< January 14	January 16 >

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep. Withdrawn by nominator.--Samuel Wantman 02:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a nominee category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as this is a different sort of "nominee category" than something like the Golden Globe or Oscar nominee cats that are up for deletion now. If deleted it absolutely has to be listified if it's not already. Otto4711 23:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep as a category for winners of the Democratic Party nomination, which is a major political accomplishment. Chicheley 23:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn I'm thinking that if this is to go further (and I'm not entirely sure it should), it should involve All of the subcats of Category:Presidential candidates. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep This is the category including all candidates nominated by the Democratic Party to claim the position of President. They have repeatedly won or came second. A very important part of United States political history. User:Dimadick

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 10:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Athletes in music videos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as non-defining and trivial (likely to represent a few hours "work" done for a lark). If kept at least rename to Category:Sportspeople in music videos in line with Wikipedia's usual way of dealing with the ambiguity of the word "athlete". Chicheley 22:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_24#Category:Athlete_actors. Otto4711 23:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 16:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial characteristics. Xiner (talk, email) 16:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Dugwiki 17:44, 16 January 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 pragmatic delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with social anxiety disorder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This is a very common phobia estimated to be found in 1 in 8 people. Hence, it may be so common that it is no longer a defining characteristic The phobia is difficult to diagnose, and the category may, to some degree, suffer from subjective interpretation. Moreover, it simply does not seem useful to categorize people according to their phobias, especially since the inclusion criteria is subjective and may contain a considerable "gray" area. Dr. Submillimeter 22:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chicheley 23:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Delete for WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Has actual diagnostic information been provided on the categorized individuals? Some people will say, "I have acrophobia," or "I have post-traumatic stress disorder" when they have not been formally diagnosed and when they do not understand what the terms mean. An Axis I state disorder is not an appropriate way to categorize people. Doczilla 01:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 16:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep However, only articles which include notable information about the diagnosis should be included. It may be that 1 in 8 people have this, but 1 in 8 articles do not mention it. In fact, only a handful of Wiki articles are likely to include information that the person was diagnosed with social anxiety disorder. In reply to Doczilla above, note that Wiki already categorizes people by psychological disorders, such as Category:People diagnosed with clinical depression and Category:People with bipolar disorder and Category:People with schizophrenia. So sorting by mental disorders is already an accepted categorization scheme. Dugwiki 17:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dugwiki. ~ BigrTex 15:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Dugwiki's suggestion just will not work. When people know of a category that applies to an article they are looking at they just go ahead and add it regardless of whether there are sources or of its importance. This probably happens hundreds of times a day and there is no way of stopping it in a wiki environment. Nathanian 18:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Non-categorisable attribute and per Nathanian, substantial OR/NPOV concerns. --Xdamr^talk 12:42, 18 January 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 10:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with glossophobia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - According to the (unreferenced) article on glossophobia, the term is a synonym for stage fright. Also, according to the article, 75% of all people are afflicted with this phobia, in which case it is not a notable characteristic. Furthermore, classifying people by phobias simply seems difficult; it may be either a subjective observation of the individuals (even if the individuals identify themselves as suffering from it) or it may be misapplied. Dr. Submillimeter 22:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chicheley 23:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. And unlike many of the other categories for people with (fill in the mental illness), this one is not named for an official DSM-IV-TR disorder. The DSM-IV names three kinds of phobia: agoraphobia, social phobia, and specific (a.k.a.) simple phobias. Glossophobia would be a specific phobia, not a preferred diagnostic term. Nothing that applies to the majority of people (not that this one really does) meets the standards for what qualifies as a particular mental illness. That would fall within the normal range of human behavior, not a mental disorder. Do not use a diagnostic sounding term without confirmed diagnosis. Doczilla 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 16:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Appears to be based on an unaccepted term and unreferenced. However, as I commented in the cfd above, categorizing by mental disorders is an already accepted Wiki practice, provided the disorder is a notable part of the person's article. Dugwiki 17:52, 16 January 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 "?!" 18:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:English football clubs, or at least Rename to Category:Northamptonshire football clubs. Example of Intersection by location. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and make sure that all articles are in both Category:English football clubs and Category:Sport in Northamptonshire (the 2 currently in the category both are). Chicheley 23:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Chicheley. Xiner (talk, email) 16:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am sure that intersection by location is OK for an organisation in the location. What objection can there be to football clubs by county? We have schools by county, universities by county, towns by county. roundhouse 22:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Overcategorisation. English people do not mentally group football clubs by county. Nathanian 18:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There's Category:Yorkshire football clubs with 67 members. I am quite happy to group football clubs by county. roundhouse 20:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this and Merge Category:Yorkshire football clubs into Category:English football clubs. It will be a pain if any of the clubs are not in Category:English football clubs. The complex structure of that category, with scores of subcategories for individual clubs makes it hard to work out whether it is subcategorized or not. Wimstead 22:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nathanian. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:25, 29 January 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 10:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Agoraphobic celebrities to Category:People with agoraphobia

