< February 16	February 18 >

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 Tim! 19:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Social justice and poverty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - See the nomination for Category:Social justice below. It is unclear as to what "social justice" means, as it appears to be a catch-all phrase for virtually any activist movement or other things. If Category:Social justice is deleted, this should also be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 22:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A rename may also be appropriate, although I cannot think of a good name. The term "social justice", however, should not be in the final title. Alternatively, merging to Category:Poverty may be appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 10:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think it is pretty clear what "social justice" means in this context. futurebird 00:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Social justice" is just a media friendly term for socialist redistributive policies and liberal permissive ethics. It is designed to exclude things that I regard as socially just, like support for marriage. In short it is biased. Annandale 01:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep the wiki is a strange place, only here could you have a debate about something like this. If we are talking about "anti poverty efforts" then maybe we could rename it. I think it is very useful. JJJamal 01:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the PC establishment-controlled media few dare to challenge politically correct orthodoxy because they know how vindictively the politically correct liberal establishment treats people who dare to express independent views. Wikipedia is a much better reflection of society as a whole, though still controlled by PC orthodoxy to some extent. Wimstead 13:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - I'm not sure to what, but there has to be a clearer name. I have no problem with a category that covers articles on campaigns to ameliorate poverty, or anti-poverty efforts, or whatever exactly we want this to be. Metamagician3000 04:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Much too vague. I don't like "anti-poverty" either, which casts a warm glow over efforts which may or may not genuinely be motivated by concern about poverty and may or may not actually reduce poverty (on the whole the "anti-poverty" movement probably increases poverty by opposing free global trade). Wimstead 13:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename to Category:Anti-poverty campaigns. The category system should provide some means of grouping articles relating to campaigns and other efforts to alleviate poverty and promote what its propononents call social justice. Whether one regards this as a form of godliness or, (per Wimstead) as part of some liberal delusion, is an irrelevant POV issue. The question for CFD is whether there can be a useful category to group together articles on this subject, and what it shoud be called.
  As far as I can see, there are articles such as International Day for the Eradication of Poverty and Make Poverty History which ought to be categorised together.
  However, I think that the category as presently structured tries to do too many things, and that renaming it to Category:Anti-poverty campaigns will keep it more tightly focused on campaigning; a parrallel category, called perhaps Category:Poverty alleviation could look at practical efforts such as as food banks, and (per Wimstead) other forms of poverty relief. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to Category:Poverty. "Social justice" adds nothing but an assumption that all poverty is unjust. Craig.Scott 23:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, even if some people here believe that poverty and hunger are perfectly just, this is still a big issue, with a lot written about it, under this title. We don't change things because we 'know' that "socialist redistributive policies and liberal permissive ethics" would be a better name than the one everyone else uses. That would be OR. We just use the names things are given. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 20:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Social justice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This is an all-inclusive category that seems to include everyone and everything that is somehow connected to social issues. The category contains a few lines of text that say, "This category includes disparate topics which pertain in one way or another to matters of the human condition by creating a social structure which is allegedly more democratic, just, and considerate of individuals from all social stations." This description is not only vague and all-inclusive, but it also pushed a point-of-view with weasel words. Looking at the contents of the category, it includes things such as articles on democratic rights movements, equal opportunity movements, labor rights movements, anti-occupation movements (such as for Northern Ireland and Palestine), prisoners' rights movements, and a few odds and ends (such as libertarianism and the Roman Catholic Church). It also contains articles on people associated with any of these things and probably other things that I have not identified yet. I find it particularly funny that both Category:Pro-choice movement and Category:Pro-life movement are both in this category. Anyhow, given the overwhelming breadth of this category, its vague title, and its POV interpretation, it seems like it would be better to categorize things under more specific categories (such as "labor rights movements" or "pro-democracy activists") rather than in this one broad category. Hence, this category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 22:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep- It is harder to know what it means in this context. futurebird 00:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, especially the comment about pushing a point of view with weasel words. Annandale 01:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - meaning too vague and contestable. Metamagician3000 04:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV category. Wikipedia should not have an opinion on what constitutes "social justice" of on the underlying motivations of political campaigns. Wimstead 13:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The concept of social justice is one with a lot of different meanings, but they all amount to applying the notion of justice to groups of people rather than to individuals, so I have no problem with this category including both sides of the abortion debate. However, the wishy-washy category text should be replaced with something much more rigorous. That would probably lead --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
• Delete per nom. Any policy or belief that is intended to amend society in any way that anyone thinks is right is concerned with social justice - and that doesn't rule many things out. Craig.Scott
• Weak keep - not very useful as a bottom cat, but if articles can be rapidly diffused into subcats, it remains useful as a higher level organizing category. --Blainster 19:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NBA All-Star Game Venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This seems similar to categorizing performers by performance. The NBA All-Star Game can potentially be played in any high-capacity basketball arena, and the location changes from year to year. Conserquently, many facilities have hosted the game. Therefore, this category indicates little more about the facility other than that it is a large basketball arena. However, the category does contribute to category clutter, as seen at Madison Square Garden. The category's contents are already documented at NBA All-Star Game, which is probably better for navigation anyway. Given these reasons, I suggest deleting this category. Dr. Submillimeter 20:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or at least rename to Category:NBA All-Star Game venues. I think this kind of information works better as a list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep Tim! 19:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Double-named places to Category:Reduplicative placenames

