< February 2	February 4 >

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over broad; mixes two major subject areas that are usually kept separate; non-standard name format; barely populated (and that's the one welcome thing). Pinoakcourt 23:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't see any reason to link film and theatre together in this way. --Xdamr^talk 23:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please KEEP... if wikipedia is short on "space" i'd be in favor of deletion but the knowledge contained in a LIST is still knowledge...

to delete any knowledge is like destroying brain cells please consider

69.113.11.35 00:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)art[reply]

Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 16:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Category:Theatre in Asia and move the film articles to various Category:Films by country sub-cats. There are many Asian countries without their own sub-cats in Category:Theatre by country, which would go under this umbrella. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To answer the "brain cell" comment, note that we're not deleting the articles. Rather, we're saying that this category isn't needed as a way to sort the articles, because there are already other existing category schemes to sort both films and theater by nationality. Categories are intended as a way for readers to find the information they're looking for quickly, and in order to help readers find their article we try and delete categories that are mainly redundant or that are ambiguous or contradict other well-established categories that are more likely to be useful. So we're not destroying information, we're (hopefully) making it easier to find information by removing clutter from the indices. Dugwiki 22:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Dugwiki. We have established and so far as I know non-controversial hierarchies in these two fields and we should not create an overlapping and duplicative alternative hierarchy. Osomec 22:25, 7 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 09:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Experience has shown that the overwhelming majority of vanity press writers are not considered notable enough for an entry on Wikipedia and the corresponding articles are usually deleted through AfD. Hence, having this cat seems pretty useless except to spot likely AfD candidates. Pascal.Tesson 22:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 23:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It will also likely get tagged to people notable for writing or other things who have at some point done a vanity press. And then people will argue over whether this or that small press is a vanity press. And then people will complain about chapbooks. And then it will be used to insult other writers. So delete. --lquilter 00:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lquilter. Lesnail 01:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —mikedk9109^SIGN 02:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 03:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As noted per nom, spotting AfD candidates was the reason I created the category. Avt tor 06:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how this helps. Articles won't magically appear in the cat because it exists. If one finds such an article, the correct thing to do is to send it to AfD, not to tag it as something that should be sent to AfD. Pascal.Tesson 19:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the idea is that people who don't know about the article deletion process (ie most of them) or don't take the trouble to make nominations (like me for example) might put articles in the category which people who do like to nominate articles for deletion can then pounce on. Osomec 22:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the term "vanity press" is offensive by definition. User:Dimadick
Delete to follow up on my comments of last week, that is not a suitable use of categories. Maintenance categories are a plague, and should be retricted to talk pages in my opinion. Osomec 14:40, 12 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 11:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: small w/o potential growth, unnecessary (all the images are already in a single article, Starik Khottabych). Iamunknown 22:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added two films, including Khottabych. Can add more images if needed... Hope, it's enough. --Yuriy Lapitskiy 22:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I just thought of another issue with the category, Yuriy: because the images are fair use, they should not be in a gallery format. I've fixed that with the _ NOGALLERY _ tag. Additionally, now that you've added the images from Khottabych, the category would no longer be named Starik Khottabych film. There are an innumberable many films on Wikipedia: we don't a category of images for every single film on Wikipedia. Users who are interested in the images of a film will go to the film's page where they can view the images without having to click on each individual one, they wouldn't go to the non-gallery category. --Iamunknown 00:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The images don't belong in the category, either. Xiner (talk, email) 23:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 23:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xiner. —mikedk9109^SIGN 02:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --Yuriy Lapitskiy 13:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete. What's the point of having a category which only has two films? Just add a "see also" section to both articles and link to the other film. Esn 07:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xiner. Wimstead 18:55, 12 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This category is very loosely defined. While it's true that some nations have a reputation for naval prowess and a tradition of valuing the sea, such a list would require impeccable sourcing, explanation, and maintenance. A category is not the proper tool to do that with. Problems with this category have been noted on the talk page for some time. They are still unfixed.

History adds an additional problem. As is noted on the Talk Page, the Hansa are on this list, but the Republic of Venice isn't (yet). Even if we just removed historical countries, the problems aren't solved. It could be argued that Ming Dynasty China was into naval exploration, but neither Qing Dynasty nor PRC China were/are- what happens when someone adds this cat to the general "China" article? Or, for that matter, the Germany article, arguing based on the Hansa? In a list, at least, there could be explanations, comments, and specific time periods noted. Not so in a category.

Simple, objective criteria could be made by renaming this to "Countries with coastlines," but most countries are coastal, unlike Category:Landlocked countries, which is a genuinely unusual feature. I don't see that as a terribly useful category and would be against it.

Anyway. I recommend deletion with any interested party free to listify the current contents and add some citable criteria. Failing that, some kind of simple, objective, and useful criteria should be implemented to make this category clear. SnowFire 21:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The category's ill-chosen name has made it unsuitable for categorization. People will have varied opinions on whether a country should be described as "seafaring". I would have placed any costal country into the category myself (although, as indicated, that may entail validating that historical countries had ocean-going capabilities). Dr. Submillimeter 21:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poor name, excessively broad, overcategorisation. A nation is a 'seafaring nation' if they have citizens who are sailors. This definition probably encompasses every nation in the world. The very fact that this category is capable of bearing this definition makes it unsuitable (although, per Dr. Submillimeter, there are less expansive possible meanings).