• Rename, to match similar categories and avoid use of the word "celebrities" or delete as a non-defining characteristic with regard to people's public achievements, as are the rest of these personality traits that have been turned into "diseases" to keep psychiatrists in overpaid work. Chicheley 20:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - confirming delete as my first choice as there seems to be a chance it might happen. Chicheley 23:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 21:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a largely unverifiable category. A category cannot be sourced to show that this is correct. Not a defining characteristic! People should not be categorized by Axis I state disorders which are not permanent qualities. You might as well have a category for people who had chicken pox. The suggested rename is wrong anyway. It would have to be Category:People diagnosed with agoraphobia, but how can you know that? Have you seen their diagnostic record? A celebrity claiming to have agoraphobia may never have been formally diagnosed with it. The celebrity who says he or she was diagnosed could be lying; that happens a lot. In fact, the celebrity making the claim might not even understand the term. Doczilla 21:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Remove the word "celebrities" and simply use it as a category for anyone whose article notably includes that they were diagnosed with agoraphobia. I do not share Doczilla's concern about the category not reflecting a permanent quality, as we already have for example Category:People diagnosed with clinical depression and Category:People with obsessive-compulsive disorder and Category:People with schizophrenia, all of them under the parent category Category:People by medical or psychological condition. Also note that it's not Wiki's job to go back and view medical records "in case someone is lying" - rather, Wikipedia uses published sources for its information that we can reasonably assume already do their own fact checking. So if a published source reports someone was diagnosed with depression or agoraphobia or some other condition, all that is required is to cite the publishing source - there is no need to worry about having to then go further out and grab medical reports or determine whether or not that source has accurate fact checking in place, etc. Dugwiki 22:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like it when people are helpful. I looked through Category:People by medical or psychological condition and nominated two phobia categories for deletion; the arguments written by Doczilla would also apply to those categories as well. "People with clinical depression" may also be worth discussing. However, "people with schizophrenia" should probably be left alone, as the diagnosis is made much less frequently and at least requires some careful work. I am ambivalent to "people with obsessive-compulsive disorder". Dr. Submillimeter 22:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion the existence of other categories which can be disputed on similar ground carries no weight as a defence of a nominated category. There is always a backlog of dubious categories that deserve to be nominated for deletion because insufficient editorial effort is put into category cleanup to catch them all promptly. Chicheley 23:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that I also pointed out that the verification of diagnosis that Doczilla is requesting is not actually a requirement by Wikipedia. We only need to verify that a published source reported the diagnosis. There are no Wiki requirements for digging further into primary sources like medical records to confirm what a published source reports as accurate. Dugwiki 17:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also should point out that some of the example categories I mentioned have already been discussed on cfd with the result of Keep, such as the June 17th discussion of Category:People diagnosed with clinical depression. In the case of categories that are similar to categories that have already been discussed with a consensus to keep, the prior discussions do carry weight. Dugwiki 18:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doczilla has said more than I could on this topic. Categorizing by psychological disorder in general is fraught with verification problems, and it simply seems inane to organize people based on psychoses. Dr. Submillimeter 22:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. POV/OR issues. Categories cannot be annotated, and so grouping people (especially living people) by psychological condition seems very risky except in a few situations when the article itself will make the diagnosis exceedingly well-referenced (as schizophrenia, above). Serpent's Choice 09:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mentioned above, only articles that make notable mention of the condition should be included in these sorts of categories. Annotation beyond providing a published reference discussing the condition isn't necessary - you don't need to provide or analyze primary sources as verification for Wikipedia. Dugwiki 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Doczilla. Pinoakcourt 16:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As I mentioned in the discussion further up the page, Dugwiki's suggestion is for all practicial purposes unenforceable in a wiki environment because one can have no confidence that anyone will bother to enforce it on an ongoing basis. Nathanian 18:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as noted by other editors, there are substantial OR/NPOV concerns. Using categories for this purpose is simply using too broad a brush—this kind of condition manifests itself in different degrees and extent from person to person, a blanket category seems of little value.

