no doubt there are other alternatives. So Rename to Category:Fortified French chateaux or similar. Johnbod 15:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and rename to Category:Fortified French chateaux or to Category:Fortified castles in France per Johnbod. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and repopulate. Contrary to what Haddiscoe says above, this category removes confusion and restores consistency. Every other country has a Category "Castles in XXXX", so for consistency France must have the same. Note that in English (this being the English Wikipedia) château is only ever used to describe a palace/stately home etc and castle is only ever used to describe a medieval military structure. Grouping boths type of structure into a single category causes confusion. Emeraude 12:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Emeraude. There should be a clear distinction between castles (see List of castles in France) and other types of buildings, and mixing buildings together from Category:Castles by country and Category:Houses by country would itself create confusion and inconsistency. For example, Fort de Salses is a castle, not a chateux (fortified or otherwise); Château de Talcy is a château, not a castle (fortified or otherwise). "Fortified castles in France" is an odd title too: not only is it inconsistent with other countries in Category:Castles by country, but it suggests that there might be a species of "unfortified castles" out there! Bencherlite 12:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename Category:Fortified French chateaux. If this category is used it should have a name that will makes its purpose clear. The difference between France and other non-English speaking countries is that the word "chateau" is almost as familiar to English speakers as the word castle, whereas no other foreign language terms in this field are familiar at all. Honbicot 10:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the word "chateau" is almost as familiar to English speakers as the word castle..". Precisely. And it is used solely to mean a palace, not a castle! Emeraude 15:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Fortified French chateaux as one can easily understand that name to signify a subclass of chateaux. Beorhtric 22:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is much easier to understand castle to mean ........ castle! There is no such thing as a fortified château - it's like saying a fortified palace. The French term for a castle is château-fort, to distinguish it from a Renaissance château; château-fort DOES NOT translate as fortified château. Emeraude 15:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? It is clear and unambiguous. You keep saying things like "(chateau) is used solely to mean a palace, not a castle" in English, but this is plainly just not true, as I and other editors have pointed out. Johnbod 16:41, 4 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 Rename to Category:2007 elections in Europe. --Xdamr^talk 17:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Elections in Europe, 2007 to Category:2007 elections in Europe

