< February 18	February 20 >

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 duplicate nomination. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeromus

This category is already nominated for deletion here. Otto4711 23:15, 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 delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - See the debate on Category:Retronyms below. This almost serves a better purpose. However, it only contains two disambiguation pages, analog and acoustic. This type of categorization for disambiguation pages is not useful. This category should also be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 22:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 14:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Craig.Scott 12:49, 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) 15:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is categorization by name, a form of overcategorization. Retronyms are things that were named after they were created or events that were named after they took place. This category gathers together articles with titles that are retronyms, including World War I, analog watch, and hot chocolate. These subjects clearly are not related except through their names, so gathering them together in a category serves no purpose. Dr. Submillimeter 22:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Craig.Scott 23:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utterly trivial characteristic. --Xdamr^talk 14:56, 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 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) 15:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First, this is a strange way to categorize linguists (people who study language). It almost seems that linguists would instead study languages according to the branch that they fall in (e.g. the Indo-European languages or the Semitic languages). Second, the specific articles in this category do not mention anything specific about these people studying linguistics. Linguistics is the study of language itself; these people may have worked on the translation or interpretation of the Bible, but that is not the same as studying the languages themselves (e.g. studying the Greek or Aramaic language). This category is misapplied and should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 21:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom; per Dr. S, this is a seriously ill-conceived category, confusing the concepts of "linguist" and "translator". It also makes the mistake of assuming that those who translate Greek and Roman can be usefully conflated with those who translate Hebrew and Aramaic; these are very different language groups, and many people study the bible by using either the "classical" langages or the semitic ones, but not neccessarily both - e.g. the article on I. Howard Marshall states that he works with Greek, but there is nothing there about other languages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 14:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is difficult to see who would fit correctly in this clumsily-worded category. -- roundhouse 15:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Dr. S has it right: Biblical languages include Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, etc. The persons (so far) included in this cat all are or were scholars of these Biblical languages, whether one language (e.g. New Testament Greek), or multiple Biblical languages (perhaps Greek and Hebrew and Latin, etc.). Of course, if you have a better, more defining name, we might wish to rename. But to categorize scholars of Biblical languages is a helpful, useful category of scholars and academics. Thanks. Pastorwayne 19:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not simply categorise then under Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, etc then? 'Biblical languages' is simply too ill-defined. If they are Biblical scholars then they can also be categorised Category:Biblical scholars.