Xdamr^talk 12:49, 18 January 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 "?!" 07:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Triple Crown champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete per other champions CFD's: overcategorization. List page exists already. RobJ1981 20:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Special achievement in the world of Professional wrestling. There are other categorys like this in other sports. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 22:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and point me toward those other sports categories so we can dust those too. Otto4711 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WRESTLING!? When I first saw the category name, I naturally presumed this was for horse racing, as that is the most famous triple crown. Now I see the name is naturally ambiguous. But, whereas the triple crown in horse racing is a very significant and rare achievement, as we know that the results of professional wrestling bouts are prearranged, anyone can be selected for such a phony "accomplishment." When the fix is in, how much of an honor is it, really?zadignose 23:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this should be for horse racing, or at the very least golf, not wrestling. 70.51.9.11 08:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the notability of this distinction is suspect and isn't verifiable. Barely (if so) deserves an article, let alone a category. Booshakla 23:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Similar to zadignose, I presumed that this category pertained to the "most famous triple crown"—in my subjective view this is the Triple Crown (Rugby Union). Clearly there is massive scope for confusion here, at the very least this category ought to be renamed. Having said that, like many other editors, I fail to see the notability of this 'accomplishment'. Additionally, given that this is already covered by a list page, I'm unconvinced of the merits of keeping it.

Xdamr^talk 12:55, 18 January 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 "?!" 14:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Grand Slam champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Yet another champions category that needs to go, due to overcategorization. A list page exists, and relevant information is on the wrestler articles already. RobJ1981 20:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 21:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Special achievement in the world of Professional wrestling. There are other categorys like this in other sports. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 22:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and point me toward those other sports categories so we can dust those too. Otto4711 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above, it's a phony honorzadignose 23:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This type of wrestling is not a real sport, that's how the WWE got around the restrictions that boxing has. This category is better used for tennis or golf. 70.51.9.11 08:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete see reasoning for Triple Crown champs. Booshakla 23:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per reasoning in the Triple Crown debate above. 'Grand Slam' is a widely used sporting term—it seems ridiculous to allow it to be appropriated by wrestling rather than tennis, rugby union, etc. At very least this should be renamed so that it is appropriately disambiguated.

Xdamr^talk 13:10, 18 January 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 "?!" 13:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WWE Champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. This is a good example of overcategorization. Here is a section straight from the main page of the guideline:

• Mostly overlapping categories:Example: 1971 National League All-Stars, 1852 religious leaders

If two categories have a large overlap (e.g. because many atheletes participate in multiple all-star games), it is generally better to handle these with a single category, and create lists that detail the multiple instances. Categories like this will likely add multiple categories to many articles.

A list page exists for the champions already, and relevant championship information is on the article already. A category doesn't need to exist, considering it overlaps other champion categories as well (which will be in CFD as well). Category:World Champion professional wrestlers serves the purpose of categorizing champions just fineRobJ1981 20:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 21:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:World Champion professional wrestlers does the job better than this cat. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and upmerge to Category:World Champion professional wrestlers as needed Agreed, this appears to be unnecessary overlap with Category:World Champion professional wrestlers. Delete the category and upmerge articles as needed into that parent. Dugwiki 22:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All the articles in Category:WWE Champions are already in Category:World Champion professional wrestlers. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 23:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For reasons stated.zadignose 23:40, 15 January 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 "?!" 14:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WWE World Heavyweight Champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. This is a good example of overcategorization. Here is a section straight from the main page of the guideline:

• Mostly overlapping categories:Example: 1971 National League All-Stars, 1852 religious leaders

If two categories have a large overlap (e.g. because many atheletes participate in multiple all-star games), it is generally better to handle these with a single category, and create lists that detail the multiple instances. Categories like this will likely add multiple categories to many articles.