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per convention of other year stuff in country categories (elections-by-year categories are currently inconsistent, but there are many others in the year elections in country format, such as for example Category:1998 elections in Canada, Category:1999 elections in Canada, Category:2006 elections in Germany, Category:1998 elections in Germany, Category:1999 elections in Germany, Category:2006 elections in Australia, Category:1998 elections in Australia, Category:1999 elections in Australia, and all subcats of Category:Elections in the United Kingdom by year).
See also two current related CfDs: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_26#Elections_in_the_United_States_by_year and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_26#Elections_in_Mexico_by_year.
Note: I know that we don't usually subcategorise these year stuff in country categs by continent, but because of European integration (whatever anyone's POV on that issue), I believe that Europe should be an exception (see discussion on my talk page), and that other xxxx elections in Europe categs should be created for years since about 2000. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - this can also contain European Parliament elections by year. Tim! 12:38, 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. Vegaswikian 05:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate category; other category already has articles in it. Postcard Cathy 11:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as empty duplicate of Category:Restaurants in Dallas, Texas. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge 70.55.201.213 03:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why merge an empty category into another category? Save the space on the server and delete it! Postcard Cathy 13:11, 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 No Consensus, but category is empty so liable for speedy deletion if not populated. --Xdamr^talk 12:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We already have Category:Accounting in China EnviroGranny 09:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Acounting in China is the wrong name for things only to do with the PROC. 70.55.201.213 03:49, 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 all. Consensus seems to be in favour of deleting most of these, the arguments for exceptional treatment for the American category smack rather of US-centricism. That being the case I see no reason not to treat it alongside the other categories. --Xdamr^talk 14:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:DNWAUC, and WP:OC#Trivial intersection, I believe these categories should be deleted. While slavery is unacceptable by todays standards, in the past it was as common, natural, and trivial as owning a TV set today. Cat ^chi? 09:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge its subcats into Category:Slaveholders and have that be the only category on it for now. The existing subcats seem to be pushing a not-so subtle POV. (Americans and Arabs had slaves, but other people didn't or if they did it's not worth mentioning) I'm a bit torn though and could still go for delete. It is true that for much of history owning a slave was not a defining characteristic. However there is a kind of historical interest to it since the nineteenth century, hence it's in the French and Occitan. Anyway there aren't enough in this to justustify the subcats.--T. Anthony 09:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issues of the 19th century and subsequent abolishment of Slavery can be categorized accordingly. Some people like Ulysses S. Grant fought against slavery even though they owned slaves. So this categorization is confusing if what you suggest is the intention. -- Cat ^chi? 10:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm valid point. Maybe subcategorize by century rather than nation. Or just limit it to slaveholders from 1770 to present.--T. Anthony 11:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also categorizing by political views does not seem right (Pro/Anti slavery). While something like "anti-slavery advocates" may be ok though, I am undecided. I am no expert in US history but pre-civil war practically everyone in southern US had a slave. -- Cat ^chi? 12:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, they didn't. Are you aware of any cases where black people owned slaves? There were also poor white people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am, see things like Black Slaveowners: Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860. Still it's true that most southern USers did not own slaves. Most free blacks didn't, though a few did, and people in the mountains of the South only rarely did.--T. Anthony 14:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Owning" slaves was still something unremarkable at the time. Practically anyone with the money had slaves. I do not see the relevance of the Black/White slave thing. -- Cat ^chi? 17:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant to your comment that "pre-civil war practically everyone in southern US had a slave": that's true if black people are excluded from the definition of "everyone", otherwise it's nonsense. Owning slaves was at the time one of the defining differences between the haves and the have-nots. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ownership is a bad inclusion criteria. Similar divisions exists today. "Cat:People who own Ferraris" or "Cat:People who own private jets" or "Cat:People who own pets" and etc. -- Cat ^chi? 11:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:American slaveholders, neutral on others. For the reasons discussed above, the history of slave ownership in the United States is of particular historical interest, and Category:American slaveholders is not overpopulated. Sure, there are people like Ulysses S. Grant who held salves while campaigning against slavery, but that's not grounds to stop classifying them as slaveholders. People often end up in a series of seemingly opposed categories, such as John Horam, a British politician who has sat as an Member of Parliament for three political parties and therefore has the three appropriate categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all This is basically an anachronistic slur. Owning slaves was unremarkable in many (perhaps most) times and places, and people don't have articles merely because they owned slaves. Haddiscoe 14:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:American slaveholders, neutral on others per BHG Johnbod 15:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:OC#Opinion_about_a_question_or_issue and less so WP:OC#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^{Talk to me} or _{learn something new!} 21:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:what on earth is the relevance of the first policy? Either they held/owned slaves or they didn't. The definition of a defining characteristic in the policy seems to be "If you could easily leave something out of a biography, it is not a defining characteristic" and that hardly seems to apply here. This editor has scattered impressive-looking policy citations all over this page, but few of them stand up to a moments examination in terms of relevance to the debate. Johnbod 21:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ughh. How could you not say that slave owning is not an opinion? Many people from the Southern United States still believe they did nothing wrong by having slaves. They really didn't even consider themselves to be slave owners anyways. And you could easily leave out the fact that someone is a slave owner. When people think of George Washington, they don't think of him as a slave owner, but as a founder of the United States. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^{Talk to me} or _{learn something new!} 22:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ughh what? This isn't Category:People who thought slaveholding was ok it is people who actually did it, including, as has been pointed out, some who apparently thought it wasn't ok but did it anyway. If it ever was possible to write a biography of GW without mentioning his alaves, which I doubt since they were an essential part of his income, that period is now long past. Categories are not (just) for "the first thing that comes into my head when I think of X". George Washington is in 22 categories - see how many you can guess without looking. Johnbod 23:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I don't see what this category adds to the articles apart from a negative impression. OrchWyn 10:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So sweep it under the carpet then? Johnbod 10:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't favor deleting them all, but if their being a slaveholder is noteworthy it can be in the article. The category staying or going won't "sweep things under the rug." Besides that it already sweeps things under the rug in a way. We don't have say Category:Brazilian slaveholders, Category:British slaveholders, or Category:Sudanese slaveholders.--T. Anthony 05:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm saying. Its a matter of opinion. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^{Talk to me} or _{learn something new!} 22:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť, the category is not about whether society thought it was right or wrong. It is about whether they did or did not. T. Anthony, maybe someone could make those categories. Just because they don't currently exist right at this moment doesn't mean they are irrelevant. MrBlondNYC 09:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ownérsɧǐp of slaves is trivial info. Categories are navigational aids not tags. They should never be used to bring up the "facts". Removing the category wouldn't make them [people categorised] slave-free either. -- Cat ^chi? 11:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People who argue that owning slaves in past times in America, the Middle East, or among Arabs, was trivial or common cite no support for that proposition. For example, it was probably no more common that belonging to Category:English-Americans during the same periods, so should that also go? Carlossuarez46 19:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for parent and American Part of me thinks that the most defining characteristic of someone isn't their property (unless they own something unique, which, by owning the object, makes the person notable). However, slavery is a different issue. It isn't exactly the same thing as having a cat of Rolls Royce owners. I have a feeling that down the line, these cats may become overpopulated and we may decided that owning slaves is not notable enough to be a defining characteristic (and part of me feels like these cats are there to attempt to tarnish someones' image). But all that said, I agree with BHG. This is relatively historically important feature to some people.-Andrew c 23:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-defining characteristic. If it's important to mention in an article, then it should be mentioned in an article, but linking these people together serves no purpose whatsoever. You might as well make Category:Land owner. In many periods and places in history, it amounts to much the same thing. From our earliest records of ancient Sumer up to several hundred years ago—a period covering over three thousand years—pretty much everyone of note in history could be placed in this category. Xtifr _tälk 13:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To one category. I do not think that either WP:OC#Trivial_Intersection or WP:OC#Non-defining or trivial characteristic apply in this case. Slave owning was not as common as one might think: in many cases (from Ancient Rome to the antebellum United States) only the wealthy could afford to own slaves. And in some instances slave-owning could be considered a defining characteristic, after all some of the most famous American/British/Spanish historical figures made their fortunes on the backs of slaves. Who knows if they could have been as successful if they had to pay freemen to do the same work? - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 01:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Contrary to what Carlossuarez46 says, the onus is always on the people who support a category to produce evidence that the existence of the category is beneficial as a navigational device and neutral. These categories are not neutral, as it is derogatory, and often irrelevant to the noteworthy achievements of the subject of the article. Keeping only the U.S. category would imply that slaveholding in the U.S. was worse or more significant than slaveholding elsewhere, which would be U.S. centric or biased or both, not to mention being an insult to the sufferings of people who had the misfortune to be enslaved in other parts of the world. Honbicot 11:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xtifr Sleep On It 20:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:American slaveholders, but rename to Category:Slaveholders in the United States in order to limit the category to post-colonial history. The arguments have persuaded me that, generally speaking, these categories do not provide useful or beneficial navigational information, because in most countries through most of history slaveholding was not unusual or controversial: it was either allowed and practiced, or it wasn't. (Somewhat of an oversimplification, to be sure.) The great exception was in the United States, where the issue of slavery was highly contentious for a period of eight decades, ultimately resulting in a full-blown civil war. I believe the U.S. was unique in having both extensive slaveholding and a vigorous public debate over an extended period of time. Category:Slaveholders in the United States thus serves a useful and beneficial purpose for students of U.S. history. The other categories should probably be deleted for the reasons that have been adduced. Cgingold 21:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Non-defining for most of the history. While US may be an exception I am somehow doubtful WP is be able to maintain such a category. Pavel Vozenilek 23:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In all honesty, I haven't the faintest idea why it would be difficult "to maintain such a category".Cgingold