Xdamr^talk 23:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 16:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & listify. A (manually-edited & maintained) list will permit the kinds of gradations, definitions, sources that a category (an automatically-edited, alphabetical list) will not. --lquilter 17:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Submilimeter. Valentinian ^{T / C} 14:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if it was easy to say which countries are "seafaring nations" this category would be almost useless since given the broad range of issues which must be mentioned in a country's main article most of them can devote next to no space to this topic. Postlebury 00:24, 11 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the recent AFD of the only article that went in the cat: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 WSX television ratings RobJ1981 20:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 21:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia. Xiner (talk, email) 23:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —mikedk9109^SIGN 02:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The same issues that resulted in the article deletion mentioned above also apply to this category. It's questionable how useful week-by-week ratings are for any show, and it's doubtful that week-by-week ratings can be properly maintained as a general practice for most television programs. Dugwiki 22:40, 5 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 11:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "famous."--Mike Selinker 21:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 23:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom (is this a speedy rename candidate?). --Xdamr^talk 00:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename POV title. —mikedk9109^SIGN 02:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Famous is unnecessary, since all articles should be about notable subjects. Dugwiki 22:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename obviously. Osomec 22:29, 7 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not verifiable, trivial.. Archibald 9 9 19:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per precedents for football supporter categories. Pinoakcourt 23:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Similar ones have been deleted. Xiner (talk, email) 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Caledonian Place 23:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete difficult to determine and I have seen similar categories like this one which were also deleted for the reasons listed above. --Nehrams2020 00:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial. I don't even know why some articles mention a person's facourite football team at all. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You could call anyone a supporter. —mikedk9109^SIGN 02:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Troll-food, trivial and very difficult to verify. Rockpocket 04:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it was a Rangers fan who made that category, they've done no favours to their club. Think how embarrassing it is for them that the world think that Rangers have no supporters...--Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 23:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Up until a couple of days ago there were several dozen entries but somebody has evidently been through and removed the category from all the articles which previously had it.... ChrisTheDude 09:57, 12 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 People from Nebraska. Mairi 04:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Natives of Nebraska, or Merge into Category:People from Nebraska. -- Prove It ^(talk) 19:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into People from Nebraska. —mikedk9109^SIGN 19:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into People from Nebraska. Vegaswikian 21:28, 4 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 15:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Organizing murder victims by their attackers seems to be an inane form of overcategorizaion. This category was found in the article on Marvin Gaye, which is number 35 in Special:Mostcategories at this time. Dr. Submillimeter 19:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete preferred; rename if not deleted - I guess it means murdered by members of their family? And not, say, "People murdered, organized by family"? or "People murdered, organized by murderer's family"? Whatever, it should be deleted because it's OC as Dr. S says and also because it's ambiguous. --lquilter 19:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless category and OC. And the title doesn't even clarify what it means. —mikedk9109^SIGN 19:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Have fun with your deletion binge, but I'd like to refer you to the rather shocking number of terms that underlie the concept of this category: patricide, fratricide, sororicide, parricide, matricide, mariticide, uxoricide, and filicide. The number of words in English that relate to the concept of "being murdered by a family member" support it as a valid category. If I were doing research on the above, wouldn't a nicely populated (and renamed) "People who were murdered (that is, killed against their will) by one or more members of that person's family, which may include family by marriage" be quite handy? It's not "inane" at all. Marvin Gaye's got 35 categories? More power to him! –Outriggr § 20:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those so concerned with semantic clarity, you may want to spell out "OC", because ya know, I thought you were talking about the TV show. In-game? Of course not! Just pick a wiki-acronym and join the club! –Outriggr § 20:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the number of categories in an article expands too far (approximately beyond 20-30 links), the article's category system switches from being a useful, easy-to-read navigation aid to being an illegible, dense mass of links. It becomes harmful instead of helpful to have an excessive number of categories within an article. The problem is a technical writing issue; the information is communicated poorly to the reader because of formatting issues and presentation problems with the text, not necessarily any problems with the content itself. This is the general motivation for avoiding overcategorization. By reducing the number of categories on a page, the category links become easier to navigate and hence more useful for the average reader. Dr. Submillimeter 20:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are looking at this differently. I like browsing wikipedia by categories and to me the great thing with categories is the category page itself, not the various category links at the bottom of articles. Maybe we could solve the problem of too much clutter by making some categories invisible in the article. To solve the problem in software, somehow. For instance the birth and death year categories are really redundant to spell out at the bottom, as they are already promenently mentioned at the very top of the bios. In general, I think that when the shear amount of information becomes a problem, we should solve it by structuring that information better. Not to delete some of it. Shanes 21:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting category to browse. What do Marvin Gaye, Phil Hartman and Anacharsis have in common? Answer: They were all killed by their own family. I learned that from the category. Why shouldn't I? I am not concerned about "OC" which I guess means Over Categorization, categories is a great way of sorting information and if an article should happen to be in hundreds of categories, that's just great. Shanes 20:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Category:Fictional characters who have committed mariticide was merged into Category:Fictional murderers in a 2006 November 2006 discussion. The comments there may be relevant to this discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 21:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the purpose of categories was to provide people with opportunities to chance across random coincidences the number of categories on some articles could be pushed into four figures, but that is not what categories are for. Pinoakcourt 23:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pinoakcourt. --Xdamr^talk 00:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename − Category:People murdered by family members, as the current name might suggest a super-category to categories like People murdered by the Bonanno crime family, People murdered by the Gambino crime family, etc. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. "Family" is alsonot as easily defined as one might think. The term can require POV. Doczilla 03:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Renameper Twas Now. Useful for locating articles but needs a more clear definition of just what is categorised. User:Dimadick
Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 16:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "by family members" if kept I'm undecided on keep vs delete. But if kept, I would suggest renaming the category to "People murdered by family members". The current name makes it sound like you're sorting murder victims by family name. Dugwiki 22:48, 5 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 withdrawn and sent to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. Dar-Ape 19:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in the Counter Vandalism Unit
Category:Counter Vandalism Unit Member/wikimedia
Category:Counter Vandalism Unit Member/wikimedia/meta
Category:Counter Vandalism Unit Member/wikipedia
Category:Counter Vandalism Unit Member/wikipedia/de
Category:Counter-Vandalism Wikipedians
Merge all into currently existing Category:Counter-Vandalism Unit members: These categories are overlapping and redundant. "Category:Counter-Vandalism Unit members" would be all-inclusive, including both Wikipedia and all other Wikimedia projects. I proposed this on Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit and no one objected. Dar-Ape 19:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and relist at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. Otto4711 20:03, 3 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 both to Category:People from Bergamo. the wub "?!" 22:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People born in Bergamo, Italy into Category:Natives of Bergamo