A list page exists for the champions already, and relevant championship information is on the article already. A category doesn't need to exist, considering it overlaps other champion categories as well (which will be in CFD as well). Category:World Champion professional wrestlers serves the purpose of categorizing champions just fine. RobJ1981 20:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 21:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:World Champion professional wrestlers does the job better than this cat. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 22:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons stated.zadignose 23:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 16:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete champions are not real, they're predetermined, it's all fixed, the WWE is not a real sport, not real competition. Just ask Brett Hart. 70.51.8.140 07:45, 19 January 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 "?!" 14:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Big O characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This category is no longer used. Character information has been moved to Characters of The Big O. --SteveA026 20:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 21:23, 15 January 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. the wub "?!" 17:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Dalziel and Pascoe actors, Category:The Fairly OddParents actors, Category:Futurama actors, Category:Good Times actors, Category:Leave It to Beaver actors, Category:The Shield actors, Category:Less Than Perfect actors and Category:Good Times actors
• Another group of categories named "actors" that should be named "cast members" instead. These cats are relatively small and do not contain every single person that appeared in one scene or one episode, nor should they. >Radiant< 17:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Per nom and similar recent cfds. Dugwiki 17:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Radiant, I hope you'll finish nominating all of these "cast members" categories for renaming soon. When you are done, I'm going to nominate them all to be deleted. I've suggested deleting some previously nominated "renames", and there is some support for deleting them, but people say that since the nomination is for renaming, we shouldn't be discussing deletion. So I'll wait. Until then, I don't care how they are named. -- Samuel Wantman 20:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll mention that I'd also support deleting most of these categories as being totally redundant with the cast lists in the main articles. Meanwhile, assuming they're kept, the renames make sense. Dugwiki 22:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename all per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 21:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename all but Oppose suggested deletion. Recent CfD discussions show a consensus to limit these categories to cast members, but no consensus to delete them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and oppose deletion. Kafziel ^Talk 16:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename but don't delete, all useful categories Mr. Stabs 14:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per Josiah Rowe. Tim! 19:21, 17 January 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 "?!" 17:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Danish Superliga 2006-07 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, The category is not needed when all the articles exept the main article is deleted. kalaha 17:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Overcategorization. Xiner (talk, email) 21:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sumahoy 01:47, 22 January 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 both. the wub "?!" 17:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:People known by single-name pseudonyms, per discussion of October 1st. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:People known by a single name - That someone is known by a single name does not mean that the person is using a pseudonym. For instance, "Madonna" is Madonna's real first name, she should not be characterized as using a pseudonym. Otto4711 17:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both This is a trivial overcategorization, as pointless as "People named Bob" or "Redheads". ThisThese could be kept as a list, but I'm not sure there is much encyclopedic information in this collection of people to keep it around in any form. Certainly not as a category. -- Samuel Wantman 21:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trivia. Doczilla 21:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Delete. However I would not object to a listify decision. If this is an overcat, then the proposed target is also and should be deleted. Vegaswikian 03:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Listify. Madonna is only part of her real name, so in some sense it could be considered a pseudonym. Royalbroil ^T : C 05:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• By that logic, anyone whose first name is "William" but goes by "Bill" could be said to be using a pseudonym. That doesn't make much sense to me. Otto4711 15:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, by that logic, anyone whose first name is "William" but goes by "William" could be said to be using a pseudonym. :) Kafziel ^Talk 16:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per Samuel Wantman. Pinoakcourt 16:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per Samuel Wantman. Nathanian 18:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per SamuelWantman. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:49, 23 January 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. the wub "?!" 17:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Austrian people by city to Category:People by city in Austria

• Rename, for consistency in Category:People by city. RobertG ♬ talk 15:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename The city may be in Austria but the person born in it is not always an Austrian. User:Dimadick

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 10:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UK Anime conventions to Category:Anime conventions in the United Kingdom