Xdamr^talk 19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer It seems that because of the uniqueness of Biblical linguistics, one must be a scholar in several languages, rather than just one. For example, Hebrew and Aramaic are both a must for Old Testament linguistics. Greek and Latin seem to go together for New Testament. However, Hebrew and Greek seem to go together, too. Thanks. Pastorwayne 20:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Pastorwayne does not appear to understand the difference between linguist (someone who studies languages) and translator (someone who translates from one language to another). I am deleting the incorrect category description. Dr. Submillimeter 10:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - I understand the difference well. These scholars are not primarily translators. These are persons who study these ancient Biblical languages toward the end of ellucidating the Biblical text. Not every Biblical scholar does this. Some specialize in other forms of "Biblical criticism" such as redaction criticism, textual criticism, historical criticism, etc. You, Dr. S., undoubtedly understand the intracacies of astronomers and their sub-specialties. I know something about THESE scholars, using their work on a regular basis in my field of expertise. The category description was correct. Thanks. Pastorwayne 12:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction PW, Dr S is right: whatever your other use of this work, you have misunderstood the terminology here, and I note the complete absence in any of your replies to any external references which would justify the use of the term "liguist" here. "Linguistic criciticism", as defined in Linguistic Criticism, is not a discipline of linguistics: it is a term used within biblical scholarship to describe a process which is secular contexts would probably be called either a type of 'literary criticism", or textual analysis, otherwise known as "Content analysis". It is not, of course, a straightforwrd matter of translation, but the tools it uses are derived from translation rather than from linguistics. I have reverted your restoration of the inaccurate description removed by Dr S.
I am also disappointed to see that despite this CFD, you are adding the category to articles where it clearly does not belong, such as Edwin Edgar Voigt: the work described in the article positions him as a translator, not a linguist. I have removed that one, because EEV doesn't fit the category even within your own rather strange definition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I invite/encourage persons who are involved in this discussion to see the cat for new and clearer inclusion language. Thanks. Pastorwayne 20:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can one be in Category:Biblical scholars and not be a scholar in one or more Biblical languages? What does this 'helpful, useful' new category provide that Category:Biblical scholars lacks? -- roundhouse 02:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too clumsy. Split it up by language. Kolindigo 07:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BrownHairedGirl. Craig.Scott 12:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admission of Error I may be wrong. I may misunderstand the work a linguist does. Please accept my sincere appology for any disruption this misunderstanding has caused. Pastorwayne 19:39, 23 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! 19:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The parent category strikes me as problematic and I'm not sure what to do about it. It seeks to capture three sorts of game show contestants: those who become notable for doing well; those who become notable in connection with a game show scandal; and those who are notable for reasons unrelated to appearing on a game show. It's the third criterion that bohers me. By definition those people who are otherwise notable are not going to be notable for their game show appearances, and indeed many of the included celebrities are so categorized for such things as being on I've Got a Secret (the category for which contestants I've put up for deletion). Which makes them essentially guest star appearances, which we don't categorize by. This opens the door to categorizing every "mystery guest" from What's My Line as a "game show contestant." But I'm not sure how to go about fixing the category or if it can be fixed or if it should just be deleted. The two sub-cats suffer the same problems of categorizing many of its members by trivial characteristic. If kept, however, they sould be renamed to "Contestants on ..." to correct the grammar. Otto4711 19:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The third criterion bothers me as well. There are people who are notable because they appeared on a game shows, and these are the only people that should be included. I think the category can be fixed by just limiting inclusion to those people. -- Samuel Wantman 01:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By that argument, you would be proposing the deletion of Category:American people, as its members, if notable at all, are notable for some reason other than being an American person. Hesperian 01:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, because that would be absurd. Otto4711 02:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American citizenship is a defining quality. A game you've played isn't likely to be. Many thousands of people have been game show contestants. I've been a game show contestant. It's not one my defining features, I should hope. Vanna White was a contestant on The Price Is Right long before she worked on Wheel of Fortune. So what? Is that how anybody on the face of the planet defines her? Delete excessively broad category. Doczilla 03:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the third criterion is problematic. But there are people for which being a game show contestant is a defining characteristic. I could support keeping the cat with limitation to the other two criteria and enforcement. But how about categories like Category:Game show top prize winners and Category:Game show scandals (feel free to reword)? Tinlinkin 03:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Better. Still problematic, though. How do we define "top prize"? A scandal category would be useful if carefully verified by external sources as situations widely considered to have been scandals. Doczilla 05:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Top prize" does seem arbitrary. "Game show winners" would be sufficient. Tinlinkin 08:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a reasonable criteria here would be to require that the biographical Wikipedia article include a significant notable verifiable mention of the game show. That would help ensure that the contestent's apparence(s) on the show is, in fact, notable and probably worth list or category inclusions. If a celebrity's article makes no significant mention of a game show, then that game show shouldn't be used for categorization. This criteria would hopefully weed out the one-time non-notable guest appearances celebrities make on these game shows. Dugwiki 18:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about this some more, I'm leaning weakly toward keep for the categories with the category description being explicitly limited to contestants who are notable for appearing on a game show. That effectively eliminates the Vannas and the Kirstie Alleys. The country-specific ones do need to be renamed grammatically. Otto4711 16:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was not aware there was a grammatical problem when I proposed the country-specific names. I guess I was thinking about a person being "in" a program (e.g. "Will Smith starred in The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air."). But it is more common to use "on" with game shows (e.g. "Cindy was a contestant on The Price is Right."). If the closing admin agrees there is a grammatical error, I would not oppose the change. Tinlinkin 08:26, 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the category currently houses two actors from the film, making it a de facto actors by film category. Otto4711 17:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Xiner (talk, email) 14:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 15:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both articles in this category already appear in the cast/crew list in the main article. Category isn't needed. Dugwiki 18:49, 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 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:University of Bonn alumni. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:University of Bonn alumni, convention of Category:Alumni by university in Germany. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 14:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom – although it could hardly be said that a convention exists in Category:Alumni by university in Germany: there are only two subcats in there! Rename to match conventions elsewhere, though. — mholland 15:04, 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 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 all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Merge all of the following into the two parent categories[reply]