Merge, No other "People born in" categories, but fits nice and snug with the "Natives of" category. Neonblak 18:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Obvious dupe. -- Prove It ^(talk) 19:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. —mikedk9109^SIGN 19:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This seems to have been created by mistake. User:Dimadick
Merge both into Category:People from Bergamo. There has been consensus to only use 'people from' rather then 'natives of' since being a native is frequently not a defining characteristic. Vegaswikian 20:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both into Category:People from Bergamo per Vegaswikian. Piccadilly 15:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both into Category:People from Bergamo. Postlebury 00:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both into Category:People from the Province of Bergamo as the province has 6 times the population of the city (a Category:People from Bergamo (city) page could then be created later if the need arose Mayumashu 10:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both into Category:People from Bergamo, as that is not a total change of use. Osomec 14:41, 12 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 10:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Categorizing nominees for almost any award is overcategorization and will lead to category clutter. Dr. Submillimeter 18:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely agree with Dr. S on nominees categories. --lquilter 19:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominee categories. -- Prove It ^(talk) 19:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What about all the other categorys that are about "X nominated for this award". —mikedk9109^SIGN 19:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please find those other nominees categories and nominate them for deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 19:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all nominee categories. --Xdamr^talk 00:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nominee categories per considerable precedent. Overcategorization. Trivia. Not defining characteristics. Doczilla 03:08, 4 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 10:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former organizations to Category:Defunct organizations
Category:Former hospitals to Category:Defunct hospitals
Category:Former museums to Category:Defunct museums
Category:Closed universities and colleges to Category:Defunct universities and colleges
Category:Former universities in England to Category:Defunct universities in England
Category:Former universities and colleges in China to Category:Defunct universities and colleges in China
Category:Closed universities and colleges in the United States to Category:Defunct universities and colleges in the United States

Rename all to match the usual conventions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. —mikedk9109^SIGN 19:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 00:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Lesnail 01:36, 4 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 CSD #C3 allows for speedy deletion of this category if the populating template is deleted. >Radiant< 15:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is related to the template ((NPOV-essay)) which, it would appear, will soon be deleted. In any case, the category is empty and there really seems no point in categorizing essays under that banner. Note also that while the category's name is fairly benign, the introductory sentence defining the cat is "Some essays may not be seen as balanced, or represent many Wikipedians. They are listed here." which strikes me as way too subjective. Pascal.Tesson 17:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not very useful. Xiner (talk, email) 23:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pretty subjective and of little use if the template is deleted. --Xdamr^talk 00:04, 4 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 "?!" 22:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; or at least, rename to Category:Percy Bysshe Shelley. This category was set up and used as a tag for articles about Percy Bysshe Shelley. Problematic for several reasons: (1) categories are not tags. (2) Shelley is ambiguous. (3) I'm not convinced PBS needs an eponymous category at this point. The biographical articles & articles about his individual works are all linked easily within the text of his article. lquilter 16:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overcategorization, the gentleman does not merit an eponymous category. Re-categorize any appropriate articles that aren't already there to Category:Poems by Shelley (which itself needs to be renamed per naming conventions) and link articles as needed to Percy Bysshe Shelley. Otto4711 16:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Wikipedia is not paper so "meriting" a category should be based solely on whether there is more than one article on the subject. Tim! 17:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a guideline (which dammit I wish I could find) which suggests restricting eponymous categories to extremely notable people, offering Abraham Lincoln as an example of someone so notable. I don't think Shelley has that level of notability. Otto4711 17:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:Categorization of people#By the person's name. But I don't think notability is really the point of having an eponymous category. I think it's rather more that there are so many articles of such disparate nature that it would be difficult to organize them otherwise. In other words, that the person is themselves a scholarly field, and not a minor scholarly field, but a major one. PBS might very well be notable enough to have his own eponymous category, and certainly is as much as many of the other writers in Category:Categories named after writers. --lquilter 18:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Rename to Category:Percy Bysshe Shelley per conventions of Category:Categories named after writers~~ -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there's something very weird & troubling about these historical/literary figures each having a separate eponymous category. If Mary Shelley gets one, and all the other folks involved in that rather tangled family, then each & every person who slept together, parented a child together, or is related to another person gets tagged with all the other people's names. Think of the Borgias or the Kennedys or, yes, the Shelleys, or any of the various nobility families. I think that suggests something very problematic with eponymous categories simply for notable people with more than one article. --lquilter 18:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right ... I wouldn't be sad to see it go, plus many of the others like it. However, if we keep it, it should certainly be renamed. Probably the best thing to do is move all the poems, novels, books to their appropriate places, and see what's left over. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, or at least Rename. What's left over is friends & family and people by people just doesn't work. -- Prove It ^(talk) 19:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Shelley was a notable poet but not notable enough to have his own category. Besides, as has been pointed out, the category mostly contains his poetry (already listed in another category) or people who knew Shelley (who should be linked through the articles' text, not a category). Dr. Submillimeter 19:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. Pinoakcourt 23:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Rename to "Shelley family". We have several articles on individuals of this family and related subjects that could warrant a category. User:Dimadick
Comment: I think this is an interesting proposal. Can you provide a list of what might be included and how far up & down the line? Since it's not quite like, say, the Borgias where one wants to track multiple generations, I'm a little uncertain as to how to limit it. --lquilter 19:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:See for example "Justinian Dynasty" which includes "events, documents, and people associated with it". So we can list Shelley family members, close associates as well as their literary works. User:Dimadick
  - Category:Justinian Dynasty looks like a mess. The category currently functions as an ad hoc collection of people, things, and events during the Justinian Dynasty. It should probably be limited to just the Justinian family itself. We should not repeat this elsewhere in Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter 19:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Dimadick. I like that idea. Kolindigo 04:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dr. S. Doczilla 05:12, 7 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 09:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Counting the number of times people have won awards does not improve their categorization but instead leads to category clutter. Moreover, it seems relatively common for Olympic medalists have won multiple medals, which seems logical as Olympic athletes may participate in multiple event or in multiple Olympics. Simply stating that the individuals are gold medalists should be sufficient. This category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The information is already in the individual articles in infoboxes, which is the superior scheme. Otto4711 16:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and any other "multiple award X winners" category. Completely unnecessary & clutterful. --lquilter 17:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wasn't their a CfD recently about categorizing on how many times a user has won an award? Well, this os OC in my opinion. —mikedk9109^SIGN 17:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I like the category and love browsing it. It is definitely not common to win 3 or more gold medals, only around 300 people have done so. And arguments like "The information is already in the individual articles in infoboxes" is missing the point with categories completely. I don't see how having this category is hurting the articles at all. Shanes 19:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hurting them by adding one more, thus reducing their overall usability. I take your point about being interesting & uncommon, so listify -- a category is simply an automatically generated list, and a manually-maintained list will be better in this instance. --lquilter 19:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be one more category? People should not exist in the supercategory if they exist in this one... 70.51.11.102 06:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is really just a chance connection and it is not even a reliable indicator of sporting greatness as so many more medals are available in some sports than in others. Pinoakcourt 23:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 16:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shanes. Kolindigo 04:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple golds are used by society at large of indicating superiority. 70.51.11.102 06:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gold medals in different sports don't represent a consistent level of achievement. Cloachland 18:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category clutter. There should be a list of people who won the most gold medals of course, but I expect there already is one. Osomec 14:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: no-one has pointed out that the inclusion criterion stated on the category ("people who have won at least three gold medals…) is arbitrary. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:13, 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 as nominated. the wub "?!" 22:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Media in Dallas, Texas to Category:Media in Dallas-Fort Worth