• Rename, per WP:NCCAT. Though I seriously doubt the need for this category as there are only 79 articles on anime conventions around the world. --Farix (Talk) 14:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:16, 15 January 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 and salt. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stalinists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Addition of deleted content. category already deleted 3 times. Soman 13:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Stalinism is an extremist ideology. Those who adhere to such ideologies (*cough Jyoti Basu *cough) are "Stalinists". It belongs as a cat just like Category:Nazis , Category:White nationalists or Category:Anti-Semitic people Rumpelstiltskin223 13:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is those are ideologies and political parties rather than people who adhere to a personality cult or one-man system. We also don't have Category:Maoists or Category:Peronists even though those also exist to some degree. Objecting to this isn't necessarily the same as thinking there are no Stalinists, it can be more like thinking it's something too difficult to categorize.--T. Anthony 17:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, see previous CfD discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 28, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 20, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 6, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 10. --Soman 13:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt as recreated content. Aside from that, the term could be considered redundant with Category:Communists (following the previous discussions on WP:CFD). Dr. Submillimeter 14:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although I think there are/were Stalinists this is better dealt with at the List of Stalinists.--T. Anthony 14:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Nazis is neutral because it relates to members of a political party and the other two listed are themselves problematic (Category:Anti-Semitic people would probably have been deleted by now if Jewish users had not been statistically over represented in its deletion discussions.) Osomec 15:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful what you say. I would say that many people advocate categories they find personally relevant at the expense of consistant and comprehensive guidelines for creating and removing categories. It doesn't matter if the users are Jewish, lovers of comic books, TV enthusiasts, part of the LGBT community, from a specific region, or whatever. -- Samuel Wantman 21:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)#[reply]

Please be careful what you say. I expected that my comment would lead to an intimidatory slur, but I made it anyway because I believe in free speech even on sensitive issues. Osomec 18:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt, per nom. Dahn 09:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I can see merit in keeping this category, but given the inherent subjectivity/OR etc problems which it entails I can't help but think that Category:Communists is the best place.

Xdamr^talk 13:04, 18 January 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. the wub "?!" 17:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Decimal to Category:Decimal currencies of Australia

Category:Pre-Decimal to Category:Pre-decimal currencies of Australia

Category:Florin to Category:Florin (Australian coin) (in line with main article)

• Rename, found these currently ambiguous sub-categories of Category:Currencies of Australia. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 14:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Both Decimal and Pre-Decimal into Category:Currencies of Australia which would then have a total of about three articles and two subcategories. These cats appear to have only been created a couple of days ago. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I agree with Scott Davis. It seems overkill to have all these categories. I would also query the images in Category:Florin. Are these images in the public domain or are they fair use (in which case they should not I believe be actaully shown in the category page)? It is unclear to me, but I need to learn more about images. --Bduke 02:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Nominator comment: I would support a merge per ScottDavis as a much better solution than my original proposal, and would additionally support removing fair-use images from the category per Bduke. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I have made the category list the image names rather than be a gallery using __NOGALLERY__. I believe this is the appropriate way to deal with a category of images that appear to be fair use. --Bduke 04:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Scott Davis--Grahamec 12:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all three into Category:Currencies of Australia. Not enough to warrant individual cats, and no other currency is split any other way other than coins and banknotes. Joe I 03:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Scott Davis. Sumahoy 01:47, 22 January 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. the wub "?!" 18:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:TAU Cerámica basketball players to Category:Saski Baskonia basketball players

• Rename. As the creator of this category, I now believe that it should be consistent with all other "player by club" categories for Spanish basketball clubs, and be named according to the club. This would also forestall any issues that might arise if the club changes sponsorship. Also, the club has not had the TAU sponsorship for all its history. Since this is a basketball-only club (note that the Basque word for "basketball" is saskibaloi), I'd also be willing to accept Category:Saski Baskonia players. Dale Arnett 08:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Forgot to add in original nomination... the existing TAU Cerámica players category should be a category redirect, IMHO. — Dale Arnett 08:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. I agree, I think it should be the correct name of this category. MontanNito 15:41, 16 January 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 & redirect. the wub "?!" 18:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect into Category:Spanish-Americans. -- Prove It ^(talk) 08:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge & redirect per ProveIt. The Rambling Man 10:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge but against the nomination. The main article is Spanish American. The hyphenated category contradicts it and should be the one merged and deleted. This one uses the proper form User:Dimadick

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 "?!" 18:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Schools in Lee County, Florida. -- Prove It ^(talk) 07:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge into Schools in Florida. Xiner (talk, email) 15:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no Category:Schools in Florida. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm just saying it's overcategorization at the moment. Xiner (talk, email) 21:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created the category, trying to do some category sorting. I used Category:Miami-Dade County Public Schools as an example. But by all means go ahead and delete it if its inappropriate. I am still learning many of the WP guidelines. --ChaChaFut 23:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• All of the current members are already members of Category:High schools in Florida -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:24, 15 January 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 all (Category:Woodstock only contained the two performers categories listed here and the Woodstock Festival article.) --RobertG ♬ talk 10:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Woodstock (1969) Performers
• Category:Woodstock (1994) Performers

Delete all, a successful group will preform at dozens of music festivals, it doesn't work to categorize them this way. -- Prove It ^(talk) 07:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This form of promotion of a festival isn't really on. --BozMo talk 14:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Listing the performers in the article is sufficient. Dugwiki 17:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Artists categorized by performances or productions should be a criteria for speedy deletion. -- Samuel Wantman 20:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 16:41, 16 January 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 11:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Allegedly racist restaurant chains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It could be stated in the article(s) that the companies allegedly run "racist" restaurants. It doesn't need to have a category.