Delete and listify. This issue requires further explanation for each entry, and therefore a list or an explanation under Slavery is far more comprehensive than a category. >Radiant< 10:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The existing articles on Slavery, History of Slavery, and History of Slavery in the United States are all already far too long to incorporate a lengthy list of slaveholders. A separate, free-standing article "List of slaveholders in the United States" could, of course, be created. But I still think there is real value in having a Category:Slaveholders in the United States for navigational purposes. (We do, by the way, have both a category and lists for opponents of slavery.) Cgingold 13:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Xtifr. Sijo Ripa 18:53, 4 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 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: speedy delete (empty).---Mike Selinker 04:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Category empty for over 1 week, was a duplicate of Category:Indian martial artists. Scott Alter 04:48, 28 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 Delete. --Xdamr^talk 17:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created these long before we had team categories. At the time, I thought it was useful to put all the Yale, Harvard, Brown and other such articles in one spot, but we haven't done any other conference, and I'm certain, given conference volatility, that that would be a bad idea. Also, they contain nothing but subcategories which already feed into all the categories they'd need to if they weren't Ivy League. So I'd like to see these deleted.--Mike Selinker 03:36, 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 speedy delete - original author requested deletion below. VegaDark 08:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this category is for categorizing templates...used on another Wiki? This should be done on that Wiki, not here. Some of the categorized templates look to need a TfD or userfication for the same reasons. VegaDark 01:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Naconkantari 01:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ~~cabal~~ nom. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Patricknoddy/The Ultimate Encyclopedia for the suggested template deletion. I've lumped it all together. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and for reasons at the MfD. Bencherlite 02:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all Johnbod 15:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't need it anymore. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)}^|^HISTORY 01:25, 29 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. --Xdamr^talk 17:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Goldsmiths College, University of London (and related categories) to Category:Goldsmiths, University of London