Rename, Since American media is categorized by "market" (see Category:American media by market), this category covers Dallas-Fort Worth and not just Dallas. Its subcategories already cover Dallas-Fort Worth. --Vossanova ^o< 16:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. —mikedk9109^SIGN 17:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Dallas-Fort Worth media. Mass media Has been treated as a cultural topic, thus all of Category:Media by country and Category:American media by state use Fooian media, as well as much of Category:Media by city and Category:American media by market.-choster 15:38, 8 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 Fixed. This was a case of bot gone wrong -- Drini 14:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University of Missouri–Columbia to Category:University of Missouri–Columbia

Category:University of Missouri–Columbia people to Category:University of Missouri–Columbia people

Category:University of Missouri–Columbia alumni to Category:University of Missouri–Columbia alumni

Category:University of Missouri–Columbia athletes to Category:University of Missouri–Columbia athletes

Category:University of Missouri–Columbia faculty to Category:University of Missouri–Columbia faculty

Category:University of Missouri–Columbia staff to Category:University of Missouri–Columbia staff

Category:University of Missouri–Kansas City to Category:University of Missouri–Kansas City

Category:University of Missouri–Kansas City alumni to Category:University of Missouri–Kansas City alumni

Category:University of Missouri–Kansas City faculty to Category:University of Missouri–Kansas City faculty

Category:University of Missouri–St. Louis to Category:University of Missouri–St. Louis

Category:University of Missouri–St. Louis people to Category:University of Missouri–St. Louis people

Note: Because of the improper character being used in the above existing category names, it is changed to the dash whenever this page is edited. To get to the existing categories, go to the original posting in this page's history.

