< August 11	August 13 >

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 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 debate was preempted by original closer's decision to rename the category.--Mike Selinker 15:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Alternate versions of to Category:DC Comics characters and Marvel Comics characters

Nominator's rationale: Merge - per the recent CFD there is clearly no support for the current name of the category. My reading of that CFD suggests an upmerge has the greatest support. I was fine with that outcome in nominating it, one "delete" !vote quotes me saying it to support deleting the cat and one person !voted for the merge. The articles can live quite happily in the general characters category or one of the many existing subcats. Otto4711 17:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My reading is that a rename to Category:Alternative versions of fictional characters has more support; I. at least, support that over the current name, or dumping them into the catchall comics categories. Shouldn't this be in DRV, though?--Mike Selinker 21:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The rename was completely splintered. Two for "alternate versions," one for "alternative versions," one for "alternative persona" and one for "something." And one of the "alternate versions" !votes, mine, you can consider withdrawn in favor of merger. There's no procedural problem with the closure so DRV isn't the way to go. Otto4711 22:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename - My understanding of the discussion as is to keep it but find a more accurate name. "Alternate versions of" is too ambiguous. "Alternate versions of comics characters" or "Alternate versions of fictional characters" are much clearer names. EDIT: "Alternative versions of fictional characters" works for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.251.209 (talk • contribs)

• Endorse any change suggested so far either here or in the previous CfD. Ultimately, I think this name is so bad that we clearly need to do something, and there isn't a single proposal so far that I don't prefer to the status quo. I do still have a preference for my original proposal, Category:Alternative versions of fictional characters. In response to Mike Selinker's comments in favor of "alternate" at the last CfD (which I didn't see at the time), I'd like to point out that while "alternate" may be more common in the US comics industry, it's still completely incorrect in the rest of the world, and I don't believe that "alternative" is never used, especially outside the US, and I don't think any USer would find it confusing (speaking as a USer myself). But bottom line, this needs to be changed, and I was somewhat dismayed at the no-consensus close, since it was clear that nobody supported the current name. Xtifr _tälk 02:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Kbdank71 and I have had that debate before: I believe that when there is clear consensus that something must change, it falls to closer to decide on a change among the options. But a reasonable person could easily disagree with that. Regardless, in this case the current name is so egregious that I'd like to see it changed to anything comprehensible (but still kept as a distinct category).--Mike Selinker 02:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could go either way on the "closer should choose" argument. It does kind of put the closer on the spot. The important thing, in my opinion, is that if there's a clear consensus to do something, there should be no opposition to an immediate relisting (some people want to forbid immediate relistings of any closed debate.). Xtifr _tälk 03:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. There may not not be a perfect solution, but lets get consensus for anything over the current name. If we are wrong, we can always change in the future. Vegaswikian 05:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What about an "((Alternate versions of))" template to go on all these pages, linking anyone interested in Alternate versions of Robin to those of Spider-Man or Wonder Woman or whoever else...?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Where'd the category go?--Mike Selinker 14:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, here it is: Category:Alternate versions of fictional characters. Kb changed his closing decision. Seems like this is done.--Mike Selinker 14:31, 14 August 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 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 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 debate was merge. the wub "?!" 10:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Seven Network reporters to Category:Australian television journalists

Nominator's rationale: Merge - per consensus against categorizing journalists by the television networks on which they appear. Otto4711 14:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seperate: Channel Seven reporters and Australian journalists are two different categories - two different subjects - they should not be mixed up. --Whats new? 08:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the specific distinction that makes a reporter for the Seven Network not an Australian television journalist? Otto4711 13:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom and ample precedent; obvious performer-by-performance overcategorization. Xtifr _tälk 05:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per ample precedent, Tewfik^Talk 08:25, 17 August 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 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 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 debate was merge all. the wub "?!" 10:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Australian television presenters by network to Category:Australian television presenters