Merge Category:Canadian immigrants to Brazil and Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States into Category:Canadian emigrants

Merge all the subcats (can someone please help me list them all?) of Category:Canadian expatriates, including Category:Canadian expatriates in Brazil, into Category:Canadian expatriates.

Merge as nominator. Most of these cats have only one person anyway. And Michael J. Fox right now is in "Canadian immigrants to the U.S." and "Canadian Americans" categories, when it'd make better sense to list "Canadian emigrants" and "Canadian Americans" on his page to denote where he is from, and where he is now. In WP:UCFD, we have pretty much agreed that there should be two types of usercats: "Wikipedians from xxx" and "Wikipedians in xxx". If we allow intersections between these two, we'd have an exponentially large number of categories. Xiner (talk, email) 17:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Someone will probably try to recreate Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States if it is deleted. Also note the more complicated structure at Category:Immigrants to the United States. Dr. Submillimeter 21:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't realize the hornet's nest that I waded into, it's true. I didn't know there's also Category:People of Canadian descent, which also includes Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States. Life would be so much simpler if we only have Category:People from Canada. Xiner (talk, email) 21:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Category:People from Canada redirects to Category:Canadian people, which has a maintenance warning about overpopulation and specifically requests that articles be organised by subcat.--Vbd | (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Like things on the detailed side. These cat pages will fill up over time. Mayumashu 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose All deletes. Confusing emigrants/immigrants with expatriates is wrong. Read the definitions of terms. Hmains 03:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mayumashu, Hmains. Kevlar67 05:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as presented, but open to restructuring these categories per overcategorization discussions here and here. Also agree with Dr. Submillimeter that this Merge does not take into account the other dozen or so "Foo-ian immigrants to the United States" categories.--Vbd | (talk) 00:19, 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 rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Humboldt University of Berlin faculty, to match Humboldt University of Berlin. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:39, 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 listify and delete. the wub "?!" 22:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - similar to the recently CFDed actor by series categories. The same rationale for deletion applies, in that crew members (which on Wikipedia seems to mean mostly producers, writers and directors) are likely to work on a number of projects in the course of their careers. Categories for producers, writers and directors by series also appear to be on the way out. Unsure about the utility of listifying since these "crew" categories include people from multiple disciplines. Otto4711 16:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Crewpeople work on multiple projects over the course of their careers. Using categories to list all of their projects is infeasible, as the category links would soon become too lengthy to read easily or use for navigation. The information can be listed both in the individuals' articles and in the articles on the shows. The categories themselves should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 19:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Outmerge and listify where needed and Delete I've got a feeling that 1) some of these need the member subjects properly listified in the show articles, and 2) some of the member articles will need to be moved to the appropriate "Profession" cats (ie "Television writers", "Television directors", "Television producers", "Gaffers", "Folly workers", etc) — J Greb 22:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Sortmerge. lol, this one is gonna even be harder to work away, because it needs verification of proper profession categories, and sorting if not present. CfD's backlog is gonna get bigger and bigger this way :D TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as a variant of actors-by-series. --Xdamr^talk 15:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per previous cfds for actors-by-series and crew-by-series. Dugwiki 18:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LukeHoC 23:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unlike the actors-by-series categories, the interdisciplinary nature of other aspects of production make these categories especially usefull. They can be used to check on who has worked with whom, among other things. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that the category system isn't really designed to be a full functioning cross-indexing database. I agree that it might be interesting or useful for some readers to be able to look up what projects two specific directors might have collectively worked on, but that goes beyond the functional intent of the categories in Wikipedia. You can, though, do that sort of cross-index searching at www.imdb.com . Dugwiki 22:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BlueSquadron -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 00:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete. Categorizing creative people by their productions and creations is an incestuous use of the categorization system. The article about the show or a list should already have the links found in these categories, if not, the list can be added. The articles about the person should also have links to these shows. Categorizing like this just adds clutter without adding utility. Lists can add information that categories cannot. I see little advantage to having a category, and a large downside. -- Samuel Wantman 08:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Since it appears that the Directors, writers and producers categories will be deleted, at least one category for crew is needed for organization. Especially with The Simpsons, where there are about 100 writers, directors and producers who have pages almost solely because of their show involvement. -- Scorpion 17:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete. Per previous discussions. Vegaswikian 03:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Tim!/Ceci n'est pas une pipe. Tim! 19:40, 1 March 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 Tim! 19:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as empty, or at least Rename to Category:African hip hop. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say delete it but allow it to be re-created if there are some subjects (other than African hip hop) that are created that fit into it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Urthogie (talk • contribs) 2007 February 19 17:05 UTC.