Try switching to Firefox, it doesn't corrupt the buffer when you edit. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all, This move was botched; some sort of weird character was used for the "en" dash. The correct character is available as the very first item in the Wiki insert menu shown below every edit box. This change was originally proposed on 15 December, but was never completed. It was then reposted on 9 January. You can see that now neither the original or proposed new links exist. Please see Category:University of Missouri–Rolla for an example of the proper character.—Lazytiger 16:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaiming scheme that requires people to search around for a special character. Put these back using hyphens, which is what most people are going to use. Also note that the lead nomination is improperly tagged CFD rather than CFR and the subcats are not tagged at all. Otto4711 17:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is proper English punctuation to use an "en" dash. It is what the articles themselves use, and it's bad to use something else for the categories. What is bad is using some crazy disappearing/reappearing character instead of the proper "en" dash. I see no problem with using it. If you're worried about it being such a burden to type (I don't think it is) redirects can be used. I have to wonder how often someone would actually type in one of those categories rather than clicking on a link at the bottom of an article, anyway. And no, the articles are not going to be changed to use hyphens instead of "en" dashes. That argument was already hashed out and it was decided that we use "en" dashes. This change is simply for consistency.—Lazytiger 17:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue is really about what we type into our favorite search engine, and someone doing a search would probably reach for their dash key, wether we like it or not. So, I would recommend using the hyphen in the cat names, or at least creating dash redirects to whatever name we use. The entire point of categorization is to help people quickly find what they are looking for. -- Prove It ^(talk) 19:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with creating redirects, but as far as search results go Google doesn't return what you might think. I just did a sample search for "University of Missouri(insert)Columbia alumni" with a hyphen, a space, and "en" dash. The "en" dash got the same result as a space, 774 hits, while the hyphen only returned 129. So, using an "en" dash is not a limiting factor whatsoever; Google doesn't recognize it. However, using a hyphen actually drastically reduces the results regardless of what we do here. You can't stop people from searching with a hyphen, but I don't think you're really helping them by using it here.—Lazytiger 21:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To make my point even further, doing the same searches on Yahoo returns exactly the same result for all three; thus, what punctuation we use here is irrelevant for search purposes and we should use what is most proper: the "en" dash.—Lazytiger 21:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, and thanks to Lazytiger for trying the experiment. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your username inspired me. ;) —Lazytiger 00:01, 4 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 "?!" 22:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination following the start of this CfD discussion about Category:Iranian polygamists. In that debate I argued The subcategories of Category:Polygamists by nationality are all pretty badly underpopulated but, I might add, all pretty useless. In many societies, past and present, polygamy is either tolerated or completely accepted. No one would seriously consider maintaining a category of divorcees or people in same-sex unions. There are in fact very few people in the categories whose polygamy is/was a major issue in their life and categorizing them in this way is subtly POV. I believe all these categories should be deleted. Other good arguments in that line were made there by SMcCandlish, lquilter and Xdamr. Pascal.Tesson 15:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 2#Category:Iranian polygamists. To sum up: The category includes (a) a random assortment of a dozen historical figures; (b) bad supercategorization as "people associated with religion or philosophy" that's clearly aimed (ahistorically) at Muslims & Mormons; (c) a bunch of bad subcategories that are not NPOV, overcategorization, better as lists, or in other ways unwieldy, difficult to define or verify, and historically/culturally biased; and is a bad idea because (1) marital practice is typically part of a cultural practice, not an individually, personally defining attribute; (2) hard to maintain because marital status changes during lifetime; (3) difficult to define because is a marriage legal, religious, cultural, or other? . Note that the related Category:Bigamists is very different -- not about personal practice, but about a legal state (a criminal conviction); discussion for Polygamists is not relevant to "Bigamists". --lquilter 16:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Lquilter. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —mikedk9109^SIGN 17:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lquilter's able summary. --Xdamr^talk 00:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful for locating articles relative to the historic subject of polygamy. I don't think it is a random listing. I fail to see the bias here. On the other hand "Bigamists" strikes me as relative only to polygamy as a crime and very POV. I would be happy to see it go. User:Dimadick
Comment This is what Category:Polygamy is for. Pascal.Tesson 16:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subcategories for countries where polygamy is not a common practice are valuable. AshbyJnr 16:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you also agree that we then need a cat for monogamists in countries where polygamy is (or has been) a common practice? Once you figure in historical eras you're pretty much going to have both sets of categories for almost every country. And that doesn't get at the definitional problems. --lquilter 17:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but restrict to articles where polygamy is notably mentioned As some people indicated above, I don't have a problem with this category being used to include people whose articles specifically talk about the person's polygamy in a notable way. For example, I think it would be appropriate to include someone who specifically advocated polygamy in their public life. I don't think it should be used for articles about people who happened to be married to multiple people but, because such marraige was normal for their culture, the polygomay isn't mentioned or plays only a trivial role. So restrict the category to articles that specifically mention the person's polygamy in a notable, verifiable fashion. Dugwiki 22:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reasonable standard, but is there a way to identify that in the category name, so as to exclude the people who happen to be polygamous b/c that's their cultural background? Category:Polygamy advocates? Category:Intentional polygamists? (sort of a spin on "intentional communities) ...? Category:Polygamy-identified people? --lquilter 23:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary to change the category name. All a general practice, we're supposed to be using verifiable, referenced information in the first place, so editors already shouldn't include a category based on information not verified within the article. (After all, if the information used isn't in the article, how do you know it's accurate or that the category applies?) It probably would be a good idea, though, to include this restriction in the category description for reference. Dugwiki 17:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree with you on the referencing & verifiable, which would get us to "mentioned" or "referenced". The problem is that you said "notably mentioned". We both agree that individual biographies shouldn't be included unless their polygamy is a notable feature -- not just the norm of their particular culture. The problem is that this is that this kind of implicit criteria isn't easily policed; even if it's mentioned in the category description. So making it explicit in the category name could be helpful. If there's no acceptable rename to make it explicit, then I'm not sure that a description will be sufficient to fix the problems we've already seen & that I outlined above. --lquilter 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We do not classify people by their marital status. Given that polygamy was once a common and accepted practice, it means little to have these categories in general. Dr. Submillimeter 09:47, 7 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. I am similarly closing the related discussion. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Argentine American football players
Category:Australian American football players
Category:Austrian American football players
Category:Bahamian American football players
Category:British American football players
Category:Canadian American football players
Category:Colombian American football players
Category:American football players of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Category:Czech American football players
Category:Danish American football players
Category:Dominican Republic American Football players
Category:English American football players
Category:Estonian American football players
Category:German American football players
Category:Ghanaian American football players

Category:Honduran American football players
Category:Italian American football players
Category:Jamaican American football players
Category:Liberian American football players
Category:Nigerian American football players
Category:Norwegian American football players
Category:Polish American football players
Category:Saint Kitts and Nevis American football players
Category:Salvadoran American football players
Category:Samoan American football players
Category:Scottish American football players
Category:Sierra Leonean American football players
Category:South African American football players
Category:Tongan American football players
Category:Ukrainian American football players