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, since "double-named" is insufficiently precise (double could just as well mean competing, successive, amalgamated or bilingual names) and is used elsewhere in Wikipedia to signify names assembled from two names. The resulting hierarchy would then be:

Category:Reduplicants

Category:Reduplicative personal names

Category:Reduplicative placenames

Category:Double-named places in Australia

The Australian subsection is in my opinion overkill and should be upmerged. No separate category of "Reduplicative English words" is required, since these are adequately listed in the Reduplication article. Tacitus 20:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Double-named places in Australia into Category:Reduplicative placenames

Nominator's Rationale: The higher-level category currently has 19 items and the Australian sub-category currently exceeds it with 22 items. After the merger it will be plain which items are Australian, because they will have state names after them. Tacitus 20:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is categorization by name, a form of overcategorization. The articles themselves are about cities scattered all over the Earth (in at least Europe, Africa, and Pacific Island nations) that have little to do with each other except for their names. The categories should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 20:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got there before I could finish editing! ;-) Geographically they might have nothing in common, but this is a toponym category of interest to linguistics.Tacitus 20:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this is really of interest in linguistics, then write an article on it. Categories should be used to bring together articles with similarities. These articles are not about related places. Dr. Submillimeter 21:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As the creator of the category, naturally I think it should exist (but, of course, I'm biased). Frankly, if a category for fictional penguins is considered valid enough for Wikipedia, I don't see why this isn't. I found the idea to be of linguistic interest, but I am not well versed in that subject, so I would not presume to write an article on it. *shrug*. Keep it, or delete it. I've duplicated most of the info on my own web page and so would not consider it a loss to be removed.

Swestrup 21:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep do not rename - the new name is linguistically clumsy. There is nothing to say that the category has to link like topics geographically - to link like topics linguistically is perfectly legitimate. Do not merge with Australian - there are adequate numbers of Australian articles at present to justify separate category. There may well be more articles to add to that category - some yet to be written since our coverage of Australian places is not 100% --Golden Wattle ^talk 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Golden Wattle . The new name is indeed clumsy and the current one is clear. The Australian category is usefull. --Bduke 05:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I agree it is an interesting category; must admit 'reduplicative' is a meaningless word to me, whereas double-named is descriptive, so would favour the latter; I like the Australian category - it is interesting and should be kept ROxBo 00:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Golden Wattle. It's nice to see some sensible debate on renaming categories and good to see people are in favour of keeping something that isn't linguistically clumsy and hard to think of. JROBBO 00:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, useful category. I don't think the new suggested name is any better than the existing, but I'm open to better ideas for renaming. Double-named places just doesn't sound right to me. -- Longhair\^talk 10:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep Tim! 19:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Double-named places in Australia to Category:Double-named places

• Merge. Please discuss above. Tacitus 21:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - This is categorization by name, a form of overcategorization. The articles themselves are about cities from multiple parts of Australia that probably have little to do with each other except for their names. Grouping them together is inappropriate. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 20:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - overcategorisation. Metamagician3000 04:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as trivia/overcategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Amusing quirky category. These are mostly small places with few other categories. Craig.Scott 23:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Categorisation by name is inappropriate. --Xdamr^talk 14:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is appropriate when it serves linguistics purposes.SauliH 15:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep linguistic phenomenon of indigenous Australian languages. Topics related to indigenousAustrlaian languiages are currently underrepresented. This categorisation may be useful to someone who seeks to write on that topic. --Golden Wattle ^talk 23:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Golden Wattle . Indigenous Australian languages are important and this cat will help people to study. --Bduke 05:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Golden Wattle . Reasonably populated and links various places with name of similar meaning. My understanding is that in Indigenous Australian languages, duplication is used as an intensifier.--Mattinbgn/ ^talk 11:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this categorisation is a very useful tool for finding places in Australia that detail direct language and mutually respectful relationships between European Settlers and the Indigenous Australian populations. Towns so named are related to each other by the relationship of either a single Indigenous peoples eg: Wiradjuri or by trading (and thus language) relationships between two or more of those peoples. Maintaining this categorisation will hopefully prompt the development of specific articles or sub-parts of other articles that reflect that relationship. --VS ^talk 21:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - concur with Golden Wattle . This is a very useful category for indigenous Australian language. SauliH 23:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Golden Wattle. JROBBO 00:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Golden Wattle. It's a useful category, although I initially created it, I agree the current naming is somewhat irky and I was following category naming norms at the time. -- Longhair\^talk 10:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vanished (TV series) characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Category contained about a dozen stubs for characters from the show, which was cancelled before all of its episodes aired. I merged and redirected all the character pages per WP:FICT and the category is now empty. Otto4711 20:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete useless cat for a cancelled show. Good work Otto. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 18:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge into Category:American people