Suggest merging Category:ABC presenters to Category:Australian television presenters, Category:Australian radio personalities

Suggest merging Category:Nine Network presenters to Category:Australian television presenters

Suggest merging Category:SBS presenters to Category:Australian television presenters

Suggest merging Category:Seven Network presenters to Category:Australian television presenters

Suggest merging Category:Network Ten presenters to Category:Australian television presenters

Nominator's rationale: Merge all - per strong and clear consensus agains categorizing people by the television networks on which they appear. People work for a variety of networks over the course of a career. Note that Category:ABC presenters will need to be worked manually as it contains presenters from multiple media. Otto4711 14:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, and many previous discussions, we don't do People by television network. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_4#Category:ESPN_personalities
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_7#Category:MSNBC_personalities
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_8#Category:Fox_News_Channel_personalities
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_1#Category:HBO_personalities
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_2#Category:UPN_television_network_personalities
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_5#Category:CNBC_personalities
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_5#Category:CNBC_Asia_personalities
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_5#Category:CTV_television_personalities
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_5#Category:Comcast_personalities
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_5#Category:TSN_personalities
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_6#Category:CNN_people
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_6#Category:Fox_Broadcasting_Company_personalities
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_26#Category:MTV_presenters
• Merge per nom. and many precedents. Wryspy 01:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom & ample precedents. Carlossuarez46 01:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I'd suggest that if the article on a person only documents them working for one Australian broadcaster - then generally it's spam regarding a non-notable person anyway.Garrie 23:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per... ample precedent, Tewfik^Talk 08:27, 17 August 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 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 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 debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Criminals from Cincinnati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:People from Cincinnati and the appropriate subcat of Category:American criminals, as intersection by location. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Dude, get a life. You never leave this discussion board. Create an article once in a while! I don't care what you want to call this; this says "Criminals from Cincinnati, not "Cincinnati criminals". If you don't know the difference, i can explain it to you. (Mind meal 17:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• You might want to review this. Or this. Merge per nom. Otto4711 18:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete unless something really odd is happening, criminals from Cincinnati are really no different that criminals from anywhere else. Wayyyy WP:OCAT. Carlossuarez46 18:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overcategorization per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_location. Wryspy 01:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and our overcategorization guidelines. This is clearly not a defining characteristic. Creator appears well-intentioned, but he definitely needs to tone down his rhetoric and spend more time with the relevant guidelines. Xtifr _tälk 13:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category:People from Cincinnati has numerous other categories in this vein, which obviously will be deleted also. They will be merged right back into Category:People from Cincinnati, which provides readers a very large and unorganizaed category that has absolutely no context to it aside from "human beings from Cincinnati". If I was researching science in Cincinnati, a category like Category:Scientists from Cincinnati could be very useful. The same can be said for any category, like religious leaders or jurists. I consider "People by city" to be undercategorization, as it really should only be a category with subcategories, breaking down those people for what they are actually are famous for. Guidelines get etched in stone on this place, and trying to change them is a long and laborous headache people like me just aren't interested in pursuing. We seem to have guidelines at complete odds with eachother, which adds to that idea that Wikipedia is inconsitant. On the one hand we are told very large categories should be logically broken down. On the other hand, we are told that is not possible. Having started Wikipedia:WikiProject Cincinnati, the idea was to actually organize Cincinnati-related topics. I was able to do that with everything except PEOPLE. People are not to be broken down by city, even when those categories become so unmanagable that they likewise become impossible to navigate effectively. Like going to a store and the cashier saying: "Put this blindfold on, and pick out some food. You may grab what you are looking for, you may not. Sure, I could make your shopping experience easier, but to **** with that. I want to make it hard for you." I thought that "from Cincinnati" was so apt, because it doesn't SAY anything other than where they were born. I am FROM Cincinnati. The language isn't "Cincinnati socialites", or "Cincinnati athletes". Anyway, i know now not to try to organize articles on people from Cincinnati. Thank God I didn't continue organizing them all. This forum of discussion has a lot of regulars, that's for sure. (Mind meal 21:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Merge - I agree with elements of Mind meal's complaint about the need for some categories of an organisational character, and I've expressed sympathies in the past. That said, Dugwiki's reply below is precisely what should be done, that is, such a system should be created after some of us can decide on a structure that will function well across the encyclopaedia, and which will at the same time not foster the creation of infinite random intersections that will bring us back to WP:OCAT. Tewfik^Talk 08:32, 17 August 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 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 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 debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Athletes from Cincinnati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:People from Cincinnati. The category Athletes is for sportspeople who compete in Athletics, which is known as Track and field in the United States. Most of these are Category:American sportspeople, not Athletes. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose or Rename Cincinnati sportspeople. Do you really know the American definition of an athlete? If a category for jelly beans contained only purple ones, would you nominate the rest?