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) 15:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Not a useful category. Categories exist for the award winners we don't need an additional category for the people who appear to receive their award or to watch. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as performer by performance. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ProveIt. Coemgenus 13:53, 22 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) 16:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per previous actor/cast categories CFD. Cast list exists in Fashion House article. Otto4711 16:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per previous discussions, since the list already exists as part of the show's article, Delete. — J Greb 22:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hasn't been tagged with ((listify)), so it probably can't be speedied. Nevertheless, given that the list already exists, per previous discussions the category should be deleted.

Xdamr^talk 15:03, 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 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:Humboldt University of Berlin alumni. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Humboldt University of Berlin alumni to match Humboldt University of Berlin. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom absolutely, otherwise too much confusion. Good thinking!!SupportAmfar 03:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Kolindigo 07:48, 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 relist Tim! 19:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African American hip hop groups to Category:American hip hop groups

Merge, because 99.99999% of notable American hip-hop groups are African-American. Utterly pointless category. Urthogie 14:49, 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 moved to speedy renaming. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hindu Worship to Category:Hindu worship

Nominator's Rationale: There is no discernible reason for the worship to be capitalized. Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to speedy. David Kernow (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved to speedy rename -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:42, 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 delete/listify Tim! 19:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a rather, shall we say, useless category. Rather non-intuitive, and in my opinion, non-encyclopedic. Cheers, Afluent Rider 13:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as quite silly. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See Wikipedia:Overcategorization. This seems to be categorization by a non-defining or trivial aspect. It certainly does not bring together articles on related characters (both Judge Dredd and Kenny from South Park are in here), and it does not seem to be entirely valid, as some characters do show their faces at some point (see Kenny from South Park). Dr. Submillimeter 14:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcategorization. Should any apply, we do have Category:Fictional fictional characters. Otto4711 14:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment most of these characters are very minor, such as the parents in Cow and Chicken or the obscured head in Teen Angel, who even described himself on occasion as a Wilson parody. If anything, they could all be listed in some article page since they are a notable television trope.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Wilson article if appropriate. Delete otherwise. Xiner (talk, email) 14:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify I'm a little doubtful of this as a category, but I might support it as a list article. I think one could reasonably argue that the intentional hiding of a character's face in a television series is a notable, unusual feature which directly affects plots and dialog involving them. And I could also see how having their faces constantly hidden also does give these characters something non-trivial in common. Dugwiki 18:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second comment TVTropes.org has a page for this which is alright. Our options are to create a Wikipedia-standard list/article or to not and simply link to TVTropes where (and if) this is appropriate.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if this isn't already covered by the exhaustive List of unseen characters. –Unint 18:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good observation. This article appears to be a sublist of List of unseen characters#Heard but never completely seen. So probably we should simply merge this article into that one (in fact, I bet most of the entries probably already appear on both lists.) Dugwiki 22:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sounds too redundant and seems useless to warrant its own category. How do we even know that a unmasked character's face has never truly been seen by the ones that created the character? They probably must've seen/created the characters actual face at one point and decided to cover it, so it doesn't make any sense that such a category should exist. Power level (Dragon Ball) 06:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Revragnarok. Quite silly indeed. Coemgenus 13:55, 22 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. the wub "?!" 22:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Australian Aboriginal culture with Category:Indigenous Australian culture We need to merge these two categories as, although they have a technically different meaning, some authors use one and some use the other quite indiscriminately, meaning that articles in this subject area may be found in either of these two categories. I raised this issue on Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board a few days ago and nobody has objected to the merge. The name (i.e. the broader and more inclusive one) for the merged category should be Category:Indigenous Australian culture Rayd8 | User talk:Rayd8 08:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any harm in either merging the categories or keeping them separate. Having to refine editors' choice of category is not unusual, and not a reason for a merge. When we discussed the category structure in Oct 2005, I said it seemed reasonable to have separate categories, but it really just depends on whether there are enough articles to make it worth it. JPD (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I lean towards keeping them separate - Category:Australian Aboriginal culture is one of several subcategories of Category:Indigenous Australian culture. If these two are merged, so should the matching Category:Torres Strait Island culture. All of these categories appear to contain articles or even categories that don't belong, but on the whole, the distinction is useful. There are a number of articles in Category:Australian Aboriginal culture that apply to all or most Aboriginal groups, but not to TSI. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you are technically correct, but in practice people confuse and mis-use the terms and so having two separate categories causes many problems - I think most of the articles are actually in the wrong category. Pragmatically, it means that users won't find the article they're looking for, unless we merge these categories. RayNorris 02:10, 1 March 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:Science fiction horror films. No consensus to delete, and Pegship's renaming proposal matches the parent category Category:Science fiction films. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sci-fi Horror films to Category:Sci-fi horror films