Nominator's Rationale: Rename as the college has renamed itself and dropped the word "College" from its title - the main article is now Goldsmiths, University of London, and Goldsmiths College, University of London is now a redirect to that page. The new name is mentioned in the lead paragraph and the source given is here. (The lack of a possessive apostrophe is correct, incidentally!)

Also nominating the following related categories for the same reason:

Category:People associated with Goldsmiths College, University of London rename to Category:People associated with Goldsmiths, University of London
Category:Academics of Goldsmiths College, University of London rename to Category:Academics of Goldsmiths, University of London
Category:Alumni of Goldsmiths College, University of London rename to Category:Alumni of Goldsmiths, University of London

All nominated on the basis that the category names should reflect the title of the main article - it would be confusing to have one category tree for the old name and another for the new name. Bencherlite 01:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Johnbod 02:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Timrollpickering 07:56, 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 all. --Xdamr^talk 17:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - similar to the many other Hollywood family categories, the articles in these are extensively interlinked and in some instances have an article on the family which serves as an appropriate navigational hub and does a better job of explaining the family relationships, which a category can't do. Otto4711 00:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I know too many Khans. Doczilla 05:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and listify where not already done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Sleep On It 20:39, 3 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. --Xdamr^talk 17:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - as with many other family categories, these two are unneeded. The few articles in them are easily interlinked. Otto4711 00:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. Apart from our general tendency to avoid family categories, these are small enough to be easily interlinked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both all these family categories seem unprecedented Sleep On It 20:38, 3 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.

April 28

Category:Television documentaries

Category:Present Queens Consort

Category:Musical artists who died prematurely

Category:Orlando area attractions

Category:Live-action films with animated sequences

Category:American ambassadors to Canada

Category:Snooker celebrity amateur players

Category:Fictional unicorns

Category:Island languages in diaspora

Birds without "The"

Land birds

Category:Castles in France

Category:Elections in Europe, 2007

Category:Restaurants in Dallas

Category:Accounting in the People's Republic of China

Category:Slaveholders

Category:Indian martial arts practitioners

Ivy League football

Category:The Ultimate Encyclopedia templates

Category:Goldsmiths College, University of London (and related categories)

Hollywood families

French-Canadian families