• Delete potentially terrible problems with POV. The Rambling Man 10:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as with my learned colleague, plus OR. --Dweller 11:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with extreme prejudice per Rambler and Dweller. — Dale Arnett 14:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for umpteen reasons. Osomec 14:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Huge POV issues. Dugwiki 17:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for POV, OR, and potential libel. "Allegedly" isn't sufficient to avoid libel without powerful references. A category cannot be annotated. Doczilla 21:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is the best category ever. It is not anyone's "point of view" to say a restaurant has been accused of discrimination in a high profile lawsuit; it's a fact. And it's not even close to original research given the plethora of news coverage given to these high profile cases. Are you suggesting the jackass who created this category came up with the notion himself based on his "opinion" that Cracker Barrel and Denny's have been accused of racism? This is not the case; it was all over the news and can't really be disputed. Read the articles. Accusations of racism are well sourced.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete any category that begins with "alleged". Categories are not meant to make points, they are meant to categorize information in a useful way. Save the allegations for the articles; you can't source a category. Kafziel ^Talk 03:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, points are bad. Everything should be pointless. This particular category does categorize restaurant chains in a "useful" way. It quickly and conveniently differentiates articles about restaurants that are widely known to have be involved in racial discrimination lawsuits from those restaurants that are relatively innocuous.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Ridiculous point-scoring category. Wimstead 22:11, 19 January 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 "?!" 18:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Settlements in Oklahoma to Category:Population centers in Oklahoma

• Rename, Category:Settlements in Oklahoma was created 03:49, 14 January 2007 by User:Hmains [1] who proceeded to fill it by depopulating the existing Category:Population centers in Oklahoma User:Xaosflux then deleted Population centers in Oklahoma.[2]. Settlement is not a very good word for a population center since it usually means a newly settled place only. In any case, it would never be used to describe Census Designated Areas, Metropolitan Areas, or even neighborhoods. Anyway, it should go through the cfd before I recreate it, and should have gone through cfd before it was renamed. BTW, the settlement category seems to be part of a series and probably all should be corrected. OKtag 02:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification Rename was not proposed because the change did not exactly follow protocol. Wikipedia would shut down if every protocol had to be followed exactly. Rename was proposed because population centers is a more descriptive name than settlements. And it should be for the whole series. IMHO. OKtag 13:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename based on the facts above. The cat should not have been emptied and deleted without a discussion. I do not blame the closing admin since it is difficult to verify that a category has been empty for a while. We have to rely on the good faith of the editors who make these nominations Vegaswikian 03:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We ought to keep Category:Settlements in the United States by state consistant. If we are to change any, we should change them all at once. -- Prove It ^(talk) 07:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like one of these was created for every state. So we need to discuss this for all of them. Undoing 50 of these needs discussion first. Was this mass change discussed anywhere? Vegaswikian 09:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For every state, it brings towns, villages, cities, and census-designated areas to a common parent. I think this is a good thing, and something like it was needed. I'm not sure if Settlements is ideal, but at least it's not as awkward as population centers. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The reason why I chose to use 'settlement' for the new 'by state' categories is because 'settlement' is what I found to be already defined and in use in WP. See Settlement (first meaning), Category:Settlements, Category:Settlements by region, Category:Settlements in the United States. Hmains 17:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hmains, something like this was clearly needed. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Settlements is eminently the most appropriate word and appears to enjoy wide use in similar categories, eg Category:Settlements by region. --Xdamr^talk 04:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nevertheless, settlement is the wrong word. A settlement is defined as a new community. It may fade away or it may become a permanent village, town, or city, but in none of those cases is the community still a settlement. Only in a strictly British encyclopedia would the term be appropriate. In an English encyclopedia it stretches the meaning of the word too far to make it fit. If you can think of a better term than population center, I haven't been able too. OKtag 04:23, 23 January 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.--Mike Selinker 19:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional llamas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, there are only two articles in this category: Kuzco and Doctor Dolittle (Book Series), neither of which are actual llamas. I don't believe there is any other article that would even partially fit into this category. –Llama man^{sign here} 02:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No doubt there are fictional llamas in many works of fiction, however, the notability of a draught animal that, say, Tintin happens to ride upon in an adventure, is worse than spurious. On the same lines, Snowy would be notable and worth recording in a category of fictional animals. --Dweller 11:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - NB Category:Fictional camelids and Category:Fictional camels --Dweller 11:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. Xiner (talk, email) 15:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and upmerge if necessary into Category:Fictional camelids There doesn't appear to be a need to subdivide Category:Fictional camelids. So if either of these articles needs to be kept, simply change their category to Fictional Camelids. Dugwiki 17:45, 15 January 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 "?!" 18:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer and video games developed in Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not a defining characteristic, what do we gain by grouping together thousands of computer and video game articles in this instance? Combination 01:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It seems more useful to group them by studio or publishing company. Xiner (talk, email) 21:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the best way to do it is categorizing studios per country, and games per studio. So delete. >Radiant< 12:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whoever wants to do that, take note that a number (if not all) of the relevant by-studio categories are already included here. –Unint 22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Thunderbrand 22:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Include Category:Computer and video games developed in Brazil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:Computer and video games developed in Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and Category:Computer and video games developed in the People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in this discussion as well. –Unint 22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Place of creation may be less relevant for games than for some other media and art forms, but it is not irrelevant. Wimstead 22:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This helps sort out games based on anime or vice versa. It also has different properties than American games Xepeyon 04:03, 29 January 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 09:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Towns in Crimea to Category:Cities and towns in Crimea