• "An individual who demonstrates skill in a sport, trains and competes as part of her/his regular routine or career goal."[www.sbed.gov.bc.ca/SportBranch/Glossary.htm]
• "An athlete is a person possessing above average physical skills (strength, agility, and endurance) and thus seen suitable for physical activities, in particular, contests. An ancient Greek word for "contest" was athlos, and those competing in the games were called athletes."[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlete]

Hey, thanks for constantly spending your time at categories for discussion instead of adding anything of substance. You are a star! (Mind meal 17:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• You might want to review this. Or this. ProveIt is correct in the statement of how "athlete" is used in categorization. Merge per nom. Otto4711 18:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge if needed, then delete per nom, OCAT. Carlossuarez46 18:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per [[1]]. Wryspy 01:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Obviously well-intended category, but not appropriate to our standards. Xtifr _tälk 13:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per my comments above, Tewfik^Talk 08:33, 17 August 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 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 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 debate was merge into Category:People from Edinburgh --Kbdank71 16:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sportspersons from Edinburgh to Category:Sportspeople from Edinburgh

Nominator's rationale: Rename, in line with the convention of Category:Sportspeople. Brandon97 13:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:People from Edinburgh, this is an intersection by location. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per ProveIt, occupation by town is overcat unless that intersection is notable enough to support an article, which this cannot. Carlossuarez46 18:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. This is overcategorization per [[2]]. Wryspy 01:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per my comments above, Tewfik^Talk 08:33, 17 August 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 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 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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Actors by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Artists by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Athletes by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:American businesspeople by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Criminals by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Scientists by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all, as intersections by location. One of the big issues of categorization is you have to know when to STOP. If taken too far, the result is thousands of tiny categories, each with just a few members, useless for navigation. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Why does Wikipedia pretend Artists by country is okay but by city is not? It makes no sense. You have an agenda, and I sure hope you lose. Actually ProveIt, gigantic categories like "People from city" are what is useless, as they are just a big dumping ground with no context at all. If anything, that sort of categorization is useless. (Mind meal 17:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • "Artists by country" does not exist; Category:Artists by nationality exists. Nationality and location are two different things. --musicpvm 05:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Otto4711 18:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Being attached to a single location may have been defining characteristics in the distant past when the widely available cheap transportation didn't exist and when social structures were much more rigid. Pavel Vozenilek 01:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all or merge into the "People from..." categories per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_location. Wryspy 01:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, I just don't see the point of randomly intersecting various categories. There are potentially trillions of possible categories that could be made if we used all random and arbitrary intersections. --Cyde Weys 01:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep for artists, Strong regular strength delete for the rest. Art is very much still subject to regional influences and styles, and historically, it was even more so. I think location is enough of a factor in art to consider this a defining characteristic in many cases, and at least weakly defining in most. Note that the compromise we hammered out for the somewhat similar case of musicians is that by-location categories should not subdivide "musician", while by-nationality categories should subdivide by genre and instrument. Thus, a jazz guitarist from Los Angeles would properly be categorized in both Category:American jazz guitarists and Category:Los Angeles musicians. This compromise has held up through a number of debates—though, of course, we do have a lot more articles on musicians than we do on artists. As for the rest of the categories listed, I have to completely agree that there is nothing defining about the location, and so these are obvious examples of overcategorization. Xtifr _tälk 02:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Addendum: I struck "strong" because I don't actually feel that strongly about the other categories, and the "People from..." categories may want to be further subdivided someday. I just don't think we need it yet. Xtifr _tälk 13:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your point regarding artists. We have a few such as Bergamese painters, Bolognese painters, Neapolitan painters, that I don't object to at all. However, those are communities that centered on schools and developed a distinctive style. For modern times I don't think that usually applies. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories like "Artists of Ringstrasse period" (in Vienna, Austria, 19th century) may have sense but the current structuring won't fit. Pavel Vozenilek 22:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because the only city is Cincinnati I want to make clear that I don't have a problem with "occupations by location" categories in general. It is quite likely that readers who want to look up biographies in a specific area will want to look at individuals in related occupations as opposed to just looking up individuals by name alphabetically. That's why occupations by country and in some cases occupations by state categories can be useful. In this particular case, though, the only city showing up is Cincinnati, which indicates to me that it isn't part of a larger, well thought out scheme.