Rename all to Fooian players of American football, to remove ambiguity, see related discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. --Vossanova ^o< 16:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is fooian? —mikedk9109^SIGN 17:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the root is foo, it's a metasyntactic variable. Dar-Ape 18:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean a citizen of whatever country we're talking about ... so it means italian, german, polish, etc. -- Prove It ^(talk) 19:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 00:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename − abolish the ambiguity! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - much clearer. Coemgenus 22:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I create some of these, and I like the change.--Mike Selinker 00:03, 10 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 "?!" 22:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Tacked onto a previous mass nomination of super-teams, the result of which was delete and listify. The closing nom did not delete these two on the basis of their being added late and because they deal with "programs" rather than "teams" and that aspect was not discussed in the course of the nom. Otto4711 15:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete and listify - UtherSRG (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and listify per nom. —mikedk9109^SIGN 17:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete as per precedent. — J Greb 03:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listify and tacking on Category:Ultimates members (Sorry folks) RIANZ 04:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sorry, but I can't realistically see why these categories are such a problem. The precedents seem to be made concerning minor teams, not well-established major teams and projects. Also, the Weapons Plus program (and Weapon X offshoot) actually play a major part in many of the Marvel storylines (especially at the moment with the latest Phoenix storyline). Sorry, but deleting otherwise necessary categories just goes against my own better judgement. --JB Adder | Talk 00:02, 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 listify and delete. the wub "?!" 22:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Listify per precedent of deleting and listifying super-team members. This was tacked on to a previous nomination but the closing admin of that nom didn't delete it because it wasn't listed at the time the rest of the nomination was made.Otto4711 14:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete and listify as per nom. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify per nom. —mikedk9109^SIGN 17:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete as per precedent. — J Greb 03:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As above (translation: Delete and listify) - decided to be status quo todayRIANZ 04:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify per precedents. Doczilla 07:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And again, if you can prove that this group is not a major team in the Malibu universe (which, working off the article, might be difficult), then I may change my decision. --JB Adder | Talk 00:12, 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Antiobesity agents to Category:Antiobesity drugs

This category is a child of Category:Obesity and Category:Drugs. Therefore, it only contains drugs, rather than other antiobesity agents, such as exercise. Replacing "agents" with "drugs" in the category's title, when drugs are the only intended scope of the cat, makes things as precise and clear as possible. Antiobesity drug is also the primary article of this category. Kurieeto 14:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename as per nom. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename before surgical techniques get added. --lquilter 16:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. —mikedk9109^SIGN 17:44, 3 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 upmerge. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of potential articles is too small to merit a subcategory. Category:Wolves is sufficient. It is also out of style with how other such categories are named, which would be Category:Wolves. UtherSRG (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many wolf species in the Category:Wolves, which has become a dumping ground for every wolf article, so some separation is required to allow ease of finding wolf species articles. Category naming conventions used are the same as the recently highly debated +cats Category:Species of rats & Category:Species of mice Headphonos 14:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your analogy is incorrect. There are hundreds of species of rats and hundreds of species of mice. Those are the exceptions that prove the rule. Category:Wolves is correct and analogous to Category:Primates, Category:Monkeys, and Category:Old World monkeys, among many more. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not that this is a bad analogy. Category:Species of rats & Category:Species of mice are a terrible way of classifying those rodents. There no such thing as a "rat" or "mouse" in the broad usage employed by those categories and now the categorization of muroids is not only nonsensical, but factually misleading (implying that there is anything at all that unites members of this category). Unfortunately, it has gone through so many layers of wikipedia bureaucracy that it is hard to know how to get the rodent categories back to making some sense. This "species of wolf" nonsense needs to be stopped immediately before it too spirals out of control. --Aranae 18:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Are these species or subspecies of wolves? Dr. Submillimeter 14:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subspecies, except for the Red Wolf and, according to some authorities, the Eastern Canadian Wolf. --Aranae 18:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename if kept to Category:Species of wolves per correct capitalization and pluralization. Otto4711 15:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Otto4711. —mikedk9109^SIGN 17:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restore Category:Wolves as the apropriate category. These are subspecies and "wolves" is the standard way of categorizing this in TOL usage. Uther is completely correct on this. --Aranae 18:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Aranae this was previously debated and you lost the debate, there is no use crying baby-shoes about that all over this vote. Headphonos 20:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Hardly. Categorizations with regard to taxonomic entities should be made in consideration to WP:TOL and any other subproject. Category:Species of rats & Category:Species of mice, etc., should be reverted, as well as Category:Species of Wolf. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonsense category. Ucucha 06:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wolf species or revise categorization of category:Canines so it actually matches taxonomy (as category:Birds by Taxonomy and Category:Plant taxonomy).Circeus 16:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, upmerge to Category:Wolves. Hesperian 22:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Peta 06:57, 9 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:Public accounts scrutineers. the wub "?!" 22:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from Jan 16 for further discussion - the wub "?!" 12:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unknown what +cat means. We already have a category for Category:Accountants by nationality Octopus-Hands 03:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Accountants by nationality. Xiner (talk, email) 16:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is an important category, relating to the management and auditing of government finances: see for example Public Accounts Committee (United Kingdom). It is underused for now, but derseves to be populated rather than deleted. (note that while it overlaps with Category:Government audit, the two are not the same.--BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't it be made clear what this "important category" is about? What is it supposed to contain? I can't make heads or tails of it.zadignose 14:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with other contributors that the current title of the category obfuscates its purpose. After a cursory glance, it appears to contain bodies and individuals who scrutinise public accounts. That seems to me a valid subject to want to use to categorise articles, so I suggest it be renamed to Category:Public accounts scrutineers. The closing admin may want to consider relisting this for further discussion. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist for further discussion. The category probably needs a new name. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename as per RobertG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:00, 3 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 "?!" 22:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category already existed and was moved to Category:Drum and bugle corps. It is a redundant category with an informal name and unnecessary capitalization. —Lazytiger 06:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move everything to the new category and delete it as redundant – Qxz 08:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per Qxz. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the articles in Category:Drum Corps are already better categorized in subcategories of Category:Drum and bugle corps. Do they have to be moved into the top level? The recreation of this category is really complicating things. Rather than deleting it again, can we clear it out and do a category redirect? Lazytiger 15:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How can Drum and bugle corps be the better category when Drum Corps has more articles in it? I think Drum and bugle corps is the redundant category here. —mikedk9109^SIGN 17:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Number of articles incorrectly filed is not a criterion for keeping a category. Agree with above comments that the capitalization is wrong, and it appears to be an informal shortening of the existing category's name.--NapoliRoma 21:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete Xiner (talk, email) 23:34, 3 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:Fictional World War II characters. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:World War II fictional beings to Category:World War II fictional characters