Category:Categories of American people to Category:American people

• Merge, This looks like some sort of clean up effort. While Category:American people needs to be tidied up some, this is basically a duplicate of its parent, and therefore it only adds to the confusion. The fact that there should be no articles in this category is something it shares with its parent, so there is really no difference in function at all. Greg Grahame 19:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Annandale 01:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Russian Internet to Category:Internet and Russia

Propose renaming Category:Internet in New Zealand to Category:Internet and New Zealand

Propose renaming Category:Internet in the People's Republic of China to Category:Internet and the People's Republic of China

Nominator's Rationale: Eight of the eleven subcategories of Category:Internet by country use "and", which seems appropriate given the loose relationship between the internet and national boundaries. Haddiscoe 19:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for consistency. mattbr³⁰ 11:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wimstead 13:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Indian comedy and humour. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Comedy and humor in India to Category:Indian comedy and humour

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to the usual word order and Commonwealth spelling. Haddiscoe 18:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for consistency. mattbr³⁰ 11:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wimstead 13:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. This was part of the CFD discussion to remove Actors by series categories. The result of that debate was to delete after listifying. Since there is a list, this category can be deleted without another discussion. It seems pointless to have to post this a second time once the lists are created. All of these categories are in the process of being tagged with ((listify)). As long as the listify template was correctly added to the category page as a result of a CFD discussion, and the replacement list exists, is there any need to repeat the debate? We don't have guidelines for this, so I'm being bold and sticking my neck out to say that there is no need to clutter up CFD with categories that we have already made decisions about. -- Samuel Wantman 20:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Single member category. A list containing the information within this category(!) already exists within the article.

Xdamr^talk 17:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. An annotatable list is superior here. Otto4711 18:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 19:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Lists of military professionals into Category:Lists of military personnel

Category:Lists of military professionals to Category:Lists of military personnel

• Merge, redundant categories; there's no useful distinction between military "personnel" and military "professionals", and no need for two categories full of lists. Kirill Lokshin 17:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Haddiscoe 19:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --Xdamr^talk 14:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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 per Psycho category above. -- Samuel Wantman 20:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vanished (TV series) cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - per this Actors by series CFD cast categories may be deleted if a suitable cast list exists. Vanished contains an extensive cast list which is sufficient. Otto4711 16:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 19:13, 17 February 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 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 per Psycho category above. -- Samuel Wantman 20:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Queer as Folk cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per CFD for Actors by series, "cast" categories may be deleted if a suitable cast list exists. The articles for both the UK and the US version of this show have extensive cast lists which satisfy this condition. Delete as nominator and as category creator. Otto4711 16:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 19:14, 17 February 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 as recreation violet/riga (t) 17:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Simpsons guest cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sorry but is it really of that much interest that a person has happened to contribute a few words to The Simpsons? Talk about the overloading of categories! Before the debate starts in the other direction they shouldn't appear as a cast member either. Delete it. violet/riga (t) 15:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep! and see these *[1], or this [2], or this [3], or this [4], or this [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] So we have these that are overun by guest cast, but not one for guest cast? Lugnuts 15:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and was there any need for your edit to say CfD this crap? The correct answer is no, by the way. Lugnuts 15:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, recreation of deleted content, see discussions of October 21st and December 25th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per this CFD for Actors by series, a cast category may be deleted if a suitable cast list exists. List of guest stars on The Simpsons covers this territory better than a category could. The existence of the several other cast categories that Lugnits linked is not relevant, as they too may be deleted in favor of a suitable cast list. Otto4711 16:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And on preview I see ProveIt's note on speedy deleteion, so upgrade my !vote to speedy delete. Otto4711 16:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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: delete (depopulated already).--Mike Selinker 11:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've depopulated this category as almost all characters in it were already in Category:Dragon Ball characters. One of the main problems I have with it is how to define supporting character, as it's subjective. Beowulph 13:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Labeling characters as "supporting" requires subjective judgments by editors. Moreover, in Dragonball, the characters vary in importance from series to series anyway, so this label is not useful. Therefore, the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 14:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - unneeded category since Category:Dragon Ball characters takes a precedence. Power level (Dragon Ball) 17:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge if any characters don't yet appear in the characters category, otherwise delete. Otto4711 17:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -All of the characters in that list are more important than a "supporting" character almost all of then are really important in a certain point in the series. -Dark Dragon Flame 17:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -For reasons mentioned above. Takuthehedgehog 18:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As mentioned before, the line between starring characters, and supportive ones is faint, and could include almost anyone as many character start out in prominent roles and slowly fall by the way side (this is a 500 episode series) -- DesireCampbell 20:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per above. Doczilla 06:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesn't seem necessary--SUIT^-n-tie 04:36, 21 February 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 speedy deleted by Woohookitty. Vegaswikian 23:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:List of fictional characters who can resurrect themselves to Category:Fictional characters with the power to resurrect themselves