So therefore I'd recommend deleting these for now mainly because they are actually specific only to one city. However, I will reserve judgment on the broader topic of occupations-by-city categories if they were done as a well planned method of breaking up People-by-city categories which are particularly large. Dugwiki 15:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge into parent cats if necessary. This is overcategorization. --musicpvm 05:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per my comments above, Tewfik^Talk 08:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge children categories with appropriate country or U.S. state categories per Dugwiki. Circeus 22:39, 20 August 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 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 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 debate was merge into Category:American socialites and Category:People from Cincinnati --Kbdank71 16:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Socialites from Cincinnati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, as intersection by location. This is a very small category, and not part of any established hierarchy. There are approximately 180 American socialites, and categorizing them by city just doesn't make sense. My guess is that it would result in about 150 tiny categories, each with just a few members. I do not see American socialites by city as helpful. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:American socialites and Category:People from Cincinnati. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is sneaky, you mass nominated my categories separataley, making it very troublesome to vote on each. Thanks for your consideration. Seems very underhanded. (Mind meal 17:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• You might want to review this. And this. And this. Delete per nom. Otto4711 18:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge per nom; I question whether the target cat is viable, but if we have to do this step-wise, I don't oppose that. Carlossuarez46 18:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I dunno. Socialites, especially pre-21st-century, tend to be strongly associated with the social scene of their home city. I think there's a better case for this than for most similar categories. But I'm not sure it's a strong enough case, so count me as neutral. Xtifr _tälk 13:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per my comments above, Tewfik^Talk 08:35, 17 August 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 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 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 debate was merge. Andrew c ^[talk] 22:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Astronauts from Cincinnati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, as intersection by location. This is a single-item category, and not part of any established hierarchy. There are approximately 350 American astronauts, and categorizing them by city just doesn't make sense. My guess is that it would result in about 200 tiny categories, each with one or two members. I do not see this as helpful. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:American astronauts and Category:People from Cincinnati. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Otto4711 18:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge this underpopulated category with little room for growth any time soon, per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_location. Wryspy 01:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My guess is that the purpose of the category isn't to subdivide astronauts, but to act as part of a larger scheme to subdivide Category:People from Cincinnati by occupation. The size of the category isn't actually relevant if it's part of a broader, well thought out scheme to subdivide a large category.