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, capitalization. Quuxplusone 07:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename Otto4711 18:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcategorization. If a film is both science fiction and horror (e.g., Alien), it can be categorized as both. This third combo category is unnecessary. Doczilla 21:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do have Category:Comedy-drama films (which isn't quite the same thing, but similar), so categories for capturing blended-genre films aren't unheard of. I'm not going to rend my garments should the category be deleted but there is some small precedent. Otto4711 23:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Comedy-drama (dramedy) is not a subset. A drama also indicates a performance with character development and has a much more ancient origin. In the earlier years, much of the comedy, was situation comedy. As of recent we have comedy-drama, which is a clear distinct form of comedy that is more 4 dimensional then situation-comedy. That's a bit more of a television-genre approach, i'm not really sure if it applies to films as well, but it's something to consider. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Category:Science fiction horror films (spelled out per naming conv). Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:34, 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 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:The Carpenters. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Carpenters Television Specials to Category:The Carpenters television specials or Category:The Carpenters

We need to either fix the capitalization or merge the whole cat to its (brand new) parent. The Carpenters apparently recorded 5 one-off specials [1], but we currently only have an article about one of them. The cat's other member is a weekly program that really doesn't fall within the cat's scope. ×Meegs 07:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:The Carpenters. I say this primarily because, as noted, one member of this category doesn't technically belong and, as far as Wikipedia coverage, each special probably doesn't merit an individual article anyway - they could probably be merged to one article on Carpenters television specials if they were created. As it is, only one stub for one special exists anyway. GassyGuy 18:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:The Carpenters, per GassyGuy. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:58, 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 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! 19:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of unsolved problems to Category:Unsolved problems

Merge, They appear to have the same content and meaning RyanTMulligan 06:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list category is for articles that are lists. The main category is for articles on specific unsolved problems. Dr. Submillimeter 09:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganize, It appears that people are mistakenly categorizing things as Unsolved Problems when they are really lists of unsolved problems then. RyanTMulligan 17:09, 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 keep. the wub "?!" 22:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Funding bodies of Australia to Category:Research funding bodies of Australia

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, ambiguity again.Peta 05:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the ambiguity was intentional as I was going to populate it with funding bodies of all sorts. I dont mind if it is prefixed with "Research", but then that leaves a gaping hole for a Category:Funding bodies of Australia by objective, which would have subcats for research, arts, sports, student scholarships, research, etc. John Vandenberg 05:31, 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 keep. the wub "?!" 22:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Funding bodies to Category:Research funding bodies