Rename - for consistency with many other fictonal characters categories. Otto4711 04:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Doczilla 08:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency – Qxz 08:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional World War II veterans is a subcategory of this category, so suggest Fictional World War II characters. David Kernow (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to Fictional WW2 characters. Otto4711 14:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename as per David Kernow. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Fictional World War II characters. —mikedk9109^SIGN 17:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Fictional World War II characters. Cloachland 18:25, 7 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

Delete as improper categorization of actor based on the channel where their show happened to appear. Otto4711 03:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per numerous precedents. Doczilla 08:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per numerous precendents... actually just keep the show subcategories and remove any articles from the category. Tim! 10:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is just a nomination of Category:Disney Channel actors. I have not includied the subcategories, which would still be listed in other parts of the category tree. Dr. Submillimeter 21:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Tim! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - People who work for the Disney Channel may also work for other networks. Adding categories for all the networks that these people have worked for is ineffective for organization and would lead to category clutter. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. AshbyJnr 16:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if folks like Tim! like the actors-by-performance category, do they really also want to include networks and production companies for those tv shows? --lquilter 16:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These types of ctaegorys would build up if they were kept, and would become category clutter. And they really aren't needed. —mikedk9109^SIGN 17:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nickelodeon actors. Otto4711 19:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as categorization of people by employer and/or distributor/broadcaster. — J Greb 03:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this type of category is non-defining and it generates category clutter. Piccadilly 15:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is a recreation of a previously deleted similarly named category - Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_14#Category:Disney_actors. Otto4711 03:49, 9 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 "?!" 01:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Inappropriate over-categorization based on race, irrelevant to performance as athlete. Kevlar67 02:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unless you're looking to dismantle the entire Ethnicity-national categorization scheme, in which case this single category probably isn't the place to start. On its face this is no more problematic than the categories for, for instance, African American sportspeople, Asian American sportspeople, Mexican American sportspeople, Native American sportspeople and so on. Otto4711 03:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. It said on WP:OC that German American sportspeople was an example of a bad cat. Kevlar67 03:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be included there on the basis that (presumably white) German-Americans are not treated differently in sports from (also presumably white) Italian-Americans. Otto4711 03:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Otto4711. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Otto4711 argument is based on an unsubstantiated allegation of racism. AshbyJnr 16:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ancestry/ethnic heritage is a major identity for most people both in terms of how they view themselves and in terms of how they are treated by others; it unquestionably has an effect on occupational decisions and opportunities. --lquilter 16:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lquilter. —mikedk9109^SIGN 17:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lquilter's comments. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrelevant intersection. Cloachland 18:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto and Lquilter. --Djsasso 21:45, 9 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star Wars villains into Category:Star Wars characters

Merge - another "villains" to "characters" merge per all previous similar discssions. Otto4711 01:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Doczilla 08:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless a specific rationale is given. Tim! 10:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The specific rationale is the discussion about a dozen times or more over the last couple of weeks and the consensus that categorizing characters as "villains" or "heroes" or "protagonists" or "antagonists" requires improper POV judgment calls. c.f. among many others Darkwing Duck villains, Child villains, Television protagonists, additional protagonist categories, Fictional antagonists and fictional villains and so on. Otto4711 14:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the rationale, so I am still in favour of keeping. Tim! 16:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - why does it need renaming? please provide a rationale. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Fictional characters may be complex and may switch allegiances within a storyline. Darth Vader is the archetype of why characters should not be classified simply as "villains". Dr. Submillimeter 10:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge as per nom. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge God, another one of these? Anyone could call anyone a villain if they wanted. People who like Darth Vader better than the good people would might not want to call him a villain. He may be a hero in their opinion. This category is POV, along with all the other ones like this. —mikedk9109^SIGN 17:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Lesnail 01:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. POV classification that would, at the least, need annotaion on the cat page per character. — J Greb 03:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Madhava 1947 (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom, it saves a lot of trouble if somebody decides a character isn't a villain down the line. Darth griz⁹⁸ 04:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - a hero/villian split still leaves many charcters as undefined --T-rex 17:33, 15 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star Trek villains into Category:Star Trek characters