• Rename, because it is currently misleading as it contains both cities and towns and they all as a "town" with the category. —dima/s-ko/ 01:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 01:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Any views on whether it is appropriate to use 'the'? ie. Category:Cities and towns in the Crimea. This is an established English usage, unless it is now deprecated.

Xdamr^talk 04:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be incorrect to right the Crimea, just like it is incorrect to right the Ukraine. They were both formerly used with the, but are not now. See the similar discussion on talk:Crimea about the topic. And Encyclopædia Britannica even uses Crimea without the. —dima/s-ko/ 18:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure that the Encyclopædia Britannica constitutes an authority, but I take your point. --Xdamr^talk 20:20, 21 January 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. the wub "?!" 18:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from Transylvania; some residents are not natives, some natives are not residents. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Isn't the trend to rename similar categories to "Natives of"? Xiner (talk, email) 01:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For residency, the usual convention is People from Foo. I would argue that residency is more important than nativity, because there are always notable residents who were born elsewhere. My favorite example is Arnold Schwarzenegger, California resident and Governer, however he is not a Native Californian. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I read People from Foo, I understand it as residents or natives of Foo. Wodup 03:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to either Category:People from Transylvania (the format used in Category:American people by state) or Category:Transylvanian People (the format used in Category:People by nationality). Wodup 07:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Although I am rather opposed to the decision of turning "natives of" (-objective) into "people of" (-subjective), I respect the decision taken. Might I suggest, however, that you also include in this discussion Category:Natives of Oltenia, and debate the two in one go (they are very similar categories)? Dahn 19:48, 17 January 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 "?!" 18:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have a reason for this proposal? It seems a well populated category. --Bduke 00:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With a current total of 73 members, the faculty cat is hardly overpopulated. Also I have a general tendency to prefer a single large easy-to-understand category over lots of tiny ones. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What you prefer is not a reason for merging. I go for keep as is. People might just want to find Cambridge Computer people. --Bduke 01:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - a precise grouping of academics. roundhouse 00:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Cambridge Computer Lab is very different from other Cambridge academics. --lquilter 02:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - (I am the creator of this category, but am also a regular CFD lurker, so I hope that my opinions aren't biases). Once fully populated, the category Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge will be extremely large, so some means of categorisation will be necessary. One obvious categorisation scheme is by the academic subject of the person in question. Noting that someone (not me) recently created Category:Members of the Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics, I decided to bite the bullet, and start classifying Cambridge academics by this scheme. The scheme isn't perfect -- especially since the departments themselves are relatively recent creations so, for example, Isaac Newton won't fit into any departmental category, but would fit into something like Category:Academic Mathematicians at the University of Cambridge (the lack of a sensible naming scheme is preventing progress) -- but a non-perfect scheme is better that no scheme at all, especially since the creation of the other category will begin to force matter. If, in the course of time, a better categorisation scheme appears, any renamings required will make it into CFD in their own time. Merging everyone back into the parent category isn't a long-term solution. As a side issue, the reason that the Computer Laboratory was one of the first categories created is symptomatic of Wikipedia bias: a computer science professor is more likely to have an article than an arts professor... Bluap 04:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Subdividing people by faculty or lab is overcategorization. >Radiant< 12:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge shouldn't contain any articles at all, as it should be fully subcategorised by college. This looks like a worthwhile supplement to categorisation by college. Osomec 14:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, not all academics are members of colleges, so that structure can't contain everyone. From my point of view, it makes more sense to sort academics by discipline, than by college. (Though there are valid reasons to sorting by college - e.g. to provide a convenient link from the main article on that college.) Bluap 15:02, 15 January 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 "?!" 18:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have a reason for this proposal? It seems a well populated category. --Bduke 00:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With a current total of 73 members, the faculty cat is hardly overpopulated. Also, the current name is overly vague. Also I have a general tendency to prefer a single large easy-to-understand category over lots of tiny ones. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are ignoring the hundreds of articles in the college categories. Osomec 14:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - a precise grouping of academics. roundhouse 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What you prefer is not a reason for merging. I go for keep as is. People might just want to find Cambridge Maths people. --Bduke 01:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Deletion per my argument on Category:Members of the University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory (i.e. Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge will become very large, and needs subcategories). Rename is a possibility, to include University of Cambridge in the category title. Bluap 04:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename it should include University of Cambridge in the title, currently it is too vague. The Rambling Man 10:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is a subcat of Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge which maybe makes it clear enough. It does need clarification of its inclusion criteria - does it include past and present members? (And is there an article on the Dept? When did it start? It was there in 1966.) roundhouse 11:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't forget item 5 in WP:NCCAT#General naming conventions – if kept, therefore, suggest rename to Members of the University of Cambridge Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics (assuming this doesn't cause the boxes listing categories to explode). Chuckle, David Kernow (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I had quite forgotten it, along with much else. There is 'names should be short and simple', a bit further down, and elsewhere an objection to abbreviations - written by a committee, no doubt. There's Members of the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom yet to come. roundhouse 19:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as per my comment in the next discussion up. Osomec 14:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question If the category were called Category:Mathematicians at the University of Cambridge or Category:Mathematics Fellows at the University of Cambridge, would it be obvious that it is for people who were academics at the university, rather than for people who simply did a maths degree there? If so, then this would solve the issue of how to categorise people who pre-date the formation of the department (in the early 1960s). Bluap 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Fellows in X at the University of Cambridge' might do it. ('X Fellows' works for Maths but not others, eg English.) roundhouse 01:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My sole reservation about having "fellows" in the title concerns people who are employed by a department, but aren't associated with a college. Are such people counted as "fellows"? Or is that adjective reserved for people who are also associated with a college? That being said, almost all of the "high-level" members of the departments are associated with colleges – people who aren't notable enough to be adopted by a college are unlikely to be notable enough for a wikipedia article. Bluap 04:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Harvard has Category:Harvard University faculty. How about 'Faculty in X at the University of Cambridge'? Or 'Faculty members in X at the University of Cambridge'? (There are a lot of these people under colleges and a lot more with articles not yet added.) (I think other UK universities, eg Sheffield, don't use 'Fellows'.) roundhouse 09:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support. Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge is not over populated. If someone proposed some type of reasonable naming convention that follows the form normally used for Academics and included the college and department I would reconsider my position. Vegaswikian 09:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't see Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge as a useful location for articles, as the individuals cover a huge range of disciplines and periods. No-one except maybe a historian of the university will be interested in all of them, and very few will have heard of more than a fraction of them. On the other hand both college and subject area categories will be of genuine interest to specific groups of people. Pinoakcourt 16:43, 16 January 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, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as categorization by non-defining or trivial characteristic. I think the list in the Behind the Music article is good enough. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 01:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above, this is best kept to a list within an article. Dugwiki 17:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The list in the article is sufficient. Doczilla 21:56, 15 January 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.