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to clear up any ambiguity about what these bodies are funding. Should make a private/public split easier too when/if it becomes necessary. Peta 05:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one I dont agree with; there should be a category tree starting at Category:Funding bodies which contains all funding bodies broken down by country and a host of other ways of slicing and dicing. I intend to concentrate on the Australian side of the tree which I have already created a subcat for, and I will create other subcats as I see the best way forward. John Vandenberg 05:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per John Vandenberg. Category:Research funding bodies would be fine as a subcategory. LukeHoC 23:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename - more than one of the articles so categorised at present is a funding body and not for research purposes - ie

Nature Heritage Fund has been set up for the purchase of land in New Zealand which has significant ecological or landscape features.
Oxford University Dramatic Society funds drama.

No problem with a sub cat for research.--Golden Wattle ^talk 22:09, 22 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Created in March 2006 to implement a proposed criterion for speedy deletion that was rejected. Hesperian 03:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems that the proposal was rejected because consensus was to blank these pages instead. However, so far the blanking hasn't happened. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/QxzBot is a proposal to start up this sort of blanking again, and I don't think this category should be deleted until either there's consensus not to blank these pages, or the blanking is implemented (either by QxzBot or some other way). --ais523 13:01, 23 February 2007 (U T C)

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 reorganise and delete. Mike Selinker and Meegs appear to have reached agreement, so I will ping Meegs per his nomination. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category holding albums released by any of the members of the band The Cars. The convention of Category:Albums by artist is to have a category for each artist (we already have Category:Ric Ocasek albums), and I can not find any other categories of this kind. The cat might be slightly useful, but I do not like the precedent. I think it is probably best to split its contents in four and delete. The four targets could be linked from the band's album cat, if needed. If there's consensus for the split, the closer can ping me and I'll do the work. ×Meegs 06:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split and delete per nom, consider making each of the new Album cats subcats of the Cars album cat. Otto4711 14:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to category:The Cars albums. That is, make category:Ric Ocasek albums a subcategory of category:The Cars albums.--Mike Selinker 19:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify? Where do you want the other members' solo albums? ×Meegs 10:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really disagree with the last part of both of your suggestions. "The Cars albums" is a well-deifned set, and an Ocasek album is not a Cars album, so it's not logically correct to put one anywhere within category:The Cars albums. That is why I suggest only a "see also"-type link between the cats, if anything. Another alternative that wouldn't bother as much is to put Ocasek albums inside Category:The Cars, whose membership is not well defined and pretty much can contain any topics relevant to the band. ×Meegs 10:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might not have been clear. Take a look at Category:The Rolling Stones albums. It also contains Category:Mick Jagger albums and others. So in this case, take Category:Ric Ocasek albums, make similar categories for Hawkes, Orr, and Easton, put them under Category:The Cars albums, and delete the solo albums category. That would be my suggestion, anyway.--Mike Selinker 16:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and I think the Rolling Stones cat is very wrong too, and I propose changing it. Incidentally, I just realized that I undid one of your edits of this type a few days ago [2]. I think, with the exception of encyclopedia-topic-grouping-cats that we must have, we should always try our hardest to treat categories as proper sets. Part of doing that is keeping in mind that set membership is transitive. While putting something like "Keith Richards albums" within "Rolling Stones albums" may only seem like a small inaccuracy, the effect can be compounded and lead to much larger problems when there are many levels of categorization below it. ×Meegs 20:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems well-thought through. OK, let's disentangle all of these.--Mike Selinker 21:32, 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 rename all: for Sammy Hagar that means merge both Category:Sammy Hagar solo albums and Category:Sammy Hagar and The Waboritas albums into Category:Sammy Hagar albums. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Jake E. Lee albums, convention of Category:Albums by artist. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good idea, but if we're doing this, here are a few more for the same treatment:

Category:Violent J solo albums to Category:Violent J albums
Category:David Coverdale solo albums to Category:David Coverdale albums
Category:Warren DeMartini solo albums to Category:Warren DeMartini albums
Category:Shaggy 2 Dope solo albums to Category:Shaggy 2 Dope albums
Category:Sammy Hagar solo albums to Category:Sammy Hagar albums.