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, "List of" is not necessary. Also I fear this has been CFD'd before, so count my nomination as Rename/Delete, although I'll add it may be useful to subcategorise the hefty immortals category. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Beowulph 13:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Yes, that's it! Power level (Dragon Ball) 17:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename As said before List of is unessesary. -Dark Dragon Flame 17:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - This is the recreation of deleted content; see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 10. (This was also discussed more recently, but I will need to search to find the page.) Dr. Submillimeter 21:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• cf Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 24#Fictional characters with the power to ressurect themselves which was speedy deleted 3 days prior to this cats creation. Oh... Speedy Delete as recreation. — J Greb 04:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I'd also suggest Salt for this cat, the previous two, and the proposed rename. — J Greb 04:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete and salt recreation. Doczilla 06:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus Tim! 19:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:The Beatles songs, somehow this strikes me as overcategorization. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom plus apostrophe. David Kernow (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is actually a notable attribute of these songs. It is actually quite common to differentiate Beatles songs according to which member wrote or sung them. --Mais oui! 10:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Even the Beatles don't have so many song articles that this level of categorization is necessary.--Mike Selinker 11:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - a list of songs on which Harrison sang lead sounds like a good topic for a List article. Otto4711 17:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This would be useful to a young newbie Harrison fan who wanted to know exactly which songs George sang on.Kinston eagle 03:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think this is covered by Category:Former monarchies of Africa or Category:Ancient Empires of Africa. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the category itself may be useful, since a civilization is not equivalent to a monarchy or empire (ie. Western Civilization is not characterized by a single language, people, country or former empire). Although it needs to be renamed Category:African civilizations. 70.55.87.154 02:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Deakin University alumni. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Deakin University alumni, convention of Category:Alumni by university in Australia. -- Prove It ^(talk) 05:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Metamagician3000 05:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go man...go Jaker5 12:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete; WP:CSD G4 applies (G5 does not, Creepy Crawler is blocked rather than banned). Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Daytime actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete category that is unnecessary and redundant to other categories. Category name makes no sense either. Outside the people who habitually refer to soap operas as "daytime," this could mean people who do afternoon shows on Broadway. Should qualify for speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted categories. Category was created by User:LedgerJoker, suspected sockpuppet of User:EJBanks who had been a sockpuppet of banned user User:Creepy Crawler. Wryspy 02:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as duplicate of Category:Soap opera actors -- Prove It ^(talk) 05:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: redundant, repetitive, and saying the same thing over and over again. Plus, and in addition, it's redundant. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based upon redundancy noted above Bbagot 07:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant and repetitive, in addition to the comments above plus what everyone else said. Otto4711 17:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. -- Samuel Wantman 20:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but it is only a duplicate of Category:Soap opera actors from an American perspective. Wimstead 13:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, delete per Wimstead TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Merge came a close second, but ProveIt and Bbagot's arguments convinced me, and there's only one article. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant, and obviously in the same scope as Category:Computer-animated films. Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 00:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 02:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Uncontroversial. Pascal.Tesson 05:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Computer-animated films. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do not merge. Judging from its only member, it's actually for live action movies which contain lots of CGI special effects. However that's not a defining characteristic. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete don't most films today use some CGI? At least that's true for action, horror, and scifi. It seems this is a redundant category Bbagot 07:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]