Now that being said I'm not sure the scheme used to divide Cincinnati by occupation was set up very well. I don't necessarilly object in general to the idea of constructing a scheme to divide really, really large cities by occupation, but I think it should be done in a consistent manner and with some discussion. Right now it looks like it was only being done for Cincinnati, and the occupation subcategories chosen seem a bit odd (shouldn't astronauts be part of a larger occupational category, like Category:Aviators? Dugwiki 15:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per my comments above, Tewfik^Talk 08:35, 17 August 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 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 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 debate was rename. Andrew c ^[talk] 22:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Areas of Livingston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Livingston, West Lothian, to match Livingston, West Lothian. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to match the parent article. Bencherlite^Talk 02:08, 19 August 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 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 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 debate was rename. Andrew c ^[talk] 22:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Virtual Airline to Category:Virtual airlines

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Could be a speedy rename for case and plural. Bringing this here since I'm not sure that this category is really needed. Vegaswikian 07:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - agreed Ephebi
• Rename per nom. Wryspy 01:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per main entry Virtual airline which doesn't just refer to the individual airlines, but to the activity as a whole. Tewfik^Talk 08:43, 17 August 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 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 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 debate was delete all. In the future, please don't depopulate categories that are under discussion.Andrew c ^[talk] 21:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Legends of Wrestling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Rumble Roses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Virtual Pro Wrestling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Extreme Championship Wrestling video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Royal Rumble video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:WWE Superstars video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:World Championship Wrestling video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:WrestleMania video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Very broad category: 3 games were made in this series. It's very unlikely any other games will be made. Games in the category were moved to a relevant category. RobJ1981 05:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an update: I added other similar categories. All are very broad with little to no chance of population. I probably should've waited until CFD was over before I moved them though. RobJ1981 17:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - These categories are simply way too fine-grained without any real hope of expansion. --Cyde Weys 01:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete all per nom. Andre (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - over-categorization like this doesn't help sort, it just makes info harder to get to. All games should be safely located in the parent categories. Minor separations like this are better presented in a list (like they already are at List of fighting games#Wrestling). ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete all per C1 (I'm assuming that these weren't emptied); if not, then per WP:OCAT. Tewfik^Talk 08:46, 17 August 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 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 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 debate was rename. Andrew c ^[talk] 21:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Golf clubs and courses in the People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Golf clubs and courses in China, convention of Category:Sports venues in China. Usually, if we mean ROC we just call it Taiwan. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per convention, Tewfik^Talk 08:48, 17 August 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 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 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 debate was merge. You can discuss removing the cat the article's page since the consensus of merge vs. delete is less clear.Andrew c ^[talk] 21:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British citizens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:British people, convention of Category:People by nationality. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Aren't they "subjects" in Britain anyway? Otto4711 12:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We are British Citizens, we are also subjects of the Crown. DuncanHill 14:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no evidence in the article that the only member is a British citizen, as opposed to a foreign expatriate who has spent long spells in Britain. Brandon97 13:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not helpful in any way. Dominictimms 21:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, Tewfik^Talk 08:49, 17 August 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 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 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 debate was delete. Andrew c ^[talk] 21:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tonight Show people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_16#Category:Brady_Bunch_behind_the_scenes_people
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_14#Category:Alias_.28TV_series.29_crew
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_16#TV_directors_by_series
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_16#TV_writers_by_series
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_19#Category:TV_crew_by_series
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_6#Category:Torchwood_people
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_10#Category:Doctor_Who_people
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_10#Category:Doctor_Who_composers
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_10#Category:Doctor_Who_story_editors
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_26#Category:Futurama_directors
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_26#Category:Lost_.28TV_series.29_directors
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_12#Category:People_associated_with_Dark_Shadows
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_1#Category:Big_Brother_presenters_from_around_the_world
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_4#Category:Tonight_Show_hosts

Delete, as performers by performance, we don't do People by television series. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. We've established some pretty strong precedents and standards for killing these cats by now. Wryspy 05:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; the average actor has been in dozens of various productions that might possibly be categorized, so it just makes sense to not do any of them. --Cyde Weys 01:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 05:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ample precedent. Tewfik^Talk 08:50, 17 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.