The last is not quite as straightforward, as the target is currently only a container for Category:Sammy Hagar solo albums and Category:Sammy Hagar and The Waboritas albums. The proposed merger will populate the parent cat with albums released solely under the name "Sammy Hagar", per this convention, and leave the Waboritas cat as both a sibling (in Category:Albums by artist) and child. ×Meegs 05:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all, and merge "Waboritas" into category:Sammy Hagar albums. That level of specificity isn't needed, as category:Bruce Springsteen albums handles the E Street ones just fine.--Mike Selinker 06:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with merging Category:Sammy Hagar and The Waboritas albums too. I've attached it to this discussion. ×Meegs 06:16, 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Feudal Japan video games to Category:Video games set in Feudal Japan

Nominator's Rationale: Perhaps I'm reading this too literally, but there were no video games produced by or in Feudal Japan (e.g., compare to Category:Capcom games or Category:2006 video games). Rename to Category:Video games set in Fuedal Japan. Stratadrake 01:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 01:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Video games set in Feudal Japan to make it clear it's about games set then rather than created then. (Category proposed in nomination has a slight typo, by the way.) H. Carver 20:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I don't see the need for a more verbose category. See Category:Video games with historical settings for more categories with similar naming. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - The current version of the category name gives the impression that the games were developed during the Kamakura or Tokugawa Shogunates. The proposed name would make it clear that the description is for the games' setting and not the developers or the players. Dr. Submillimeter 11:19, 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 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lame category - are we documenting every TV show from the years 2000-2099? 2000-2999? The description makes no sense. If not deleted, renamed to Category:Television in the 2000s to follow style conventions. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 01:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This category was created by an editor with 9 days experience who also created 3 or 4 others that are also up for CfD. That's not a bad thing or a reason on its own, nor do I think so. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 01:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per style conventions. Show me a TV show that was produced in the year 2010, 2100, or 3000 and then we can discuss what the logical upper bounds on this category should be. :) --Stratadrake 01:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this has the ability to become an absolutely trivial category. And that wasn't my question. The description is Television shows that premiered in the 2000th Generation. and I am asking what does "the 2000s" mean - is it like "the 1990s" and there would be a "the 2010s"? — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 01:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this creation of User:LedgerJoker, probable sockpuppet of banned User:EJBanks/User:Creepy Crawler, per above. Category is excessively broad and will include everything TV-related for 100 years. Cannot be maintained. Doczilla 04:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Category:2000s covers just the decade — which I'd guess was this cat's intention — and has a few subcats for television series produced in the decade separated by country of origin (e.g. Category:2000s American television series). ×Meegs 13:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Doczilla's reasons. Power level (Dragon Ball) 06:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant as there is already a well-established 2000s American television series category and indeed one for every decade, and unless I missed something all the articles populating this category already fall under that one. 23skidoo 19:59, 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 merge, ((category redirect)). --RobertG ♬ talk 10:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Indian musical groups, as duplicate. -- Prove it ^(talk) 00:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom. Craig.Scott 12:51, 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.

February 19

Category:Final Fantasy antagonists

Category:Retronymous adjectives

Category:Retronyms

Category:Linguists of Biblical languages

Category:Game show contestants

Category:Doom production crew (Movie)

Category:Former students of the University of Bonn

Category:Canadian immigrants to Brazil

Category:University of Berlin faculty

Category:TV crew by series

Category:African Hip Hop

Category:Appeared at the Golden Raspberry Awards

Category:Fashion House cast and crew

Category:University of Berlin alumni

Category:African American hip hop groups

Category:Hindu Worship

Category:Characters whose faces are never fully seen

Category:Australian Aboriginal culture

Category:Sci-fi Horror films

Category:The Carpenters Television Specials

Category:Lists of unsolved problems

Category:Funding bodies of Australia

Category:Funding bodies

Category:IP talk pages for speedy deletion

Category:The Cars' solo albums

Category:Jake E. Lee solo albums

Category:Feudal Japan video games

Category:Television in the 2000's

Category:Indian bands