Merge - another "villains" to "characters" merge per numerous previous discussion. Otto4711 01:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Doczilla 08:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless a specific rationale is given. Tim! 10:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The specific rationale is the discussion about a dozen times or more over the last couple of weeks and the consensus that categorizing characters as "villains" or "heroes" or "protagonists" or "antagonists" requires improper POV judgment calls. c.f. among many others Darkwing Duck villains, Child villains, Television protagonists, additional protagonist categories, Fictional antagonists and fictional villains and so on. Otto4711 14:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - why does it need renaming? please provide a rationale. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Fictional characters may be complex and may switch allegiances within a storyline. The klingons are a prime example of why characters should not be classified simply as "villains". Dr. Submillimeter 10:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article klingon is not in this category. Tim! 10:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but Kang (Star Trek), Kor and Koloth are. They were smooth-headed "villains" in TOS but when DS9 rolled around they had become turtle-ridged "heros" complete with a decades-long backstory associating them with the finest of the Federation and honorable deaths. (edit: Gowron is also listed as a "villain" despite Gowron's having been an ally of the Federation for all but about one season of TNG-and-after programming) Q (Star Trek) is listed as a "villain" but the individual Q within the various series are not all "villainous" and even the one who is (the John DeLancie Q) was a complex character beyond human understanding of "villain." Otto4711 14:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying we should delete Category:Mathematicians because some of them were also Category:Physicists. Tim! 17:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's like saying that when fictional characters travel back and forth between "heroism" and "villainy" trying to categorize them as "heroes" or "villains" is improper. Otto4711 17:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into characters. "Villainy" is subjective and is non-npov. Additionally, some characters vacillate in their allegiance. Merge into characters category, and well-written articles will make clear when a character plays the part of an antagonist. --EEMeltonIV 13:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge as per nom. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom.--NeilEvans 17:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge How many of these CfD's have we gone through this past week? This one is no different. —mikedk9109^SIGN 17:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Lesnail 01:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom and precedent. — J Greb 03:16, 4 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 09:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Grouping people together according to whether they have been on a specific radio or TV network is not useful, as many people work for many different radio and TV networks over the course of their careers (for example, David Letterman in both of these categories). These categories (and other similar categories) should be deleted. Also note the multiple discussions on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 2. Dr. Submillimeter 00:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have been thinking about this group of categories for a while. Personalities seems so POV and subjective. It almost seems that everyone who is on air is in this category. Vegaswikian 07:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague category. Doczilla 08:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not at all vague. Tim! 10:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I also do not find it "vague" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete for two reasons: (1) they are network-based and that makes no sense because people hop networks, networks change, etc. (Plus "networks" are not just TV, e.g., CBS.) (2) "Personalities" is vague and the categories right now include (a) yet another container for "TV show actors" and "TV show contestants"; and (b) a mix of talk show hosts, pundits, newscasters, TV journalists, and sportscasters. Possibly a category like Category:Television journalists and commentators might be helpful in gathering this latter category together. Might be helpful when it's not clear whether someone is a journalist or a commentator. --lquilter 17:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete categorization by performance. —mikedk9109^SIGN 17:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categorization by employer. — J Greb 03:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vague and potentially huge. And the word personality is used in an overly loose manner here; personalities don't appear on a TV network, people do. Coemgenus 22:06, 5 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 "?!" 01:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is like a generalized form of a "guest performances" category. This would be equivalent to a category such as "Talk show guests" or "Sitcom guest stars". It will sweep up any celebrity who has ever been a panelist on something like Hollywood Squares or The Match Game or a slew of other TV shows. Since this contributes to category clutter while imparting little about the individuals' accomplishments, the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 00:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but only if it is narrowly drawn to include only those people who are primarily known as game show panelists. If that's not tenable then I must reluctantly concur with the deletion. Otto4711 01:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with Otto that it could make sense to have a category for professional game show panelists. However, the category would need a name that clearly limited inclusion. Otherwise, delete per Dr. S. Doczilla 09:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto4711 for people who are primarily known as game show panelists. Tim! 10:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as this is too tempting to expand into the sweeping generalization instead of the more focused category as per Otto. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about a rename to something like Category:Game show panelist regulars? That would allow for inclusion of people like Brett Somers who is primarily known as a Match Game panelist while excluding people like Alan Alda who may have done Password or something a few times but isn't known for it. Otto4711 15:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's easy to point to extremes. Where's the dividing line between them? What set of criteria would you use to define a "regular"? Number of appearances? Or ratio of appearances to the amount of other work they did? What about someone who was well known in their earlier life as X but later in life was only a "regular"? Give an example of someone just on either side of the dividing line. If that dividing line, the grey area, is too wide, then this isn't a valid category. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or what about Category:Professional game show panelists? (defined basically as Doczilla did above)--lquilter 17:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying delete per UtherSRG. —mikedk9109^SIGN 17:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem possible to objectively define, and clearly word, "regulars". >Radiant< 15:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and UtherSRG. Osomec 22:31, 7 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 "?!" 01:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is such a common practice that it is no longer a defining characteristic for computer and video games. The fact that two whole genres of games (Category:Dating sims and Category:Versus fighting games) are subcategories of this category is further indication that it is not a defining characteristic. It should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 00:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 00:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 08:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivia. --Vossanova ^o< 16:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because we shouldn't categorize by plots. --lquilter 17:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to go this far in-depth to categorize. —mikedk9109^SIGN 17:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. I'm going to go against the tide here and say that while I believe the category is a mess, true multiple endings are a defining characteristic in games. In my mind, a game that simply has multiple endings by way of the player getting killed in various ways (i.e. almost every First person shooter) does not count. Nor does a fighting game where ending A is the player winning and ending B is the opponent winning. My definition of a game with true different endings is a game that follows a "branching path" style of play, with multiple endings similar to the "Choose your own adventure" books, where the player lives, but the endings are substantially different, i.e. in ending A is the player defeats the bad guys and the world has peace, but ending B has the player defeating the bad guys but the world descending into anarchy because of some decisions the player made along the way. Many Adventure games and real-time strategy games fall under this definition, and thus I suggest that if the time is spent cleaning the category up, then this could be a fine category. Green451 19:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spelling it out for folks. I was actually thinking of the true "choose your own adventure" style plot endings, and that's why I said categorizing by plots is bad. But maybe not everyone got that distinction first time around. --lquilter 20:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 20:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cloachland 18:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Green451. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 10:05, 8 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 3

Category:Asian film and theatre

Category:Vanity press writers

Category:Starik Khottabych film

Category:Seafaring nations

Category:Wrestling Society X television ratings

Category:Famous Diaries to Category:Diaries

Category:Rangers FC supporters

Category:People born in Nebraska

Category:People murdered by family

CVU

Category:People born in Bergamo, Italy

Grammy Award nominees

Category:Former organizations

Category:Essay disputes

Category:Shelley

Category:Multiple Olympic gold medalists

Category:Media in Dallas, Texas

Category:University of Missouri

Category:Polygamists

Category:American football players by nationality

Weapon Plus/Weapon X

Category:Ultraforce members

Category:Antiobesity agents

Category:Species of Wolf

Category:Public accounts

Category:Drum Corps

Category:World War II fictional beings

Category:Disney Channel actors

Category:Asian Canadian sportspeople

Category:Star Wars villains

Category:Star Trek villains

TV personalities

Category:Game show panelists

Category:Computer and video games with multiple endings